[url]www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm[/url]


    [i]Democrats, in the name of tolerance, plan to demonize conservative Christians as being like the Taliban, according to an article in Newsweek.
    Democrats "are planning a daring assault on the most critical turf in politics: the cultural mainstream," political correspondent Howard Fineman writes.
    "The theory goes like this. Our enemy in Afghanistan is religious extremism and intolerance. It's therefore more important than ever to honor the ideals of tolerance — religious, sexual, racial, reproductive — at home. The GOP is out of the mainstream, some Democrats will argue [this] year, because it's too dependent upon an intolerant 'religious right,'" Mr. Fineman said.
    "This is an incendiary battle plan — essentially comparing the GOP right with the Taliban — designed to draw an outraged response from the president. Then Democrats would have Bush just where they wanted him: in a firefight at home."
   
    The 'religious right'
    This probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, but the New York Times appears to be working off the same page as the Democratic Party. In a front-page story Thursday, the newspaper referred to Islamic radicals as "the religious right."
    Foreign correspondent Douglas Jehl, in an article on how the Saudi royal family has dealt with radical Islam, said: "Choosing accommodation over confrontation, the government shied away from a crackdown on militant clerics or their followers, a move that would have inflamed the religious right, the disaffected returnees from other wars [besides the one in Afghanistan] and a growing number of the unemployed." [/i]

Hmmmm....people here have tried that - somparing me and other Christians to the Taliban. Of course, jerks like Falwell don't help the "Christian" cause.

Still, makes ya wonder.....

it's not appropriate to broadly assert that "fundamentalist christians" are the same as a bunch of vicious intolerant fanatics who insist their way is the only way, because god told them so.
however, religious fanaticism has a monotonous habit of ending up as repressive regimes that suppress freedom and kill innocents by the bushel, feeling righteous about it all the while.
people are individuals, each different from the next. jerks are jerks, and nice folks are nice folks, whether they attend your worship service or not.

The truly bad news is CBS, ABC and NBC will all
pick-up the banner.

B. Goldberg, in "Bias" states the network news folk take their cue on what to report from the New York Times, The Washington Post and to a lesser extent the L.A. Times.

I guess it's still the same song different verse.

At least our enemies remain constant.
[smoke]

This guy likes to choke the chicken, often...[argue]

Excellent book.

I recommend it highly.

I think we all need to be more loving and tolerant Christians like garandman:

From here: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=81028&page=8[/url]


-Velveeta

Will a Mod please check Velveeta's post counter ??
It's running backwards !
[smoke]

I say let the Dems try it.  Personally, I can't stand either of the two major political parties in this country...but that's another issue.  The point is that I don't believe the Dems will be sucessful.  In fact, I think that their plan will likely backfire.

The Republican Party is many things...and it can be rightfully accused of many dastardly acts, however they are NOT in any way shape or form even comparible to the Taliban.  Anyone with half a brain can see that.

This thing is kinda funny.  A Repulican candidate for our governorship recently made comments to the effect that pro-life voters are akin to the Taliban.  He ended up having to back pedal and retract ("reclarify") his statements.  I think the same thing will happen to the Dems if they go ahead with the plan.

The fact is that I suspect that allowing this "plan" to leak into the news is a way for the Democrats to "test the waters of public opinion" before they issue any statements.  Personally, I think an indignant and outraged president Bush will do a lot to hurt the credibility of the Democratic Party simply because of the popularity he enjoys now.

And how many Christians are ramming planes into buildings? How many Christians are fighting against America? Jeez some people are dumb.
Stupid Dems and intolerant anti-Christians.
It does sound like we have some dems here garandman.

Please don't misunderstand.  I do not intend to defend Garandman's comments.  However, what does the quote above have to do with Christianity?  Are you intending to portray Garandman as a Taliban type person?  Pretty weak.

As much as I disagree with the comments Garandman made (or at least the terminology he chose to use), I support his Right to think it and express it 100%.  In fact, I don't see Garandman FORCING anyone to live by his point of view.  Nor do I see him dictating that I or anyone else adopt his feelings on the matter.  THAT is a distinct difference between Grandman and the Taliban.  The Taliban excuses no deviation from their worldview.

In some ways, I think the "thought police" and "political correctness" folks like yourself are MUCH more akin to the Taliban mentality.  Don't you agree?  I mean, you don't threaten to kill your opposition, you just seek to shout them down and publically embarass them in order to shut them up.  As much as I dislike Garandman's viewpoint, and I might even say something in opposition to his assertions, I won't attempt to paint all Christians with his sentiments any more than I would try to claim all muslims harbor Taliban-like sympathies.

You are exactly right.  That is the essence of the liberal tactic:  declare all that disagree with you to be "close-minded".  It's the same tactic that Jesse Jackson's been using for years: If someone does not agree with him, he simply labels them a "racist" and points them out to the media.  With some militant gays and gay-sympathizers, if someone simply has a moral disagreement with homosexuality, they are labeled a "homophobe" or "close-minded".

See, "only those people that agree with me are open minded, everyone else is close-minded" is the argument they use.  So who are the real bigots?

[(:|)]

The sad fact is that if the Dems to use this tactic, it will probably be quite effective.  Remember, the majority of the electorate has the political knowledge and individualism of a plant.  What they see is what they believe.  If the media foists this new tactic on the public, there will be a significant number of sheeple that will go right along with it.

Say anything repeatedly and the general population will believe it.  In additon, these "Christians" or "right wing" types they speak of tend to be on the quiet "you leave me alone I'll leave you alone" types.  It is unlikely that there will be a backlash at all, which is unfortunate.

Any the liberals preach "tolerance".  What a joke.

CMOS

And a potted houseplant at that.

[:D]

It was not a comment about ALL Christians.  It was a comment about how hypocritical garandman is.  

So do I.  But I also think I have the right to think and express myself.  The difference is I am not taking a “Holier than thou” approach. Am I? He insinuated that I was stupid for knowing that Bill Gates is no longer CEO of Microsoft.  Too bad for him that was easy to prove. I am not comparing anyone to the Taliban.  The Taliban is (was?) the Taliban, not anyone else.  I think too many people are trying to further their personal cause by taking advantage of the tragedy of 9/11.  I also feel a lot of people who are doing so are scumbags who would take advantage of ANY tragedy to further their cause. Where am I telling people what to think? I am expressing my side in a debate, if you do not agree with it fine. No, because labeling somebody as politically correct is just another broad sweeping label as bad as any other, especially the ones the so called politically correct people use.  Personally I do not care if people use racial, sexual or religious slurs.  Just don’t talk about how Christian and loving you are. Or tell me how MORALLY superior you are. Did Jesus teach you to hate people by race?Actually he tried to embarrass me. I just happened to know what I was talking about so he ran away like a coward.
Where am I painting ALL Christians in one broad stroke? The problem it seems is that because I am disagreeing with ONE self-proclaimed Christian a lot of people think that I am against ALL Christians.  Why is that?

-Velveeta

[troll] + [troll] = [argue]

i find the irony in all of this (garandman's posted topic, not the mini-soap opera playing out before our very eyes) is that the meaning of the word "tolerance" is no longer being used correctly, but instead its meaning has been bastardized by the Left (who else?) to further an agenda.

to tolerate someone or something means nothing more than to allow them to do as they please, to permit them to do as they please, to put up with them doing as they please.  it does NOT mean, as the libs would like us to believe that we have to respect, agree with, sympathize with, or even acknowledge the existence of.  it doesn't mean that in order to be tolerant i can't be offended or disgusted or angered by someone's actions.  it doesn't mean that in order to be tolerant i have to accept their behavior or beliefs as okay or even right.  it only means that i have acknowledged the difference exists and i will not interfere with their choice to continue said behavior (belief) in a bigoted or or prejudiced manner.

unfortunately, the libs have shamed the Amrican public into thinking that we have to accept, and even embrace, things we disapprove of in order to be tolerant.

Very well said, ARlady!

tolerate \Tol"er*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Tolerated; p. pr. & vb. n. Tolerating.] [L. toleratus, p. p. of tolerare, fr. the same root as tollere to lift up, tuli, used as perfect of ferre to bear, latus (for tlatus), used as p. p. of ferre to bear, and E. thole. [b] To suffer to be, or to be done, without prohibition or hindrance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; to put up with; as, to tolerate doubtful practices.[/b]




Well said ARLady.

Scary, really. I was just thinking the same thing the other day.

Ever heard of the Aryan Nations?  The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord?  Church of the Avenger?  Of course, people like Garandman would counter that these people "aren't REAL Christians."  Well, mainstream Muslims would counter that the Taliban and Al Quaida "aren't REAL Muslims."

What she said.

stubbs™

Totally off topic, but how come the dickheads have the cool sounding religions? I should start my own church, something like The Suckerpunching Backhand From The Knobby Fist of The Lord.[}:D]

Of course, according to Jack Chick and some others I could name, it wouldn't make any difference anyway since I'm a Catholic and you know where we're all going. [devil]

ARlady you hit that one out of the park.

RikWriter -

How about for EVERY post where you post, you just go ahead and post my opinion along with your post??? Think of the time it will save me.
[rolleyes]

Of course, I will require that you give appropriate attribution, and remit a small royalty fee for every opinion of mine that you post for me.

[rolleyes]

First, you claim to know my NT arguments against evolution, BEFORE YOU HAVE EVEN HEARD THEM, now this. [rolleyes]

The folks you listed are in CLEAR violation of biblical principles in numerous areas.

So you associating  REAL Christians with their actions is like me associating  you with the actions of any one of the recent school shooters.

I mean, you own guns too right?? Then you must be a school shooter type of person. Same type of logic in lumping these folks in with REAl Christians who actually try to fully obey God's word.

Just cuz someone can qoute a bible verse DOES NOT make them a Christian.

The logical principles you ahve vioalted, and teh logical fallacies you have committed in this post are too many to number.

Actually, that brings up another question - "Do you actually own any guns? " I've never seen you post any gun-realated topics or responses.

I've beaten you to it. We formed a group called the [flame]Mighty Fist of Jesus[flame]. All we do is sing songs to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic", making up offensive lyrics as we go. The Southern Poverty Law Center have us included in their list of "Harmless but Very Annoying Hate Groups". The ADL likewise categorized us as "Sort of Funny in Small Doses Hate Groups".

"the MIGHT-Y FIST OF JEE-SUS WILL CRUSH THE UNBELEEEEVER, CRUSH THE UNBELEEEEEVER, CRUSH THE UNBELIEEEEEEVER..."

Fear the Mighty Fist of Jesus. We are the Future.

[TSBFTKFL]

We might just be able to get that puppy trademarked.
Let's see, we're gonna need a tent (new) and a bus (old) some very (old) collection plates and......
I shall, of course, volunteer to be manager-of-finances.
[smoke]

Will you guys make up your mind ??
The "MFJ"
Probably also trademarkable.
We're gonna need a tent (new) and a bus (old) and old (very) collection plates.....
I shall, of course, volunteer to be the manager-of-finances.
[smoke]

I think I can get on board here, [b]IF[/b] the logo (you were gonna have a logo, right?) has a vaguely badass looking Jesus on it. I'm talking about the cover from the DVD of [i]Commando[/i] with Arnold Schwartzenegger: kinda camo-streaked and wearing a tac vest.

not disagreeing with your post, but the Aryan Nations is actually more akin to occult teachings; not christianity. i've never heard of the others.

Aryanism has more in common with "New age" beliefs. i am truly sorry that i cant give you a summary as its been a long while since i had done any reading on it. try doing a search on Madame Blavtsky or Himmler and see what turns up. she supported what happened to the Jews. and might provide background on Aryanisms roots in the occult.

anti-Aryan lib

Y'see Mark, I have this thing called a memory.  We've had plenty of these conversations and I remember what you wrote even if you don't.

Yeah, what Garandman, ARLady, Soylent ("it's people") Green et al. had it right.

Demonize
Marginalize
Delegitimize and Silence the political opposition.

------
"Talk about your reactions."

Well, apparently your memory has stored in it conversations that we have never had. (e.g., the NT texts against evolution that i have NEVER produced in this forum)

Also, it is faulty in quotations I HAVE made. (see my other post that covers this)

I could get down with Mighty Fist of Jesus.  

ARLady is correct about libs redefining tolerance to guilt-trip everybody into embracing traditionally unacceptable behavior.  

I'll second that ARLady!

I heard this a while back, and it still holds true for me: "Accept or reject, but never tolerate"

Nope, you're wrong on both counts.  I never mentioned the NT, you did.  You brought up some supposed NT quotes AFTER my post, and you have yet to give the exact quotes.