Cover Story on Newsweek

[EllieTalbot]

At last, a major news publication is paying attention. And a cover story. It's about time. I literally sighed in relief when I saw it.

Maybe, just maybe, it's an itty-bitty sign that perspectives are beginning to take on some reality.

And, of course, it's Ayaan. Amazing woman.

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali Breaks the Media Silence on Anti-Christian Persecution
By Nina Shea
February 7, 2012 11:58 A.M.


Best-selling author, film director, women’s-rights advocate, former Dutch parliamentarian, Islamist death-threat survivor, refugee from a Somalian forced marriage, and a fierce champion of individual freedoms — that of others as well as her own — Ayaan Hirsi Ali has demonstrated her courage once more. In the cover story she penned for the current issue of Newsweek, entitled “The War on Christians,” which is excerpted in The Daily Beast, Hirsi Ali gives a tour d’horizon of the most politically incorrect subject of all human-rights reporting: the ongoing religious persecution of Christians in the Muslim world. It makes heartbreaking reading..."


Link to review of article on National Review, which contains link to the Daily Beast, which has reprinted Ayaan's article.

I'm going to go buy copies of Newsweek and give them out.

Relieved in Redmond,
Ellie

 

[koalabear]

BB's sister!

 

[EllieTalbot]

BB's sister!

*raspberry*

 

[busybody..]

anyone that talks truth about Islam

MUST BE ERADICATED

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Every time this topic comes up, we're told we're paranoid, but now the Catholic Church has had its Barbarossa moment as its former ally in Social Justice turned on it in order to create yet another wedge issue and again portray our own citizens as a threat to the nation while at the same time doing everything it can to delink terrorism from Islam, while warning us of homegrown Christian terrorism, and de-Christianizing Christmas in the White House all the time telling us, there's no war on Christmas!

This notion that's peddled by the religious right - that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy to move their agenda ahead. The classic example being that somehow secularists are trying to eliminate Christmas, which strikes me as some kind of manufactured controversy.
BARACK OBAMA, Street Prophets interview, Jul. 11, 2006

There is most certainly a cultural war on our traditional values, and the cornerstone of those values is Christianity which is to be replaced by moral relativism. Barack Obama uses his faith as a political shield for his Marxist-Socialist belief system in a most cynical manner, but we all know and understand why he chose Reverend Wright's Church of Black Liberation Theology for its moral underpinnings are rooted in the works of Reverend Cone, the Marxist.
__________________
Quit hitting me with your Christian "hate!"
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=759907
A_J, the Minority, the Atheist

 

[Batch]

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss.../02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-05-at-12.29.18-AM.png

I have lost the ability to post images.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Batch]

To liberals it's ok to exterminate Christians, they are the problem.

A sad state, indeed.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama is injecting his "morality."


__________________
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Barack Obama, Jun. 28, 2006

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

here is a news flash. don't be a christian in muslim lands.

here is another, who the fuck are you to challenge centuries old traditions of other cultures? oh yeah that's right. you one of the pompous self-righteous Christians.

 

[Ishmael]

Well now, this should certainly fire up another round of "Christian Bashing."

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama not a Marxist?

lol

At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman.
Charles Krauthammer, NRO

 

[Batch]

Well now, this should certainly fire up another round of "Christian Bashing."

Ishmael

Yes. Yes. It will.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama not a Marxist?

lol

At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman.
Charles Krauthammer, NRO

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

Full quote for the haters...

 

[Ishmael]

Yes. Yes. It will.

I'll just sit back and wait to see if they might come up with something new, or even novel. The diatribes really do begin to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher after a while.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now that he thinks the economy has turned around, Obama has cynically upped his war on religion to divide us and replace the economy with the culture war...

Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival — the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health-and-human-services secretary to promulgate the definition of “religious” — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.

Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state’s regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.

Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health-care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.

Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.

And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of “religious” and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything — from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.

Criterion 1: A “religious institution” must have “the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.” But that’s not the purpose of Catholic charities; it’s to give succor to the poor. That’s not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it’s to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don’t qualify as “religious” — and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.

Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that “primarily employs” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals — even Catholic schools — do not turn away Hindu or Jew.

Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all — under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” that are properly rendered up unto Caesar.

This all would be merely the story of contradictory theologies, except for this: Sebelius is Obama’s appointee. She works for him. These regulations were his call. Obama authored both gospels.

Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.

Krauthammer

 

[Batch]

I'll just sit back and wait to see if they might come up with something new, or even novel. The diatribes really do begin to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher after a while.

Ishmael

Agreed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well now, this should certainly fire up another round of "Christian Bashing."

Ishmael

Becoz as everyone knows, Christians are victims. VICTIMS, DAMMIT!

...just like Libertarians. They simply don't understand why people have a problem sufferin' for their beliefs.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'll just sit back and wait to see if they might come up with something new, or even novel. The diatribes really do begin to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher after a while.

Ishmael

Throb is demanding an apple...





He must be in the Church of Black Liberation Theology, confident that they will come for him last and ask him to join the Party...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Throb is demanding an apple...


He must be in the Church of Black Liberation Theology, confident that they will come for him last and ask him to join the Party...

Actually, I attend a United Methodist Church.

Tell us again how you're an athiest.

 

[Ishmael]

Now that he thinks the economy has turned around, Obama has cynically upped his war on religion to divide us and replace the economy with the culture war...


Krauthammer

I have written consistently concerning the fact that any state that bases it's legitimacy on a policy of redistribution "is indistinguishable from a Theocracy." This notion was as true for the old Soviet state as it is the Social Welfare states of Europe, China, and the up and coming wannabe's in the third world.

It all follows from Hegel's notion that the state is the highest manifestation of God on earth. If that notion is to be believed then it follows that the state is the 'true' church and as such operates with a moral imperative that cannot be thwarted by lesser entities.

The Islamist's fully embrace this doctrine and apply it with zeal. They make no bones about making the Qur'an, as they interpret it, the law of the land. The western notion of how to apply this principle has transcended the need for any Bible, or constitutions for that matter, and have decided that they have the ability to apply any particular notion of 'fairness' that they decree based on the literal application of Hegel's theories with a liberal dose of Machiavelli thrown in for good measure. Indeed, they have begun to think of themselves as God's on earth who have risen to their respective positions of power for the sole purpose of making society over into the likeness of their own notion of the "Garden of Eden." (And most of us know how that story worked out.)

At least the Islamist has a guiding document that can parametrize the limits of their power, no such obstacle impedes the western zealot.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have written consistently concerning the fact that any state that bases it's legitimacy on a policy of redistribution "is indistinguishable from a Theocracy."

^^^^ And he wonders why people laugh at him.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

What is the difference between a Jehovah witness and a skunk?

there are skid marks before you get to the skunk

 

[RobDownSouth]

To liberals it's ok to exterminate Christians, they are the problem.

Jesus was a liberal.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They have to be victimized before they see the light, by then as the Reverend Niemöller put it, it's too late...

The answer was no; it [that their drug use was currently considered an illegal act by their own 'democratic' government] didn't bother them. It doesn't really bother anyone who accepts mob rule as a desirable form of social organization. The reason is that democrats never regard existing democracy as their preferred political system — they regard it only as a transitory state to a democratic utopia in which the elected leaders will agree totally with their own values and social-political views. Mises has observed that "the critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct." Hence, when people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing "the right people" — by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies. This is what allows an intelligent group of people to espouse mob rule as a desirable principle, even as they simultaneously commit acts that brand them as criminals worthy of imprisonment under the very social system they maintain.
Ben O'Neill
http://mises.org/daily/5879/Worship-of-the-Mob

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat