David Cameron States that Britain is a Christian Country - Loonwatch will be Upset

British Prime Minister David Cameron, while speaking at Oxford at and event marking the 400-year anniversary of the King James Bible, took the plunge and referred to the obvious; the BBC quoted him as saying, for one, "We are a Christian Country and we should not be afraid to say so".

After adding a few other statements about his appreciation of other faiths to assuage the fears of the Left and to head off a possible Muslim outcry, he also noted that "But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today".

Anti-Western types, such as Leftists, Muslims, radical feminists, and those who are quick to comment on websites such as Loonwatch, will no doubt jump all over this event. Soon-to-come will be all sorts of sound bites, posts, and essays not only decrying Cameron's statements, but also containing the tired, overused, and one-sided attacks against western culture and the nations-peoples that made it what it is.

Christianity too will undergo another wave of angry complaints and accusations, some true, some terribly false or twisted.

Being the products of people who live by the rule of "Don't confuse me with the facts", all of these will no doubt contain everything bad about the West and its primary nations, such as those of Europe, the US, and the British Commonwealth, and conveniently leave out any and all facts that would allow one to draw an informed conclusion.

One can not help but be impressed by the sheer efforts that must be expended in hand-picking only the worst things that can be listed and finding a way to compact it all together in one post. All this must be done without including anything that would be considered of benefit to all, an indication of personal/national sacrifice, tremendous achievement, (whether it be in civil law, the arts, literature, inventions, etc.) or anything that could be taken in context, at least as a mitigating factor, in deciding how "wrong" an act or event was.

The website noted above, Loonwatch, lately having a hard time doing its main job of painting Islam as either being a religion of peace and tolerance, or (If that fails) trying its best to dress it up so it does not look any worse than other religions/systems, has engaged in a rash of Plan Bs - muckraking about those that by their very nature find themselves opposed by Islam.

Two recent posts are of note; one that seeks to paint the US as the greatest warmongering nation since time began, and the other that is designed to create a worse-than-Mohammed ancient terrorist. In the case of the latter none other than Moses is the man of the hour.

The first is mostly a collection of wars/conflicts of the US with all of the current Leftist anti-US slants one could gather up. Included among others things are the Mexican wars, the seizures of Native American land, and the claim that the US grossly exaggerated the Soviet threat to the world. Conspicuously absent are the moves taken by the Mexican government against the Texians (Old term) that contributed to the first war, the threat of Santa Anna to storm Washington DC in the second, and the peculiarities of native American societies that included unspeakably horrific mutilations of captured enemies (We're not talking about scalping but those that predate and continued after the arrival of Europeans. They were performed on natives of other tribes - the Commanche and Pawnee are two of note in their savagery). Also strangely missing are the actions taken by the Soviet Union to subjugate Eastern Europe, the creation a gulag system that we never even came close to seeing in the US, the attempt to suffocate West Berlin (And her client's wall to keep residents from leaving), the initiation of the practice of using client-states to attack others, a threat by a Premier that "We will destroy you" (I don't care what he meant by it - he said it), and of course the Afghan war which made the worst of any US actions there look like a soft caress.

Although the US has little in its defense of its treatment of Native Americans (A sore subject for me), it certainly can offer the societies created by its acquisitions of the Mexican Wars with their rule of law (which, is effectively absent in Mexico), the more widespread prosperity*, and lack of real poverty in those areas.
When the Soviet Union is the subject, the US can point to its real elections, free speech, a prosperous middle-class, the freedom and prosperity of many in other countries (South Korea and others) ensured by its strength and commitment, and its survival as an entity when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own malmanagment.


The post that attempted to make Moses out to be a Mohammed on steroids suffers from a complete lack of integrity; included there are the savage acts against the peoples/nations that existed in the area of Israel, the application of the "Ban" (The shunning and destruction of the defeated people and their goods), and the wholesale seizing of their land.

Ridiculously not mentioned is the fact that all of these acts/orders of the Jewish God, although admittedly similar to that of Muslim attacks, are extremely limited in scope, being intended only to apply to a (Compared to Islamic-ruled areas) tiny piece of property and not at all to any expansion, let along worldwide dominance. While Moses certainly directed his people to engage in these acts, they never were nor did they ever come to be (Except for a very limited scale and time later under David) used against peoples who lived beyond the Hebrew/Jewish horizon. Moses never uttered a single phrase along the lines of "I was ordered to fight all men until they say "Elohim is God and Moses is his prophet". Slave-taking from peoples conquered by Jews under Moses was an incredibly rare event compared to the routine taking of slaves by Mohammed.  No one was forced to convert to Judaism (Indeed if the Jews were at fault here it was due to keeping God’s word for themselves and not sharing it). The post on Moses is devoid of all of all the verses on the Koran and the Sunnah/Haddith that call for violence, slave-taking, etc. If these were to be counted against those of Moses, those of the latter would be like specks of dust. On top of all this is the fact that, as far as taking over other peoples and their land, the example of Moses was not to be followed and/or copied after his death. By this simple fact the entire point of the Loonwatch post is discredited.

Jews have not been known to have moved to other countries to commit acts of violence and state their desire to bring Jewish rule anywhere. If anything, they tend to get terrorized by the native people of those countries.

Keeping in accordance with its practice of avoiding anything good that can be attributed to his opponent, Loonwatch leaves out much that is good with Jewish societies(s), probably due to the fact that they are completely foreign to Islam. Treatment of one's wife in Judaism is infinitely better than that in Islam, mob violence is comparably nonexistent, Muslims are treated markedly better in Israel than are Jews in Muslim countries, and the state of Israel has yet to call for the destruction of any other country.

The posts that were addressed here are classic examples of the mixture of rhetorical fallacies and an utter disdain for any intellectual integrity.

* Some may protest that the US gained much from gold and petroleum in areas taken from Mexico. The difference is how that wealth was ultimately used. Even without Texas and California, Mexico is an oil producing nation also and that wealth hardly has improved its society in any way.