Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.

@dystopianfuturetoday, don't try to pin the Republicans who go voted in on our ideology, brother. You're just grasping at straws at this point.

But let's talk about some of the things you're bringing up.

1. Government services. The go to argument for statists any time you attack the amount we pay in taxes and what we're taxed on (income & inheritance tax being the worst of them) is "What about the roads? The fire department? The police?!" What's important to point out here is that these cited governmental "services" are always the bare minimum offered, and never do they scream out "What about our defense budget? The unreconciled transactions each year in the Treasury Department (reaching $25 billion in 2003 alone!)? The jackbooting swat teams at the G20 summits?! The prison industrial complex?!!! Homeland Security?!"

Roads, police and firefighters are all paid for by local taxes (not Federal), mind you, and most of which can be paid for by excise taxes or other voluntary taxes. Can we put that dog to rest?

2. Social contract. I didn't sign it. You didn't either. As mentioned above, a contract is an agreement where both parties voluntarily agree to the terms. Those who believe in the social contract idea tend to think, as you do, that it's a trade for living in a 'democracy'. That's ridiculous on its face. And your 'like it or leave it' mentality on the matter has the intellectual maturity of the Republican 'this is a Christian nation' philosophy. Bravo.

3. Taxes. Offering services and goods under the threat of violence is immoral, therefore compulsory taxes are theft. If you agree with compulsory taxes, then you agree services and goods should be offered under the threat of violence, and in any other arena outside of government that would be considered sociopathic.

Thanks, in hindsight, I don't like my tone. I would rather live in a world of little conflict and shouting...and there I go shouting and reacting in anger. O well, only human I guess.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

For the most part he seems harmless. He's talking to kids, after all--he is being silly in order to keep their attention. A definite wtf for equating suicide with cowardice and thinking that Jurassic Park is somehow anti-Biblical, though. And epic Constitutional fail for saying that America is supposed to be a "Christian nation."

Where is he now? Still "spreading the fire" of revival.

Oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my fucking god!

There are so many things wrong with this! I want to impale my face on some rocks! Trust me, this is how fascism will come to be in America. It will be a unified message between corporatists and fundamentalists, and just when the country is bankrupt from printing the money supply into hyperinflation, a pro-national message will unify us all to give up everything: rights, money, property. You will be a ward of the great nation. A god's nation.

In god we trust?! Did she just cite something that's been around for 60 years as proof positive that this is a Christian nation?! Fuck me running. Fuck my balls off. And the sheep will believe it. Soon revisionists will convince us all this is a non-secular society divinely appointed by statuesque gods named Washington and Jefferson, and a mighty cross upon their escutcheon.

These people need to crack a bio or two of the founding fathers before they spew their bile. They'd be very surprised how anti-fundamentalism a lot of them were. These were, for the most part, intellectuals who believed in the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, which is antithetical to her "down home" one-cross-size-fits-all government. Damn.

beck appeals to the inherent paranoia of those who are un-educated or ill-educated.
i posted a few months ago how rhetoric kills.
beck appeals to those who are angry,scared and dont understand the why's or what's and what beck offers is not news,nor any form of journalism.he does not offer context and repeatedly has been caught blatanly lying and making things up all for the specific purpose to incite his viewers,who are already angry and upset.
lest we forget the man who consumed almost exclusively neo-con and right wing propaganda i.e:beck,hannity and linbaugh and walked into a unitarian church and opened fore on innocents.

in the political spectrum conservative ideology has its place just as progressive ideology does.both are needed for a myriad of reasons but what we get in beck and hannity, and limbaugh for that matter, has little or nothing to do with a "conservative" ideology but far more to do with pushing a narrative to further a political party.
it is almost verbatim the very definition of propaganda.
hugh hewitt reveals himself to be a tool in just such a propaganda machine as he tries...poorly..to explain away beck and his rhetoric.if anybody actually took the time to pay attention to what has been going on you would find that both parties have abandoned their core principles in order to serve their corporate masters.
while the democrats give lip service to their progressive netroots base while enacting policy that serves the corporate elite.the republicans use inflammatory language to incite anger and distrust and use such banal terms such as :family values,fiscal conservative,christian nation.all terms used to fire up the base but when you take a look at their own policies you see a very different narrative.

in my opinion.the people who are becoming angry and frustrated.progressive and teabagger alike are ill-served by the likes of glenn beck.for while they have reason to be angry and frustrated they are no more closer to understanding WHY pr WHAT they are angry about,because the corporate media has utterly failed to inform properly its own viewers which has left these people vulnerable to the predatory antics of such douchebags as beck,hannity and even mr perfect hair hugh hewitt.
they should not be making million dollar contracts but be ran out of town in a cloud of shame.

Yes, atheists fuel the fire. When Christian Fundies try to take over the government, insert their faith into the courts and the schools, you better believe the atheists will be fighting back. This is NOT a Christian nation, it is secular. You can believe in the rapture if you want, but keep that crap out of my face, and out of government.

Also, they really believe they win arguments. It's the same as faith. Belief in something despite evidence to the contrary. That's why they say we use fallacious arguments and they don't. They have faith that they are arguing correctly.

"It's only "slurring" if being a muslim is a bad thing."

It's slurring when you use it as a slur.

You mean like when you use Christian, Mormon, religious as a slur?

You're accusing him of being a Muslim, as though "Muslim" instantly means terrorist. It does not.

A muslim who is not warring against infidels is disobeying the quran. A muslim who is not deceiving infidels about his true nature is disobeying the quran. A muslim who is not working to create an islamic government in the country he inhabits is disobeying the quran. A muslim who refuses to beat his wife is disobeying the quran. A muslim who allows an image of mohammed to be produced is disobeying the quran...

There's a damned good reason very few Westerners flock to the islamic way of life and muslim-run countries in general. Can you guess what it is?

There are Islamic Fundamentalists, and there are Islamic Moderates, just like there are Christian Fundamentalists, and Christian Moderates.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask where are these Islamic Moderates or more importantly, where is the tolerant, peace-enjoying, advanced civilization they've built? There must not be very many of them or perhaps CAIR and the Fundamentalists stole all the microphones...

You're apparently quite happy with allowing the Fundamentalists all the free reign they need to fuck up our country, as long as they Christian Fundamentalists.

Your arguments of Christian fundamentalists versus islamic fundamentalists is a dead end and you know it. At least in a majority Christian nation your overt bigotry against Christians won't end with your head being removed from your body.

That makes you a hypocrite.

A bigger hypocrite is Obama taking a pledge to "support and defend the Constitution".

I stand by my original statement: I wish this guy praised America like he does Islam.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

"We all know that the bible is written by humans. We all know that evolution is obvious."

Do we? I seem to be running into quite a few people who don't know that. You make a reasonable case for moderation but I for one believe in the cause of atheism as an important one:

It's important to prevent creationism from being taught as science in schools.

It's important that religious zealots don't prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights.

It's important that we don't let evangelicals proclaim that the United States is a "Christian Nation" and obscure the lines between church and state

It's important that we stand up against using some crappy passages in Leviticus to condemn Gays as abominations

^ lol

Dawkins does talk about "all" theists occasionally, but for the most part he is specifically talking about creationists and evangelicals who are pushing their beliefs onto those who feel differently. If it weren't for those assholes, we wouldn't even need to have these conversations. They could believe whatever nonsense they wanted to, and we could quietly ignore them. But when they try to push creationism as science, or try to convince everyone that the US is a christian nation and that laws need to reflect that, they go too far and must be opposed.

And "theism contains hundreds of millions of quiet, unassuming, hard working, humble people" who don't lift a finger to stop the ones who would force the rest of us to conform.

And about that insecurity thing... atheists don't have a weekly brainwashing session. You'd never hear from us if it wasn't for people shoving their fairy tales in our faces.

"Christian Nation" my fucking arse. These people hate others as good as they do in any other country.

If you need to defend yourself with an AK-47, because God wont do it, you must have a pretty flimsy impression of what God can and cant do. He's down in Missouri, which is #8 for the most obese state. Can people who weigh 800 lbs properly fire an AK-47?

For EDD, the AK-47 can be semi-automatic or full automatic. I believe its only one item in the gun that seperates the two distict firing modes. An automactic rifle is outlaw'ed in the USA except those grand-fathered in, or under special permit(s).

But this guy is an idiot. So those Mexican drug trafficers can go to him, buy a truck to help transport their meth from Mexico to his backyard of Missouri, and get a free gun to kill Mexican police (since they pose as legit buyers at gun shows all the time for the past decade). And he complains about the grow of drugs in his area. Wonder how long it will take this guy to put 2 & 2 together.

Finally, the US is not a Christian nation. Last I checked, we have something called the 1st Amendement. The Revolutionary War was fought (among other things), to have religious freedom from the King of England. We just didnt like the King's version of Christianity at the time.

How about this WP:

Shut the fuck up and go cry your neo-con mistruths over at Malkins blog or LGF.

No matter what anyone does who doesn't advocate violence, and bloodshed of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, you will forever disagree. You cheer on the slaughter of kids, and wave the ugly flag of imperialism over ever non-white, non-christian nation on this planet.


You didn't even watch this video.


You contribute absolutely nothing here at VS. Never once submitted a video, never once posted to sifttalk. And just like your Randian brethren here and elsewhere who scream bloody murder at unemployed people seeking benefits, for some reason you won't cough up a red cent to this community who provides a service that you use every day.

I have you on ignore, and have for quite some time. I wish VS would also not display your comments when quoted, as it is like being forced to listen to Limbaugh or Coulter or Kristol spew their hatred and lies all day.

I wish you'd really just leave this place.