Comments on: Christian terrorism?

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:23:51 +0000

Characterizing a malefactor as, for instance, a Christian, because he may be one, and then attributing his deeds to Christianity, fails logically, because no nexus between his religious beliefs and his deeds has been established. One could with equal validity make the same attribution to his eye color.

This is where the Red propagandists obfuscate the issue by implicitly invoking moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims when issues of violence arise.

Christianity in its contemporary form does not advocate violence against non-believers, whereas Islam in some of its contemporary forms (Wahabism) does. That advocacy in Islam creates the requisite nexus between religious beliefs and violent deeds.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:42:43 +0000

But not all endoskeletons are equal, unfortunately.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:42:13 +0000

A man of faith has an endoskeleton.

Without that moral armature, he needs an exoskeleton. And he gets it, one way or another.

By: Bobar

Bobar — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 05:24:26 +0000

I’m beginning to understand the whole “luke warm” thing that God so despised. My church stands for almost nothing. It’s a pity.

By: Francesca

Francesca — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 03:27:42 +0000

Well, then, by his own words, he is NOT a Christian. Only sees Christianity as a cultural idea.
Not a believing Christian at all.

By: Oblio

Oblio — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:45:10 +0000

They believe they can control the substance by controlling the symbols. They are wrong.

By: jon baker

jon baker — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:41:03 +0000

(when work is available, I might add, as that faith does distinguish between normal times and times of crisis)

By: jon baker

jon baker — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:35:08 +0000

Curits said ” Because the gem is the religious faith of the people, a faith that requires an inner morality and produces a lawful society. A faith that requires if you do not eat, you do not work. ”

I suspect you accidentally transposed that, as it should be if the able bodied “do not work, they do not eat”

By: Curtis

Curtis — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 01:23:30 +0000

Death by “Living Constitutionalism:”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43946055/ns/business-us_business/

By: Curtis

Curtis — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:49:22 +0000

With people like Onyo, you have a “living” Constitution. The clue ought to be taken in that the word “living” is the opposite of the intent and result: death.

And that is indeed what we are seeing: death. Death of freedom, death of our economy, death of our national security, death of our representative politics . . .

Onyo may allege our Constitution is secular. It is not but it certainly may be wrongly interpreted that way and, IT MAY BE MADE THAT WAY!

Progressives seek to use the neutrality that is in the Constitution to impose their hegemony because they allege they are neutral. Simple. All done. I guess that’s it. Forget the Declaration of Independence. Forget the underpinnings of natural law. Forget popular sovereignty which gives the right of lawmaking to the people. And there in lies the rub. The people, like Onyo, can wrest the gem out of its setting, throw away the gem, and set in its place a worthless stone. Because the gem is the religious faith of the people, a faith that requires an inner morality and produces a lawful society. A faith that requires if you do not eat, you do not work.

It would be fun, if there were a place to go to, to leave the fools to their task. They would come, beggars and winded, for help and succor.