Monday, June 12, 2006

Part Of The Plan

My good friend Mustang of Social Sense has recently published an essay which well expresses some of my same concerns. Republished here, with Mustang's permission:


The global war on terror (GWOT) is not only formidable from the standpoint of placing our troops in harms way, or from the obvious drain on our economy. It is also challenging in the social sense, because there is no doubt but that we are facing a dedicated and crafty enemy. Our own people provide aid and comfort to the enemy by teaching them about political correctness, and they in turn use it as a strategy to their best advantage. Positive reinforcement comes from the fourth estate.

When people disagree on an issue, and one advocate speaks “plainly,” it has become a common practice to accuse that person of being “politically incorrect.” This suggests that the individual is “out of touch” with polite society. One successful strategy for shutting an opponent up is to infer that he or she is “non-PC” or a bigot. But the fact is that unless one is a member of a collegiate debating society, few arguments are ever really “won.” It is nearly impossible to change an opposing point of view. And the fact is that our society has lost its rhetorical ability.

The reasons for this are several. In the first place, few Americans are curious enough to read sufficiently to develop an appreciation for opposing views. In spite of my opinion that as a percentage of our overall population few Americans read at all, those who do seem to adopt an appreciation for a particular genre of reading material. I daresay that most of those who read Ann Coulter will bother to read anything written by any of her distracters. Ms. Coulter herself seems to encourage this by insisting that anyone who disagrees with her is an idiot. My question is why should an honest opinion ever be discouraged? We may not agree with that opinion, but we ought to consider opposing views before discounting them.

Those who seek to add confusion to the efforts of our government in combating terror are now using the demand for political correctness even in the face of factual or perceptive honesty. The debate begins when one group or another claims that they are “offended” by remarks, or symbols, or traditions. For example, Muslims and atheists (an interesting mix, if you ask me) claim offense by our traditional Christmas celebrations. It is no longer politically correct to celebrate a religious holiday. They insist that we call Christmas by some other name, such as “Winter Holiday.” These same people applaud loudly, however, when the United States Postal Office issues a stamp celebrating the change of Islam to a militant ideology; it was the antithesis to the “tolerance” supposedly demanded by the “PC” crowd. When people insist on maintaining the Christmas tradition however, they become “bigots” and “non-PC.”

But I believe that all of this is part of the plan. If the Islamic factions of American society can stir up a debate every time we celebrate our own western traditions, they gain an advantage through confusion and eventual apathy in our increasingly disinterested society. We can see this stratagem at work in other western societies, as well. Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury has apologized for some traditional hymns in the Anglican Church and has vowed that the next coronation will no longer be specific to the Church of England. With the wave of the hand, the Archbishop discarded more than 1,000 years of tradition to appease British Muslims. And, take for another example how offended Muslims have caused British citizens not to display the flag of St. George. Muslims claim offense by the depiction of the cross. I’m sure that the flags of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Norway, or any nation of the British Commonwealth will eventually offend Muslims living there, as well. Some time ago, a Swedish student was send home for wearing the symbol of her nation’s flag on her blouse – it was offensive to Muslim students.

What else should western culture give up in order not to offend Muslims or multiculturalists? Should we take down crosses that appear over Christian churches? Should Catholics be prohibited from wearing prayer beads where they can be seen in public? Should we plant groves of trees around Jewish Synagogues so they are unseen from main thoroughfares? I should point out in the quest for a worldwide Caliphate Muslims certainly have no problem forcing their beliefs on the rest of us; theirs is a double standard if ever there was one.

In conclusion, it does not bother me that certain aspects of western culture offend people; but I am offended that these people come to my country and then insist that our American traditions are offensive to them. It bothers me that citizens in Great Britain are allowing themselves to be intimidated away from displaying the flag of St. George. It bothers me when a student is punished for wearing the flag of her country on her blouse. It bothers me that these people are so offended, and yet remain in my country. In effect, they insist that western culture change to accommodate them, while at the same time they are unwilling to change to accommodate western traditions. One might wonder, what was the point of coming here in the first place? But of course, we really do know the answer to that question, don’t we?

Dating back to the founding of this nation, Americans are steeped in the advantages of compromise. For example, students of American history know of Henry Clay the Great Compromiser, whose many efforts delayed the American Civil War.

But at what point does compromise itself erode, then destroy a culture? The answer to this question is playing out now, before our very eyes, particularly in Europe, which Bat Ye'or has termed "Eurabia" and, on a smaller scale, here in the United States.

Addendum: For additional reading, see "Beware: the new goths are coming." First paragraph:
"ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire."


At 6/12/2006 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow- good job Mustang and thank you AoW! I proudly proclaim that under these definitions, I am a bigot and non-pc! Hurray! I am free to be me!

Good morning and G*D bless all! We have a 100% chance of rain today, PTL!


At 6/12/2006 9:18 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

It's raining here in Virginia right now--an unforecast drenching. We're far below our normal rainfall for this year, so these raindrops are welcome.

Being called names used to bother me, but I'm getting used to it now.

At 6/12/2006 9:29 AM, Blogger Kiddo said...

Nice work! One of the things that got me started, actually, an older report on things being banned to appease Muslims in the UK and the rest of Eurabia at It disgusts me.

Ride faster Gandalf!! Hurry! Oh, cry the Mother Country....

At 6/12/2006 9:39 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Compromise works only with people who share common values and are sane. People who believe in Utopia in this world are capable of anything to achieve their goals.

I gleaned this from Destructive Generation. Gore Vidal called Midge Dechter a traitor and questioned the loyalty of Jews to America. In actuality Jews and others are quite open about their support for Israel as it is an ally. However the far left has a history of deception ,sedition and treason on behalf of hostile foreign powers. Compramise with this decietful bunch has been the undoing of the Democratic party. What the deranged leaders have yet to figure out is that catering to hostile people who loathe America costs more votes then they get.

Let Al Gore win the nomination after his latest rants. It will be the end of the far left as we know it. According to Drudge Edwards beat Hillary in a recent Iowa straw poll so her coronation may not be forthcomming.

At 6/12/2006 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think it is true that the “noise” of news reporting prevents us from getting a clear picture of events. We are living in a society that thrives on edited sound bites. This may be the result of the news media’s (of whatever political persuasion) acknowledgment that American intelligence will not lend itself to more than that. I cannot stomach the shouting matches of liberal vs. liberal, or of conservative vs. liberal, or of conservative vs. conservative. I agree that the noise has become deafening. And yet the premise, in case you missed it, is that knowledge comes from reading more than it does from listening. A balanced approach to knowledge comes from reading what the “other side” has to say, rather than ignoring other opinions because you know, at the outset, that you will disagree with them.

Actually, Bill O’Reilly has nothing to do with my claim; I was referring to lawsuits (settled in favor of Christmas), in which the concept of national recognition of Christmas as a holiday were challenged. I would agree that the shopping frenzies have more or less supplanted the true meaning and spirit of Christmas – more the pity for us as human beings, but this is an issue better suited to theologians. My point is that while a free and frank discussion among our citizens is always welcome, immigrants come here with the knowledge that we are a western culture. If they are not willing to embrace it, or accept it as the mainstream, then perhaps they shouldn’t come here at all.

Ducky, if you choose not to become “ga-ga” over the loss of British traditions, that’s okay. I do understand that your opinions reflect your failed Marxist ideologies. Now should there ever be a new Caliphate, I wonder how well those of your ilk will cope. I note, however, that you continue to be non est factum relative to the invasion of Iraq. If you will do a bit more reading, you will find sound arguments in favor of the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Of course, you are certainly entitled to be an advocate of the extra-legal argument, but I would hardly call any conflict that involves such a high loss of life “laughable.” Time will reveal whether the invasion and occupation was worth the cost, but as President Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

One of the benefits of discourse, Ducky, is that you get to decide for yourself whether my arguments are logical. It is not surprising that you disagree, only that your closed mind will not allow you to consider other points of view; it would be remarkable if there was ever a single occasion when you could engage in dialogue sans ad homonym harassment.

At 6/12/2006 1:49 PM, Blogger Gayle said...

Excellent. It's extremely well written.

The last sentence, in part, "and, on a smaller scale, here in the United States." It may be being played out on a smaller scale here in the U.S., but not by much! We will, if we aren't careful, end up just like England and (please no!) Canada. That's the way the Moonbats want us to go.

At 6/12/2006 1:52 PM, Blogger Gayle said...

My apologies. Mustang, your retort to Mr. Ducky is very well written too. I especially like President Roosevelt's quote. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could argue with it. Thanks for that! :)

At 6/12/2006 4:27 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...


All force is legitimate. Ask the guy that hits hardest.

At 6/12/2006 5:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, take for another example how offended Muslims have caused British citizens not to display the flag of St. George. Muslims claim offense by the depiction of the cross. I’m sure that the flags of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Norway, or any nation of the British Commonwealth will eventually offend Muslims living there, as well."

The Flag of Saint George is triply offensive to Muslims:

(1) Yes it is a cross, the symbol of the religion founded by the second-rate prophet Jesus Christ, whose teachings have since been superseded by those of the 'Perfect Man' - the first-rate Prophet Mohammed.

(2) The Flag of Saint George is a TOTEM. Is is the sacred symbol of an enemy tribe (the Kafir English). All primitive tribes have their totems which enemy tribes attempt to destroy or desecrate. The English, not being a primitive tribe (apart from the football hooligans) do not realise the significance of tribal symbols to barbarian peoples, and have thus no idea of the provocation they are causing by flying this flag.

(3) And now for what really screws the Muzzies up. The flag of Saint George was the Crusaders' flag. The guys who tried (unfortunately unsuccessfully) to kick the invading savages out of eastern Christendom rode under the flag of St George and had the Cross of St George on their shields.

And that's why the flag of Saint George is almost as offensive to a Muzzie as a Motoon printed on pigskin.

At 6/12/2006 7:40 PM, Blogger Dan Zaremba said...

You should also have a look at this:

At 6/12/2006 8:19 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

Excellent article by Mustang. He is well-spoken and presents his views in a thought-provoking way.

The demand of one culture or point of view for "respect" of their ideals at the cost of supressing another culture's history or beliefs is not compromise... It is conqureing.

At 6/12/2006 9:10 PM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

I am offended that these people come to my country and then insist that our American traditions are offensive to am I!..wonderful read!

At 6/12/2006 10:24 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Missing Link,
That article, Dangerous Disconnect, is important.


Do multiculturalism and political correctness threaten Canada?

Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar has no doubt they do.

"Multiculturalism takes away our complete undivided loyalties to this country," explains Kanwar, a criminologist, and professor of sociology at Mount Royal College in Calgary.

"Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in Canada. It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is OK. It is not," says Kanwar, a devout Muslim.

"And political correctness threatens us because we can't fight something we refuse to label and understand."...

David Harris, a Canadian security analyst and senior fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies in Toronto, agrees political correctness threatens our safety.

"Political correctness is analytically and intellectually dishonest. We have to understand the doctrine and the dogma of our enemy and we can't do that if we dare not even speak the m-word or the i-word," said Harris, a former CSIS agent who is now a counter-terrorism expert with Insignis in Ottawa.

Harris, who was reached in Washington, D.C. on Friday afternoon, appeared before a U.S. government judiciary subcommittee on Thursday and Friday where he said Canada should consider imposing a moratorium on new immigrants until it figures out what needs to be done.

That seems a little on the extreme side, after all, this is a country of immigrants and immigration is essential to the well-being of this country with its low birth rate, aging population and vast geography.

But surely a complete rethink of the policies behind Canada's immigration system is needed. Immigrants should be screened more thoroughly, not just for criminal records, but for incompatible ideologies as well....

But what of Canadian society on the whole, which is expected to tolerate the wives, mothers and daughters of these accused terrorists wearing complete face masks all the time in public since they wear burqas that reveal only their eyes? Kanwar said covering one's face in Canada should be illegal.

"I'm sick and tired of political correctness," said Kanwar from his Calgary home.

"When I talk to other immigrants who complain about Canada I say, 'if you hate this country, why don't you go back to hell where you came from?' I tell them, 'nobody begged you to come here and no one will stop you if you want to go. So, go to hell and get the hell out of here.'"...

My formerly-Canadian neighbor is beside himself about the pc with regard to identifying the problem. A liberal though he may be, he ranted last night about the LYING, the way he termed the media's and officials' omission of telling it like it is.

Thanks for those details about the Flag of St. George. Might we Westerners not take offense at the flags with images of the crescent moon and the sword of the prophet?

Mustang & Duck,
Of course you disagree. That was a given from the git-go.

We will, if we aren't careful, end up just like England and (please no!) Canada.

We can certainly take lessons from what's going on in those nations. But will we?

If only American voters would take the time to educate themselves politically, the left wouldn't stand a chance. They're all sound-bites and distortions.

The media are able to control much of the information released to the public. Also, since at least the middle of the 20th Century, television has taken over the lives of the viewers--and possibly shortened attention spans. I've often noticed that, just as the coverage and discussion of a news story gets to having any depth, off goes the host to a break for commercial.

The demand of one culture or point of view for "respect" of their ideals at the cost of supressing another culture's history or beliefs is not compromise... It is conqureing.

Respecting a different culture and embracing it are two different things. The West is willing to compromise--too willing. I don't see Muslims willing to compromise their beliefs. A good article about this topic can be found HERE. The title of the article is "The Church of England in Terminal Decline."

Compromise works only with people who share common values and are sane.

I saw what happened at your blog today. What to say?

I don't place much value on straw polls this far in advance of an election.

Pim's Ghost,
Though I don't always comment, I've been enjoying those videos at your site.

Glad that you liked Mustang's essay. The matters are so complex as to make it difficult to explicate them. But he did a great job of making some points which have been rolling around in my mind for several months.

At 6/12/2006 10:44 PM, Blogger Mad Zionist said...

AOW, don't forget the canaries in the mine: Israel. Israel's noxious concessions to the terrorist vermin are threatening its very existence, and should be a warning the rest of the Western world learns from. Today, tragically, the Neville Chamberlain Left has grown stronger than it's been at any time since the 1930's. I fear it will take a similar set of circumstances to wake up the Churchills once again.

At 6/12/2006 10:57 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Israel's noxious concessions to the terrorist vermin

As if concessions will work. I'm sure that you've read the Charter of Hamas; that document is very clear in its goals.

From this source:

more than 50 rockets flying from the Gaza Strip toward nearby Jewish communities the past three days

I believe that Hamas called off the "truce" some time ago. Or, at least, Hamas's decision to call off the "truce" was made several weeks ago.

Totally predictable.

At 6/12/2006 11:01 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Let me guess...favorite historic figure is Napolean?

Nah. I'm kinda partial to Hulugu Khan.

At 6/12/2006 11:21 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Recent essay by Fjordman. Long, but worth the read.

Short excerpt, just to provide an idea of the depth of the commentary:

...Europeans now gradually start to awaken from the spell of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Muslim immigration, but they still don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Most of them still haven't heard of Eurabia, or the fact that the European Union, including many of their own, entrusted representatives, have actively encouraged massive Muslim immigration to the continent. Until they do this, it will be more difficult to bring down the EU, and that is absolutely necessary in my view for Europe to prevail from this. No, the EU isn't the only problem Europe has, but it is by far the worst, and we don't have even a theoretical chance of fixing our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. It needs to be removed completely. The hour is late. Is it too late? Even if it's not too late, whatever can be done needs to be done soon.

So, what to do next? What are we waiting for? For some decent leader to step forward, perhaps? Well, where is he, or she?...

We complain about weak leaders, but maybe we keep producing weak leaders because we, as a people, are weak? And if we finally find a Churchill, will the press rip him apart for whatever flaw they can find? Could the real Churchill have been elected today, or would the media eat him alive because of his heavy drinking and replace him with a slick boy scout? And if a strong leader steps forward, will he have a democratic mindset or will he have a darker agenda?...

This war by Islam against Europe, the West and indeed mankind has been going on for more than 1300 years. This is the third major Jihad, the third Islamic attempt to subdue the heartland of the West. Although I cannot prove this, I have a very strong feeling that this will also be the last attempt. There will be no fourth Jihad. Either Muslims will win this time, or Islam itself will be handed a defeat and a blow so powerful that it may never recover from it. This is perhaps the longest, continuous war in human history. And it's about to be decided within the coming decades. I'm not sure how all of this will play out. What I do know is that it could all be decided on my watch, and I don't want to be the weak link in something my ancestors kept intact for 1300 years.

At 6/13/2006 6:20 AM, Blogger Raven said...

Ducky, when I read your comments this comes to mind:

Rubber Duckie, you're the one,
You make bathtime lots of fun,
Rubber Duckie, I'm awfully fond of you;
(woh woh, bee doh!)

Rubber Duckie, joy of joys,
When I squeeze you, you make noise!
Rubber Duckie, you're my very best friend, it's true!
(doo doo doo doooo, doo doo)

Every day when I
Make my way to the tubby
I find a little fella who's
Cute and yellow and chubby

Rubber Duckie, you're so fine
And I'm lucky that you're mine
Rubber duckie, I'm awfully fond of you.

Every day when I
Make my way to the tubby
I find a little fella who's
Cute and yellow and chubby

Rubber Duckie, you're so fine
And I'm lucky that you're mine
Rubber duckie, I'm awfully fond of -
Rubber duckie, I'd like a whole pond of -
Rubber duckie I'm awfully fond of you!
(doo doo, be doo.)

YOU live in a very strange world. Ineed.

At 6/13/2006 9:25 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

Duckie, the point Mustang makes that you're ignoring (and deflecting away yet), is that while wester culture is subject the multiculturalists desires for "world harmoney" and thus are subject to increasing infringment on their own civil liberties to allow "intigration" of other cultures.

However, in this zeal to hold hands accross the world, they fail to realize that Islam is taking advantage of them. While giving up nothing, Islam increasingly pushes for western culture to give up it's roots, traditions, and foundations. Without those, the ones driving that Islam bus know that brining the western world under heel will be much easier, as they have nothing to tie into and hold on with.

At 6/13/2006 10:58 AM, Blogger Kiddo said...

AOW--thanks. I need to get back to writing. I've been too steeped in linguisticas and virology lately.

This is exactly what Pim Fortuyn was fighting for. He did not want to see the free and quite liberal country he loved become over-run by people who were insulting, attacking (verbally and physically) the native population, and demanding shari'a while wanting exemption from Dutch law.

It's funny how when a gay man usually stands up for gay rights (part of what inspired Pim and much of what he criticized about Islam) he is usually feted by the Left. But in Pim's case, he stood up for these rights against muslims and was constantly vilified, even in death, as a "Dutch LePen" and "far-right politician". And in the end murdered by a card carrying member of the Linkse Kerk (Left Church) that he railed against. Good thing we have idiots on the Left willing to murder politicians "to protect the muslims". 5th column anyone?

At 6/13/2006 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1895

At 6/13/2006 3:39 PM, Blogger cube said...

The liberals desire to have power and they are willing to do anything to secure it. They figure they can always worry about those who threaten us later by appeasing
them. Just stupid.

At 6/13/2006 4:37 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

We wouldn't even get past the fact the you two don't even understand there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church

Hmm. Jesus seemed to think there was no way to heaven but through him.

But I suppose that's the difference between Christian belief and Catholic belief.

At 6/13/2006 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But I suppose that's the difference between Christian belief and Catholic belief."

I read an article by Fjordman about 'Waiting for Churchill' where everybody is looking for a politician to appear and lead us to victory over Islam.

In my opinion it won't be a politician. Remember that the defeat of communism was a spiritual battle that began in Poland. Stalin asked "how many divisions does the Pope command", but Karol Jozef Wojtyla destroyed the legacy of the despot and all his works by the sheer force of his personal integrity.

The next Churchill might be Cardinal Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, who could do for Islam what his predecessor did for Stalinism.

No, I am not a Catholic. But the Pope is one of the few Christian leaders who does not subscribe to 'Allah is G_d' and the deadly 'three revealed Abrahamic religions' heresy which has the subtext that the latest is inevitably the best.

At 6/13/2006 7:50 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I think that THIS is the essay by Fjordman.

At 6/13/2006 8:21 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...


Warren has John Brown crying up a storm. It is the hardest I laughed in days.

At 6/13/2006 8:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Yes, I'm aware of all the developments. A few of my students have been watching as well.

At 6/13/2006 10:11 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

I have been reading Toynbee's account of the Ottoman massacre of the Armeanians every hair on my body is standing up. I will post on that soon

At 6/13/2006 11:14 PM, Blogger Warren said...

Ducky said:
"We wouldn't even get past the fact the you two don't even understand there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. Different culture."

That might not be the stupidest thing you've ever said but its right up there in the top three!

Try reading Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of making up your own religion. Salvation comes from God alone.

At 6/14/2006 8:08 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
Islam's practically illegal in America already.

If the code of American laws are applied, that is.

At 6/14/2006 8:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, my Mom was R.C. and a born again Christian, kinda blows holes in your theories! I have known many who are both, just cut through the middleman as it were!


At 6/14/2006 11:52 AM, Blogger Freedomnow said...

I would agree with Ducky that the Catholic Church lays claim to the exclusive path to salvation, but I dont see how this would be repressive or an attack on freedom.

If you dont believe in their teaching then they are irrelevant.

Only someone who is insecure in their beliefs would be offended by their teachings.

I would recommend a chill pill and a tall glass of water...

At 6/14/2006 11:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Freedom Now,
Religious beliefs are only repressive of freedom if those beliefs have the state as enforcement.

At 6/14/2006 12:52 PM, Blogger Kiddo said...

The Roman Catholic Church does not lay exclusive claim to salvation! Where are you even getting this? I just went through months of classes to BECOME a Catholic, and the Monsignor leading our group explained that one pretty thoroughly. I can ask again, but I doubt that three Priests and a Nun really got it that wrong.

On the other hand, our Church (our parish, that is) does lay claim to a portable tap for parties. Now that's a big bonus, eh?

Pieces--I agree that this is a war on us all, and we cannot afford to split hairs over these points. Also, I agree that the Pope is our greatest hope. He is utterly uncompromising in his regard for Western Civilization and the threat posed by relativism-led agnosticism as well as Islam.

Beak--don't forget the Ionians, Pontics and Assyrians! PLEASE!!!! Too many died. I'm glad that there are plenty of accounts of the Armenians as well, but there are accounts of the genocide against all of the Christians of Asia Minor. Actually, here's a great site for links on this subject, and it does include all of the people involved:
Just turn down the speakers if you don't want to be blasted with cheesy Greek music. Hey, I never said I like EVERYTHING about my 1/2 heritage.

Duck--answer my question.

At 6/14/2006 2:42 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I come from a Protestant background. As I see it, no Christian denomination offers the sole path to salvation. Rather, that path is through the substitute offering made by the Son of God.

At 6/14/2006 3:51 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

"As I see it, no Christian denomination offers the sole path to salvation. Rather, that path is through the substitute offering made by the Son of God."

Southern Baptist, myself.

Religion is good for man, as it teaches discipline and allows us to worship collectively, but Christ is the only way to Salvation!

At 6/14/2006 4:03 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...


I'm sure the Catholic faith does borrow a few things from Christianity.

I prefer the top shelf stuff.

At 6/14/2006 5:15 PM, Blogger Warren said...

Now pay attention Ducky! Maybe even read what I posted before you try and tell me what I think.

I'll say it again.

Salvation comes from God alone.

Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

That statement negates your premise and your snide little comment.

Or is it over your head?

At 6/14/2006 5:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was raised Episcopalian, went non-denominational then ended up in a So. Baptist church. Hey, at least they don't throw me out when I raise my hands! Then they have let head the prayer ministry, then went totally out of control and voted me onto the church council!
So I'm rather eclectic in my background, but it's all good!


At 6/14/2006 7:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah (Christ), and who have accepted Him as their lord and savior, are by definition Christians. This includes those of the Catholic faith (Catholic meaning "Universal"), Protestants (who evolved from the Catholic faith), and "non-aligned" Christian Churches. So then rather than making a distinction between "Catholic and Christian," we should note that there are many similarities in the litergy of Christian faiths, no matter how they are organized or governed.

As Christians, let us by all means recognize how much we have in common, because the sum is greater than its parts.

Semper Fi . . .

At 6/14/2006 9:45 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...


A Catholic can't answer where the Church is prophesized to exist in the Old Testament.

A Christian can.

At 6/15/2006 9:14 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...


I'm not catholic, and I've only become a beliver over the past 2 years, so before you go ranting about my stereotyping and bottled idea of you... you'd better check yourself in, becuase you are more guilty than I.

I spent 8 years in the military, hardly my whole life, and I've been down some pretty different paths. "Western Culture" is what you and I enjoy every day.

You know that latte you enjoyed while reading your little red book for daily inspiration? Sitting on the bench deciding what to do for the day... well, that my friend is western culture.

The Islamos would rather replace your red book with the Koran... ONLY the Koran, and your time will be inturupted by the calls to prayer, enforced at gun point by fanatical youth thinking that your death means virgins in heaven.

So please, dont get caught up in the mix trying hook and jab so much you find yourself boxing the wind.

At 6/15/2006 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, but I think that has to do with a decision that gives the New Testament a higher priority than the Old Testament. After all, the New Testament is all about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It has also been explained to me that the Old Testament excluded from salvation and God's grace all but His chosen people, whereas the New Testament is inclusionary.

So yes, there are important theological differences in the Christian faith, but the message is essentially the same. To me, it is like we are all making the same journey; you choose to drive a Hummer, and I'm riding in an LAV. But we will arrive at the same destination eventually.

Christians must avoid the sectarian squabbles that one can observe in Islam. Common ground (in faith) is an important foundation; it must be preserved.

At 6/16/2006 2:32 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

mustang may be correct but I must insist that he adopt my version. I'm not interested in his. I suspect you see where this is going.

Ignoring the valid in favor of the far-fetched and fanciful, eh?

Leftists do have the talent of expressing their arrogance and stupidity simultaneously, but I'm not sure how this neurosis would assist them in discourse.

At 6/18/2006 1:00 AM, Blogger Dardin Soto said...

wow, i am going to break my rule of never linking to a direct post ... great essay. Thanks for turning me on to this guy.... :)

At 6/18/2006 7:53 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mustang is my best cyberfriend. In fact, he's partly responsible for my being a blogger. I was a newbie when I found him, and he taught me the basics about template.

He is a supreme essay-writer.

At 6/21/2006 9:41 AM, Blogger Kiddo said...

Ducky--yeah, I did. Our Priests seem more devoted to John Paul II as does everyone, but I'm a Benedict XVI kind of girl His philosophical books as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger are rather amazing. As for the Turks in the EU, I don't think he is incorrect in his statements. The Turks have been trying for over a century to distance themselves from the Muslim world in general and the Eastern Asiatic peoples especially and trying to be as European as possible. But if you look at the increasingly less secular stance in Turkey within and towards the government, I think it would be unwise to allow them into the EU. But hell, they accomplished their genocides with cover from the US and most of Europe, so why not help them now? Pope Benedict and Marcello Pera's book Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam is definitely on my book club list.

My question actually pertained to the statement you had made towards "stolen land". I asked you to provide the name of a country that had not been historically conquered or invaded, or in your term, "stolen". We're a fairly migratory species, and I think you'll find that most all land is not being inhabited currently by its original inhabitants, but rather by those who forced their way in, in many cases with much more bloodshed than was shown the native peoples of what is now the US.


Post a Comment

<< Home