The feigned anger over the destruction of Korans that contained extremist messages has found its way into a new medium of expression - referring to the losing dog in a dogfight as the "American". I say "feigned" as Muslims have a mob mentality that requires them to express as much or more outrage as the guy standing next to him. So, our tolerant Muslim friends in Afghanistan enjoy a good dogfight now and then, but they need to see which one loses before they determine which one will be labeled as the American. One would then assume that the winner in the sport of Afghan gentlemen would most assuredly be an Afghan. But, that can't be either, as Islam considers a creature so clearly designed* by its creator for assistance and companionship to humans to be unclean and requires that they not be kept except for work purposes. We are then left with no choice other than to say that the losing dog is the American, since Afghan forces have so consistently demonstrated their superiority on the battlefield, but the winning dog is just a dog - not otherwise specified
We see yet another example of how cruel this Islamic society is. Actual fighting is completely contrary to the instinct of almost all canid species and sub-species. Scuffles between dogs are incredibly brief and rarely result in any appreciable injury. Training them to slug it out to the point of getting hurt is just a plainly awful thing to do. Yes, we have dogfighters too, but they are a tiny subset of our population.
"We call the dogs who lose Americans. We are furious about the Korans," said Mirwais Haji, 28, as a defeated canine limped off the snow-covered dirt ring on the edge of the capital.
"We want the Afghan government to bring the people who did this to us. We will kill them ourselves."
Well here's the deal, guys, you are not getting them turned over to you The US is apparently going to take some type of administrative action against the servicemen involved. This is a tragedy since, unlike an act of urinating on bodies**, destroying a Koran or any other collection of scriptures on which security-threatening messages are scrawled is not criminal, immoral, unethical, or even offensive to anyone, including Muslims. Yes, that is correct, any displays of anger, resentment, shock, etc. at the necessary destruction of these books are entirely faked. As written by Bob Smith and supplied by Gates of Vienna, Muslims have little choice but to feign outrage and anger at pretty much anything or risk being ostracized or worse.
We need to be honest with ourselves. Islam is based on a foundation of false teachings, and many Muslims*** have got to be aware of that fact or at least have a strong suspicion of the same. This is the primary reason that many of them are so knee-jerk defensive about every part of their religion. Confident people have little real problem with criticism of one's beliefs. When a dope like Bill Maher runs his mouth with his panel of idiots in front of a crowd of dolts, I have no desire to argue with him. Let him say whatever he wants. A similar case can be made for Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, who in their heart of hearts know that one cannot justify, from Christian scripture or history, any separation of Christian regeneration from baptism. Their tenacious clinging to a doctrine that was invented by rebellious German peasants less than five hundred years ago leaves them with no other choice than to aggressively try to bring other Christians under the umbrella of their new doctrine.
The Chaplaincy of the US military, once a place where Ministers of all faiths have traditionally been able to maintain a good relationship with each other and avoid "Sheep-stealing" of members of each other's flocks, has become a place in which non-Evangelical Christians (Note that Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants are not Christians according to Evangelical doctrine) are fair game for proselytizing by Evangelical Protestant Chaplains.
"The issue of evangelical Christians subverting military policy about proselytizing and respecting religious freedom came to light most dramatically at the Air Force Academy in 2005. A Washington Post (5-13-05) story cited some cadets who complained about “insults aimed at Jews, Roman Catholics and non-evangelical cadets,” and reported a chaplain who declared that any cadet not born again would "burn in the fires of hell."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One instance was particularly awful. An Evangelical Chaplain had brought a serviceman to his version of Christianity. The poor fellow later died from a motorcycle accident. The Chaplain made several remarks in which he indicated that the deceased had been "a Catholic" and that he had "been brought to Christ". Note that he was not referred to as a lapsed or nominal Catholic, but a Catholic, indicating that being so was not enough. This would be fine if the Minister has been a civilian, but he was a Chaplain and was thus required to respect the doctrinal differences between them. Evangelical thought requires that their adherents aggressively sell their less-than-five hundred year-old version of Christianity as being the only one.
If you have been pestered about whether or not you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", if you are "born again" or some other variation of this act, you have experienced what many other non-Evangelical Christians have. A person who was raised in the Catholic, Orthodox, or Mainline Protestant faiths and was baptized as an infant or young child at the request of their parents or guardians does not count as a Christian to Evangelicals or Fundamentalists. It does not matter that one believes in all core doctrines of Christianity, such as the redemptive sacrifice of the cross, the trinity, the need to have faith in God's grace, or the other beliefs embodied in the earliest creeds of the Church. No, one is not a Christian unless he or she follows the pattern mandated by Evangelicals. Everyone else is simply not a Christian.
The weaker the proofs for the foundation of one's particular faith, the more aggressive one will be in pushing for converts or reacting violently to any perceived offense. Evangelicals, though admittedly non-violently, find one opportunity after another to try to convert all other Christians to their modern version of "accepting Christ" and obstinately refuse to recognize Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants as Christians. One of the latter three will often be approached by an Evangelical who begins with his interrogatories to try to find out if the person is a Christian. If one takes a few minutes to explain why he believes his Church's position on how one becomes a Christian is not wrong, the Evangelical will, almost always, grow very defensive. What follows is a artillery barrage of well-rehearsed verbal attacks on non-Evangelical Christian beliefs. Muslims will too repeatedly look for chances to either put the beliefs of Jews and Christians down. Even worse, they engage in violent behavior when anything that can be perceived as a slight to their faith occurs. These are not the actions of a person who is confident in the proofs of his or her faith.
*I argue with many people concerning the origin of dogs. A tremendous amount of effort has been put into trying to prove that dogs were created by people from wolves. Even a NatGeo series was done on it. Dogs are and were dogs and they existed before we were running around the world. Maybe we will treat the subject thoroughly one day, but these will work for now:
http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html
http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/tidbits/OriginOfTheDog.pdf
http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/tidbits/OriginOfTheDog.pdf
** The act of desecrating the dead needs to be punished. I am not claiming that prison sentences are in order, but that each individual involved must feel some consequence for his actions. Enemy dead are to be treated, if not with respect, at least with an indifference by the servicemen. Yes, I know that this has probably happened many times over in other conflicts in history, but that does not prove anything.
*** There are many truly good-hearted and sincere Muslims who would never harm anyone and whom I would protect with my life. These of course are confident enough in their faith to refrain from such aggressive and violent acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment