To dfwhite

Submitted by Jackdaw (United States), Nov 16, 2006 at 21:33

I'm wondering if you are responding to my post or another from the content of your response. The thesis of my post was that this has ever been until the last few decades, a Christian country. Futher, that our intractable problems within and without the United States are due to forsaking Christ who has blessed America beyond any other nation in the history of the world and has protected America in her darkest hours. You may choose to deny this but history from our founding fathers and our presidents up to the present time is witness. This was implicit in my post.

What was explicit was my assertion that unless the America turns back to Jesus Christ, nothing will save us. No amount of military force or diplomacy or multiples of billions of dollars will preserve America from internal collapse or external enemies. That is absolutely certain. What was further explicit is that nominal liberal left Christianity is not Christian because it rejects the Lordship of Jesus Christ for a humanistic agenda, a salvation of their own making. If your quarrel is that a distinction is made between a pseudo-Chrisianity and genuine Christianity, it is a distinction the Jesus Christ repeatedly made and warned his followers to make. In your post you call a fanatic any person of faith using the terms hate, death, and infidel(unbeliever). Again, Jesus Christ used all of these terms himself; would he be a fanatic? Your post asserts that the church, synagog, temple or mosque of any faith using the terms hate, death, and unbeliever should be closed by the government. You are not discriminating of the context and the message or sermon that these words are used in.

There is a world of difference between a Christian sermon and a Wahabbist Islamic sermon; both could well use these same words with the intent to elicit dissimilar or opposite actions from the target audience--and they do.

Finally, the Christian parsons of colonial America encouraged their congregations to fight for independence from England. Called the Black Guard from their distinctive dress, they were a thorn in the side of the British generals opposing American Independance and the generals wrote about them. Doubtless these parsons used the terms hate, death, and unbeliever. Had these parsons been Loyal Royalists or neutral, American colonists may not have had sufficiant will to fight or citizen solders sufficient to prevail over the superpower that Great Britain was at that time. Would you have prefered this outcome, American independence dead, aborted and Great Britain still our masters? With respect, your thinking and argument is shallow and myopic. I suspect that you are afraid God, Jesus Christ, absolute truth, right and wrong exist and you are terrified that they do. Well you should be because your immortal soul is in danger, you are undone. The Holy Scripture says," Woe unto him who has an argument with his Maker.

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".