Posted on 09/19/2006 1:42:14 AM PDT by LibWhacker
President Bush told a group of radio talk show hosts that the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion.
Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher. He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.
Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”
“Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session,” Coulter said after his introduction.
Indeed.
Still, if Bush said what Gallagher said he did, he’s right. Islam is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle. But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general.
It’s no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Coulter.
Have you read the comments, was your post improperly addressed, or was there some sort of cultural misunderstanding?
Actually, as a couple of other posters pointed out, you never have an "off the record" meeting unless you want the information leaked immediately but not necessarily to be firmly attributable. Bush would have known perfectly well that somebody was going to say something, and say it almost immediately.
Right versus wrong is exactly, and I mean exactly, how the Islamists see it. We see suicide attacks as wrong. They can go on for hours about how the West is corrupt, slothful, lazy, lustful, and any other evil you can name.
You don't need to tell them about right and wrong. That's the only concept they understand. What could be more right than doing the will of God, even if it leads to your own death? What could be more wrong than opposing the will of God, and attempting to stop the true believers who are trying to save your soul?
Mr. President, Islamists understand right and wrong, in the context that Islam allows. Good versus evil is their every waking breath.
Under Islamic belief, we are evil. Framing the debate in this light will be seen as more lies of the Great Satan, the father of lies, who turns truth on it's head. They won't buy it for an instant. So long as their frame of reference for good and evil is Islam, not Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, there will be no understanding. They will see us, and correctly in the context of their beliefs, as evil.
Why should they negotiate with evil? What's there to say?
?????????????????????????
No pal, the statement was Muslims are aiding us.
I asked an honest question and your retort indicates the obvious - NONE.
Interesting. I wonder if he hand-picked Gallagher for the task.
I've always thought Gallagher was creepy and quite the opportunist.
Rummenigge, are you using something which fits culturally in German society, or are you drunk (this post is not intended to be rude)? Some of your responses are not exactly compatible with the comment to which they are supposed to be responses.
I was referring to these muslims you said were rioting against cristendom and danish pastry in general...
should have made that clear - sorry.
So please understand my posting as it was ment - a support for you demand to think and differenciate.
I would like to know what the president meant by that. It's kind of disheartening. I hope he didn't mean, "If it comes down to Christianity and Islam, Islam will win."
EXACTLY! Thank you.
LLS
That's true, so long as the number of Muslims in any country don't rise too high.
Where Islam differs from Christianity or any other religion is the earthly application. While medieval Christians were part of local and state governments, there's no scriptural backing for that kind of fusion. They just did it, and it caused horrific problems in the long run. The further away 'Christians' got from biblical teachings, the more rooted in earthly governing they became.
Islam, on the other hand, demands that the state and the mosque be interconnected. The only Muslims that don't are ones that don't follow Quranic teachings. Basically, our only allies in this are lapsed Muslims.
So, if you told medieval Christians to read the Bible and get back to their roots, and that would lead them away from extremism. If you tell Muslims to read the Quran and get back to their roots, it will lead them to it.
That is why the 'good versus evil' line will fail us. We don't agree on the ground rules.
With all due respect, I cannot agree. Theocracy is such an arrangement of society when both the legislative and the executive functions of the state are conducted by the religious hierarchy. Just that.
When Christians reject gay marriage, it's because such institution contradicts the tenets of their creed. If it so happened that the given Christian, but not theocratic country, had a government stupid enough to introduce gay marriage through the law, the Christians would be very unhappy but powerless to stop it.
Islam is not a cult its a GANG.. even gang(s)...
Of course we attacked Japan because they attacked us, but if was not religious on the part of Japan, why are there limitations written into their post WWII constitution prohibiting members of government from participating in certain Shinto practices? And why did we require it be written into their constitution?
It didn't matter an iota that our response was not based on religion. Japan's war was based upon the Shinto religious teachings that began in the 1860's when Shinto was made the official religion, and all the population was required to accept Shinto education.
... but they won't fight out of any passion to protect Christianity.
I hope so. I certainly don't want to go to a war with people who have a passion to do so. We are no wackos here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.