I don’t. In fact, one of the people I love most in this world, considers herself such a Muslim and I had her in mind when I typed that one. “Derogatory” is a concept you’ve brought in.

I would strongly suggest one read some of the sermons of Urban II relative to…

Listen to yourself, NDT. One of the sermons of Urban II. Not one of the sermons of Jesus. Not one of the sermons of Mark, Luke, John, ‘Peter, Paul or Mary’, James the brother of the Lord, Origen, Athanasius, any of the Clements, Augustine… I could go on.

Further: as it happened, the sermons of Urban II and many others who preached the Crusades, carefully included background information about the centuries of Muslim attacks, raping and pillaging of Europe. It is simply not fair to attempt to understand (or comment on) the Crusades, apart from that background.

You also haven’t addressed the point of Mohammed’s example that is built into Islam, as contrasted to Jesus’ example built into Christianity. Nor the issue of Quranic texts. But the latter is my fault, because I haven’t typed them in (and am not going to, here). Trust me: Learn about what it says. Then look at the total picture of what it tells Muslim believers, vs. the alleged harsh / warlike texts of the Christian Testament.

In a derogatory fashion, ILC.

Furthermore, I would strongly suggest one read some of the sermons of Urban II relative to what one would receive in exchange for killing Muslims in battle and retaking Jerusalem before one starts pointing fingers about Muslims promising heavenly rewards for militant behavior on earth.

Relative to Robert Spencer’s work, the problem I have with him is identical to the problem I have with people like Thomas who take a quote from the Bible and then attempt to extrapolate it to all Christians, all the time — and then who, when Christians vehemently deny that, claim that it’s because they’re “covering up” what they truly believe.

Comparing modern Islam to Crusades-era Christianity is perfectly apt, and hardly indicts Christianity; indeed, the fact that the majority of Christians today would find the means and rhetoric of the Crusades era to be deplorable and wholly intolerant is a statement on how far Christianity has progressed.

But flipping over to the other side and ignoring the fact that there are Muslims who are not Eric Rudolph equivalents…

I have not done so. Kindly represent my arguments fairly. I pointedly identified 2 kinds of Muslim who aren’t Eric Rudolph equivalents.

What needs to be kept in mind is that modern-day Islam is roughly at the point that Christianity in general was in the Crusades, in which the Eric Rudolph thinking dominated….

Western-hating liberals have taught us to think so. The Crusades were somewhat more of a defensive conflict – a “let’s take the war to the enemy” type of conflict, like, you know, Afghanistan and Iraq? – than is commonly understood today. Muslims attacked, raped and pillaged all over Europe for centuries preceeding the Crusades. Interestingly, during the 100+ years that Crusader states existed in the Middle East, Muslim attacks on Europe fell off somewhat. (Think there’s a connection?) They resumed with a vengeance – think of the Turks – after Europe unwisely abandoned the Crusader states.

I take the Bible’s calls to its equivalent forms and warfare as spiritual…

Oh, where to begin? How to keep it brief?

Nowhere does the Christian Testament lay out “crusading” as one of the top five duties, and really *the* top duty, of a Christian. By contrast, the Quran lays out “jihad” as one of the top five duties – and really *the* top duty – of an observant Muslim. And promises them 72 virgins if they manage to die in battle. And on, and on, and on.

There are MANY other points I could make in this connection. I would love to get into the specific texts, from both books. The Quranic quotes (suras) must be read, to be believed. But out of respect for Bruce, I will stop. Just consider reading this book for some quick, introductory info. If you haven’t done so, also consider reading the Quran proper; click here for a good and respected translation.

Only if you allow others to call Eric Rudolph a “Christian soldier”.

Show me a Muslim who says otherwise, i.e. that even military-age males should take jihad as inner struggle, and I will show you one of 2 things. Either (1) a Muslim who is consciously non-traditional and universalist, or (2) a Muslim who simply does not want to admit to the contents of their own holy book.

Fine and dandy. Which do you want to call me, since I take the Bible’s calls to its equivalent forms and warfare as spiritual, versus those like Eric Rudolph who interpret them literally as physical?

What needs to be kept in mind is that modern-day Islam is roughly at the point that Christianity in general was in the Crusades, in which the Eric Rudolph thinking dominated. What we would call modern Christianity, with its emphasis on individual spiritual development and choice, was hundreds of years and a Reformation away.

Your reaction is understandable; gay leftist and Democrat hostility towards Christianity is obvious, and a common tactic of theirs is to compare Christianity to Islam without inserting that historical perspective and obvious development over time.

But flipping over to the other side and ignoring the fact that there are Muslims who are not Eric Rudolph equivalents, or even criticizing them in order to condemn Islam as a whole, is just as bad. These are the people who we need to cultivate, inasmuch as they are the ones who will ultimately have to drag Islam kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages — and because they are among Osama bin Laden and his ilk’s top targets.

I thought it was Sclamazel. Can we get a ruling from GPW?

I remember watching Garry Marshall on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn. Craig asked him “Which is worse, schlameel or schlamazel?”. Garry explained what each meant (I forget now) and said schlamazel was worse.

[GP Ed. Note - You missed his repeated violation of our community terms of conduct and my repeated warnings to him. Not surprising you missed it since you have done the same thing from time to time. Luckily for you... you are still here. This isn't DailyKos here... we try to maintain respect and dignity in our comments, arturo.]

“Give us any chance, we’ll take it. Give us any rule, we’ll break it…”

Also – I was waiting for some libtard to start mean-mouthing Cpl Sanchez and his forays into porn. Of course, to the GayLeftLibBorg, it is not hypocritical to denounce a patriot who happens to be gay while at the same time embracing the likes of Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and others with questionable ethics (paging Bill Clinton…).

Regards,
Peter H.

PS – I am in Milwaukee this week for a conference. No, I haven’t seen the Schotz Brewery yet, but I did strut down W. Wisconsin Avenue in my best “Laverne and Shirley” imitation. (“Schlemiel, Schlamazo, Hasenpfeffer Incorporated…”)

is anyone else repulsed that the army’s apparently not going to do anything to this scott beauchamps guy? I mean, via, we prosecuted Tokyo Rose didn’t we? Isn’t this much worse?

Yes, and so is leaking and publishing national security secrets, and so is stealing national security documents, stuffing them in your underwear and destroying them so the people can never know the truth.

Apparently prosecuting treason is now politically incorrect.

To a Liberal, “open-minded” means “agrees with me unequivocally on all things political and cultural.”

See also bipartisan

As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.

I take no position on it; I’m only repeating it.

I don’t know if you’ve already quoted where Sanchez says this about Beauchamp:

Having spent the past three months in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would much prefer to to show you, with examples, how and why I believe the “Baghdad Diarist” allegations were wrong rather than resort to personal attacks.

Like all Americans, Private Beauchamp is entitled to his opinions, and his enlistment in the Armed Forces is laudable.

Classy.

A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”

It’s been my personal observation that the Liberals have also hijacked the plain meaning of the expression “open-minded.” To a Liberal, “open-minded” means “agrees with me unequivocally on all things political and cultural.” By way of example, on at least a handful of occasions when a Liberal has discovered that I don’t share their views of the world (gasp!), they end all discussion of the issue by telling me I’m not “open-minded” and running in the opposite direction. Of course, the “issue” is typically a political one that THEY BROUGHT UP with pronouncements containing the words “war for oil,” “9/11 was an inside job” or “impeachment.” Accordingly, if you respond to these pronouncements with anything less than ecstatic agreement and solidarity (i.e. by attempting to engage in reasoned discourse like rational adults), you don’t have an “open mind.” See also, “close-minded.”

1 – By posting the on-the-ground information from Matt Sanchez, I am making no judgment on his stance on gay issues. That is probably fodder for a post of its own.

2 – Why is Sanchez any less of a bad messenger of factual information (since he is on the ground and has quotes from real-life, actual Army officials) than the NY Times who hired plagarists, TNR who hired an anti-war lib to be embedded and invent stories, and CBS News which invented documents to try to throw an election?

What I discussed in my previous post is the content of the Hebrew Testament and I seriously doubt it records the history of the last 60 years…

“A classic Christian-hater’s misquote. Jesus was telling a story; He was speaking in the voice and context of one of the characters in the story. Christian-haters classically refuse to learn or respect that.”

Really? Let’s take a look at Matthew Henry’s opinion on the matter in his classic Commentary on the Whole Bible: “Those that will not have Christ to reign over them shall be reputed and dealt with as his enemies. We are ready to think that none are Christ’s enemies but persecutors of Christianity, or scoffers at least; but you see that those will be accounted so that dislike the terms of salvation, will not submit to Christ’s yoke, but will be their own masters. Note, Whoever will not be ruled by the grace of Christ will inevitably be ruined by the wrath of Christ.” Well, I suppose that interpretation makes poor Matthew Henry a “Christian-hater”…