Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Mindless Christophobia

In FPM there is an article about books that portray the far lefts fear of theocracy. Theocracy is a bad idea and almost entirely a Muslim experience. There are only a handful of Jewish nuts who seek this for Israel. The concern of the authors is not those who impose Sharia on non-believers but Christians in America.

The United States has a long standing history of Civil law. On a practical matter if we were to create a Christion Theocracy whose canon would we use. This is yet another example of mindless leftists hyperventilating about imagined fears while ignoring a starker reality.

Most of the people who read this blog know I am secular, but from a religious family.
The beloved Rav Roov is a fairly normal religious person, even for a clergy man. He wants to practice his faith as he interprets it without freaks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg deciding how he should conduct his services. The beloved Rav Roov is Orthodox and men and women sit seperately. As an Orthodox Rabbi he would not handle a gay marriage. Rav Roov should also be free to make his sermons ( Dvar Torah) as he sees fit.

The reality is God just is not PC. A PC god would be a colosal bore and very vanilla.
Those Congregations that embrace a Vanilla version of Christianity often find the pews empty. The reality is most religious Christians are not that different from Rav Roov. Most want to practice their faith as they define it without the intervention of freaks in black robes or bug eyed Marxists.

Oddly the most unhinged of the Christophobes are the sons of treason. There is something surreal about a group of nuts who advocate a system that has produced Gulags, Killing Fields, Boat People, Class Genocide, Neoslavery and deliberate starvation worrying about the 700 club or the viewers of the late Zola Leavitt. A recent version of this came on Redwines excellent blog where an unhinged Marxist was worried about the spread of Christianity in India. Christians do not behead people or engage in any large scale terrorism. Those that rail about one or two abortion clinic bombeers are mixing apples and oranges. The overwhelming vast preponderance of terrorist activity has been done via Koran or Manifesto and often a fusion of the two.

Most Christians want government to respect religious traditions but recognize the cleavage of Civil and religious law. Tuition tax credits are an example of a policy that many religious people would seek. Many wish to bypass the far left teachers union pc idiocy for a religious education. Parents would like to send their children to private schools and should get tax credits for doing so.

The only time that the State should ever get involved with a religion is when the religion exhorts people to violence. Any call to a domestic Jihad should be treated as incitement to riot. Freedom of speech and religion never has protected criminal acts such as treason, sedition and incitement to riot.

Beamish in 08.


The Merry Widow said...

That's about it, Beaker!
I have no desire to force feed Christianity on anyone! You know why? Because it wouldn't be real, it would be a legalistic checklist, not a personal relationship!
And real Christians struggle to love our enemies and those who dispitefully use us. Not blow them into kingdom-come!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!


Always On Watch Two said...

Ooh! I want to make a cogent comment here, but I've got to dash off to work. Back this afternoon!

Mr. Ducky said...

Oh my the nasty Ruth Bader Ginsgerg. The "activist" judge.

Couple questions Beak:

1. I interpret "activist judge" as a jurist who frequently overturns precedent. Which current Supreme Court justice has overturned the fewest cases of precedence and which has overturned the most.

2. How has Ginsberg dictated anything concenring you brithers religious practice other than he can't mandate it through the state?

Mr. Ducky said...

Also Beak, as usual you are blowing smoke out of your ass. So called Christians have committed atrocities but we simply are sufficiently level headed not to see them as indicative or even Christian at all.

Somehow you got so blinded by your kahanist mindset that you see ever Arab who commits an atrocity as religious. They are all religious but you have no difficulty simply naming yourself "secular" even though you allow Israel to commit many crimes in the name of judaism.

beakerkin said...

Speaking of mindless the Bird brain appears on cue. Marriage still is a religious term defined under religion. It is the far lefts mindless Christophobia driven by Marx that motivates the intrusion of Bader Ginsburg types into the religious terms.

Israel is the worlds only Jewish state and a State defending itself is no crime. Arabs allready posses and abundance of mostly stolen real estate and have a series of ethnically cleansed states to reside in.

Terrorism and crimes are overwhelimingly motivated via Manifesto and Hadith or a combination of the two.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, as usual you are blowing more smoke out of your butt.

Do you go to the church or synagogue to get a marriage license? No you go to the state. Now I leave it to you to figure that out.

Do you want Catholic canon law to apply to marriage? Or Leviticus? Or sharia? Which?

Come back when you have something coherent to say Beak but you are going to have a pretty difficult time demonstrating that legislation governing marriage should be left to religion.

Of course in early Christian days marriage was a method to control the transfer of property but I'll leave it to you to educate yourself along with the more educable of your community.

beakerkin said...


I do not go to Church to get a dog liscence or permits to keep Poultry. Most religions have extensive laws governing who can marry. In fact if you can find one that doesn't let me know.

The primary purpose of marriage was still to create Children. The property bit was secondary but leave it to a Commie clown to get many things wrong.

The term civil unions has no such definition. If the state wants to confer benefits it can readilly do so without Marxist freaks poaching religious terms. The record of Commies and homosexuality in practice is also a record your kind ignore. While Cuban homosexuals were being tossed in mental hospitals the number of words said by Chomsky et al 0. In fact your kind praised this health system even as it created AIDS ghettoes.

Sorry Bird Brain but the truth hurts.

Urban_Infidel said...

Here's some interesting reading on this subject:


Beware the Christian Jihad?
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 27, 2007

A new book that is climbing the New York Times Bestseller List warns Americans of a dedicated minority of religious fanatics who are hijacking a great religion and actively working to destroy the United States Constitution and set up a theocracy in America, in which nonbelievers will be discriminated against or even summarily killed. Nor is their nefarious vision confined to the United States alone: this small but influential and wealthy band of religious zealots is also trying to turn events in the Middle East to their own advantage, so as to advance their religious agenda there also.

beakerkin said...


Be very afraid of TMW's recipies or good nature. Be very afraid of AOW reading used books. Be very afraid of Rob Bayn wearing Bowling shoes and Watching American idol.

This Christophobia is mindless.

Urban_Infidel said...

OH I'm not Christophobic.
I'm a secular recovering atheist.

beakerkin said...


I know that I am just having fun with the subject. Men wearing bowling shoes in public is a greater danger than Christian theocracy.

We have plenty of Christians and Jewish readers at this site. The only person who ever regularly posted who was a proponent of theocracy was MZ. Even MZ's crazy ideas are restricted to a NJ sized state and even that is only upon Jews.

The only group in mass clamoring for theocracy are Muslims who want to impose their views on non-believers.

The Merry Widow said...

Beaker-If I ever say that a recipe has chicken in it, be prepared to decamp for Popeye's! I have had occassional failures, they have been of an interesting nature. Which reminds me, I have a meatball version of the chicken-tortellini soup! It's VERY good!
And the only thing I'm about to impose is a skillet to certain fowl-brained individuals and their Marcuse sidekick!


beakerkin said...


Ducky has no compassion for my poultry addiction. Turkey, Chicken, Duck, Goose are all on my menu daily. If I go into withdrawl pidgeons, crows, seagulls may be next. Parakeets are safe because I need a dozen to make something edible.

Mr. Ducky said...

So? They weren't Jewish

All muslims are the enemy. They'd just grow up to threaten Israel. That's what you and the mad zionist subhuman believe, isn't it Beak?

The Merry Widow said...

Sparrows are a little small too! Pigeons should be decent, my Dad's brother had a recipe for barbequeing them, they were very yummy!
Stay away from seagulls, they eat garbage!


beakerkin said...


I can not speak for MZ. MZ's idea of a Jewish theocracy is a fringe opinion held by a few lunatics.

Nowhere do you read such broad statements about Muslims on this blog. As far as portraying people as subhuman this blog would sugest that Communists would be lower than fecal matter. At least fecal matter is good for fertilizers and all Commies ever cause is death and mayhem.

As far as Arabs go they have ample real estate allready. The notion of constantly placating a colonial people with an abundance of land from the very people they abused for 1400 years is turning history on its head.

Arabs need to settle their own refugees like every other people on the planet. MZ has advocated many outlandish things. However, he has never advocated genocide in any of the posts I read.

Do note in the past when I used the term Vermin it was to describe Communists. Sonia pointed out that any comparison of Communists to vermin is an insult to Vermin who do nit create Gulags, Killing Field or Class genocide.

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, why are you ashamed of being a kahanist?

beakerkin said...


Secular people are unlikely advocates for theocracy. The only thing MZ and I agree upon is the desire for a strong Israel. MZ has never been a friend in any description. We have a few mutual friends and that is about the extent of it.

In your case being a Kahanist would represent personal improvement. Advocacy of class genocide and Communist lunacy is a far worse idea than creating a theocracy in a tiny state.

If you have a problem with MZ and his ideas you should speak to MZ.
MZ is capable of defending his own ideas.

jams o donnell said...

I parted company with Catholicism in around 1980 over social teachings. There are a lot of things wrong with the Catholic Church but I knew I wasn't going to be skewered or burned for giving it the finger!

beakerkin said...


This is not skewering of secular types as I am secular myself. There is a mindless phobia about Christians installing a theocracy in the USA.

A persons religion or lack of religion is a private matter. However, the only people advocating for theocracy in this day and age are Muslims and a handful of assorted crank followers of Kahane who are statistically irrelevant.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...


Why are you ashamed of revealing you share the same leftism of Adolf Hitler?

Always On Watch Two said...

From the FPM article:

The threat is imminent. Hedges claims that “those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength.” He even asserts that “those in the movement often speak about such a moment with gleeful anticipation.” For now – but only for now – the Christian Right is “forced to function within the political system it seeks to destroy.”

That's just wacko, IMO. I know of no Christians waiting for any such thing, waiting to "strike."

And from Rushdoony's site (Rushdoony is mentioned in the FPM article):

“No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God's sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.”

I happen to know Dr. Rushdoony; at least, I think it is the same man. Anyway, the above quote sums up the man's position on theocracy, from what I remember of the several times I met him. In fact, I was so impressed with the man's reasoned speeches that I specifically asked for him as guest speaker for my high-school graduation. He graciously acquiesced. The speech he gave was one of patriotism--not any kind of rabble-rousing.

Dr. Rushdoony is a Calvinist and doesn't see the role of Christians as serving as the hand of the Lord to intevene in civil matters.


If the Left is so worried about the establishment of a theocracy, why aren't they up in arms over utopian Islamists who yearn for the caliphate?

For years, educational institutions have condemned the evils of Puritanism as it pertained to theocracy? But Islamism today gets a pass on that same matter. If we can all agree that the days of Puritan rule was a bad time (case in point in The Scarlet Letter, why can't we agree that Islamism is a bad thing?

Interestingly enough, Nathaniel Hawthorne had tried out Brooke Farm, only to be consummately disappointed in the failure of a utopia. Hmmmm.....

kuhnkat said...

The Buttbrained Birdhead can not restrain himself from trumpeting his ignorance:

"1. I interpret "activist judge" as a jurist who frequently overturns precedent. Which current Supreme Court justice has overturned the fewest cases of precedence and which has overturned the most."

Dungbreath, a Supreme is to INTERPRET the Law based on whether it is in conformance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Please show us references where there is any other definition that has been LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE SYSTEM OF LAWS ESTABLISHED BY THEM!!!

The fact that MORONS like you LEFTARDS believe that the Constitution should ITSELF be reinterpreted based on your OWN PERVERTRED VALUES has absolutely NOTHING to do with the LAW!!!


Whether a PRECEDENT is to be overturned or not depends solely upon whether it is in conformance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights!!!

An ACTIVIST Judge is one who MAKES UP SH!T like YOU!!!!

You LEFTARDS really have a House of Delusionary Cards going for you!!


You MORON!!!!

kuhnkat said...

Mr. B the IP asked:


Why are you ashamed of revealing you share the same leftism of Adolf Hitler?"

Actually, he is not. He has been indoctrinated in the idea that it is BAD for his cause to ADMIT IT!!!


The Merry Widow said...

Gee, KuhnKat, they give out leftista hunting liscenses today? They sure are coming out of the woodwork, or from under the rocks!
You are bound and determined to get your daily limit, right? LOL!
I ought to sic you on them more often, should be interesting.
Heck. I'm impressed!


Always On Watch Two said...

The Buttbrained Birdhead can not restrain himself from trumpeting his ignorance

Maybe he'll be singing his swan song. Trumpet of the Swan.

FLORIAN said...

Most Christians should realise that Theocracies will never work and if we had a Theocracy, it'd would have an inverse relationship towards the goal of our religion since the goal of our religion is not through FORCED conversion but by converstion by CHOICE. We see this in how Bosnian-Muslims practice their faith--most are descendants of cowards who gave into the Sultan's demands of convert or die...now, centuries later most claim they're muslim, but hardly practicing--in fact most could accurately be labled as agnostics.

z said...

always on watch two....but doesn't Rushdoony believe CHristians must do his work on earth, bring more souls to salvation.? I thought he was not one of those evanglists who believes we ought to sit on our hands until the so-called 'rapture' comes, from what I know.

My friend Grayce was his secretary/transcriber for many years. Adored the man.

AND....DRUM ROLL.........HE"S ARMENIAN! ! YEAAAA!! (Smile)

By the way, I have never heard ANY Christian advocate stoning like the FPM piece implies about Rushdoony...I'll have to ask my friend...what's with THAT? ridiculous. It's as Biblical as Jews not eating pork; nothing to do with faith and everything to do with context/the times/illness, etc.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...


I absolutely refuse to believe leftists are intelligent enough to plan that far ahead.

If the mail didn't come, Ducky wouldn't know what to think until the package arrived.

Always On Watch Two said...

Dr. Rushdoony doesn't believe in the Rapture, as far as I know. I can remember the exact name of the eschatology to which he subscribes. Sorry.

As far as I recall, he believes that Christians should be busy doing His work until He comes. And Christians have different tasks--evangelicalism, teaching, etc. Dr. Rushdoony is quite a scholar of Paul's epistles, which don't suggest sitting around and awaiting His coming. Dr. Rushdoony is committed to The Great Commission, of course.

Dr. Rushdoony really knew how to give a sermon! He didn't run on and on; rather, he made a few cogent points, dismissed the congregation, and let his listeners think over what he had said. In fact, his sermons were on the short side.

Mr. Ducky said...

Kuhncat, here's your task for the day. Look up "stare decisis".

Now, use the concept to expand your knowledge rather than spouting some useless aphorism you learned in your home schooled elementary civics class.

The Merry Widow said...

AoW- It's called "amillenialism".


kuhnkat said...


show me "stare decisis" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. When you fail at that, you can then show me how it was LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED through the above LAW of the land.

I freely admit I do not know every law that Congress ever passed. Surprise me!!


You MORON!!!!

jams o donnell said...

My point was that I knew full well that I could walk away from being a catholic with no consequences (apart from a lot of good residual catholic guilt -Jesuits do that to you!). Try doing the same if a muslim

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Stare decisis originates in British common law, which forms the framework of civil law in America.

Although Ducky has correctly identified stare decisis as the rationale for adhering to prior court decisions, he is missing by light years its purpose.

Stare decisis preserves "what was decided." It has no bearing upon preserving "how it was decided" or "why it was decided" as leftist amateurs such as Ducky seem to believe it does.

Even the wacky liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals understands the theory:

"Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere--"to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi--"to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides--for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts."

[from Wikipedia, if'n you look up stare decisis instead of bullshitting like Ducky]

Leftists like Ducky fail to understand that the legal continuity entrenched in stare decisis does not mean court decisions cannot be overturned on their merits or circumvented by new legislature.

For example, a state could up the annual licensing fee for an abortion clinic to $908 holycrapzillion.

kuhnkat said...

Mr. B the IP,

y'all are STILL missing the point that it WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED IN THE LAW in the US!!! It was only carried forward through COMMON USAGE, Principal, Theory...

Technically, it is used to save the court from having to adjudicate the same decisions over and over and over...

Unfortunately, it is being used to CEMENT into the LEGAL system NEW IDEAS AND LAWS that were NEVER PASSED through the Legislature or signed by the Executive!

I am not even claiming it is a bad idea, until we start hearing our IGNORANT Legislators talking about SUPER PRECEDENTS....


Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

I'd have to rebut that if British common law were followed more closely we'd see abortion "doctors" swinging from trees by their necks.

I mean, we just can't pick and choose our precedents, can we?