Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ed Stelmach, Montana Chamber of Commerce hero | Main | TV listings »

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Unlike Muslims

When Christians find a freak in their midst, we call them out. We take them to court. We publicly denounce and vilify them.

Unlike the Muslims.

The brokenhearted father of a Marine killed in Iraq won a long-shot legal fight today after a federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against members of a Kansas church who hoisted anti-gay placards at his son’s Westminster funeral.

The jury's announcement 24 hours after deliberations first began was met with tears and hugs from the family and supporters of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, whose March 2006 funeral was protested by members of the Westboro Baptist Church with signs including "Thank God for dead soldiers."

It wasn't so long ago that the most wanted fugitive in America was Warren Jeffs. A Mormon, he believed in Christ, but practiced a dangerous form of religion that put women and children at risk of sexual exploitation. This man was hunted down like the dog he is, and now stands trial.

We're still waiting for the Muslims to hand over Bin laden and his ilk. But that day will never come, because more of them stand with him than against him. There is so much evil in Islam, that they have no reason to hold each other accountable.

We stood against Jeffs, and against Phelps.

Unlike the Muslims.

Posted by RightGirl on October 31, 2007 in Religion | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unlike Muslims:


Anyone who is as sick and tired of the 'Muslims' as I am of secular progressives who aid and bet their cause against us had better hope Rudy Guilliani is the next prez..

He intends to get up early in the morning and kill as many as those bastards a he can before he goes to be at night. He won't put up with any of their antics in the USA either. He shut down street scum in NYC and he will shut down the Muslims scum who are trying to destroy us.

I am awaiting the culture war to turn violent if a republican is elected prez. Those Lefties will simply not be able take four more years out of power. If I know right from left, there will be a lot more dead lefties than conservatives.

The libs in Canada are having fits about now too.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-31 9:15:15 PM

"Unlike the Muslims"? Now the thought police will come after you!

/sarc off.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-10-31 9:33:22 PM

When you say "We stood against Jeffs, and against Phelps" of course you can't mean Christians. You must mean the religiously neutral state that includes people of all religions.

By the way. Tell me about how Pope Pius XII stood against Hitler. I love that story!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-31 10:13:26 PM

Yo, Fact Check, you do realize the majority of those of us in the West identify as Christians, right? Or did you miss that "fact"? So since a large majority of the cops, prosecutors, judges and others involved in cases like Phelps and Jeffs stand to be Christian, I doubt I'm off the mark.

BTW, did you happen to hear of many public cries/demands/threats on behalf of these guys? Were there lots of protests in their defense? Did the Christian equivalent to "Islamic Rage Boy" get his 15 minutes by frothing at the mouth and making threats?

Pius XII might have had his thumb in, but Christian America and Canada were kicking the shit out of Hitler. Perhaps if Italy hadn't surrendered so quickly and joined forces with the fascists, Pius might have behaved differently. We'll never know. But Christians fighting Hitler? That's a FACT.


Posted by: RightGirl | 2007-10-31 10:23:09 PM

RG, did you know that Afghanistan is 99% Muslim? Did you know that this 99% includes President Hamid Karzai and his government? Did you know that the Afghan government (with our help) is actively fighting against radical Islam in their country?

If you really believed what you say about Islam, then you should not support the mission in Afghanistan. I support it because I believe there are a lot of Muslims there who want something better than what Osama and the Taliban offer.

Yes, a lot of Muslims support Osama. But in 1939 a lot of Germans supported Hitler. I don't take that as proof that there is something fundamentally evil about Germans. Your Islamophobia is similarly out of line.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-31 11:01:34 PM

Since when was Warren Jeffs ever a Mormon? Since never.

Posted by: abc | 2007-11-01 12:35:07 AM

Fat check,
You're chatting with religious extremists. Don't you get it...?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-01 12:46:29 AM

>"RG, did you know that Afghanistan is 99% Muslim? Did you know that this 99% includes President Hamid Karzai and his government? Did you know that the Afghan government (with our help) is actively fighting against radical Islam in their country?"
Fact Check | 31-Oct-07 11:01:34 PM

Afghanistan is 99% Muslim because they killed all the Buddhists.
Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist country.
(Until the 12th century AD, Bamiyan was part of the Indian kingdom of Gandhara. It was the site of several Buddhist and Hindu monasteries, and a thriving center for religion, philosophy, and Indo-Greek art. It was a Buddhist religious site from the second century up to the time of the Islamic invasion in the ninth century.)

Yes, President Hamid Karzai and his government are Muslims.
And YES, they are radical Muslims, Islam being an extreme ideology.
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic ruled by Sha'ria Law.
While Karzai and his government are in fact fighting against our enemies, that doesn't make them our friends.

>"Yes, a lot of Muslims support Osama. But in 1939 a lot of Germans supported Hitler. I don't take that as proof that there is something fundamentally evil about Germans. Your Islamophobia is similarly out of line."
Fact Check | 31-Oct-07 11:01:34 PM
Phobias are irrational fears.
There is nothing irrational about fearing the followers of Mohammed.

Muslims are NOT a race as Germans are.

Your analogy doesn't hold up.
Islam is an ideology.
A proper analogy would be to compare Islam to Nazism, which is also an ideology.

Yes, in 1939 a lot of Nazis supported Hitler.
And Nazis were and are evil.

Should we now talk about Hitler's pal, the Mufti of Jerusalem, or should we stop breaking Godwin's Law and get on with the thread topic?

Phelps is a disgrace as a Baptist.
It isn't seemly for Christians to make public demonstrations to condemn sin or sinners.
Rather, Phelps and his congregation should be working out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with FEAR AND TREMBLING.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the MIDST of a CROOKED and PERVERSE NATION, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 2:18:00 AM

(The Perverted, Perverted Teachings of Islam)

Larry Houle
[email protected]

The term Islamo - Fascism gives tremendous creditability to Islam. It perpetuates the myth that Islam is a wonderful religion of peace and love that has been hi – jacked and perverted by a few bad apples of evil Islamo - Facsists.Islamic militants, jihadists, Wahhabism, radical Islam, Islamists. There has been no hijacking. There has been no perversion. These demented souls are following exactly the teachings of the Koran and in the footsteps of the Prophet - Muhammad.

The reality is that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim – a holy man of the book who is following exactly the teachings of Islam as recorded in the Koran.

By not exposing the true nature of Islam, those who use the term Islamo – Fascism etc are elevating Islam to an equal footing with Christianity and other world religions.


Islam is a barbaric, sexist, violent ideology (not a religion) that worships a pagan god (Allah) and women are oppressed under Islam.


How could any person be ‘proud’ to follow a man who was a pedophile, endorser of clitoridectomy, slave trader, rapist, polygamist, punched his child bride and endorsed whipping/beating women and ploughing them like fields, stoned women to death, flogged his slave women for fornication while he had sex with slaves himself, propositioned women and passed them round to friends, denied women equal inheritance, or equality under the law etc forever and abused and denigrated them in every way--not to mention his general sadism to others, mass murder, beheading captives, massacres, terror, owning slaves and raping them, looting and pillaging, amputations, flogging, thievery, lying, megalomania--- unending horror.

All Muslims believe the Koran is the divine word of God – the laws of God. All Muslims believe that God authored the Koran and a copy of the Koran is in heaven. The Koran remains for all Muslims, not just "fundamentalists," the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places; its ideas are absolutely true and beyond all criticism. To question it is to question the very word of God, and hence blasphemous. A Muslim's duty is to believe it and obey its divine commands.

Following are some of the close to 1000 Islamo – Fascist teachings of the Koran that are not sins against God, are not crimes against God but are THE LAWS OF GOD.


4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

“All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like).” 4:24

If some one kills your freeman, you must kill one of their free men, if some one kills your slave, you must kill one of their slaves, if some one kills your woman you must kill one of their women.

2.178 O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained you for the slain: The free [shall die] for the free, and the slave for a slave, and a woman for a woman.

23.1-6: Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable.


Quran-8:41— “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

Quran-33:27- “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.” [Merciful Allah asked Prophet Muhammad to confiscate entire properties of the surrendered Jews]


However if the victims surrendered without any fight, all the booty belonged to Mo.

59.6 Allah gave all the booty (Fai') to His Messenger (Muhammad SAW) if the unbelievers surrendered without fight.


9:50 When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS (unbelievers) WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
5:36 The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Quran-8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)

Quran-8:67—“It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land….” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia.”

Quran-33:26- “And He brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive)”


4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom God hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom God hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them;


Koran sura 5.6 (repeated in sura 4.43 –re removing pollution before praying) And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet or ye have contact with women and ye find not water, then go to clean high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it

“When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6

Qur'an 4:43 "Believers, approach not prayers if you are polluted (had sex, farted ,attended call of nature or touched a woman).

Likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223);

65.4 You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.

65.4 For those who have no courses (premenstrual underage girls i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months.


An evil Paradise of big breasted, big eyed Hurs to be sexually molested for all eternity as a reward for those who slay and are slain in the service of God.

“Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” 9:111

"As for the righteous (Muslims)...We (Allah) shall wed them to beautiful virgins with lustrous eyes" - Q 44:51-54


Does anyone truly believe that God would have as His Prophet for His one and only true religion a criminal – Muhammad and teachings of slavery, rape, murder etc. Is this a rational, reasonable human thought that God would be a criminal involved in these evil criminal acts.

Is it a rational, reasonable human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to enslave the unbelievers, breed and sell them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His male followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to rape unbelievers and gang rape them. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to marry up to 4 women and His
Prophet to marry as many women as he desired and own and rape his slaves. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?
Men can marry up to four women if they treat them equally; unlimited forcible concubines permitted
In Islam, not only are men allowed to practice polygamy, but they may also capture women in war and use them as sex slaves. This is considered morally legitimate according to the Quran. In other words, non-Muslim women have no right to be free from the horror of slavery and serial rape by Muslim military men.
4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
Muhammad can go beyond the four-wife restriction, can treat his own wives and sex slaves unequally
33:50-52 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large);

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion were women are evil, vile creatures - ½ human beings. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

4:11 God (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females

4:176 They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. ... if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.

4:11 Males are to inherit twice that of females.

4:14 Women have very little intelligence—their own testimony is inadmissible in rape cases; in other matters their testimony is half to that of a man

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to share the booty gained from the looted property of the unbelievers and from the sale of slaves with God Himself. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to require His believers to murder unbelievers after giving them a warning to convert or pay a submission tax. Is this rational ? Is this reasonable?

Is it a rational human thought that God would create a religion that allowed His followers (believers) in His one and only true religion to amputate hands or flog to death (100 lashes is death) for robbery or adultery.
"Lewd" women should be punished with life imprisonment
4:15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

It is unclear what "lewdness" actually means. This verse is so open-ended, almost any woman could potentially be accused of lewdness and sentenced to a life of house arrest, except ultraconservative women who never do anything to offend strict Muslim men.
Stealing should be punished by amputation of hands
5:41 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.

When a person has no hands, they probably cannot earn a living anymore, so they will end up as a beggar on the street. That doesn't seem very beneficial to society. Also, before medical sanitation and anesthesia, amputation of the hands was in many cases the equivalent of a death sentence.
Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes
24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

This verse leaves no other option for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Quran. It specifically says they must not have mercy on people who have committed adultery or fornication, and that this brutal punishment of 100 lashes is "prescribed by God." However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non- Muslim is allowed.

We could go on and on.

The answer is absolutely not. It is not rational. It is not reasonable. There is no such criminal God.

Islam was the invention and creation of Muhammad. There was no Allah. The Koran is the teachings of Muhammad and not any God. By not exposing the truth of Islam, and trying to be politically correct and not be labeled as a racist or Islamaphobic , these people are doing us all a grave disservice. By perpetrating the myth of a hijacking and perversion of the teachings of Islam, they are granting Islam – legitimacy.

Posted by: Larry Houle | 2007-11-01 5:02:21 AM

"Phelps is a disgrace as a Baptist."

And he and his group are registered DemoRats!

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 8:05:59 AM

Christianity and Judaism are universalist religions, meaning all people are held to the same standards of right and wrong. Islam is a tribalist religion, meaning the in-crowd has privleges, and the out-crowd is inferior. Secularism has both universalist and tribalist characteristics, which is why it is so confused in its world view, and so easily swayed by tribalist arguments.

Tribalists never hold their own to account.

Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-01 12:38:50 PM

. . . which is why Jean the Creton and Maurice Strong have skated - and the impeached one in the US as well, whose support among blue-dress DemoRats never wavers.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 12:42:33 PM

Wow what an audience has gathered for this filth

Posted by: Sub-standard | 2007-11-01 1:03:31 PM

The only filth around here, has been utterred by the one who refers to itself as "Sub-standard". Good on you. Few leftists ever know when they are actually "Sub-standard". Must be a Freudian slip-yet I won't reject it as it appears the shoe fits!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-01 1:38:06 PM

How to Beat a Woman
by Muhammad Al-’Arifi

(See the video here.)

Muhammad Al-’Arifi: Men beat women more often than women beat men. I said that some women beat their husbands because this happens, but it is rare, and there is no need to hold conferences on wives who beat their husbands. I believe this is less prevalent, because by nature, the body of the man... In most cases, Allah made the body of men stronger than the body of women. Therefore, you and your sister... You may be taller than your mother, right? If your mother is ill, you may be able to carry her, but she cannot carry you. Allah created women with these delicate, fragile, supple, and soft bodies, because they use their emotions more than they use their bodies. Therefore, while the man may use beating to discipline his wife, she sometimes uses her tears to discipline him. He gets what he wants by screaming, while she gets what she wants from him by crying and displaying emotions. For men, women’s emotions may be fiercer than the strike of a sword.

[... ]

First, “admonish them” – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times. If this doesn’t help, “refuse to share their beds.” In such a case, the husband does not sleep with his wife, or, in other words, he is angry with her. He gives her the silent treatment, refusing to talk to her. If he comes to eat, and she asks him: “How are you?” – he doesn’t answer. If she asks him: “Do you want anything?” – he doesn’t answer. He distances himself from her in bed and in conversation, he does not sleep with her, but goes to sleep in another room. He shows her that he is angry with her. If this does not help – if the admonishing did no good, and when he goes to sleep in another room, she says: “Thank God, he’s gone. Now I’ve got the whole bed to myself, I will sleep alone in bed and roll over at night as much as I like.” If neither method worked with her, what is the third option?

Guest: “And beat them.”

Al-’Arifi: That’s right. How is this beating performed? What do you think?

Guest:: Light beatings.

Al-’Arifi: Light beatings in what way?

Guest:: For example, I wouldn’t beat her in the face...

Al-’Arifi: Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals. When a person is beating an animal... Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face. Some religious scholars say: “He should beat her with a toothpick.” I happen to have a toothpick with me. A man who is angry with his wife because she doesn’t get it... If he says to her: “Watch out, the child has fallen next to the stove,” or: “Move the child away from the electrical socket,” and she says: “I am busy” – then he beats her with a toothpick or something like it. He doesn’t beat her with a bottle of water, a plate, or a knife. This is forbidden. The scholars said he should beat her with a toothpick. Check out how gentle the toothpick used for beating is. This shows you that the purpose is not to inflict pain. When you beat an animal, you intend to cause it pain so it will obey you, because an animal would not understand if you said: “Oh camel, come on, start moving.” The camel does not understand such things, unless you beat it. A donkey understands nothing but beatings, but a woman, a man, a child, and so on, are generally more affected by emotions than by other things. If you beat her with a toothpick, or if you beat her lightly with your hand, and so on, it is meant to convey: “Woman, it has gone too far. I can’t bear it anymore.” If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly. He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child - slapping them right and left. Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 2007-11-01 2:12:12 PM

Didn't like my link to the video: here it is.


Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 2007-11-01 2:14:21 PM

I just saw this on LGF and considered posting the link myself! Thanks for putting it up here.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 2:17:11 PM

My pleasure...wonder if it'll open any eyes. I doubt it. Some people just don't like having open eyes.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 2007-11-01 2:21:48 PM

Of course not! It's those nasty Christians that are the source of all our problems, don't you know.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-01 2:24:10 PM

Fred Phelps and his ilk misrepresent Christianity and give it an incredibly bad name.

Christ isn't singling out one or two groups for His wrath. every one of us is going to be judged, Christians included. Scripture states, any one who calls himself "Christian" and doesn't want to face his own self righteousness is going to be in a lot of trouble.~

ok. that's out of the way.

i don't know the details of the story. were these people protesting this funeral on public property, payed for by taxpayers? if so, this ruling in favour of the claimant is as pernicious as the Mahar Arar case.

we're all turning into a bunch of thin skinned pussies. left AND right. suck it up!

there is no such thing as "hate speech". there is only free speech. and the only remedy for too much free speech is more free speech.

who the hell is Right Girl? i've never heard of her. why is she posted on our conservative/libertarian blog. she sounds like a domestic policy neocon.

the only person as pernicious to liberty from the State as a social liberal, is a domestic policy neocon.

this issue is much deeper and more frightening to me than simply the Muslim connection.

this is a "liberty" issue.

Posted by: shel | 2007-11-01 3:51:42 PM


In this case it was a question of balancing the bereaved family's right to privacy against the Phelps mob's free speech rights.

The family in this case were not public figures.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 4:01:23 PM

"Christianity and Judaism are universalist religions..."

No they're not. Secular Judaism or the Bush post-Christian doctrine, "we all believe in the same God but take different roads", may be universalism, however, to Christians it is apostasy. If you're a Christian, then you believe in Christ. If you don't believe in Christ, you're excluded.

"Tribalists never hold their own to account."

Neither does one-world Marxist universalism. When have communists ever hold their own to account?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-01 4:02:48 PM


i don't know if i'm going to be very popular here today, but i have to err on the side of free speech on this one.

sometimes life sucks with outrage but, i'm afraid, Phelps right to free speech on public property should trump Snyder's right to have Phelps assembly put away.

$11 000 000? THAT'S an outrage.

good night

Posted by: shel | 2007-11-01 4:16:49 PM

Interesting notion. The Christian defense of gay rights sets it on a higher moral plain than Islam.

Christendom, or what's left of it, is standing against Islam in defense of gays.

Which is the perverse doctrine again?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-01 4:31:50 PM


Where do you see Christians advocating gay rights?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 4:35:17 PM


Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-01 4:40:22 PM

Are you claiming you're a Christian advocating gay rights?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 4:42:13 PM

Are you saying you can't read English?

"When Christians find a freak in their midst, we call them out"

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-01 4:44:59 PM

>"When Christians find a FREAK in THEIR midst, WE call them out"
Posted by: DJ | 1-Nov-07 4:44:59 PM

In the above quote, DJ, please tell me who you think 'FREAK', 'THEIR', and 'WE' refer to and where the gays rights reference or advocation is.

Thanx in advance.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 4:51:52 PM

Are you honestly saying you don't know? In your opinion Phelps and his fellow Christians are freaks? Is that correct?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-01 4:58:08 PM

>"In your opinion Phelps and his fellow Christians are freaks? Is that correct?"
Posted by: DJ | 1-Nov-07 4:58:08 PM

I'll give you an answer when you give a full reply to my previous question, DJ.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-01 5:00:53 PM

God's treatment of homosexuality is well known.

See the destruction of Sodoma and Gomorra.

That does not mean God hates homosexuals. He hates the sin, not the sinner. If a homosexual repents, God will forgive him.

By the way, anyone knows that Hitler was reading the Bible?

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-11-01 6:03:39 PM

DJ: I think you're misinterpreting my post about universalist vs. tribalist religion. I'm talking about values, not theology. Secular Judaism's values are indeed tribal, and do not conform to those of the religion's teachings. Traditional Judaism is universalist in values - God gave the Jews laws that all humans must live by, and chose the Jews to be the world's teachers of those values. Jesus took the spirit of those laws and taught them in a different way - but the values are essentially the same.

As far as Marxism goes, it's 100% tribal, so no wonder they never held each other to account. It's tribalism by class.

Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-01 7:16:40 PM

"Traditional Judaism is universalist in values..."

How so?

"God gave the Jews laws that all humans must live by, and chose the Jews to be the world's teachers of those values."

Really? Where do you see the universalism in Deuteronomy, Chapter 7? In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, it is the quintessential in group altruism strategy?

How can class be tribal when there is not necessarily a kinship qualification? Tribes are kinship based. Class is an economic qualification. Communism is a universal ideology. By any measure, except possibly Islam it murderous tenure far outreaches any tribalism and it has never been brought to account.

Posted by: Dj | 2007-11-01 10:13:35 PM

DJ: once again, I'm talking about Jewish values, not Jewish theology. But since you brought it up...if you're referring to the "chosen people" statements in Deut. 7, you can't look at it in a vacuum. God clearly chooses the Jews WITH CONDITIONS ATTACHED. Time and again throughout the scriptures, God brings disaster to the Jews because they were not living up to the values he chose them to live by and promote. That is certainly not tribalism. A tribal God favours his people no matter what they do!

On the topic of Communism: Marx viewed modern society through a tribal lens of the oppressed and the oppressor; the capitalist and the worker; the bourgeois and the intellectual. Communism foments hatred between these tribes, and creates a ruling tribe of amoral technocrats and thugs who earn privleges through loyalty. It's universalist in a totally different meaning than what I'm talking about - it can be applied throughout the world, and its aim is to dominate the world. But it's certainly not a value system that holds all people to a single firm standard.

Kinship 'aint only blood relations, DJ. It can be political, religious, values-based, goals-based. You can have a tribe based on something other than blood - try to expand your mind a little.

Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-01 10:35:37 PM

"if you're referring to the "chosen people" statements..."

No, the reference is to the ethno-centric statements.

"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire."

Good images of in group altruism. Annihilate your enemy w/o mercy. No intermarriage (the tribe, the blood relationship is paramount). No multiculturalism here, on integration, no assimilation. The lesson taught is the ultimate destruction of your enemy for fear of tribal contamination. That's the message. You couldn't ask for a better evolutionary plan. Keep the tribe tight, destroy outsiders and you'll prosper. Forsake the tribe, like Solomon, and your kin will suffer.

"try to expand your mind a little."

It appears you mean imagination, because a vast imagination is what it would take to swallow that fantasy you've created.

"It can be political, religious, values-based, goals-based."

Only if the people involved have evolved non-kinship based altruism and then it becomes a nation not a tribe. And when you introduce genetically distant groups into your nation in large numbers then it becomes absorbtion and then extinction, something the Jews have to date avoided because of the tribalistic nature of their religion.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-02 12:43:19 AM

Neil ~

A bigot cannot be taught to change his mind. DJ is our resident bigot. Don't waste your time. He has made up his closed mind - and that's that.

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-02 6:09:48 AM

Thanks, I sense DJ may be a Dawkins-ite, with no interest in intelligent back-and-forth.

For the benefit of others reading this thread: God only commands the Jews to fight wicked peoples (idol-worshiping child-and-virgin-sacrificers, in particular) - wicked by the standards of justice and righteousness, not wicked by the fact that they are of a different tribe. This is precicely the difference between Judeo-Christian theology and any other significant ruling philosophy that came before.

And finally, the Jews have survived as a people not because of tribalism - in tribalism, a small, weak, scattered tribe can never win - but because of an enduring set of positive values. Period. Dot. Out.

Posted by: Neil Flagg | 2007-11-02 6:26:07 AM

Notice how "Fact Check" does the exact opposite of what her name would imply she would do: argue honestly.

She compares followers of an ideology to an ethnic group in an attempt to mark that ideology up as if it was a "race" and thereby cut short any criticism of it: because that would be "racist."

This is the constant refrain of those who wish for the Islamisation of those lands that have not yet fallen to this imperialism. They try to disarm you mentally and morally, so that you submit before a shot even has to be fired. Not that shots haven't yet been fired -- lots have; 9/11, 7/7, etc.

Unfortunately for her, readers here can see through her rhetoric and show how the ideology of Islam is not redeemed from its atrocities in anyway, just as Nazism or Stalinism is not.

Don't fall for the tricks and never give up criticism of Islam.

Posted by: Kafir Canada | 2007-11-02 4:59:29 PM

Right Girl -

I always endeavor to support your ideas, mainly because even a nominally conservative female voice is unfortunately so rare in public.

shel - in his (her?) posts above has this issue nailed down "rightly" and accurately.

SPEECH must be protected in all public forums and especially political speech, but even vile and hurtful and hateful speech. The response to "hate" speech or any speech must only be more speech, not money damages or incarceration, etc.

When speech is totally free and protected then the haters only achieve infamy rather than martyr status. And the haters produce the good result of helping educate (for "free") the general community about how evil is ever poised to overwhelm good.

Trespassing on private property or any/all other potential aspects of the incident you cite are not protected but rather are crimes.

Please be careful not to let anger driven response trump your good instincts to defend that which is "right" and True.


Just so as to not allow your calumny regarding Pope Pius XII to pass without notice, it may well be that you have merely swallowed the media popularized lies about that good man, in which case I wish you would investigate further that pope's record, prior to, during and after World War II with respect to his leadership against the Nazi enterprize and his protection of Jews and all others attacked by the Nazis.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-03 9:51:25 AM

I believe RightGirl's point is that only Muslims can solve their own image problems by calling out other Muslims.

It's not up to Western civilization to whitewash the damage done to the majority of Muslims by those who would twist the texts.

Anyway, there are enough texts to make the case that what we view as extremist is actually an attempt to emulate conditions of the seventh century and place them into today's context.

In that case, it's about military victories, not an examination of human nature and how to control the negative aspects within any human's instinctive DNA (figurative) that can overwhelm any desire to do good and become better.

I may be wrong, but I believe that so-called moderate Muslims would actually have to turn their back on the religion they were unfortunate enough to be born into and search for one whose ideals actually improves their lives.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-03 10:28:10 AM


They were not unfortunate, quite the contrary. Think about it. Muslims wake up in the morning and think about wiping out infidels. That's all they have to worry about in life.

Not having to rationalize your actions is a great blessing. It frees you from having to take any moral position on anything.

Christians have been saddled with all kinds of complicated moral decisions. They try to justify every decision, and then second guess it afterward. Muslims just let'er rip and feel completely comfortable with the aftermath.

There are some Christians who live by a similar code, but the mainstream ones are stuck with all kinds of moral dilemas.

Posted by: dph | 2007-11-03 11:57:13 AM

"There is so much evil in Islam, that they have no reason to hold each other accountable."

I know for a fact that Right Girl is an anti Arab Zionist who uses this blog to spout her hatred for Arabs, unfortunately this hatred now extends to 1.5 billion people across the globe, from cultures as diverse as Malaysia, to Pakistan and Bosnia.

The fact that this blog posts this type of hate mongering drivel prosecutable under the Criminal Code is proof enough that the fat ugly little pig Ezra is about as wise a business man as he is a politician--hence the recent wholly predictable (haha) failure of the 'western standard' newsletter'.

As for RightGirl all I can say is that you don't help you cause but make it very difficult for anyone trying to undestand when you make as stupid comments as the above.

Along with the comment about the popes acquiescence of Hitler who exterminated millions of Jews, please also tell me how the Christians behaved so morally in their strong support for the African slave trade, and the well known historical resistance of Christians in the Southern States of the USA to the abolition of slavery. Everyone knows that Christianity has acquired an unfortunate reputation for sanctioning and even encouraging slavery. Whilst it is certainly true that Christians have been responsible throughout the centuries for sanctioning, encouraging, and even enforcing slavery, lets forget about that and talk about Bin Laden instead.

Posted by: Augustus | 2007-11-03 9:30:18 PM

Slavery was not a big part of Christianity. England abolished it 300 years ago. It was a serious black mark against us, but it's long past. Canada had very few incidences of it, so don't try to use it against us Gus.

I personally don't think Muslims are evil. I do believe they are my enemy, and I respect them as such. They are to be given every respect afforded to any other enemy of my children. And then destroyed mercilessly.

Prosecutable under the criminal code? Get real! The criminal code doesn't apply to enemies of the state.

Posted by: dph | 2007-11-03 9:55:03 PM


Obviously, the National Socialists paid no heed to anybody but their own goal of creating the master race by eliminating those they deemed inferior.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of the National Socialists during WWII. Is that OK with you?

Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-03 10:06:16 PM

As Edmund burke suggested, slavery is a weed that grows in every garden. Even the Islamic garden, apparently.

"OSU history professor Robert Davis has a new book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters : White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 about European Christian slavery at the hands of Muslims in North Africa.

A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 - a far greater number than had ever been estimated before."

It does not account for black slaves then or now (Darfur?).

It is difficult to understand why hundreds of thousands of white Christians fell in the battle over southern slavery, especially since only about 20% of whites held slaves in the South. However, for the vast majority of white Southern Christians, the war was not about slavery, but was fought to keep the South white man's country. They feared a brutal insurrection as demonstrated in Haiti and later in the British Caribbean colonies. IMO, a non-lethal transfer, as suggested later, by black nationalist Marcus Garvy, made more sense.

And now, a century and a half after the great emancipation, the fears of the white Southerner are vindicated every day in America, both on her streets and in her prisons.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-03 10:47:32 PM

"and the well known historical resistance of Christians in the Southern States of the USA"

How about the well-known opposition to slavery by Northeastern Christians who established the abolition movement in the US in the 1700's?

Or are you interested in ONLY maligning Christians?

Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 6:30:22 AM


thanks for the backup. i was beginning to wonder if i was alone with my opinion.

btw... i'm a guy.

Posted by: shel | 2007-11-04 7:28:10 AM

set you free - The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of the National Socialists during WWII. Is that OK with you?

If you read the book "51 Documents" by Lenni Brenner you'll see that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem wasn't the only person willing to collaborate with the nazi's to achieve their aims in the ME.

Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-04 8:06:26 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.