Outrage for attacks on Romney's and Bush's religion as well ?

Submitted by Silicondoc (United States), Jan 15, 2008 at 19:51

I'm not sure where you've been if you haven't heard literally YEARS of the democrats calling Bush the anti-christ. I recall them outlining "Ronald Wilson Reagan"'s name as 6 letters 6 letters 6 letters - and claiming of course he was the 666 the Bible refers to.

I guess it's another partisan blindspot you have developed very well. I really cannot fathom you not having heard the endless attacks on Romney's religon, either.

I also take exception to you claiming the article is incorrect by your judgement that the "timeline" doesn't fit. It appears to me you should take that up with the NYT for one, and the other big msm media that the information is taken from for Mr. Daniel Pipes comments on their news. I know at least one name of his friend was cited in one of the two articles here on this topic, the latter being a defense of the first, a quite effective defense I will add.

I am sorry you have a chip on your shoulder, but the hatred that is tossed about at GWB for his Christianity is the type of stuff you should pay attention to, since it is based on a lot of rabid partisanship.

The article here Mr. Pipes was a thoughtful and reserved analysis of what the enemy Islamists may do if Obama is elected, not what the general US Citizen populace thinks or doesn't think about Obama's religion. In fact Dr. Pipes flat out stated he believes obama when he says he is curently a Christian.

I of course took exception to your comment for the reasons I already stated, which are plenty clear. Your comment has no basis. The government has not barred Obama from office, or from running with a religious test. Indeed GWB himself since 911 has come out publicly more than once and cautioned against painting Muslims with a broad brush.

If you want to research Wahhabism and claim it doesn't apply since you refer to the 1960's, I'd suggest that the Islamists could care less what you think about 1960 Indonesia, as they may perhaps focus on the theme of apostacy, and apply their curent extrenmism as the measure, not your offbase and inconsequential unresearched ideations about 1960's Indonsia. Further, the Saudi family power has been around since the early 1900's, and that would suggest 1960 is a bit late for a start in the Wahhabist sect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia-Malaysia_confrontation#The_War

It appears war was a condition, with just a few seconds of looking at that link, a war that included terrorist operations against the British enemy.

Partisanship won't change the facts, and won't change the minds of other extremists concerning their take on Obama.

I'm sorry, if you want people to shutup even here, where Mr. Pipes was very careful to properly offer his understanding on possible consequences of an Obama presidency, or you are offended that US Citiznes have an interest in his childhood religous trainings and current religious stances, and find themselves critiquing them, then perhaps you need to consider that your offense is due to your political ideas, and is a partisan reaction. It is certainly clear when you have pretended that GWB hasn't been attacked as the devil. Why must you pretend ?

" I have been disgusted about all the articles, blog post, the emails that are circulating about Barack Obama"

Well, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it ? Combine that with this, another of your statements :

" I am surprised that there haven't been articles, emails and post declaring George W. Bush the anti -Christ."

But of course, there have been, and you pretending there have not, is a clear indication that partisan blindness is heavily at work. I'm not sure why I even respond, really.

If you're outraged by people discussing this, stop your emails, article reading, and other activity, or at least say something more than you did initially, which by your own words appears to have been a demand that people shut up entirely about it, as you declared there is no religious test. I stand firmer now, behind my initial assumption about your first post. You don't want this discussed, you're offended. Oh well. Continue to be, noone is stopping you from that, either.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".