The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “religion and politics”

Thank You, James Zogby! (For Your Patently Biased, Offensive And Stupid Observation About President Romney)

To paraphrase – with one factually wrong, decidedly insensitive, and patently biased comment, Arab American Institute President, James Zogby, and liberal aspirant, is doing more to focus attention away from the devastating impact Palestinian culture has had on the Palestinian economy and its own people for well over two decades, the result of which (should Zogby’s despicable propaganda mesmerize the masses of Palestinians he caters to) can only stymie development in that region for more decades to come.

James Zogby, being of Arab descent, (his father came to America illegally, from Lebanon, and Zogby was born in New York) and having a liberal mindset, and bias against Israel, (probably a personal hatred too), and writing for the “Arianna Nation” severely scolds soon to be President Romney for his “patently bias comment” he made about Palestinian culture, which was neither patently biased nor anywhere near off the mark.  In fact, when Romney blamed Palestinian culture for its own economic woes, Romney hit a grand slam.  Zogby, conversely, in his pathetic diatribe, struck out.

Says Zogby:

Romney’s observation that “culture makes all the difference,” which he offered as his explanation for the disparities between the Israeli and Palestinian economies, was so remarkably out of touch with reality that it set off an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”

Since Palestinian culture only lives to destroy Israel, and since Palestinian terrorists have had, and continue to have a long history of hostility and violence against Israel; since its own faux government, whether that be Hamas or the PLO, both openly supports terrorist activities against Israel and Israeli citizens; since there is no real Palestinian nation, but a mere collection of people living in and around Israel, who identify themselves as Palestinians; since these people who call themselves Palestinians are wont to kill all Jews and overtake Jerusalem and all of Israel distinctly because of their culture and their cultural upbringing, what Romney said about Palestinian culture was right – and Zogby knows it!

Zogby speaks of  “an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”  Well, to be exact, Romney’s “observation” set off an avalanche, “explosion” of hate-filled criticism throughout the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) in America and around the world.  Who is surprised by that?  Who is baffled that liberals in America and around the world, most of whom also hate Jews and Israel, would condemn Romney for pointing out an obvious fact and truth about a deviant, childish, malevolent and very violent culture such as that of the Palestinians?

Most of the United States’s (sic) major daily newspapers featured articles, commentary and even editorials taking issue with the Romney quote — highlighting repressive Israeli policies, and not an “inferior culture” as the reason for the poor performance of the Palestinian economy.”

Well, duh!  It’s only the liberal media “taking issue”.  Of course, to the liberal media, the very thought of Israel protecting itself against such an “inferior culture” as that of the Palestinians, who have not stopped, nor will they stop, attacking Israel, would be shocking.  The only product the Palestinians manufacture, create and sell is terrorists and terrorism.  If a Palestinian even has a job, it is most likely as a terrorist.  If the Palestinians even have schools, can anyone imagine what is being taught?

Zogby completely ignores history when he writes:

in 1994 the Palestinian economy received a devastating hit resulting from the Israeli closure of the territories. The “closure,” which cut Palestinians off from Greater Jerusalem, and severely limited interaction between Palestinians and Israel, was initially imposed as a temporary “preventive measure” in the wake of the massacre of Palestinians committed by an Israeli settler in Hebron. The “temporary closure” never ended.

That massacre was initiated by Baruch Goldstein, and not only was it condemned by Israel, but its own cabinet expelled an extreme right-wing Kach party over its support of Goldstein’s actions that left dozens of Palestinians dead.  In other words, Israeli culture openly condemned acts of terrorism against Palestinians.  Where has Palestinian culture ever condemned acts of terrorism against Israelis?

And why does anyone think Zogby might have omitted those facts from his Romney- Israeli bashing article?

Israel, and its culture, which is far superior to anything in or around the Middle East, is the only think keeping the Middle East from imploding on itself.  If the Palestinians were to stop their acts of terrorism and violence against Israel; if the Palestinians were sincerely interested in peace with Israel, Israel would be more than happy to reopen itself, its borders, to the Palestinian people; to its economy and its culture.  Palestinians don’t want that.  Palestinians want all Jews dead and to take control of Israel for themselves.  That is who the Palestinians are, and that is their culture.  And James Zogby knows it!

Until the Palestinian economy divests itself from terrorism, from the manufacturing, selling and exploitation of terrorism, it will not have an economy worthy of supporting.  And until the Palestinian people, within their culture, renounces its goal of total annihilation for Israel, they will continue to live and die in the poverty they themselves created from their own deep-seeded hate.  And James Zogby knows it!

What is the rest of the Arab world doing to help the Palestinians, to shoulder some of the responsibilities and help Palestinians out of poverty and into jobs?  What is the hapless, useless United Nations doing?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

With the exception of blood money, and that money used specifically to fuel terrorism and terrorist activities, how much money has the Arab world contributed to the Palestinians to help create jobs, spur new business ventures and economic growth?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

How much land has the Arab world agreed to donate (or even sell at a reasonable price) to its Muslim and Islamic brethren for a Palestinian State of its own?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

And so, for pointing out, yet again, just how deeply biased liberals such as yourself are against Israel; how much you truly despise Israel and self-loving Jews (as opposed to self-hating Jews); enough to have gone to the “Arianna Nation” to post your anti-Romney, anti-Israel diatribe, thank you, James Zogby, for best illustrating patent and blatant absurdity, which is the cornerstone of liberalism.

Doesn’t James Zogby know that?

“CCOKCS” Are “CCUNTTS”: Kirk Cameron, Homosexuality And Hollywood Has-beens

A lot of backlash has sprouted up over Kirk Cameron’s comments about homosexuality.  First, here is what Kirk said that has ignited a firestorm of hate and anti-Christian bigotry.  (And remember, from the liberal point of view, bigotry is perfectly acceptable so long as that bigotry is directed at Christianity,Catholicism, Judaism – and now Mormonism.

In response to Cameron’s comments, former, and has-been, child celebrities from sitcoms dating back to the 1980’s have wormed their way back into the public conscience with a new “Funny or Die” video, calling themselves “CCOKCS”, which is an acronym for Child Celebrities Opposing Kirk Cameron. Here is their video: (Warning: vulgar, but mostly childish, language)

This, by the way, is how all but forgotten, and better to have been left behind in our dusty memories of fonder times, now all grown up and still out of control, Hollywood child “stars” behave themselves into their adulthood.  They are, after-all, a product of Hollywood, and the influences of that particular culture.  Kirk Cameron was as well, but he escaped from it.  He grew out of it, grew away from it and – grew up.

Cameron’s remarks about homosexuality should not bother anyone.  In fact, what Cameron says about the gay and lesbian lifestyle is incredibly tame, compared to what Islam says about it.  What about what Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam say about it?

The words of these washed-up, dried-up, shriveled-up, insignificant , tiny “CCOKCS ” are sterile, as are the rants of others who have jumped on the “Let’s mock Kirk Cameron” band-wagon.  These same people who deride and ridicule Cameron would absolutely never, at least openly, use or spread the same venomous words they employ against Cameron on Muslims or black converts to the Nation of Islam.  So, why do they feel comfortable mocking Cameron?

Because if these same Hollywood celebrities were to condemn Islam and the Nation of Islam for how they perceive homosexuality (which is far more vitriolic and forceful, and with a greater hatred, than Cameron) Muslims, as they have a tendency to do would overreact in violent ways, calling for death, for fatwas, for heads to literally roll.  Liberal Hollywood jet-setters know this, and they fear the retribution that would entail.  They also know Cameron would not only not threaten them, he would probably pray for them – which one must accept is worse a fate to them than being beheaded.

Hollywood liberals, safe inside their beltway, and among their kind, will continue to bash, and “Twitter” away against, Kirk Cameron and any Christian or religious person or group (except for Muslims) who speak out against homosexuality.  And once in a while, former television “stars”, who can find no other way to make public appearance respectively will instead make public spectacles of themselves.

We do, naturally, have a curiosity as to what has happened to the children who starred in the sitcoms we watched decades ago.  Just as curiosity killed the cat, so too have these “CCOKCS” killed any curiosity we might have had about what happened to them.  Which is why these “CCOKCS” are really nothing more than dry, saggy, loose, wrinkled, disgusting to look at “CCUNTTS”.

Childish Celebrities, Untalented Nitwits, Talking Trashy

What comes out of these “CCUNTTS”  just made tapioca pudding and cottage cheese so much more appetizing!

Atheists Nail Themselves To The Cross, Crucify Themselves – But For What Cause?

If the message of Christianity is salvation from Earthly sin through Christ, and if hundreds of millions of people around the world adhere to that message, is the best, most “reason”able and articulate defense, atheists can come with to counter that message “religion is man-made, therefore it a joke”?  There must be a better, more provocative response, if atheists intend to sway to masses and multitudes of Christians around the world.  Would you be persuaded to be a Christian if one of them came to you and said atheism is man-made, therefore it is a joke?

Or does Richard Dawkins make the most persuasive case for atheism, and for how to deal with Christians?

How about when atheists, like Mike Malloy, rant and make fools of themselves, over and over again…

And over and over again…

If religion is man-made, and man-inspired, there was a compelling reason for why it happened so many thousands of year ago, and why it endures to this day – and why hundreds of millions of people around the world accept religion as valid, whether it is a concoction or not.  And even if it is a concoction, there is still an order, an organization, a unity to it, which brings and binds together Christians in a solidarity that atheism lacks and cannot equal.

Atheists are going to need a better defense than to scrounge through the past and point to historical incidents that have darkened religion and set a black cloud over it. Atheists will need a better defense for atheism than attacking Christianity by ridiculing and mocking it, as Dawkins suggests.

Atheists enjoy referring back to the “Dark Ages”, using that era as a time when Christian theocracy swept through Europe.  For people uneducated in history, that may seem enough to drive a wedge between them and religion, if they allow their own bias to get the better of them without investigating the true nature of the “Dark Ages”.  If they did, they would see that the “Dark Ages” refers not to a time when religion had a firm grip and theocracy over the world, but to a period of time when there was little to no historical record written down.  In other words, from after the fall of the Roman Empire, around 495A.D., and for the next several hundred years, the narrative of that era is very scant; historians of today do not have a detailed history of events, or as detailed as they would like, to be able to make more precise interpretations, more informed assumptions, more rational conclusions, more concrete calculations, etc.  Too much of that era is shrouded in darkness because it was not recorded – not because Christianity dominated the landscape.

By the time Christianity became a theocracy, and held the vast majority of Europe within its control, around 1200A.D., it was the Middle Ages.  And that theocracy only lasted several hundred years, broken up, ironically, by an English King (Henry VIII) who was as arrogant, as beastly, as corrupt, and as much a tyrant as was the Church at that time.  Had it not been for his wanting a divorce, or if the Church had simply granted it to him, Catholicism would have remained the religion of England, and Protestantism would not have taken hold.  That one singular event set in motion a chain reaction which, over the centuries, lessened the theocratic grip the Catholic Church had on Europe.  And, if but for that event, America may never have had a founding, let alone a Constitution that included a freedom of religion clause.  And atheists would neither enjoy the freedoms they enjoy today in America, nor would they be alive to enjoy them, as atheism was a heresy and punishable by death.  Is the Catholic Church of today advocating for the death of atheists, or any of its detractors?  If not, why?  If the reason is because it no longer has that authority, then what are atheists complaining about, why do they still insist it is a theocracy, and why are they still all that worried about a power that no longer exists?

Atheism does not do itself justice by invoking past cruelties committed by the Church, nor does it advance its cause by ridiculing its present membership.  Atheists will need a better defense for atheism than Mike Malloy’s and Richard Dawkin’s disturbed anti-Christian rants.  Liberals and atheists alike ridicule and mock Pat Robertson and other influential Christians for their erratic behavior, but they never seem to scold their own when atheists do it.  Christians see through the double standard and the hypocrisy.

Neither does atheism do itself justice by invoking current scandals, and they will also need to do better than to keep rehashing the pedophile priest/Catholic Church cover-up.  Catholics are just as outraged as anyone else, and Catholics demand justice as well.  And while some Catholics have been moved to abandon their faith because of it, the numbers are insignificant.  Catholics, not atheists, will see that their Church is cleaned up and restored.  But Catholics will not demolish their Church, nor will they abandon their faith in the kinds of droves atheists would hope they would.  If Catholics, on the other hand, wanted to embrace liberal ideology over the scandal, they could very easily excuse the priest’s behavior and even justify it.  After-all, it could be that these priests were themselves abused as children.  If that is the case, we can’t really blame the priests for their actions, can we?  Shouldn’t we try to understand them?  That is the liberal creed, anyway.

But atheists have two separate standards when it comes to crime and punishment.  When it is a poor or “disadvantaged” person committing the crime, we must understand them, pity them, embrace them and let them go unpunished – for they are merely a product of their surroundings, and we cannot fault them for their crimes – that would be inhumane.  But when a Catholic priest commits a crime, when anyone commits a crime either in the name of religion or within the safety and protection of their religion, then there is no room for understanding them, no room for pitying them, no room for embracing them and letting them go unpunished in the same way other criminals must be dealt with.  There is no humanity for Catholic priests who abuse children.  They must be punished severely – more severely than these same liberals and atheists want to punish terrorists and those terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.  If Catholic priests, to atheists, are worse than any anti-American terrorist, how do we rationally deal with that perspective?  And how do we rally behind the atheist cause if there is no foundation built upon it, or if the mortar used to build the walls are made with ridicule, mockery and vitriol?  How are we supposed to find the value in atheism, and to be enlightened and lifted up and inspired with words not of wisdom but of hate and condescension?

Atheists will need better, more articulate leaders, more persuasive and constructively argumentative, than Richard Dawkins.  Otherwise, atheists will find themselves living in their own “Dark Ages”.

Whether it actually happened or not, hundreds of millions of followers accept Christ, and accept Christ had a reason, a cause for his crucifixion.  What is the atheist cause for theirs?  They had better find one, a legitimate and tangible one, and soon.  Otherwise they are just bleeding themselves to death for nothing.

Headline Of The Day: Catholic Church Pardons Galileo – Two Thousand Years Later!

From The Daily Beast and written by Barbie Latza Nadeau:

The Catholic Church has never had a particularly easy relationship with science.  After all, this is the institution that sentenced Galileo Galilei as a heretic for his theories on the universe during the Roman Inquisition. Two thousand years later, the church forgave Galileo and called the whole misunderstanding a “tragic mutual incomprehension” but it remains safe to say the Vatican doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to empirical open-mindedness.


The rest of her article goes on to whine about the Catholic Church’s stance on stem cells and stem cell research.  Obviously she was named “Barbie” for a reason.  That isn’t sexist is it?

May take up the rest of her article another time.  By the way – nowhere was it mentioned in her article this was an April Fools joke.  And considering that it was written on March 29th, and still hasn’t been corrected – what does that tell you about the editorial staff over at The Daily Beast?  They ought to invest in one of Michael Medved’s (he writes occasionally for The Daily Beast) history lectures.

“Fear Of A Muslim Planet” Grounded In Reality

A woman raped in America is clearly guilty of having disgraced her family and her community.  American law ought to compel her to either be imprisoned or forced to marry her rapist – or commit suicide for the honor of her family which she has humiliated and devastated by being raped.  What’s wrong with that?

According to Rachel Newcomb, nothing.  She is another American woman, and feminist, defending the TLC program “All American Muslim” by insisting that those of us who see the transparent agenda, and propaganda, being employed by showcasing peaceful, loving Muslim American families is an all out attempt by the producers to mock conservatives, to portray us as bigots and anti-Muslim.

Her article, “Fear of A Muslim Planet”, is another anti-conservative hit piece, designed to make it sound as though conservatives are over hysterical, over the top and overwrought with Islamophobia.  However, challenge Rachel on what she would think about an “All American Christian” program and pin her down on her “fear of a Christian planet” and see how hysterical she would become.

Rachel writes:

Feeling isolated and overwhelmed with her caretaking duties, a new mom struggles with post-partum depression. Another couple wrestles with the painful decision to give up a beloved pet when the wife’s allergies become too severe. A woman in a third family experiences work-family conflicts when she is unable to pick up her kids from their first day at school.  An ordinary episode in just another voyeuristic reality television show, right?

Wrong. It’s propaganda, the same as Hitler and the Nazis used; the same as Stalin and Communist Russia used; the same as Kim Il Jong and Communist North Korea uses; the same as Communist China, under Hu Jintao uses, Cuba under Castro uses, and Venezuela under Hugo “El Diablo” Chavez uses.

In Saudi Arabia, under Muslim Sharia Law, a woman was just beheaded for practicing witchcraft.  In 1692, over 300 years ago, 19 people were executed for falsely being accused of being witches.  The American left is still pissed off over that, and often uses this one, isolated incident as an example as to why Christianity is evil, untrustworthy and unacceptable.  The same liberal feminist hypocrites, like Rachel Newcomb, and like Michelle Goldberg, who despise Christianity, and the Christian Bible for it’s “anti-woman” stance, for its “homophobia”, for its “anti-science” and “mythology” that they, and all liberals and feminists, complain has kept women as second class citizens and subservient to men for centuries.

But they love Islam.  And they defend “All American Muslim” as a fair and accurate portrayal of Islam, knowing the irony that, if you go to the Middle East, or anywhere in the world where Islam has a firm and absolute control over the people, “All American Muslim” would be banned from viewing.  And where women are banned from doing most of the things they take for granted doing in America.  Rachel would be beheaded under Sharia Law in any Muslim country for being a feminist.

Rachel says:

The problem is not that groups like Florida Family Association [which lobbied Lowe’s to have its advertising removed from “All American Muslim”] want us to be alert to the signs of jihad,but that most Americans have no idea what the signs of jihad might look like. With a basic ignorance of the everyday lives of Muslims, Americans are more likely to view all symbols of Muslim life with fear, suspicion, and hatred.

This is nonsense which needs to be put it in the correct context.  It is not “most Americans” who are “ignorant” of what “the signs of Jihad might look like”.   It is most American liberals.  Most American liberals are simply ignorant.  Ever watch Sean Hannity’s “Man On the Street”, where he asks people easy questions?  Liberals have the hardest time coming up with the correct answer.  Look at any television program with a liberal slant – especially any on the CW.  Rich, stuck-up high school liberals living in their own bubble.  The real world is completely foreign to them.  90210, Gossip Girl, America’s Next Top Model, One Tree Hill, even Supernatural and The Vampire Diaries, to name but just a few.  Liberals watch these types of programs because this is the real world to them, this is where they are most comfortable.  Liberals are the ones grounded in fantasy.

Conservative, on the other hand, are grounded in reality.   This is why we support the War On Terror; why we supported going into Iraq and Afghanistan; why we support detaining terrorists at Gitmo; why we support techniques like water boarding to obtain valuable information, and why we are not at all happy withdrawing troops from these areas.  We know the dire consequences that will result when we leave; we know who will come in and fill that void.

It is also why we are highly suspicious of pro-Muslim programs that are intentionally slanted and skewed to show Islam in more of a positive light than is realistically known about Muslims.  Indeed, in America, this might be how most Muslim families actually live.  But that is a reflection of the greatness of America – the same America leftists like Rachel despise and hate, and want to see destroyed – not Islam and not being Muslim.

Muslims in the Middle East, or anywhere Sharia Law holds sway, are not living the types of lives in “All American Muslim”.  They are leading the types of lives that inspire, encourage and give birth to homicide bombers, to antisemitism and anti-American, anti-western values.  Muslims in the rest of the world are living in strict accordance to the Koran, which is anti-woman, homophobic, and anti-Semitic.  And it is also anti freedom.

Summing up America’s “problem” with Muslims, Rachel concludes:

If the example of history has been any indication (think Japanese internment campus in the United States during World War II), demonizing an entire population in our midst can only foster further hatred and misunderstanding.

But try incorporating Christianity anywhere in the American public square and watch liberal, anti-Christian hypocrites like Rachel Newcomb scream and wail a different tune.  Rachel defends Islam for the same reason Michelle Goldberg does, and all liberals and feminists do – because Islam is anti-Christian.  That’s it.

It is Rachel who would have all Christians practice their faith “interned” in the privacy of their own homes, away from the public.  It is Rachel who “demonizes” Christianity, and “an entire population [of Christians in America] in our midst”.  It is Rachel who “fosters further hatred and misunderstanding” of Christianity.

Think not?  Challenge her on whether she supports more Christianity in America, or less.  Challenge Rachel on what her position is with regards to more exposure, more tolerance, more influence, more freedom of the Christian religion in America.  Challenge Rachel to be more pro-Christian.  What does anyone think the results of that would be?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: