Note he talks about the feminization of the medal of honor which puts him the Doug Coe The Family 's attitude towards Christ that he wanted his followers the Christians to kill as many non-believers as possible.
Compare this to Hitler's belief that the Jesus who was angry and destructive in the Temple in Jerusalem is the real Jesus not the one who says turn the other cheek.
Fischer: God Honors Those Who Inflict “Massive Casualties” Because “Christianity is Not a Religion of Pacifism” by kyle at Rightwing Watch via Loonwatch & Islamophobia Today, Nov. 18, 2010
Fischer says inflicting “massive casualites” is Christian. He cites massacres in the Old Testament as his proof. Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion that supports massacres? Imagine if a Muslim had said what Fisher said.
Fischer: God Honors Those Who Inflict “Massive Casualties” Because “Christianity is Not a Religion of Pacifism”
Bryan Fischer responds to the latest outrage he has provoked with his recent blog post decrying “the feminization of the Medal of Honor.”
As he typically does in these situations, Fischer reacts by accusing everyone else of intentionally misrepresenting his point and then proceeds to “clarify” it by reiterating his position in such a way that it makes the extent of his extremism all the more obvious, as if the problem was that somehow people just misunderstood him the first time.
And so we end up with posts like this in which he explains that all he was saying was that we as a nation need to start honoring soldiers who kill lots of people because such actions are greatly pleasing to God:
The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:
“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).
And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).
Then he went after the Amalekites, and we are told that “David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled” (1 Samuel 30:17).
Again, “David did as the LORD commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba to Gezer” (2 Samuel 5:25).
Further we read in 2 Samuel 8, “David defeated the Philistines and subdued them…he defeated Moab…David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah…David struck down 22,000 men of the Syrians…and the LORD gave victory to David everywhere he went…and David made a name for himself when he returned from striking down 18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt…and the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (vv. 1,2,3,5,6,13,14).
And this, remember, was “the man after (God’s) heart” (1 Samuel 13:14).
Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.
The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.
I guess you could say that Fischer is more of a Psalm 137 Christian than a Matthew 5 Christian.
">Robert Spencer’s “Fuzzy Math” Islamophobia Today Nov. 19
No Muslim can do any good for “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer. During the Hajj, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the top cleric there, gave a sermon to the 2.5 million pilgrims declaring that there is no room for terrorism and extremism in Islam:
Saudi Arabia’s top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, called on worshippers in a midday sermon to espouse moderation and said Islam would survive what he described as attempts to defame the faith.
Delivering the Haj sermon at Namira Mosque at Mount Arafat, he said Allah Almighty endowed us with hosts of blessings and boons; guidance of Islam is one of them, adding Islam is not a theoretical religion; instead, it is a practicable code of conduct.
Al Sheikh said Islam is based on justice and equity, which admits of no terrorism, extremis [sic] and injustice.
This is big news. The top cleric in Saudi Arabia told millions of Muslim pilgrims that their religion has no place for terrorism and extremism. It should put to rest the claims of those who say, “Where are the Muslim condemnations against terrorism?” If you care to look, they are everywhere.
But, for the “Police Blotter Scholar,” that is not enough. No. He chooses to focus on the chants of a small number of pilgrims – from among 2.5 million – to negate the powerful message of the sermon:
It is doubtful that anyone there noticed any contradiction. When Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Sheikh began condemning terrorism and extremism, most of his hearers probably thought he was referring to the actions of America and Israel.
No, Spencie. He was not referring to “America and Israel,” but terrorism in general. That was quite clear. But, for Spencer, the wrong-headed chants of a few pilgrims > (“is greater than”) the sermon of the top Saudi cleric denouncing terror in the name of Islam during a most holy time and a most holy place. The actions of a few misguided Muslims represents the whole. This is Spencer’s “fuzzy math.”
And they call him a “Scholar”…
Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes Make Clear That Glenn Beck, with His Incendiary Rhetoric and Wild Inaccuracies, Will Be the Face of Fox News Rupert Murdoch is gloating at the profits he expects to make with the venomous Beck as the channel's flagship host. by Sarah Pavlus at Media matters Via Alternet.org.November 19, 2010 |
To those Fox News journalists who are reportedly "worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network": Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have picked a side in this fight -- and it's not yours.
In an October New York Times Magazine profile of Beck, Mark Leibovich -- who noted the "[o]ff-the-record sniping shoots in both directions" and could be related to upcoming contract negotiations -- reported: "But the friction is evident in many areas." In addition to reporting -- like Kurtz -- that some Fox News journalists felt Beck's inflammatory rhetoric undermined the network, Leibovich introduced a new twist: Ailes' support for Beck may have been flagging.
Ailes, Leibovich wrote, "has generally been supportive of Beck," but he's also "complained about Beck's hawking his non-Fox ventures too much on his Fox show" and has been "vocal around the network about how Beck does not fully appreciate the degree to which Fox News has made him the sensation he has become in recent months."
With his ratings in a slump, advertisers dropping like flies, and the reported sniping from Ailes, it seemed possible that Beck's influence at Fox might wane.
Then Rupert Murdoch stepped in.
When asked at the News Corp. annual shareholders meeting later that month about Ailes' reported frustration with Beck's use of Fox News airwaves to promote his own brand and interests, Murdoch dismissed such concerns, saying, "I don't know whether you watch Fox News, but Mr. Beck is the least of our stars who take liberties in promoting their interests."
And Murdoch was unfazed when asked at the meeting about reports that nearly 300 advertisers are boycotting Glenn Beck, responding, "That's not true. ... Maybe four or five who have been moved over to Mr. O'Reilly's program. No one has taken any money off the channel."
But perhaps most surprising was Murdoch's unprompted praise for Beck in a November interview in his native Australia, which was paired with some trash-talking aimed at Fox News ratings giant Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly's "easy" treatment of now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview was "disgraceful," Murdoch said...
Report Finds Fox News Gives Free Publicity to 2012 GOP Candidates--$40 Million Worth By Sarah Seltzer | Sourced from Alternet
Posted at November 19, 2010
It's bad enough that TLC and ABC's "Dancing with the Stars' are already giving Sarah Palin--who is seriously mulling a 2012 run--tons of exposure and airtime.
But far more dangerous is the fact that "Fair and Balanced" Fox news has potential presidential contenders on its payroll and on its shows as guests around the clock, day in and day out.
And a new report from Media Matters says that all that publicity amounts to $40 million dollars worth, for free. The figure they've come up with is gaining mainstream attention. The AP reports exactly how the study was done.
Media Matters looked at the airtime of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and John Bolton, all paid contributors who frequently give commentary on the network. The fifth was Mike Huckabee, who as host of his own weekend show logs the most time on Fox.
Using current advertising rates, Media Matters calculated that the five had received at least $40 million of free airtime.
There is no comparison with other networks, as all the currently-buzzed-about challengers as of the moment are the folks mentioned above.
But in the past, presidential contenders like Pat Buchanan have taken leaves from their media contracts when running for office. The question remains which if any of the FOX contributors will do the same.
"Essentially, there is a Fox News primary going on," Ari Rabin-Havt, Media Matters vice president, told the AP. "There never has been a network that has so dominated a political process," he said.
And yet people continue to claim that Fox news is biased, but not partisan
-----------------------------------------------
">Robert Spencer’s “Fuzzy Math” Islamophobia Today Nov. 19
No Muslim can do any good for “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer. During the Hajj, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the top cleric there, gave a sermon to the 2.5 million pilgrims declaring that there is no room for terrorism and extremism in Islam:
Saudi Arabia’s top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, called on worshippers in a midday sermon to espouse moderation and said Islam would survive what he described as attempts to defame the faith.
Delivering the Haj sermon at Namira Mosque at Mount Arafat, he said Allah Almighty endowed us with hosts of blessings and boons; guidance of Islam is one of them, adding Islam is not a theoretical religion; instead, it is a practicable code of conduct.
Al Sheikh said Islam is based on justice and equity, which admits of no terrorism, extremis [sic] and injustice.
This is big news. The top cleric in Saudi Arabia told millions of Muslim pilgrims that their religion has no place for terrorism and extremism. It should put to rest the claims of those who say, “Where are the Muslim condemnations against terrorism?” If you care to look, they are everywhere.
But, for the “Police Blotter Scholar,” that is not enough. No. He chooses to focus on the chants of a small number of pilgrims – from among 2.5 million – to negate the powerful message of the sermon:
It is doubtful that anyone there noticed any contradiction. When Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Sheikh began condemning terrorism and extremism, most of his hearers probably thought he was referring to the actions of America and Israel.
No, Spencie. He was not referring to “America and Israel,” but terrorism in general. That was quite clear. But, for Spencer, the wrong-headed chants of a few pilgrims > (“is greater than”) the sermon of the top Saudi cleric denouncing terror in the name of Islam during a most holy time and a most holy place. The actions of a few misguided Muslims represents the whole. This is Spencer’s “fuzzy math.”
And they call him a “Scholar”…
No comments:
Post a Comment