[Ymani Cricket]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,"

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages.

[Critter]

It sounds awfully tongue in cheek to me. I don't see what the uproar is all about.

[Conservative til I die]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages.

Unfortunately, if the damn 1st Amendment wasn't in the way, some of the Christian folk on FR would gladly try it, no doubt in an effort to trigger the "rapture" or some other poppycock.

[ValerieUSA]

You can't put those countries BACK to the Dark Ages - they never left.

[ladyinred]

Okay, she did not say forced conversion. She said, "convert them to Christianity" which is not the same thing as "forcing" them to do anything. That is just a Christian term and not offensive if you understand the meaning.

Great freepname btw.!

[RobbyS]

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages. Heck, we did it to the Japanese: I mean forced conversion from Shintoism to democracy. You remember the first step. In return for saving his own neck, Hirohito recanted his claims to divinity!

[Britton J Wingfield]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,"

I was under the impression that forced conversion was one of the Taliban's major transgressions. We want to emulate that? Not a chance.

Ann has simply lost it.

[Texas Mom]

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages

Son of a gun.. Did you really see the word "forced". I just saw "convert"

[antidisestablishment]

Sheesh, you have no sense of poetic (literary) license. It was simply a provocative statement meant to contrast the PC bilge coming out of everywhere else. Get a life!

[OriginalIntent]

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages.

There it is again. I have seen this accusatory presumption many times.

I did not see anything about Forced Conversion to anything.

I have heard many liberals jump to the same conclusion.

This conclusion is usually reserved to those who have an unnatural fear of proselytizing of any kind.

I never assumed she meant forced converstion, therefore I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Since I usually agree with true traditional American conservatives, I do not have a default mechanism set up that automatically assumes the worst meaning from the mouth of a Christian conservative.

I think we should give this ally the benefit of the doubt.

I presume what she really meant was that we need to get rid of the murderers who keep these people away from the truth; that keep these people in the bondage of a false religion that will produce yet more terrorists in the future.

Ann was rightly getting directly to the root of the problem; the leaders will kill anyone who would attempt to give them a chance to hear the tenets of biblical Christianity, so they are stuck with this religion of terrorism that they have. You have to get rid of the Osama bin Ladens

Her sentiments are much like General Douglas MacArthur's at the end of World War 2; he pushed hard to send as many Christian missionaries as possible to Japan to replace the anscestor and emperor worship that was the existing religion (their leaders were already either dead or powerless). He saw this religion as inferior to Christianity and also as a reason for their aggression.

She is just wanting to get rid of the underlying problem, the religion of following the koran as it is written.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages

A tad bit over the top, admittedly, but nothing that the communist religion, and various muslim countries don't already do.  Not to mention the slavery also practiced by some of these "muslim" nations.

[pgkdan]

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages.

It would bring the islamics up a couple of generations just to get them to the dark ages.