Posted on 10/02/2001 9:14:04 AM PDT by truthandlife
It was reading the sober, wry essays in NR that turned me into a conservative; by comparison, everything on the left seemed like shrill, hateful billingsgate. NR's studious avoidance of such bitter rantings is one reason it's one of the most respected opinion magazines in the country. I'm glad Jonah Goldberg is maintaining the tradition, standing athwart the path of vulgarity and yelling "Stop!"
You hit the nail right on the head.
Remember that Spain, as a country, was being born at the same time.
Indeed, evicting their oppresors was what accelerated the union of the major Spanish kingdoms.
And having been under Muslim rule for 700 years must have had some influence on how they solved the problem of their oppresors.
For purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
I surely don't see too many of them here.
I don't picture Roberson or Falwell blowing up 6000 people and two skyscrapers.
Some Christians may want to nuke the bastards, but never imply or suggest that they are doing it in the context of a religious war.
Might I remind you that with your #222, you butted in to a reply (my #212) that was not even addressed to you. Since you chose to make an issue of what I said, I felt no hesitation about defending myself. I asked editor-surveyor in my #212 if his solution was to forcibly convert muslims to Christianity. YOU jumped in with your opinion that this was not possible. I then gave an example where this in fact had been done. What, I'm not allowed to cite historical examples?
The "I have many friends who are (fill in the blank)" argument always loses.
I can cite them as character references. Those who know me know that I have no animosity towards Christianity.
And just because your parents are Christian, your wife is Christian, and you were raised Christian, doesn't mean that you don't have a strong anti-Christian bias now.
I do not. Apparently, citing historical fact is considered by you to be anti-Christian. If you prefer to live in a fantasy world where no self-professed Christian has ever done anything wrong...well, I for one will not act as your enabler. Face reality, Spiff. Christians have in fact at various times engaged in atrocities against others, even other Christians. If you think this is anti-Christian, too bad.
Your adulthood denial of Christ and acceptance of Judaism doesn't help your argument at all.
I rely on facts for my argument. I don't question your feelings or motives. Please grant me the same respect.
So, please refrain from making meritless, pointless accusations against Christianity.
"Meritless"? Do you deny that these events ever happened? "Pointless"? YOU started this. If you now wish to disengage, then pick up your ball and go home.
Essays?? Essays?! OMG! You are killing me!! Are you a paid, published writer? Have you ever written a column for publication? Have you taken courses on journalism or freelance writing? No?? I have. On all counts. Comparing a stinkin' essay is superbly laughable!! Not to mention that my father happens to agree with me on this as well. Not that that would necessarily mean anything to you, except that he has a doctorate of education from George Peabody College for Teachers (look it up!), and teaches the course on writing doctoral dissertations there.
You can make any part of a compound sentence tongue-in-cheek. There are absolutely no rules to the contrary! Subject-verb agreement and pro-con agreement, yes. But tongue-in-cheek statements? No. Besides which, I don't know that she deviated at all in that sentence. I read the whole thing as tongue-in-cheek. She was venting, for heaven's sakes!! It wasn't a mandate! (Helloooooooo??)
The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with a contamination of Christianity by an Islamic mentality. In fact, the reverse is the truth. The reason for the Inquisition was to protect Christinaity from contamination by non-Christian elements that were attempting to subvert it from within.
In 1492 Muslims and Jews were expelled. Muslims for being the oppressors and the Jews for collaborating with the Muslims. They were expelled for being disloyal groups. They had the choice of leaving or converting.
The problem was that many converted in name only, secretly continued to practice their old faith and remained disloyal. This is what led to the Inquisition. It was about protecting the Christian religion from contamination by pseudo-Christians operating within its ranks.
Irrelevant historical fact to the current debate.
Could we have witnessed the first column Anne wrote while in the throes of PMS? A good lawyer could probably get her job back for her. LOL.
Anne still gets my vote for President and Kelly Fitzpatrick for Vice-President. Let the Mullahs quake in their boots at the thought of an American administration like that.
Did you fail to detect the sarcasm in that reply? It seems that your "familiarity with the tools of writing" has failed you. ;o)
Many people have pointed out poor Ann's loss here. Strangely enough, Ted Olson (Barbara's husband) probably felt the loss at least as deeply as poor Ann, but I have not heard or seen him express his sorrow with similar brilliantly shrieking "hyperbole."
And the SA countries you mentioned are indeed heavily Christian, but definitely not economic heavyweights. As orginally stated: the most advanced countries in terms of economics, personal freedom and access to information are those states where Christianity is the dominant religion.
It seems to me that your writing expertise has failed you!! ROFLMAO!!
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.