Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Christian Right's Emerging Deadly Worldview: Kill Muslims to Purify the Earth

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted February 12, 2008.


Christian extremists are preaching a war against tolerance to target and persecute all Muslims, including the 6 million who live in the U.S.
Advertisement

Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zachariah Anani are the three stooges of the Christian right. These self-described former Muslim terrorists are regularly trotted out -- a few days ago they were at the Air Force Academy -- to spew racist filth about Islam on behalf of groups such as Focus on the Family. It is a clever tactic. Curly, Larry and Mo, who all say they are born-again Christians, engage in hate speech and assure us it comes from personal experience. They tell their audiences that the only way to deal with one-fifth of the world's population is by converting or eradicating all Muslims. Their cant is broadcast regularly on Fox News, including the Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto shows, as well as on numerous Christian radio and television programs. Shoebat, who has written a book called Why We Want to Kill You, promises in his lectures to explain the numerous similarities between radical Muslims and the Nazis, how "Muslim terrorists" invaded America 30 years ago and how "perseverance, recruitment and hate" have fueled attacks by Muslims. 

These men are frauds, but this is not the point. They are part of a dark and frightening war by the Christian right against tolerance that, in the moment of another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, would make it acceptable to target and persecute all Muslims, including the some 6 million Muslims who live in the United States. These men stoke these irrational fears. They defend the perpetual war unleashed by the Bush administration and championed by Sen. John McCain. McCain frequently reminds listeners that "the greatest danger facing the world is Islamic terrorism," as does Mike Huckabee, who says that "Islamofascism" is "the greatest threat this country [has] ever faced." George W. Bush has, in the same vein, assured Americans that terrorists hate us for our freedoms, not, of course, for anything we have done. Bush described the "war on terror" as a war against totalitarian Islamofascism while the Israeli air force was dropping tens of thousands of pounds of iron fragmentation bombs up and down Lebanon, an air campaign that killed 1,300 Lebanese civilians.

The three men tell lurid tales of being recruited as children into Palestinian terrorist organizations, murdering hundreds of civilians and blowing up a bank in Israel. Saleem says that as a child he infiltrated Israel to plant bombs via a network of tunnels underneath the Golan Heights, although no incident of this type was ever reported in Israel. He claims he is descended from the "grand wazir" of Islam, a title and a position that do not exist in the Arab world. They assure audiences that the Palestinians are interested not in a peaceful two-state solution but rather the destruction of Israel, the murder of all Jews and the death of America. Shoebat claims he first came to the United States as part of an extremist "sleeper cell."

"These three jokers are as much former Islamic terrorists as 'Star Trek's' Capt. James T. Kirk was a real Starship captain," said Mikey Weinstein, the head of the watchdog group The Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The group has challenged Christian proselytizing in the military and denounced the visit by the men to the Air Force Academy.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: muslim, christian right, extremism

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran. His latest book is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Demonization of Muslims for Oil ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 12, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this same issue of Alternet Noam Chomsky said :

" The more extreme people, I guess it was Irving Kristol, said insignificant nations like insignificant people sometimes gain illusions about their own significance. So therefore the age of gunboat diplomacy is never over, we'll just take it from them by force. Robert Tucker, a serious international relations specialist who is considered pretty moderate, said it's just a scandal that we're letting them get away with running their own resources. Why are we sitting here, we've got the military force to take them. Go back to somebody like George Kennan, who's considered a great humanist. When he was in the planning sector, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, he said harsh measures may be necessary for "protection of our resources" -- which happen to be in some other country. That's just an accident of geography. They're our resources and we have to protect them by harsh measures, including police states and so on.

Take Bill Clinton. He had a doctrine too, every president has a doctrine. He was less brazen about it than Bush, didn't get criticized a lot, but his doctrine was more extreme than the Bush doctrine if taken literally. The official Clinton doctrine presented to Congress was that the United States has the unilateral right to use military force to protect markets and resources. The Bush doctrine said we've got to have a pretext, like we've got to claim they're a threat. Clinton doctrine didn't even go that far, we don't need any pretext. With markets and resources, we have a right to make sure that we control them, which is logical on the principle that we own the world anyway so of course we have that right.

You're going to have to look far in the political spectrum to find any deviation from this. So if the oil-rich countries were to try to really take independent control of the resources, there would be a very harsh reaction. The United States, by now, has a military system; more is spent on the military system than the rest of the world put together. There's a reason for that. That's not to defend the borders."

And guess what NATO is up to :

""The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East "Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life""""

" Energy security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048

It is no accident that Bush is demonizing Iran ...

"Fragile Dollar Hegemony: Iran's Oil Bourse could Topple the Dollar"

"Additionally, within the last week, three of the main underwater cables which carry Internet traffic have been cut off in the Persian Gulf and three-quarters of the international communications between Europe and the Middle East have been lost. Large parts of the Middle East have been plunged into darkness.

Is this merely a coincidence or is something else going on just below the surface? "

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8000

We now know that 5 internet cables were cut !

The demonization of Muslims is part and parcel of the war for oil which is being portrayed as a battle between civilizations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for responding. Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: Thanks for responding. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Thanks for responding. Posted by: yellow
» RE: Thanks for responding. Posted by: Urgelt
» RE: Thanks for responding. Posted by: yellow
» oh, yellow Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: oh, yellow Posted by: yellow
» RE: oh, yellow Posted by: werewolf
» YOU MUST UNDERSTAND... Posted by: Sapator J Cleck
American Theocracy
Posted by: Lector on Feb 12, 2008 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the Christian Right has gained so much legitimacy in this country, infiltrated the Pentagon, the government, and the need to have a religious requirement to become President, proves in my mind what a bunch of saps we Americans are and the consequences of not having proper history taught in our high schools. Both Christianity and Islam practiced in their “true” and literal forms have similarities (both are totalitarian groups that depend upon the ignorance of their followers and are different phases and plagiarisms from the original Judaic hallucinogenic desert religion who arrogantly set themselves apart from the rest of mankind) and are extremely dangerous in an age when we no longer fight with spears. This is not to claim that eradicating religion wouldn’t necessarily purify the earth since societies under secularist rule have also had lurid histories. Nevertheless eradicating religion would be a beginning to “purifying” the earth. And nevertheless, religionists on the extreme end continue to demonstrate how easy it is for any religion, should the proper conditions arise, to slide into a bloody fourth-century mindset. These people are a real pain in the ass. They make a good case for the eradication of all superstition, all sky gods. It is all fraud and bullying and power seeking, and most faith-heads are not happy unless you believe what they believe even though they cannot possibly know the “truth” they proclaim will set you free. Although both McCain and Huckabee claim Islam as the greatest threat to this country, it is religion itself that is the real issue here, and always has been. Trotting out former Muslims to evangelize for the Christian Right only plays upon the ignorance of the evangelical crowd and any group who is pro-Israel. I’m sure the Muslims could also find numerous examples of religious conversions to their faith.

And yet, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim or a Christian, as long as they keep it to themselves. But that would mean the existence of a slightly more rational world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: American Theocracy Posted by: dmmaze6
» wrong opiate Posted by: billwald
» RE: American Theocracy Posted by: mclemens
First they came...
Posted by: compu on Feb 12, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not the muslims the only one who will
get harm.Once it starts the other minorities
will be attacked too.
Its likud-gop axis that may prove fatal.
From allys in the war against the soviets
to them looking for ways to plant a nuke
in the US,or minimum the torch of the oil wells
in the middle east.
All for what?Read Buchanan,"who war".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who can we blame?
Posted by: Jbuuty on Feb 12, 2008 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with mmckinl that this phenomena has a lot to do with oil and gaining control over resources. Ideology is party of the problem, but political leaders are using church people to promote hatred of Islam, so that the USA can 'legitimately' go to war to control oil.

Other comments go the usual way of the ignorant anti-religion warpath. By using the same method of stereotyping as the Christian Right, they make general sweeping statements of the tyrannical nature of religion. It's more an expression of ignorance than anything else.

I would like to see more evidence about these three Palestinian men and what they are doing and who is supporting them. I've seen similar things in churches where I used to live, where an Iranian woman convert to Christianity (and people should have the right to convert) toured churches. She had obviously been carefully coached on what to say. And mostly she stirred up fear of Islam and Muslims.

It is all very distressing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who can we blame? Posted by: Richard House
» Atheists can be fanatics too! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Good point, except neither Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Anti-religion? Fear of Islam? Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: stupid Posted by: Dboy
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 12, 2008 2:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no such thing as god, just several million people who are afraid of dying.

Not to change the subject...

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: bowriter
» RE: Terrorist Posted by: landru
Chris seems to ignore the larger issue
Posted by: csds49 on Feb 12, 2008 2:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But as a christian, shoudn't he be sick to death that they are all going to burn in hell since they don't believe in Jesus?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

opinions and even lies are one thing, it's when politicians translate ideas into actions
Posted by: Suzon on Feb 12, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that we really need to worry. There is conduct which is always criminal. If you are among those who want impeachment, the following opinon by two English barristers may be of interest.

[Article 7(2) of the UK's Human Rights Act 1998] provides that there is no infringement of Article 7 if the conduct of the person being condemned was against international law or was 'criminal according the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations'. This provision is justified because there are some acts which are wrong whether or not they are illegal under a given legal system, and punishing people for those is therefore allowed.

For example, if a law created a secret police who were allowed to shoot people for no good reason, that would be wrong and they should not act this way even if permitted to do so by law. It would therefore be morally permissible to punish them for this, and so not an infringement of the rights of any secret police who did go around shooting people. That act was 'criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations'.

It is for this reason that it is considered morally acceptable to punish those who have committed war crimes, even if they acted within the law of their own country, because some acts are wrong whether or not they are permitted by law. Put another way, there are some things which cannot be made right just because they are made legal. So, the War Crimes Act 1991 provides retrospective criminal jurisdiction to courts in the United Kingdom regarding war crimes committed during the Second World War, in Germany by persons who are British citizens or are now resident in the United Kingdom: this is not contrary to Article 7 because of Article 7(2).

This was another consideration in the case of SW v UK, the marital rape case. The European Court stated:

The essentially debasing character of rape is so manifest that the result of these decisions [...] cannot be said to be at variance with the object and purpose of Article 7 of the Convention. [...] What is more, the abandonment of the unacceptable idea of a husband being immune against prosecution for rape of his wife was in conformity not only with a civilised concept of marriage but also, and above all, with the fundamental objectives of the Convention, the very essence of which is respect for human dignity and human freedom.

Thus the Court was affirming the principle that there is no breach of Article 7 where the law allows, or appears to allow, something which is inherently and seriously wrong. This is because it should be quite obvious to the person committing such an act that what they are doing is wrong, whether or not it is legal. It should not be an excuse for them to hide behind a legal exception or technicality and the removal of such a legal protection does not infringe their rights, because the context is one in which they are only having to face the consequences of doing something they should not have done.


David Hoffman & John Rowe QC (2003) Human Rights in the UK: An Introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998, p 179

This explains, of course, why the present administration has been increasingly oppressive--these people have a lot to fear. Perhaps it's time to campaign for plea bargaining and clemency for members of Congress. Checking the misuse of power is still a good idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's simply fascism by another name
Posted by: keefus55 on Feb 12, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Sinclair Lewis once said, "When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

However, with the Presidential candidacies of the Islamophobes (particularly that of Mr. Huckabee) now sputtering most parts of the United States outside their narrow fundamentalist orbit, it would appear that the so-called "rabid religious right" is learning just how out of touch with the rest of society (and our Constitution) they really are.

Thankfully, their once grand plans to turn our nation into a despotic theocracy are now falling down around their ears as more and more of the rest of us witness the sheer, blatant hypocrisy (if not the outright fraud and chicanery) now being perpetuated by the so-called "leaders" of these "holier than thou" types.

In that narrow sense, the Presidency of George W. Bush has been a Godsend because the true nature of their (and his) theocratic plans for our nation have now been revealed (and personified) for all to see…and reject.

Our Founding Fathers very carefully crafted our Constitution so as to firmly prohibit the establishment of a "state religion" all the while guaranteeing every citizen the right to free expression of their own religious beliefs.

I certainly have no qualm with someone expressing those religious beliefs in their own, private way. However, I (and most others) are increasingly drawing the line when the "holy rollers" attempt to cram their narrow (and often militant) religious beliefs down the rest of our throats via the legislative process as well as via captive audiences in such public places as our schools and universities.

Maybe that's because most of the rest of us have now learned that the so-called "Moral Majority" wasn't (and isn't) so "moral" (nor is it a "majority") after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's simply fascism by another name Posted by: walldodger1969
» Rejcting Fascism? Posted by: Cathyc
» It's a done deal Posted by: billwald
» RE: It's a done deal Posted by: Lauren
» I just hope you are right... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
Rebecca from Ohio
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 12, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges, the author of this article, said a wonderful thing---"Obama reassured followers that he was a Christian. It apparently did not occur to him, or his questioners, that the proper answer is that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, that persons of great moral probity and courage arise in all cultures and all religions, including Islam. Christians have no exclusive lock on virtue."===
Superb statement--Thank You, Chris Hedges.

FRANKLY---some of the best people I know are agnostic (don't claim to know religious truths one way or another) and atheists---in fact, the atheists I know feed the hungry, clothe the poor, help others regardless of affiliation, (either religious, gender-orientation, political party or any other defining attribute)---they don't do good things because they have a desire to please a god or a selfish desire to get themselves a ticket to the hereafter (if there is one).
They do what they do because they have loving hearts. Now if I were God, I'd put them first on my list for entry into Heaven.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep. Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Yep. Posted by: Xynyx
» Sanvity -v- Insanity Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Rebecca from Ohio Posted by: opmoc
» RE: John 3:16 Posted by: Dboy
» RE: John 3:16 Posted by: Token Military Rep
» RE: John 3:16 Posted by: mclemens
» RE: John 3:16 Posted by: Bec59
» RE: ebecca from Ohio Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Why Give Them Press?
Posted by: Sissy on Feb 12, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we even try and dissect this whacked part of our society? The Christian Right? They don't deserve the thoughtful concern that the posters in this thread are giving. I believe the whole lot of them should be treated like summer bugs. You just whack them as they light and when they get too pesky, give a good dose of DDT.

They're not worth it, and have proven their utter lack of credibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We allowed it to happen Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Lauren & cathyc Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Why Give Them Press? Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Why Give Them Press? Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» RE: Why Give Them Press? Posted by: Intellect
Sweet Wm
Posted by: Sweet Wm on Feb 12, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This would have been a powerful answer to the right wingnuts had it offered evidence that these men are charlatans rather than just ranting about the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just look at their record ~ Posted by: Token Military Rep
» RE: Just look at their record ~ Posted by: Token Military Rep
It begins with theology
Posted by: robchapman on Feb 12, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fundamentalist theology contains its own refutation of the idea of war against the Moslems. They are continually preaching the doctrine of justification by faith.

Through this doctrine, they hold that good works are futile in the quest for salvation.

In the conservative movement, faith in Jesus and evangelization or proclamation of the Gospel is the only path to salvation.

To refute the idea of Holy War against the Infidel, one need only ask the Fundie whether his Jihad is placing his faith in works.

The difficulty is not in the theology, the difficulty is in the Preachers and people who see themselves as God's Elect and unbound by any sort of human decency.

The Fundamentalish movement provides no institutional or practical control to temper the people's passions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It begins with theology Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: It begins with theology Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: It begins with theology Posted by: Lauren
» RE: It begins with theology Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Muslim, Christians, it REALLY doesn't matter
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 12, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everytime any religion gets any type of power, intolerance, hate, and human rights abuses follow.

Islam has power in the Middle East. Feel free to list the human rights abuses. Hope you have plenty of time on your hands, it might take a bit.

Christianity used to have power in Europe. It was no better.

Egypt believed their pharaoh was a god. Once again, very sickening rites and the abuses of enslaved people.

Aztec sun worshippers performed human sacrifices, because their high priest had power.

The issue isn't WHICH religion has power, ANY religion having POWER is a problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More fuel for the fire
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 12, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget for a moment that what we see is another HIT JOB on Christians. The left cannot seem to distinguish between Christians and “hard right” Evangelicals, just as they cannot seem to bring themselves to write a similar article denouncing what is probably the most violent religion in existence today, Islam, especially in it’s extreme form.

Regular every day Muslims do not pose any more threat to America as regular every day Christians pose to Muslims around the world.

One only needs to look at the terrorism Muslims are waging around the world to get a sense of why many people associate terrorism with Muslims, an unfortunate association for the every day muslim family.

As for McCains statements, Islamic terrorism is pretty much what is going on in the world today..not Christian terrorism. I do not see Christian blowing themselves up killing thousands. I also do not see any articles relating to recent reports that Islamic terrorists are recruiting children and mentally impaired people to blow themselves up for the cause.

I might also remind people that Obama and the far left especially take great pains to make sure people know he is not a Muslim – so it appears the left is just as phobic as the right about muslims.

Lastly Islam is under no more threat in this country than Christianity – judging by the number of anti Christian articles appearing in left leaning publications, attacks by the ACLU and other groups to erase Christianity from our identity.

As a Catholic I am demonized by the far right Evangelicals/born again crowd as any other religion – but at least I feel pretty secure that they aren’t going to blow me up for their cause.

Can it be that people like Martin Luther King who was a very religious person and referred to religion in many of his speeches were that horrible or can even be compared to Islamc radicals.

It sems that it's the far left with their anti Christian movement that is fueling the Christian right response - the last thing we need is another religious right in office - way to go left!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: rongvk
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire - BRAVO! Posted by: Token Military Rep
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: Longdream
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: Longdream
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: particle
» "Oh the humanity"? Posted by: Longdream
» RE: "Oh the humanity"? Posted by: particle
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: brimitch
» Where is that article???? Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Where is that article???? Posted by: particle
» RE: Where is that article???? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: More fuel for the fire Posted by: werewolf
I received my first threat of law suit from Walid's handler
Posted by: wawa on Feb 12, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WAWA Blog February 3, 2008:

"USA Air Force Academy Feb. 6, 2008: Failure of Intelligence to Support the Troops"


[Orlando, Fl. Feb. 1, 2008] The infamous darling of fear filled fundamentalist Christians and Jews of the cult spewed by the likes of John Hagee and the idiot wind blown on FOX's Hannity & Colmes, Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto show, will be show boating at the annual political forum at the US Air Force Academy on Feb. 6, 2008.

Walid Shoebat, author of "Why We Want to Kill You" has built a lucrative speaking career by manipulating the fears and whipping up hatred between Jews and Muslims and he claims to be a former Islamic terrorist who has converted to Christianity...


Keith Davies, Walid's handler emailed me on Feb. 5th:

"To avoid a lawsuit you need to contact us by email within 24 hours, it is now 1 a.m. aprox EST, so you can issue a full apology and retraction. We will provide instructions once you contact us. If you do not we will use the full weight of the law so that the integretity of Mr. Shoebat's story is protected. The choice is yours"


I posted most of Walid's epistle to me and my responses on the Feb. 7th blog, and offer you an excerpt:

Hi Keith,



No apology and no retraction will come from me. The issue for me and the point of my article which Walid and you ignore is:



Walid's brand of Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus who promised it is the peacemakers who are the children of God and not those that bomb, torture, starve or occupy others.



Walid's brand of Christianity defies that "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out all fear because fear has to do with punishment." 1 John 4:16, 18



Walid's brand of Christianity as professed by anti-Christ's [against the teachings of Christ] such as John Hagee and Tim La Haye's Left Behind nonsense is the epitome of the spirit of the anti-Christ: fear of the other that drives one to violence.



Walid's brand of Christianity thrives on fear and Jesus said: "FEAR NOT! You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."





Walid's brand of Christianity leaves behind all the non-negotiables for those who claim to be a Christian; which is you must forgive, bless and love your enemies.



The problem is not with Christianity but that too few have done it the way Jesus taught and modeled: to always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with compassion and forgiveness, as Jesus did when nailed to a cross and he prayed: "Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing."



St. Paul who never hesitated expressing his freedom of speech warned, "Do not judge the non-believer, it is none of your business. But, when it comes to the believer, provoke one another to good works."



God knows the motivations of Walid's heart, but as Rev. Awad warned, "Christians are called by God to prayerfully use the gift of discernment."



Discernment and good intelligence is what our troops need, and that is not what they are receiving on February 6, 2008 at the USA Air Force Academy, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the heart of the western Bible Belt.





"You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won't back down."-Tom Petty





Eileen Fleming,

Author, Reporter and Editor WAWA:

http://www.wearewideawake.org/



Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get over it Suzon..... Posted by: Fencerider
» I love that word 'integretity.' :-) Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» This is minutae people.... Posted by: Fencerider
as someone speaking from the bible belt...
Posted by: ZenQuixote on Feb 12, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've had MANY "christian" neighbors, and to an individual they are the loudest, noseyest, most annoying people I have ever met.

on the other hand, I once had a young Muslim couple as neighbors, and they were the best neighbors I've ever had, always polite, quiet, and ready to help...

so who's the real problem here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Prepare to rate me a one... Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Prepare to rate me a one... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: bible belt... Posted by: Dboy