Saturday, March 18, 2006

Barry Lynn vs. Pat Robertson

(Thanks once again Jancan. You are my favorite anti-jihad blogger.)

So what is a cool guy (like me) to do when he finds himself agreeing with Pat Robertson? On the 700 Club Robertson said that radical Islamists were demonic and bent on world domination.

World domination? What? Just because they say so? ...Demonic? Just because they cut off heads and blow up children?

Reverend Barry Lynn, spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said: “At a time when inter-religious tensions around the world are at an all-time high, Robertson seems determined to throw gasoline on the fire. His comments are grossly irresponsible. Robertson seems to be wrestling with demons of his own, namely intolerance and bigotry."

Thanks Barry. We can always count on you to come out with your guns pointed at Christians.

So who has a better grasp of reality? Barry Lynn, who I suspect is a direct descendant of Neville Chamberlain, or Pat Robertson, foot-in-mouth bungler extraordinaire?

If our freedom's enemy was a government, everything would be so much simpler. But unfortunately the enemy is ubiquitous in its geography, fanatical in its reasoning, and based on a Holy Book whose verses lend themselves to an interpretation that justifies any means that leads to its ends.

Whether or not the rioters and terrorists that Robertson sees on his TV screen are dominated by actual demons is not the issue. The issue is that they are as lethal and as much our enemy as were the Nazis of World War II. And peaceful Muslims living among them will pay the same price that was paid by German civilians who sat back and let the Third Reich happen.

Here I insert a question:
A madman charges you with a knife and you shoot him. His brother holds a knife, threatens you, and slowly approaches. At what point do you act? You can argue with yourself and wring your hands, but he is coming. You can look the other way and hope for the best, but he is coming. You can try to understand his rage and debate your best response, but he is still coming.

Barry, you limp-wristed liberal, you can rail against the people you hate, but sooner or later you'll have to deal with the terrorists that hate you.

And Barry, a tip from your Uncle Chris: Go light on your next "Americans United" stationary order from Staples. If you and your ilk win the day, you may be changing your header to read: Americans United for the Separation of Mosque and State.

He is coming, Barry.


Anonymous said...

I can't tell you how pleased we on the left are that Pat Robertson is now your spokesman.

Whether it's radical Muslims or born-again Christians, the threat to our freedom from fundamentalists is obvious.

SkyePuppy said...


Those of you on the left delight in equating the danger to yourselves and our nation from radical Muslims and from born-again Christians. But you never say how the danger is equal.

Tell me, how many people on the left have died at the hands of born-again Christians? And how many on the left have died at the hands of radical Muslims? By my count, the score is 0-ish to 2,500-ish (I'm assuming the people at the Pentagon were on the right).

You'll need to do better than that, if you want to be taken seriously.

Christina said...

Well said as usual, skyepuppy. (and Chris).

Not much else to say.

Emma said...

Anonymous, I can't tell you how pleased we on the right are that Hollywood, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc...are now your spokesmen (and women). They make it so easy to see what you on the far left really believe.

Whether it's abortion on demand, higher tax rates for the "evil" wealthy business owners and a rampant welfare state, freedom of speech only to those with whom you agree, and the absolute exclusion of anything Christian in our society, what is obvious is that the real threat to our God-given freedom comes from humanistic socialists like the leaders of the democratic party.

But thanks for playing!

Anonymous said...


Well of course the danger is different, but both are a threat to our way if life. To me freedom is not being preached into or legislated out of the way I want to live.

And yes Emma, some of us to the left of you, which I would guess to be 95% of America, would like to take the money wasted in Iraq and give it to the less fortunate. Guilty as charged. But I think Jesus said something about the welfare of the poor. You born-agains seem to need to be reminded of that sometimes. But then some of the least Christian people I know are Christians.

I notice you did not mention Barack Obama or Evan Bayh. We have a variety of leaders in the Democratic Party, thank you, and they are not in lock step like the Republicans.

Malott said...

I appreciate your visit and your comments. You are always welcome here.

Unlike Muslims, Robertson and other Evangelicals believe in a representative Democracy. So all you have to fear is your inability to convince the majority. Even if Republican presidents pack the Supreme Court with strict constructionists, the fate of your issues will still lie in the hands of the voters... which is not always the case when there is an activist Court like the present one.

You mentioned two supposedly more moderate Democrats so I will guess that you are a moderate. If that is the case, and you are more Lieberman than Feingold, I hope that you and your kind wrest control of your party from the more radical elements. I think that would be good for both the country and your party.

But thanks again for your thoughts.

SP, Christina, and Emma... you guys are great. I love getting comments.

Emma said...

Anonymous, I had a nicely worded comment all ready to post and in previewing to make sure I didn't have any spelling errors, the computer ate my comment. So I will try again, but in shorter form.

First, you mention that "95%" of people are to the left of me. One question: If that is the case, why are the Democrats not in the majority anywhere in the government? I think your numbers are a little inflated.

Second, I have to take issue with your choice of words about Iraq. I realize the original comment wasn't about this subject so I'll just say that I disagree with you. I don't believe that sending our troops overseas to defend our country from threatening nations is a "waste" of money. If I recall correctly, the main purpose of the government is to protect the country. I would instead contend that the true "waste" of money would be for the federal government to throw more money to a broken and utterly failing welfare system. See, I actually agree with you that Jesus cared about the poor, but Jesus did not just advocate giving them money month after month on a never-ending basis. He advocated helping them, not giving them a handout. I don't think the government is doing anyone any good if they allow people to merely exist on a monthly stipend, never encouraging them to educate themselves or do anything to try to make their circumstances better. I realize not everyone falls into this category, but there are too many who do. I'm not against helping the less-fortunate, but I am not for throwing more money into a broken system. I think the church should be taking care of the needy as it once did, but now that the federal government has stepped in, I'm not sure the modern day church could handle that job anymore.

Third, thank you for recognizing that I am a "born again". I realize it wasn't meant as a compliment, but it was the best compliment you could have given me. My Christian faith means something real to me. It influences my thinking and my actions. It isn't just a religion, it is who I am and that upon which I stake my life. So please don't lump me in with those who are Christians in name only. I agree there are plenty, I am just not one of them.

Finally, you noted the absence of Obama and Bayh in my list. Actually they were in my thoughts as I typed "etc..." I happen to think they might even be a greater threat here. I don't know a lot about Obama yet, but Bayh has a long record of selling himself as a moderate, even a "conservative" Democrat, yet his voting record does not bear this out. It would seem to me that this sort of saying one thing and doing another is the very same hypocritical behavior for which you so harshly criticize Christians.

Mary said...

Chris has a good point. If your liberal politicians are so great and your liberal plan is so great, you guys should have no trouble winning elections. But they aren't, and it isn't, so you will.

And as far as the poor are concerned, I can remember back when the Democrats controlled the government and the poor were just as poor as they are today.

Anonymous said...

Can't get elected?
Wait till this fall, Mary.

LASunsett said...

I don't always agree with Pat Robertson, he has this natural ability to put his foot in his mouth, at the most inopportune times. He definitely should have kept quiet on the Hugo Cahvez thing, awhile back.

But, sometimes he gets it right. This is one time that I agree with him.