The Shotgun Blog
« I was against the war before I was for it | Main | Stephane Dion recycles his own speech in order to take new credit for an old idea »
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Nothing to see here, folks
Just the Religion of Peace(tm) going about its daily business.
A young Pakistani woman has been kidnapped, raped and beaten by a gang of high-caste villagers because her uncle eloped with one of their relatives. She was chosen for punishment because she had recently gained a degree and was the pride of her low-caste family.This is just Islam being Islam in its purest form, with the tribal Sharia courts deciding whose life is worth living and whose is not.Ghazala Shaheen, 24, and her mother Mumtaz were abducted last month by men dressed in police uniforms from their home near Multan in southern Punjab.
Last week human rights campaigners said Shaheen was unlikely to see her attackers brought to justice because President Pervez Musharraf had failed in an attempt to repeal the Hudood Ordinance, which requires four male Muslim witnesses to support a rape charge. If the accused is acquitted, the victim becomes liable to prosecution for adultery.While Musharraf was out of the country earlier this month, a committee of hardline Islamic scholars neutered his bill to protect women's rights which would have repealed the Hudood Ordinance. The scholars claimed the bill was un-Islamic because it "encouraged adultery".
The usual apologists and appeasers will cry out when I remind you that Islam is a religion of hatred, intolerance, sex and death. Women and children are nothing but sex objects and chattel to the men in pajamas who rule with their death-cult bible - the Koran. Go ahead. Scream that I am a bigot. Scream that I must be silenced. Maybe send a bunch of bearded bastards to my house to show me what the Religion of Peace(tm) does to mouthy women. I don't care at this point. All I care about is ridding the world first of its blinders that keep us bound and gagged, unable to speak out, and then ridding it of the danger that masks itself as legitimate religion.
They were moved between isolated desert houses at first. As night fell on the third day, Shaheen's mother was taken to another location and she was left alone with one of the gang members."This man sat next to me. A moment later he was on to me. He hit me with his gun on my back and on my body and raped me. I was crying and weeping. But he did not listen, and he repeated it," she said.
"In the morning, I was told to stand up and accompany this man. I was in pain. I could barely walk. Finally we reached a big house with Nazar Mirani (the gang leader) sitting outside. The man who had raped me told Nazar that he had done what he wanted with me and now it was his turn. They took me to a nearby cotton field and Nazar Mirani raped me."
This is Islam. This is what we're protecting every time our leaders - including the Pope - tell us how much respect they have for the Islamic faith. This is what we're encouraging when the Canadian Federation of Students launches a task force to study Islamophobia, and banish it from our Universities and Colleges. This is what we're inviting into our homes and our schools. To sit side by side with our daughters. This is what we're allowing to happen to our own countries when we create prayer rooms in call centres, but don't let the Jewish employees leave early on Fridays; when we remove the words Merry Christmas from public spaces; when we use the word "multicultural" as a euphemism for no white Christians, please.
So call me what you want. Write me up in the National Post again. Haul me in front of a kangaroo court. Hate and defile me, because its safer than seeing the truth, and directing your anger appropriately.
Posted by RightGirl on September 24, 2006 in Religion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834b543c853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nothing to see here, folks:
Comments
I never had much use for any Pope. I was very disgusted when the present Pope bowed to Islamic
ranters and apologized for his accurate statement about an ancient conversation that is relevant in today's religious war.
It is very true that the aim of Islam is to conquer the world or destroy it. "Live my way or die", may be the Islamic motto.
The difference between a radical Muslim and a "non-radical Muslim" is that one decieves us and one tells the truth. Guess which is which. It's not hard!
Posted by: Larry Reed | 2006-09-24 3:40:00 PM
Maybe jack white feather layton can explain to women in this country why he wants to talk to people like this and come to some sort of agreement.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-24 3:41:49 PM
Stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel.
Once again, RightGirl is RightOn.
Posted by: Steve | 2006-09-24 3:46:27 PM
Right you are Right Girl, where are all the so called 'women's groups' on this issue? Why isn't Heedie Frey screaming about this instead of phantom cross burnings in Prince George?? What about Olivia, Dawn (she should be DEMANDING a resolve from parliament....only Conservative women seem to care...and Conservative men). Thank-you for posting this.."but for the Grace of God, there go you or I". I have never buried my head in the sand about these things and I have been called a 'loose cannon'; We should be VERY concerned.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-09-24 4:05:15 PM
I agree with you. Westerners need to stop pussyfooting around. Lets call a spade a spade.
Posted by: DUsteD | 2006-09-24 4:42:49 PM
What about the North American atheist/Christian female pedophile rape epidemic?
Hardly a day goes by that I don't read in the news of a Canadian or American shcool teacher / female predator RAPING their child students. One study suggested less than 2% of female RAPISTS who RAPE a child go to jail. We can safely assume in today's liberal democracy so hostile to Christianity that many if not most of these RAPISTS were atheists, though no doubt many are Christian too.
So I ask again: why do racist Islamofetish hatemongers give female atheist/Christian RAPISTS a free pass? Do feminist immigration supporters like Right Girl intentionally attack other cultures so as to deflect attention from the shortcomings of our own society, such as the female atheist/Christian child RAPIST epidemic and our own society's acceptance of female RAPE of children?
When I see women held to the same standard of justice as men in our own society, I'll speak up for women. Until then, fuck 'em.
Posted by: Fizz | 2006-09-24 4:54:08 PM
Hello, Right Girl, it's Vitruvius here. You may recall that on a previous manifestation of your arguments on this matter I took exception to what I considered to be an overgeneralizaton. However, in this case, I think you have expressed an important problem, and in particular you have expressed it well.
It is completely unacceptable for the XX chromosomed to be treated any differently in principle than the XY. When we see egregious violations of this principle, we must be morally outraged.
Of course, anger is inappropriate: it makes you shoot -- and miss. The question remains, dear readers, what's the plan?
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-24 5:02:29 PM
Fizz, dude. This just ain't the same thing. What you describe is not a cultural practice.
Seriously, you are trolling right? I can't believe someone who read this would seek to justify or rationalize this.
Posted by: DUsteD | 2006-09-24 5:07:00 PM
Vitruvius: The plan is to draw some lines in the sand and say. If you cross that line, there will be consequences.
Cause baby, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. I do realize that George Bush used that quote, although he screwed it up, but I believe a truer statement has never been spoken.
Posted by: DUsteD | 2006-09-24 5:12:59 PM
You are apparently new here, Dusted, or you would know that Fizz is indeed a classic troll, and that I am not (I was one of the first commenters at the beginning of the Shotgun, back in the days when we didn't have trolls yet, 'cause nobody knew we where here ;-)
The question of the plan is not trivial. Limbic plans tend to fail, because they (the enemy, for some value of they) tend to have limbic systems too. In other words, one can't simply call for shooting them all, without accounting for the fact that they shoot back, and one can't simply pave them, due to annoying side effects like nuclear winter. (Again, for some value of them.)
And the matter of "some value of them" is non-trivial as well. It is always the case that to the degree that we prosecute the innocent as a side-effect of our effort to control the extremists, we weaken our own moral position.
This is one of the biggest problems with populist commentary of the form so often seen on blogs. After everyone is finished venting their spleen, all you've got it a big pile of bile to clean up, and you've still got no viable plan.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-24 5:27:28 PM
That's the downside of being opinionists and not, say, cabinet ministers or something. You and I have the power of the written word - but we do not have the power to make others read us or implement any ideas we may have.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-09-24 5:33:03 PM
Actually, you might be surprised how little power cabinet ministers have, once you factor out the permanent civil service.
Still, if we are to stand on pillars like human reason and human spiritual faith, as so well elucidated by Pope Benedict, I think that there is a degree to which we don't want power -- it will corrupt us too -- we just don't want them to have power.
Hmm, I'm starting to sound like a libertarian channeling Ghandi, perhaps I should end this comment.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-24 5:42:48 PM
Boy, what normal person wouldn't want to be a muslim. You get to hate everyone who isnt part of your religion, and if that gets boring you can hate other muslims. If you really get bored you can kill people that disagree with you, and if you get killed in the process you get a bunch of virgins in heaven. And you get to treat women and young girls like dirt. And if anyone disagrees with you at any time you kill them. Wow this great. Yeah if your a total friggin lunatic, living in the 12th century.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-24 6:07:21 PM
you are right about the value of blog outrage .but we can be as active as possible in the public debate.Confront appologists.attend any and all political functions particularly local government,bring up the appalling treatment of women in islamic countries.bring up darfur.this latest attack in pakistan is another good example.you would be amazed at how little of this info gets out to joe average.Even Jack layton might come around given enough gentle reminders of the realities of islam.
Posted by: nick | 2006-09-24 6:14:08 PM
anyone,is fizz for real ? when did he get out?
Posted by: Frico | 2006-09-24 7:13:03 PM
Actually, I think there's a lot of merit in anger.
Remember, even Jesus got angry (remember he made a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple). Righteous anger helps equip you to do something.
And anger at absolute atrocities like this (and let's not forget holding down a five-year-old and slicing off half of her genitals and then sewing her back up with a rusty needle so that sex will always hurt and menstruation will be difficult) does a great service. It gets us motivated to act.
And how should we act? Afghanistan is a good start. So is Iraq. What we need to do is to help people get a taste of freedom, so that they won't put up with backwardness anymore. And shunning any nation that is this barbaric could help too. But that's something that probably no politician is willing to do.
So let's force Muslims in the West to assimilate (as RightGirl already said), and keep spreading the word about freedom. I know that doesn't sound like much, but I don't have much else. Except anger. And sorrow. And prayer.
Posted by: SheilaG | 2006-09-24 7:50:58 PM
Larry Reed (1st comment): The Pope has NOT apologized for his comments, and has a meeting with Islamic leaders set for tomorrow. He has used this as an opportunity to start open and honest dialogue, which is exactly what we all need to do with the Muslims among us.
Vitruvius: Here's some solutions:
1) Support burgeoning democracies like Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, you can bring democracy and freedom by war. It's called defeating the oppressor, which is morally correct in any culture.
2) Enforce Canadian law 100% in ethnic communities. That means no exceptions for Muslim wife-beaters, no exceptions for hate-mongering in mosques, no exceptions for street rallies supporting banned terrorist groups, etc.
3) Provide special refugee status and immediate asylum for anyone caught on the wrong end of Sharia around the world. We can be a moral beacon to the world by bringing into Canada those who nearly nearly lost their lives to a perverse form of justice.
How's that for a start?
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-09-24 9:50:47 PM
Fizz was raped by his female teacher, that's why he is such a twat. Fizz: we feel your pain.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-09-24 10:37:25 PM
Here's what I don't get: we have well-positioned white females in this country - in the halls of academia and in the corridors of power in Ottawa - who positively revile western civilization (in particular, Christianity). Does it never occur to these women that their lives would be inestimably poorer if they were residing in most other places on this globe that just so happen to NOT be Christian and "Western" in orientation? Apparently not, for the feminists, marxists, and post-modernists who are weakening our society from within (yes, a lot of them do tend to be white females) will have a far more brutal existence ahead of them (or at least their daughters and grand-daughters will) if the tenets of radical Islam gain pre-eminence in western society (which could very well happen in our lifetimes).
As Salim Mansur is fond of saying, there be "useful idiots" in our society - and their miindless idiocy, their moral hypocrisy and their fashionable loathing for our culture and values (driven, it seems, by an inveterate, pathological hatred of "dead white guys") are setting us all up for tragedy.
I almost despise these cowardly, dishonest and hate-filled women as much as I despise their male hand-maidens - like Taliban Jack and Dalton McGuinty.
Posted by: bk | 2006-09-24 11:00:11 PM
Right girl,
You nailed it!
You are so hot!
XO
Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-24 11:25:45 PM
Very well stated RG. NCF TO also stated very clearly things we can and need to do. Everytime we bow to their intimidation, threats and claims of "islamophobia", we embolden them to demand more. So a very simple first step in the right direction is to stop immediately giving Islam and Muslims a free pass when it comes to free speech. Thus no more special treatment for them.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-25 12:18:45 AM
Nice try Wrong Girl, but I don't believe your crocodile tears for a minute. It's amazing how conservatives suddenly show a heart when there's an event that they feel vindicates their racism.
If you truly cared, instead of bashing an entire race of people, you'd bash the men who did it. It's unfortunate and disgusting what happened, but lord knows that nobody in Canada has ever been raped by a white christian male.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-25 12:48:45 AM
The problem Lefty is that the women are quicker to defend this culture than the men are. For every Muslim cleric who publicly demands that raped women are beaten in the street as "whores", there are three or four women living within a mile of him who would be quick to proudly state their approval. In Afghanistan we're finding that its the very old and the very young (ie >50 and <20) who are most commonly supporting this.
Besides concerning yourself whether these are "crocodile tears" or the events "vindicate racism", how about stopping to ask the obvious: is she wrong? Is the Koran anything more than an infallible non-bible created solely for the purpose of giving moral credence to the thrill of slitting a girl's throat who didn't put out? Are there really any seriously devout Muslims who qualify as even remotely moderate on the subject of human rights abuses? If there are not, is it justified to do anything besides openly state "We should declare war on Islam, and we should use Christ as the weapon to do so"? The petty subject changing tone of ridicule your post includes may win you lots of friends in the NDP, but it doesn't in any way shape or form constitute a counter-argument or direct us to where RightGirl's chain of thoughts takes a wrong turn.
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-09-25 2:41:44 AM
Like all lefties who seek to stifle unpleasant speech that upsets their view of things, 99 would rather attack me personally. And once more call me racist, despite Islam not being a race. Calling one a racists is supposed to shut them up, because there can be no retort. I however retort by ignoring such BS and repeating the fact that Islam is dangerous to the society we live in, and we must cease to give in to it.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-09-25 5:51:02 AM
Gunmen kill Afghan director of women's affairs
Associated Press
KABUL — Two gunmen on a motorbike killed the provincial director of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs outside her home in the southern city of Kandahar on Monday, officials said.
Safia Ahmed-jan was slain outside the front gate of her home as she was walking to her office, said Tawfiq ul-Ulhakim Parant, senior adviser to the women's ministry in Kabul.
She was wearing a burqa when she was shot, Mr. Parant said.- Globe and Mail
It has all to do with the culture of death and oppression of islam, not with the race. If you were bought up to believe in that shit, you would know no other way. If your religion severely punished people who stepped out of line, you would see it as easier to go with the flow, than to oppose it. Can you imagine being beaten for having your head uncovered in public? For fucksake the death cult of islam has got to go.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-25 6:02:28 AM
Lefty, do you somehow believe that the women who belong to the death cult of islam should be beaten for not strictly adhering to that fucked up religion? What would your suggestions be to dismantle that death cult of hatred towards civilization? Are you like Jack and Sid, thinking that you can negotiate? Think again Lefty, they hate you, and everything you stand for. They marvel at your stupidity, weakness, and inability to protect and kill if necessary. Stand back Lefty, Jack, Sid, and shut up. Let the real men and women of this country take care of you, so you can live to spout off your nonsense another day.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-25 6:17:26 AM
We should all be phobic when it comes to religious cults of any stripe. Islam the "wonderful religion of Peace", YA, RIGHT!, has spawned the most radical elements of any religion on the planet. It's has spawned terrorism,the scourge of our civilized world of the 21st century so we have to fight it. We damned well better be Islamophobic and ever vigilant. Until the followers of Islam clear the scum from their own ranks they will face the wrath of the rest of humanity.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-25 6:49:47 AM
A phobia is an irrational fear. The fear of Islam is anything but irrational. I prefer the term "Islamofear" or "Islamaware".
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-09-25 7:36:57 AM
Lefty, lefty, lefty, thats all I hear on this site--is that how you simpletons dismiss any rational argument! Name calling? Pathetic and weak.
Posted by: Billy Bob | 2006-09-25 8:15:04 AM
Billy Bob,
The left and the right are equally guilty of characterizing one another. If you go to Rabble, you'll see the opposite of here.
The difference I see is that many on the "left" tend to make the disagreements very personal and resort to name calling and vugarity. (See this post and my last post on the Shotgun and the comments on each). I don't see that nearly as much coming from the right.
A joke that comes to mind (and many jokes are anchored in a fundamental truth) is...
What's the definition of a racist? A Conservative that is winning an argument with a Liberal.
Posted by: Mike The Greek | 2006-09-25 8:25:46 AM
Mike:
Once again, we read about the lefty myth that Islam is a race Posted by: Lefty_99 | Sep 25, 2006 12:48:45 AM
Seems to me it's a religion.
I guess those particular critics can't use religio-phobic because it would then describe them.
So, those particular arguments have to be framed in political (non-religious) terminology.
Religious texts (which the leftys of the world say are irrelevant) clearly state the fight is not between human beings, but is a struggle between good and evil that's within all human beings.
By using the term ‘racist' lefty again tries to shift, then take control the topic. Trouble is, since lefty is too lazy to make the effort to understand differing tenets of religions, he can add nothing to the debate.
So, he stomps his feet, holds his breath and shifts topic.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-25 9:00:11 AM
Ahmed-jan was known for being an active proponent of women's rights in this former Taliban stronghold, a region where insurgents have turned increasingly violent the last several months.
Her secretary said one of Ahmed-jan's most successful projects was running trade schools. "She was always trying her best to improve education for women," Abdullah Khan said.
In Kandahar alone, Ahmed-jan had opened six schools where almost 1,000 women learned how to bake and sell their goods at market. She had also opened tailoring schools for women, and clothes made there found their way to Western markets, Khan said.-CTV.ca
So lefty you think you and jack can negotiate with the taliban now? They shot Ahmed-jan for what? What was her crime lefty that she deserved that? negotiate with those evil fucking monsters? like fuck you do, you crush them, hit them with everything you got.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-25 9:01:01 AM
Gotta admit to Islamophobia then, except it's a rational fear. It would be irrational not to be fearful and suspicious of such dangerous aliens of humanity.
Billy Bob:Are you telling us that there is no name-calling on Rabble?
Give your head a shake. If the term Lefty is offending your sensibilities your visiting the wrong site.It's used here a lot to denote irrational nutbars from the land of moonbeams and lollypops.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-25 9:25:01 AM
racism: "Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”
And once again Set you Free, I did not change the subject, this definition of racism was brought up after my comment.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-25 9:25:27 AM
Which part of the recogintion of exercise of equal footing in Afghanistan do you have a problem with?
According to my Canadian Oxford Dictionary, considered the most authoritative dictionary in Canada, here is the definition of racism.
1 belief in a superiority of a particular race.
2 prejudice based on this
3 antagonism toward other races, esp. as a result of this prejucide
4 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.
I don't know where you're getting your definition ... perhaps from the World According to Karl Marx or it could the the Socialist International Manifesto?
But changing language and changing terms of reference is a well-established trick.
That's why I'm glad I have a credible dictionary right beside my computer to counter your particular attempts to redefine words like racism.
I stand by my original statement that Islam is a religion, not a race. Therefore, in my viewpoint, all your racist arguments are irrelevantt in the exploration of the evils perpetrated by Islam.
Under your definition, if I enjoy a red-coloured car over a black-coloured car, that could be interpreted as racist.
You, my friend, are the racist, since you continue to perpetrate the untruth.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-25 9:37:42 AM
Billy bob,
In most cases on this thread, the term Lefty isn't a political smear but a reference to Lefty_99... its shorthand...
HoneyPot,
I agree with you.(and that's something I can't say very often :) )
Posted by: Daniel | 2006-09-25 10:04:50 AM
Vitruvius, you are such a perfectionist. Everything has side effects, the question always should be " what is the benefit/risk ratio"? At one point during my tenure in medical administration it became apparent that three doctors out of 300 were admitting patients to hospital that clearly didn't need to be admitted. The administations approach was to have an admission body to survey and "vet" all admissions prior to admission. This created a huge problem with the 297 docs doing a good job. Eventually the approach that worked was to identify, prove and justify the hospitals position, and only supervise the admissions of those three offending docs (yes, we had to deal with their lawyers and the flack from the "professional rights" advocates).
If we eliminate the approval of use of medications because of "side effects", there would not be any medications on the market today. Concern about "colatteral damage" can be an excuse for ringing our hands and doing nothing.
Posted by: al-lea | 2006-09-25 10:27:13 AM
I cannot believe the irrational arguments by some on this site yelling about how rape happens in our society. Yes, rape does happen in our society. The difference is, in our society, it is a crime. In the islamofascist society, not only is it NOT a crime, but the women are stoned and punished for it by LAW. How the heck can you compare these ideals?
Posted by: Lanny | 2006-09-25 10:35:29 AM
Right girl,
As usual, right. Here's another article about Islam's wonderfully enlightened view of women:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060924/karzai_visit_060925/20060925?hub=World
Hope this helps those who think this thread is "just" about some girl getting raped...
Posted by: Daniel | 2006-09-25 11:49:05 AM
Jesus, this crazed wingnut RightGirl is just about ready to climb up a University tower with a high-powered rifle and start mowing down every brown person she sees, isn't she?
...will someone schedule the intervention already?
Posted by: SmartGirl | 2006-09-25 11:57:37 AM
SmartGirl,
I'm sensing that you disagree with RightGirl. Rather than pop in, be insulting and leave, please explain why you disagree with her.
What are your thoughts on Islam and its accompanying legal principles? Is sharia a reasonable choice in a secular society? How about in countries that not only allow, but have enshrined in either constitutions or common law, equality of the sexes and free speech?
Of, course, that's much harder than throwing a few insults around, but as you're nic indicates, you're smart; these questions should be a snap to answer. We await those answers.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-09-25 12:46:07 PM
Lanny, you can only make that comparison if you are a 'lefty'!
Posted by: Frico | 2006-09-25 1:23:35 PM
Clearly the Left in spite of its soapbox, actually does not care about the wellfare of women when they do not follow the rabid feminist agenda. For some time I have noted how women have never before been so debased as within Western secular liberal society. These people have not brought true respect and true equality (not sameness) to women. So once again we find them on this post snearing at this innocent victime.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-25 3:55:45 PM
Bigots r' us.
Posted by: Andrew | 2006-09-25 4:58:04 PM
No matter what anyone thinks or says on this website, or speaks in public here about, these people in muslim nations dont care. They are not interested in your opinions, left, right or center. We are all infidels to be converted or killed. I spent time in the middle east in a number of countries, and they couldnt care less what we thought. If you dont believe it go yourself and find out. Its something out of the dark ages over there, and they want to expand to encompass the whole world, by force if need be.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-25 5:33:33 PM
John, it's like Lord of the Ring ?
Posted by: Marc | 2006-09-25 6:05:38 PM
Lord of the Rings has a happy ending
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-25 7:06:38 PM
Trivia question, for hard core democratics and debaters. Who was the best friend of the Lord of the Rings author, and what debating society did they belong to that is world famous.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-25 7:10:44 PM
CS Lewis was Tolkein's pal, part 2 of the question I don't know, or care. They were socialists at the time but later CS Lewis became a Christian.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-25 7:15:25 PM
ah, but thats the beauty of our english democratic history. When I was stationed in england, i loved cs lewis for his intellect and the history behind it. cs lewis belonged of course to the oxford debating society, and tolkien was described like a puppy dog following him around. Of course the two of them among others were great friends and spent many nights drinking and talking. cs lewis applied his debating and intellict to the question of the christian faith and had to by logic become a christian. tolkien became a christian also, even though that is not widely known. The point being that brilliant minds that actually honestly explore the christian faith will see the truth and reject the secular or fake religions
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-25 8:07:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.