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.
..."Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to"...
I agree with your insight. Political correctness or communism is no different than what we see with any pattern of abuse in families or anywhere else. The goal always is to control and silence the victim through abuse which isolates and punishes anyone who would speak the truth. It is institutionalized abuse of a population. These patterns isolate people from one another so that nothing can be resolved. A population suffering from this exists in a high level of grief..
Terrorism knows no religious or political boundaries. The fact that the current enemies are Muslim simply means that there happen to be a lot of them, but not all Muslims are the enemy. If we turn this into "Christians versus Miuslims," then what do we say to those hundreds of thousands of pro-American Iranians who live in the U.S.?
Theocrat is my term.
Fish's thesis is way more complex than what I can reproduce here. And he in no way makes any moral equivelent between Fundementalists Christians and Fundementalists Muslims.
But when Christians oppose gay marriage because of "God's Will," "God's nature," or the "Bible says so." Like it or not that's an attempt at theoracy.
Secularists, he uses in the broadest term possible, basically anybody who doesn't want the local preacher making and interpreting the laws is a secularist.
1 billion jihadis?
Nuclear weapons, changing that number 500,000 at a time.
Brutal, I know. but if it ever came to that, numbers would not matter for more than 90 minutes.
Wage war to crush.
We attacked Japan because they attacked us. It wasn't religious. This is a fight over their idea of suppression over our idea of freedom. Nothing more, nothing less. The terrorists are using their faith in a moon rock to justify their actions. We are just trying to kill them before they can kill us. Otherwise we are just as bad as they are if you drag God into the conversation.
This does not mean we will lose the WOT; he's speaking of something larger.
"Terrorism is wrong. Plain and simple."
The War Against Wrong. (??)
I'm stuck on the Rush thing. He couldn't make it? What did he have to do that's more important than meet the President?
There were muslims who betrayed their terrorist bombmakers and aided us greatly in this war. There are Shiites who were, and will be again, our allies against the madmen ruling Iran. It was muslims in the Northern Alliance who played a key role in destroying the Taliban.
Why?
Because of their values.
Bush is right.
If it's all about Christianity vs. Islam there's almost twice as many Christians as there are Muslims, plus we're better educated and better armed.
And, I would predict that if "it's all about Christianity vs. Islam," the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc., will hang with the Christians rather than the Muslims.
"Our war with Japan was a religious war. The Shinto religion, at the time the official state religion of Japan, was used to make war on other nations and enslave people."
At times of war people call on their Gods. In the second world war the Italians, Germans, Brits and Americans all prayed to the same God for help. I think, most people of faith will reflect on this caution from the President.
Pope Benedict and President Bush have said things a little differently but the meaning is the same. It is about values, modernity and reason. This is the ultimate battle for hearts and minds. This battle cannot be won by a military campaign. Do we look to find understanding and moderation in the Muslim world or do we commit ourselves to a hundred years of war?
No, saying that gay "marriage" is wrong is not an attempt to impose theocracy. It is a simple question of right and wrong; that is, what human beings were made for and in what framework we and our society exist. Rejecting any moral or ethical conditions on social life grants the state has the right to make ultimate decisions about human nature and leaves us totally vulnerable to the will of the state. People like Peter Singer, who say that the expediency of the state permits the killing of handicapped children, are the ultimate extension of this.
It is very important to keep these words straight, because "theocracy" does not mean a society that is influenced by religious beliefs or moral principles based on religion (as ours is, even in the fundamental assumptions of our Constitution), but one that is totally governed by a religion and where the religious law is also the secular law (as in the case of Islam). Christians do not advocate having the local preacher making or interpreting the laws, and it is dishonest of Fish to imply that they do.
World War 2 definitely was not based upon religion, although--for the Japanese--religion had a role (determination to defend the emperor). The Japanese-American conflict was simply political-economic.
That would be murder and genocide as it is not defensive. The fact is there are not one billion Muslims out to kill Americans.
There may be more than 1 billion Muslims, but there's more than 2 billion Christians. And more than 4 billion everybody else.
I'd say they were outnumbered.
"we'd better not drive off nonchristian allies."
Or the nearly 1 billion Hindus to the east of Pakistan, or the several hundred million Buddhists of SE Asia.
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.