An attack on Christianity

An attack on Christianity

: The Catholic archbishop of Mosul has been kidnapped. The Vatican called it an act of terrorism. I wondered whether they have called the attacks on others there terrorism — they have.

  • dries

    let’s all sit down & await the screams of indignation that are to come from muslims incensed at this act of terrorism.

  • Not on topic — my apologies — but I wanted to play it high where conversationalists might see it … I was just pondering, what would April 1968 have been like if there had been a blogosphere to react to the shooting of Martin Luther King. Historical blogging … hmmm.

  • Even though I’m a Catholic in bad standing, I have to admit that the Vatican adopts a fairly consistent stand towards killing of any kind – be it via terrorism, war, murder, capital punishment, or abortion.*
    How that admirable stance trickles down into blatant hypocrisy at the parochial level (Right-wing Catholics against abortion but for the death penalty and vice versa with Catholics on the Left) is beyond me.
    * Of course, standard disclaimer for saying anything good about the Catholic Church applies: Crusades and Inquisition bad. Enabling of Holocaust bad. Molesting of little boys bad.

  • Kat

    Crusades good–if it were not for them, I may be bonking my head 5 times daily. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam

  • John

    Michael Moore’s Minutemen at it again, fighting for freedom against the chokehold of Christianity.

  • dries

    here we go again….crusades. ( which themselves were a belated european counterattack to wars waged by muslims since 650s). by the way, isn’t 900 years a time long enough to get over something bad? people in poland & hungary don’t keep on whining about mongol invasion of 1241. i hope muslims & their friends adopt same attitide.
    oodja – so what is your stand on low status of women in muslim societies(, stoning of gays, genital mutilation, amputations for minor offences, oppression of other religions etc as practised NOW in most of muslim countries?
    good point Kat – wherever muslims show up, other religions tend to vanish

  • Jim S

    While the crusades are a little far back in time to get incensed about, they weren’t defensive wars, Kat. The survival of Christianity was not at stake. And it’s good to see you expressing your raging bigotry again. Not.

  • Kat

    So it wasn’t defensive and Christians should have allowed themselves to be dhimniized–just like Sudan today. That must make people like you happy to see those animists and Christians eradicated or forced into becoming islamized and no defensive action.
    Crusades were in retaliation of 600 years of Jihad. The Christians were in danger of being wiped out–NOT muslims. Crusades – From 1096 AD until 1270 AD was an attempt to retake (formerly Christian) Palestine. The Jihad continued for 1,300 years. It was an attempt to occupy Europe, Asia and Africa, and then Islamicize them. W always hear about
    the horrible Christians and the Christian
    Crusades but why do we not hear of the
    Muslim capture of Jerusalem from the Christians in 638 AD, or of the capture of Spain about 70 years later, or of thesubsequent800 year occupation?
    It was the continuous jihading and the success of Jihad against Europe that forced Pope Urban II to call for the first Crusade in 1095 AD. Islam was hell bent on islamizing the world and turning Christians into dhimnis as yourself. It was like the war on terror today–fight or you’ll be wearing a cloth on your head with peepholes. Look at what happened to the Assyrians and Armenians as no defensive war was fought. Call it defense or call it offense, I’d rather kill terrorists before they kill me.
    It’s good to see you expressing your raging bigotry against Christians as your head is stuck up some terrorist’s butthole.

  • Aha! My attempt to forstall a flame war actually ended up causing one. Whoops…
    Dries – I’m 100% against all forms of religious-inspired stupidity. So… Sharia bad. Genital mutilation bad. Cutting off hands to punish theft bad. Capital punishment for homosexuals bad.
    As for the Crusades, I don’t really have an ax to grind, except for the results of the Fourth Crusade. Being a teacher of Greek, I’m particularly saddened that the loss of many ancient Greek manuscripts from antiquity was a direct result of the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders in 1204. Unlike Western Europeans, who seemed to delight in the destruction of pagan literature during the Middle Ages – religious intolerance bad – Greek Christians didn’t dare burn the books of their ancestors, which they rightly deemed valuable by virtue of their eloquence alone.
    So yes, Crusades bad. Besides, I would rather have lived under Islam around the 12th-13th century than the competing versions of Christianity kicking around at that time. Just because the Arabs are all nutty now doesn’t mean they didn’t know how to do civilization – and do it right – back in the day.

  • Kat,
    I’m sorry you think the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the child molestation scandal, but you’re clearly in the minority on this one. Pedophile gays or what have you, the Church was aware of what was going on for decades, and Catholic officials kept their silence about it while thousands of lives were ruined forever. Do you know anyone who’s been molested as a child? They never recover.
    So spare me the lecture about anti-Christian “bigotry”, will ya? When religions stop allowing stupid shit to go down on their watch (and with their blessing), then maybe I’ll have a little more respect for the institution of faith. This applies to all religions, too. I don’t discriminate in that regard!

  • Eileen

    In Defense of Kat For All Time (not that she needs any help):
    To anyone here who wishes to lock horns on matters of Shari’a Jihadist underpinnings, I suggest you not go there with Kat. This brand of Islam is the only ‘fringe’ element of any religion I am aware of on the face of the globe that seeks dominion over all, and death for those who do not adopt it – which includes Every Single American who isn’t already a Jihadist or who didn’t accept UBL’s kind ‘offer’ to us to do so quite some time ago.
    I am opposed to fringe elements in all religions and also political parties. In this case, we actually have a fusion between American fringe MM lefties (and arguably MSM as active aiders and abetters in terms of what they choose to report, and what Not to report) with our Enemy! I still cannot fathom that Any American would wittingly choose to do so. Are they blind, deaf and dumb or in self-destruct mode? And in the case of MSM, it’s on behalf of the rest of us whether we like it or not. What absolute idiots. All in an effort to try and create a real Teddy Viet Nam and try to save face for the party which already lost it’s face. Not at the expense of My skin, by God.
    Immediately after my arrival around here, Kat provided one of the most in-depth treatises I have ever encountered related to the specific wacko tenets of our Enemy, these lovely Islamic terrorists. Furthermore, she consistently provides links which are not only educational but also thorough and from reliable sources. I missed reading one, and ending up recommending a site she’d already given here.
    Anyone who wants to get into a chicken v. egg discussion re who’s the aggressor in our war on terror is wasting my time. The issue tonight is not about ancient transgressions of Catholics or Christians. It’s about another present day – Today! – barbaric kidnapping/likely beheading, where the Enemy is upping the ante even further by taking a Catholic archbishop. Add in other news of the day here at home, the slaughter of an entire Egyptian born, Christian family in N.J. – probably because the guy spoke out against Islam on a web site (although this is not yet confirmed) – and even you, Jim S., should probably take a little pause.
    Kat ain’t the Enemy here, and I get sick of people immediately getting nasty whenever she expresses anger at the Real Enemy we’re at war against, right here, right now. She’s helping the rest of us understand exactly who we’re fighting against. Why not try expending a little time reading her links rather than hurling insults her way.

  • Kat

    I do blame those of the Catholic Church who harbored the pedophiles and moved them to different parishes–Boston had a nice gay club going with a NAMBLA member as bishop. If you allow pedophile NAMBLA gays into your parrish, you will get burned. They did. Hope they will think twice about ordaining gay priests . I threatened to hold back my diocesan appeal $ unless Bishop Shandley was fired. I wrote the Pope and expressed my outrage–I’m sure he read my mail:):). I was ashamed of those perverted creeps. I do not condone or do I excuse them–they can rot in jail for all I care. I did not call them a few fanatics and accuse critics of bigotry. I denounced them for the criminals that they are.
    Tell me, oodja, how you feel about atheist regimes–butchers like Mao Zedong, Pol Pot,Stalin, Enver Hoxha,etc. who killed and slaughtered their own people at an unheard-of rate.

  • pele

    God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
    Jesus’ brother James said that. I think if they removed all the other stuff out of the bible there would a lot less room for confusion.

  • Jim

    The pawn made it across the board, the Bishop was set free.

  • Kat,
    For the record I’m opposed to any sort of ideological violence, but it’s important not to confuse atheism with theomachism. Atheism is just a neutral “religious” stance, whereas theomachism (the term used by the Orthodox Church to describe the Soviet Union’s hostility towards organized religion) is the active persecution of religious believers for their beliefs. Theomachists like Mao or Stalin are no different in my book than jihadis, Crusaders, or any other religious/ideological group who inflicted their beliefs on others by means of violence.
    In short, while I think it’s admirable to be willing to die for one’s beliefs (in the defense of an ideal like liberty, e.g.), people who are willing to kill for those beliefs are part of the problem, regardless of whether those beliefs are religious or ideological in nature.

  • lindenen

    So oodja thinks it’s admirable to die for one’s beliefs and not fight or kill for one’s beliefs? How is this not suicide?