Gay Patriot Header Image

The Violent Anti-Christian Leftists In America and Abroad

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:05 pm - February 27, 2006.
Filed under: Conservative Discrimination,War On Terror

Is there a connection between the 2004 political speech crimes against Republicans, the rise of anti-Semitism in France and Europe, the riots by radical and moderate Muslims alike over cartoons, the Secular Left’s “War on Christmas”, and the recent spate of anti-Christian violent acts in the United States that I note below?

Officials Say They’re Close to Cracking Arson Case – Associated Press

Ten Baptist churches in rural parts of the state have been burned by arsonists this month. Nine of the fires – five on Feb. 3 in Bibb County and four on Feb. 7 in west Alabama – have been linked. Another church fire on Feb. 11 in Lamar County has been ruled arson, but investigators have not determined if it is connected to the others.

Man Kills, Wounds Mother and Child in Church – FOX News

DETROIT — A man opened fire inside a church Sunday, killing an 18-year-old woman and wounding her child before shooting another man outside, according to police and broadcast reports.

I submit there is. Despite their hysterical rantings about the massive reduction in civil rights under BushAshcroftGonzales, the facts are that the violent acts against free speech and freedom of religion in America are directed against and not by American conservatives and people of faith (mainly Christians and Jews).

Why was there 24-hour coverage on CNN of the Mohammed cartoon uproar (where they shielded our eyes of the cartoon by blurring it), but no equal coverage of the church fires and the murder of the young Jewish man in France?

I report and connect the dots…. you decide.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

55 Comments

  1. I report and connect the dots…. you decide. Well, you can draw a straight line between any two dots, but in the Alabama arson story, I don’t really find any evidence that this is part of a leftist agenda. The story on the Detroit shootings says it was the result of a domestic dispute. Wishful thinking, on your part, I’m afraid.

    Comment by Andy — February 27, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - February 27, 2006

  2. Let’s face it, there are crazy people on both sides.

    Comment by hank — February 27, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - February 27, 2006

  3. Sorry Andy. I don’t think you’re looking in the same direction as Dan.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 27, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - February 27, 2006

  4. I don’t know about a connection between the shooting and the arsons, but I think the fact that there isn’t a racial connection to the church fires has made the media pretty much ignore them. I saw one two paragraph blurb in our area paper on the arsons, and that was mostly to comment that there didn’t seem to be a racial connection, nobody even mentioned the possibility that the arsons were motivated by anti christian feelings or the possibility of hate crime (which I don’t support but suspect if all 10 churches were black, we would be hearing more from the media, and those reports would focus on the racial aspect and hate crimes).

    Comment by just me — February 27, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - February 27, 2006

  5. I never bought that “War on Christmas” phenomena. Seems like when Walmart asked their employees to say “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”, they were including the many others that have holidays during December. The US is a melting pot with many different religions, so it makes sense that a business would want to cater to all of them; hence, they’d push the phrase “Happy Holidays” over something more religious specific.

    Comment by James — February 27, 2006 @ 6:28 pm - February 27, 2006

  6. Bruce, I went to your first link. It reported crimes against both Reps and dems. Your sentence doesn’t mention the Dems.

    Honesty.

    Please.

    (Remember the old Conrad cartoon which showed Nixon and his shadow…”Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t following you”?)

    Be sweeter.

    Comment by Gene — February 27, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - February 27, 2006

  7. #6

    Read the whole article he referred to, Gene. Makes you look less stupid.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 27, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - February 27, 2006

  8. What a stretchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Bruce!

    I’m with Andy in #1.

    The shooting in Detroit was related to a domestic dispute. In the Fox News story you link to, there’s absolutely no suggestion of an anti-Christian bias.

    We don’t know yet about the church fires in Alabama. It may turn out that a couple of racist rednecks were responsible for all them. It’s always possible they didn’t know a couple of the churches were white — or they might have deliberately hit a couple of white churches to lead authorities away from the racist motive.

    Comment by Jack Allen — February 27, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - February 27, 2006

  9. #5: Christmas is not some holiday specific to a religion and celebrated only by followers of that religion, such as Easter and Yom Kippur. Christmas is a national, federal holiday, same as Independence Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Presidents’ Day, and ML King Jr. Day. And it’s amazing to me that you can say in the same paragraph that there is no war on Christmas but it makes sense to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — February 28, 2006 @ 1:12 am - February 28, 2006

  10. To make it even more clear: you’re suggesting that it makes sense not even to speak the name of a national, federal holiday by using phrases like “Merry Christmas,” but there’s no war on Christmas?

    Comment by Conservative Guy — February 28, 2006 @ 1:15 am - February 28, 2006

  11. I have to say that I do believe there is an agenda to remove religion from Christmas, by making it more multi-cultural. And that Conservative Guy is correct when he says above that it is a nationally recognized Federal Holiday. It would really be like if you said “happy holiday” instead of “happy 4th of July” because you were afraid you might offend the British or something lol. I have respect for other people’s holidays and such, but I demand respect in return for the one’s I celebrate.

    Now back to this attack on Christians, I live here in the Detroit area, and the shooting here, which the family has clearly stated on the news was a domestic dispute, and was not an attack because of religious beliefs.

    The church arsons, as reported over at the Daily Kos are being blamed on gay people might be reponsible.

    Comment by republic of m — February 28, 2006 @ 2:13 am - February 28, 2006

  12. Keep in mind that many people responsible for “removing christmas” are supposed Christian business people who want to sell more goods during the holiday season (ie Walmart). The only time I heard about these in the media was when news outlets were reporting that these businesses had started switching Christmas to Holiday (BTW – I’m a liberal who believes Christmas is Christmas and trying to change it to holiday is silly – then again, Christmas already has less and less to do with the birth of Christ and more about selling goods in the last quarter of the year)

    Your indication that the church shooting had to do with “Anti-Christian leftists” is patently ludicrous. Even the article from Fox news indicates it was the result of a domestic dispute. Gimmee a break. It’s about on par with the story of criminals shooting judges/families of judges in their cases and then having Conservatives try to somehow to assign it as being retribution for liberal, activist judges. Puh-lease.

    PS – Interesting how the White House and Bush are under seige with regard to the Ports sale, yet the last topic put up about was a week ago (with the last posting to it 4 days ago). Bushy-boy wants to sell ports to a Dubai company that may have links to terrorists. Nice.

    Comment by Kevin — February 28, 2006 @ 6:04 am - February 28, 2006

  13. #5

    I never bought that “War on Christmas” phenomena.

    Ahh. So you’re auditioning for the role of the Baghdad Bob of the War on Christmas?

    #12

    Interesting how the White House and Bush are under seige with regard to the Ports sale, yet the last topic put up about was a week ago (with the last posting to it 4 days ago). Bushy-boy wants to sell ports to a Dubai company that may have links to terrorists. Nice.

    Perhaps he sees it as the Xenophobic pile of BS that it is.

    P.S. I wonder if you can explain the liberal mantra of a “cover up” since it’s been known about since last October.
    Also, it seemed like a good idea to sell an ass load of F-16s to the UAE by your pure as the driven snow, lord BJ. So what’s the problem now?
    Can you substantiate your claim that the UAE “may have links to terrorists”? Do they or don’t they?

    Nice, ass.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 6:30 am - February 28, 2006

  14. BTW, Kevin, will New Orleans returned the ass load of money they received from the UAE for Katrina aid? Surely they don’t want millions of dollars from a terrorist nation, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 6:32 am - February 28, 2006

  15. Besides, if it weren’t for the Port Snort, Big Media might have to report that investigators are crawling up Rockefeller’s ass with a microscope and we can’t have that.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 6:46 am - February 28, 2006

  16. Come on, are you seriosly asserting that their is no issue of civil liberties being stripped away in this country but there is an issue of a war against Christianity in this country. Have you not been reading the news. First of all there is a very clear threat to our civil liberties in this country by the Bush Admin, and second of all the Christian Rights has never had more rights.

    Women’s right to choose is once again being questioned in courts because of the Christian base, Gay marriage is not allowed because of the Christian base, we have a President who openly states that he is on a mission from God, and the Supreme Court, in a judgement that I applaud, just ruled that a Church (a Christian Church) had the right under the Constitution to use drugs to get closer to God.

    Please give me one shred of evidence that there is a war against Christians. You speak about a “war against Christmas” It is not a war against the religous aspect given to a Pagan holiday, it is simply people saying that the proper thing to do in a Public venue is to not exclude any religion. Around the time of Christmas many holidays fall and it is simply being polite to say Happy Holidays.

    As for the Church Fires, I have heard about them every night, and I live in the most Liberal state in the Union, California.

    As for the shooting, as many have stated it was a domestic dispute, it did not involve anybody against Christianity.

    As for the killing of a young Jewish man in France. When we start getting 24 hour coverage of all of the youths killed in this country over gang violence, or any coverage at all for that matter, then I will be willing to talk about giving coverage to a man killed in another country who happens to be Jewish.

    I hope you have a broad pen if you plan on connecting the dots between these stories.

    Comment by Bill American Patriot legion — February 28, 2006 @ 7:33 am - February 28, 2006

  17. The Jewish man was kidnapped for ransom and held for three weeks by Muslims who called his family so they could hear him scream while they cut him up and demanded money. He survived this for three weeks until they dumped him on some railroad tracks, alive. Does anyone know if the ransom was paid?

    Yup. A youth killed in gang violence. You’re so right, we shouldn’t care just because he was Jewish. How shallow of us when kids in the US are dying too.

    I don’t know that things are so bad for Christians in this country but there is a real… trend… to equate “tolerance” with “out of sight out of mind.” Tolerance isn’t asking everyone to take their religion out of the public square. Tolerance is inviting everyone out into the open in a big, chaotic, free-for-all. Intolerance is not wanting to be “offended” by someone elses religious words or clothing or practice. It’s as though we’re convinced black is white and white is black.

    It would be bad for the US to fall into this trap, or to slide farther than we have. Europe does it… they claim to be hyper tolerant, but what seems to be actual practice is to suppress speech that might imply otherwise. The biggest example is that holocost denial will get a person hard prison time in some countries. The anti-semitism doesn’t go away, it just doesn’t get talked about. Because it never gets talked about it never gets denounced or rebutted. They are “tolerant” of Moslems, but require the Moslem to conform or else. Moslem Europeans talk about having to chose between a veil and employment. Yet they are so *tolerant* that they won’t inflame issues by giving the religion of the extortionists, torturers and murders of that young Jewish man the recognition it requires. Maybe, if they just don’t talk about the Moslem part it will all go away?

    Comment by Synova — February 28, 2006 @ 10:59 am - February 28, 2006

  18. That’s a good question, Kevin; since you and your fellow Democrats say the UAE government supports terrorism, is hostile to the United States, and is populated by “the devil”, and as a result should have NO control whatsoever of any US assets because they will misuse them for terrorism and steal their technology………why DID you sell them some of the most advanced fighter planes, containing high-tech gear that could easily be converted for use by terrorists, that the United States produces?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - February 28, 2006

  19. NDT, unless we know for certain that UAE is not duplicitous like I suspect Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are, you bring up a very good question.

    Comment by Pat — February 28, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - February 28, 2006

  20. By golly, Bruce, I’m convinced you are baffy.

    America is dominated by Christianity. If it were mainstream Christianity, that might not be a problem. Unfortunately, too many of them are “evangelicals,” who haven’t a clue about anything other than what the “Bible says.” And these folk are no less scary than Muslim fundamentalists. And they are waging war against a very small minority, because of two verses they take out of context. And you’re concerned that there’s a progrom to destroy Christianity? Are you serious? Have your eyes covered with scales that they don’t see what these wingnuts are doing in God’s Name against GLBT? Their kind occupies the presidency, much of congress, and even SCOTUS. These Christians aren’t persecuted, they’re persecuting. Where have you been the past 20 years? Do Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, et alia ring any bells?

    Comment by Stephen — February 28, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - February 28, 2006

  21. Stephen – Go back and read Comment #17.

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 28, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - February 28, 2006

  22. And these folk are no less scary than Muslim fundamentalists.

    Really? I don’t see them stoning women or strapping on dynamite to murder people in pizza parlors.

    You’re a moonbat.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 28, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - February 28, 2006

  23. 14 & 18: Do you ever, for a single second, disagree with anything Bush says or supports? Another indication that people support fascism is when they claim their leaders can do no wrong and they forget that it’s the People and Constitution and the spirit of the nation they’re supposed to stand behind, not the leader of the day.

    Comment by Kevin — February 28, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - February 28, 2006

  24. Kevin, I know that I do not support everything that President Bush does, but why is it that you on the left can never support anything he does? You can’t tell me that every single thing he has done you totally disagree with?

    You talk about others who supposedly blindly follow him, but what about the left with Clinton? I didn’t hear any women’s groups condeming him with his alledged sexual harrasment. Any gay organizations complaining when he signed the DOMA or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (apologetics yes, but no one took a stand against him on it). So before you condemn others on their support of who they believe in, you might want to check your own side of the fence.

    Comment by republic — February 28, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - February 28, 2006

  25. Oh, so now Kevin says I’m a fascist because I never disagree with Bush.

    Facts obviously are unnecessary in his world.

    That would explain why he had such a bad reaction to being confronted with proof of how Democrats sold US weapons, aircraft, and computer technology to a government that they insist turns such technology to terrorist use.

    What makes it even worse is that the Democrats insisted that, in 2000, they “knew” about terrorism, in an attempt to blame the Bush administration for the 9/11 attacks. Yet these same Democrats now screaming sold F-16s with advanced avionics, weaponry, and airframe technology to this very same nation who they are now insisting sponsored the 9/11 attacks.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - February 28, 2006

  26. #22 – Hear, hear.

    But RWP, you see, he feels that the Christians he named are as abusive and threatening as the Islamo-fascists. And, since he and his like-mided friends are after all the center of the universe, and we do after all live in a Star Wars galaxy where subjective feelings count as actual cognition, facts or evidence because of the Force – well, that makes it so. Right?

    Comment by Calarato — February 28, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - February 28, 2006

  27. And it’s amazing to me that you can say in the same paragraph that there is no war on Christmas but it makes sense to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

    It makes perfect sense. There have always been nuts who object to this or that holiday. And the reason businesses started using “Happy Holidays” is so they would only have to print up one sign rather than one for each separate holiday. It saves money. This is Walmart, remember?

    And the “War on Christmas” hoopla last year wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that there was a book published by a right-wing pundit called “The War on Christmas” at about the same time would it? War on Christmas or marketing campaign?

    I report and connect the dots…. you decide.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — February 28, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - February 28, 2006

  28. #18 North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2006 @ 12:34 pm – February 28, 2006

    …why DID you sell them some of the most advanced fighter planes, containing high-tech gear that could easily be converted for use by terrorists, that the United States produces?

    This is a joke, right? From your link, I had been led to believe that the sale was being conducted by Lockheed Martin, with Northrup Grumman, and “hundreds of companies in 40 states” being sub-contractors. Perhaps you can tell us what Kevin had to do with the sale.

    Of course, it should be evident that this is nothing more than ignoring the warning that Eisenhower left us with regarding the military-industrial–and congressional–complex. The Gore announcement indicated that it was projected that the sale would provide an additional 100K man-years of employment at Lockheed, et al. The defense contractors have basically figured out how to get what they want from the US government, regardless of who is in charge, by distributing their sub- and sub-sub-contracting as far and wide among US states and localities as they could. Hundreds of companies in 40 countries? Give me a break.

    On the other side, it would be considerably naive to believe that any US politician would try to stop such a sale.

    On the other hand, just how many additional jobs would be expected by the DWP takeover of the 21 ports on the East and Gulf coasts? Probably zero.

    Comment by raj — February 28, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - February 28, 2006

  29. #27 Patrick (gryph) — February 28, 2006 @ 5:21 pm – February 28, 2006

    And the “War on Christmas” hoopla last year wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that there was a book published by a right-wing pundit called “The War on Christmas” at about the same time would it?

    It probably has more than a bit to do with the “siege mentality” that is characteristic of conservative christians–particularly in the US. It’s good for fund-raising by their self-appointed pharisees.

    Comment by raj — February 28, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - February 28, 2006

  30. Raj (#29) – yeh, and the Gay Left doesn’t resemble that remark at all right?

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 28, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - February 28, 2006

  31. Do you ever, for a single second, disagree with anything Bush says or supports?

    You badly need to take a basic reading comprehension course.

    But RWP, you see, he feels that the Christians he named are as abusive and threatening as the Islamo-fascists.

    Indeed. Liberal fear — and irrationality.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 28, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - February 28, 2006

  32. #30 GayPatriot — February 28, 2006 @ 5:30 pm – February 28, 2006

    yeh, and the Gay Left doesn’t resemble that remark at all right?

    Sorry, long ago, I came to the conclusion that “left” this and “left” that meant nothing more than “I don’t like.” This became clear to me while I was posting on FreeRepublic.com and was nailed when I was perusing the weblogs Dissecting Leftism http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/ and “Dads Against The Divorce Industry” (which apparently no longer exists), among others.

    You don’t like? Fine. As far as I’m concerned, it strains credulity to believe that a company like Walmart, headquartered in Benton Arkansas, would be telling its employees to say “happy holidays” instead of Merry Christmas because they are lefties. I might be persuaded otherwise, but I tend to doubt it.

    Maybe Walmart’s employees should be encouraged to greet patrons with something to the effect of “happy Mithras’s birthday celebration.” On the other hand, maybe they should just say “hi” or “welcome.”

    Comment by raj — February 28, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - February 28, 2006

  33. Nice avoidance of the truth, Raj. As Church Lady sez…. “How convenient.”

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 28, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - February 28, 2006

  34. 25: Well, pardon me because I don’t read every link to everything that everyone says on the entire web. just this little conservative corner of the world. please, feel free to link up here everything you’ve ever written on the web, I’m sure I’ll get round to it real soon.

    Comment by Kevin — February 28, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - February 28, 2006

  35. Do you ever, for a single second, disagree with anything Bush says or supports?

    Do you ever pay attention when we do disagree? No, because that would piss in your Cheerios and you wouldn’t have anything real to bitch about.

    That, or you’re just a lying POS.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - February 28, 2006

  36. #20

    Why is it nobody condemns the hatemongering of Louis Farrakhan or the extortions of the Revernnnnnd Jacksonnnnnnn?

    Why is it that Calypso Louis can make all kinds of mindless comments and it never makes the news, but anything Pat Robertson says gives the liberal media fodder for a week?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - February 28, 2006

  37. #27

    I report and connect the dots…. you decide.

    Problem is that there’s a dot that you conveniently (or ignorantly) left out. That is the fact that this isn’t anything new and it didn’t take Gibson’s book to expose it either.

    #28
    On the other hand, just how many additional jobs would be expected by the DWP takeover of the 21 ports on the East and Gulf coasts? Probably zero.

    Probably. Depends on what the unions allow for.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - February 28, 2006

  38. Gay Patriot (aka Bruce): Read a newspaper. Even in that bastion of liberalism, San Francisco, there are gay bashings. And guess who is doing most of them? Surprise? Religious fanatics!

    Did you miss the obvious reality that most Americans ARE Christian? The Prez is born again, and congress is filled with the Holy Spirit. And you REALLY think there is a progrom against Christians? It’s so laughable, who’s going to take you seriously again?

    As for the “War on Christmas,” your Furher was a part of that group! He sent “HOLIDAY Cards.” Gasp! America may be dominantly Christian, but that’s no reason to disrespect other religions. Business knows where to walk the line. I’m surprised this was, or even remains, an issue. Ever heard of pluralism?

    Probably more than any other post on this blog, this one proves the whole group of you are incestuously looney. Do you guys/gals know how preposterous all of this comes across? It’s bad enough that you walk the GWB party line, for reasons I cannot possibly fathom — either as a conservative, liberal, communitarian, libertarian, indeed, for ALL these reasons he’s none of these things. Even George Will and William F. Buckley have excommunicated this idiot. (Oh, in case you didn’t know, WFB founded American conservatism.) No queer in his right mind would or could endorse this idiot, which is why many of us Republicans rejoiced when Log Cabin wouldn’t endorse him. But all this aside.

    You REALLY want us to believe Christians are in jeopardy? The U.S. is the ONLY nation in which Christians predominate. Sadly for everyone, the kind of Christian that exists here is so removed from the historical Christianity that they are pitiful. If I hear another wingnut say, “but the Bible says,” well yes, the Bible says a lot of things, most of which can be contradicted from internal sources. But those appealing to the Bible, like Muslims, think it fell from the sky! They haven’t a clue how it evolved. They’re so silly, they actually think Jesus spoke King’s English and that the KJV is the literal truth. And as usual, they take ONE verse, John 3:16, and make it literal, and claim that all of John 6 is figurative. No wonder the alight on ONE verse from Leviticus and a couple of verses from Romans (which they don’t understand is a prologue to refute the very things they do in Romans 2). NO ONE takes these wingnuts seriously, because they’re batty. Even though they CONTROL our government, you seriously think Christianity is in jeopardy? It’s so incredulous as to defy even YOUR kind of reason.

    May I suggest you see “Brokeback Mountain.” Maybe that’ll open your eyes. I agree it’s not a masterpiece, but it is truth cut from whole cloth, which is more than I can say for you and your religious zealots.

    Comment by Stephen — February 28, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - February 28, 2006

  39. #28: Raj, one of these days you’ll realize that blaming everyone else for the follies and racism of your Democratic buddies just doesn’t fly anymore.

    Unfortunately, on that day, we’ll lose one of our best sources of entertainment.

    #34, Kevin: no, you’re NOT pardoned. Nor will you be until you admit you made a stupid and uninformed statement when you called me a fascist who never disagrees with Bush.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2006 @ 11:52 pm - February 28, 2006

  40. The only Christians in this country who have reasons to be worried are those of us who belong to (moderate) mainline Protestant denominations. The fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics trying to influence public policy to impose their beliefs upon the “public square” aren’t our friends.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 1, 2006 @ 12:26 am - March 1, 2006

  41. Man I love when a post gets like this, it is so fun to read the responses – lol 🙂

    Comment by republic of m — March 1, 2006 @ 12:42 am - March 1, 2006

  42. I know. 🙂

    Example: Stephen is clearly operating as a pure performance artist, at this point. I’m serious. Does anyone need the insanity spelled out of his telling Bruce he should see Brokeback Mountain? (How many times has Bruce posted on seeing BBM now?) No one could be that crazy. Stephen is clearly doing it to help us find laughter. Thank you, Stephen!

    Comment by Calarato — March 1, 2006 @ 3:03 am - March 1, 2006

  43. #40 – Jack, I notice you don’t care about leftist Christians imposing their values in the public square. Why is that?

    Their values are surely more destructive to America than anything being promoted by any conservative Christian denomination that is actually large enough to influence public policy (as you fear and claim).

    Example of what I mean: Some Episcopalians proclaiming Cindy Sheehan “a prophet”, and wanting the U.S. to abandon the war on (i.e., to surrender to) Islamo-fascism. Now that‘s a threat to America. I find it passing strange, that that gets no notice or comment (much less ire) from you.

    Another example: All those left-liberal Christians who actively promote socialism.

    Comment by Calarato — March 1, 2006 @ 3:08 am - March 1, 2006

  44. (in case any lefty third party needs it spelled out: Your philosophy of socialism equals the destruction of human lives; just look at the drug- and welfare-dependent poor of this nation. Not to mention the destruction of nations, and Freedom itself. Now that’s evil in our time – second only to the Islamo-fascists, whom some of you are BTW surprisingly sympathetic to.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 1, 2006 @ 3:17 am - March 1, 2006

  45. #39 North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2006 @ 11:52 pm – February 28, 2006

    Raj, one of these days you’ll realize that blaming everyone else for the follies and racism of your Democratic buddies just doesn’t fly anymore.

    More blather from a loon. I gather that, since you can’t address the issue that I raised directly, you resort to namecalling and raising a completely irrelevant issue.

    Comment by raj — March 1, 2006 @ 7:50 am - March 1, 2006

  46. #33 GayPatriot — February 28, 2006 @ 6:11 pm – February 28, 2006

    Nice avoidance of the truth, Raj.

    The truth? As in your contention that the two news reports you linked to “Officials Say They’re Close to Cracking Arson Case” and “Man Kills, Wounds Mother and Child in Church” (the Mark Steyn article that you linked to is not a news report; Steyn is an itiotorialist) have anything to do with “leftists” that you referred to in your title. As has been pointed out, the latter refers to a domestic dispute, and the motivation and politics of the perpetrators in the former are unknown since they have not been apprehended. What do either of these have to do with “leftists”? Apparently, you have trouble handling “the truth.”

    And apparently you like making use of bumper-sticker clap trap rhetoric. That shows through.

    Comment by raj — March 1, 2006 @ 7:51 am - March 1, 2006

  47. Calarato (#42) – Yeh, Stephen is quite a deranged humorist, no?

    He even helps make MY point from a few weeks ago that anti-gay attitudes and gay-bashings are more prevalent in Blue States.

    HAHAHAHA. Is there a dose-adjusting doctor in the house??

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - March 1, 2006

  48. #47 GayPatriot — March 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm – March 1, 2006

    He (Stephen) even helps make MY point from a few weeks ago that anti-gay attitudes and gay-bashings are more prevalent in Blue States.

    I didn’t see that. Upon what evidence did you base your conclusion?

    Comment by raj — March 1, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - March 1, 2006

  49. More blather from a loon. I gather that, since you can’t address the issue that I raised directly, you resort to namecalling and raising a completely irrelevant issue.

    It’s really kind of hard to address an irrational screed.

    You see, Raj doesn’t like the fact being exposed that he and his fellow Democrats

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - March 1, 2006

  50. “Why is it nobody condemns the hatemongering of Louis Farrakhan”

    Because it has been done to death. There is nothing left to say about what a POS he is. The MSM basically took him apart just by reporting on him, like a dog carrying something with its lips curled back. You can easily have missed it because it was very understated, but he slit his own throat in public a long time ago.

    Comment by Jim — March 1, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - March 1, 2006

  51. “Example of what I mean: Some Episcopalians proclaiming Cindy Sheehan “a prophet”, and wanting the U.S. to abandon the war on (i.e., to surrender to) Islamo-fascism. Now that’s a threat to America. I find it passing strange, that that gets no notice or comment (much less ire) from you.”

    I for one am glad it gets ignored. it should just be allowed to drop like a stone. It’s doesn’t deserve an answer because it goes unnoticed even among Episcopalians.

    Comment by Jim — March 1, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - March 1, 2006

  52. Agree, and that’s how I feel about the religious conservative stuff as well.

    It just doesn’t make sense to me that somebody else, who makes a whole point of noticing and commenting on the one (the religious conservatives), wouldn’t then equally notice and comment on the other as well (the religious liberals / religious anti-Americans).

    Comment by Calarato — March 1, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - March 1, 2006

  53. Calarato, #43, no I don’t agree with a lot of positions taken by the Christian left. I don’t even agree with every position my own denomination takes.

    Sure, the Episcopalians are being foolish to have anything to do with Cindy Sheehan. But, be realistic, that’s mainly a lot of hot air. They aren’t going to change the policy in Iraq; they aren’t going to increase the threat to America.

    On the other hand, the religious right is achieving some of its goals It is influencing policy decisions in state legislatures, local school boards, etc., and has far too much clout with the Republican leadership in both the House of Representatives and U. S. Senate.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 1, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - March 1, 2006

  54. #38

    Do you even know what you just said there?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 2, 2006 @ 6:48 am - March 2, 2006

  55. “republic” (#24) writes: “You talk about others who supposedly blindly follow [President Bush], but what about the left with Clinton?” The left, it is claimed, would never criticize Clinton, never take him to task for the Lewinsky debacle or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    I suppose Thomas Frank writing that Clinton’s presidency was “fatal” for the democrats, and therefore disastrous for the entire nation wouldn’t qualify as criticism, then? Frank doesn’t worship Bill Clinton because he’s a liberal (or a leftist, as you would have it)–no, it’s precisely because Frank’s a liberal (or leftist, as you would have it) that he takes issue with Clinton. It’s clear that Frank feels that, if he didn’t take issue with Clinton, it would be a sign that Frank agreed with Clinton’s “abandonment of his party’s traditional economic liberalism and his embrace of the Reagan economic agenda.” To sum it up simply for you, letting Clinton off the hook would be, in Frank’s opinion, abandoning liberalism.

    Apparently the Leftists over at The Nation never criticized Clinton. We are informed that no one took a stand against Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy: but the Nation clearly stated before Clinton left office that the policy was “disastrous” precisely because it served as a form a harassment against gays: “one of the principal spurs to [sexual] harassment [in the military]: the policy on gays in the military, popularly known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” with the blame placed squarely on Bill Clinton’s shoulders. (At the same time, by the way, “George Bush declared in the primary debates that ‘I’m a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell man,’ while John McCain likewise supported the current policy because it’s ‘working.'”)

    Clinton was also often criticized in The Nation for having abandoned the liberal agenda of protecting the poor and standing up for the little guy, such as in this piece, “Clinton’s Lost Presidency.” Again, it’s precisely because of the liberal perspective that Clinton’s criticized. the article says, if you’re a Democrat standing up for him on these issues, you are betraying your principles as a Democrat. The same article also criticizes Clinton’s support of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because it was an example of the way in which Clinton’s advancement of “controversial social positions [was] usually [carried out] in a self-protecting manner that was less than courageous.”

    The Nation recently wrote of Clinton’s lie about Lewinsky as “the most costly mistake Clinton ever made […] a betrayal of both his closest supporters and many of his own most deeply held personal and political aspirations.”

    …oh, and PS, so far I’m not sure the ones bombing those churches are ” The Violent Anti-Christian Leftists”… We’ll have to wait until all the facts are in, but for now, “Gov. Bob Riley said after the arrests that the arsons did not appear to be ‘any type of conspiracy against organized religion’ or the Baptist faith.

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 9, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - March 9, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.