Note: Yes, I changed the title of this post. It seemed apropos.
I've been sitting on this for a while, and at this point it's almost just old news. But two things compelled me to just go ahead and post it. The first is that the initial link below is still relevant as all get out. It was my initial inspiration for this post. The second is Dan's most recent post as his Blog of Lies and Perversions, wherein he indulges in his well known psychotic and very unChristian grace embracing hatred of our president. Dan continues to be the poster child for "All Which Is Wrong With America". So here it is...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we all know, Dems in Dem states won elections. Virginia, New Jersey and NYC all elected Dems for the various open offices on the ballot. Not a one of them was won by a Dem of class and character. Of course, those words...as well as words like "honor", "morality" and "honesty"...have no real value to either the political or religious left.
In pondering the outcome of these elections, I felt compelled to write about them here and what it portends. But that's kind of silly since what has occurred was what past elections had portended at the time. Thus, things are moving in the worst way in the worst direction, slowed only by the great work of our president and a few conservative governors.
So as I was trying to figure out how to express myself, I found a great piece which says much in my stead.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/results_are_in_american_leftists_willingly_embrace_evil.html
I was so impressed with the author's comprehensive analysis. She really presented well so many of the vile things with which the left aligns themselves. As an aside, I also appreciate the fact that she referred to George Floyd's death as "self-inflicted" as opposed to a murder, which is how even way too many conservatives describe it, simply because a poor justice system said so.
Moron Zamdani naturally gets most of the attention, as he is, by far, the most egregious winner among the leftist election victories. It's amazing that in a city which was the target of an islamic attack which murdered 3000 Americans, most of whom were in the World Trade Center buildings destroyed in the assault, it's also a city comprised of so many Jews, who are still constantly targeted by islamists of the type Moron Zamdani just couldn't bring himself to condemn for their October 7, 2023 murder, rape and kidnapping spree. I guess he views it as "the voice of the unheard" or some kind of "self-determination" migration into Israel from Gaza. But he is representative of what the Democrat Party has become, and they have plenty of support from the stupider of the unwashed.
As regards that particular election, there's much which alarms, such as who celebrated his victory:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/hamas_linked_jew_hater_pours_out_the_congratulations_to_mamdani.html
And there are other things quite interesting, one of which suggests a huge problem with the 19th Amendment:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/almost_a_republican_sweep_last_night_if_only_men_voted.html
50 comments:
Much like those jurisdictions that vote senile, old, corrupt, politicians for decades voters will get exactly what they deserve. As we've seen here in the people's republic, the urban liberals have blessed us with fraud, scandal, and ineffective governance over the last decade or so.
I wonder whether rage over Trump and the GOP has exceeded rage over Muslims.
To the lunatic left, there is no one more evil and hated than Donald J. Trump, followed closely by all actual conservatives.
Y'all continue to miss the point?
WHY would any rational, moral adult "rage over Muslims...", any more than we'd rage against Christians or rage against Jews? We're not bigoted that way, that we'd choose a whole group of people to demonize and attack.
A bigoted person rages against groups of people. The wise, rational, moral people rage against those who cause harm. Against this shooter, yes. Against the specific murderers in the department of defense who command soldiers to murder people outside the bounds of law.
Blame the guilty specifically. Not ALL Republicans. Not ALL Muslims.
Why, that's almost biblical and, even more importantly, it's rational and moral.
Dan
I'm unaware of anyone who is engaged in "rage over Muslims", so that seems like a straw man to me.
Now are some people upset at things like Muslims taking over various suburbs of Detroit, engaging is systemic massive fraud, large rape rings in the UK, high crime rates of certain nationalities, high numbers of first cousin marriages and the genetic problems that brings, slaughter of Christians in Africa, of course. All of those things are worthy of being upset over. But some vague, general, "rage over Muslims", that I'm not seeing. I am seeing quite the opposite, where certain folx are making excuses and accommodations for Muslims, but no "rage".
Dan rages against Trump and the "MAGOP", therefore be must be bigoted.
Dan, you're an imbecile. Their holy book literally teaches them to harass and harm people of other religions. We have every reason to be wary of a people group of whom the vast majority seemingly show little interest in assimilating into cultures that differ from their own. It's best that you do not go around showcasing your bigoted ignorance under the guise of humble, reasoned inquiry.
November 30, 2025 at 8:09 PM
"WHY would any rational, moral adult "rage over Muslims...", any more than we'd rage against Christians or rage against Jews?"
How abjectly and patently dishonest it is to type out the above sentence, which clearly implies the first group is no different than the other two. That's like grouping Craig with Dan and a Hampshire (the first one is a cool dude and the next two are both pigs). A good government puts its people over those who aren't. That's their obligation as a good government over all else. Dan pretends muslims aren't given to putting their "religion" over everything and everyone who is not muslim, too. That clearly puts us at risk given the teachings of their "faith". Their history is such that, unlike with any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists"), islam is totally incompatible with our way of life. Thus, it is reasonable, logical, essential and Christian for our government to treat them differently than most every other people on earth.
Dan perverts Scripture once again to suppose that we're to ignore the dangers of a people taught to convert, enslave or murder those who won't accept their false religion, and, unlike with most any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists"), they teach that it is OK to lie to non-muslims to further the islamic cause.
Thus, the wise, rational, moral people rage against those like muslims who cause so much harm, in much the same way they "rage" against Democrats and other progressives.
"Against the specific murderers in the department of defense who command soldiers to murder people outside the bounds of law."
Support this stupidly false and baseless claim, hateful liar.
"Blame the guilty specifically."
Like muslims who have for centuries spread their message by the sword.
Like progressives/Democrats/marxists/fake Christians like Dan who promote, defend, support policies which result in 800000 infant deaths per year in our country, as well as the politicians to enact legislation to that end, as well as scores of other harmful policies and ideas...like treating muslims like everyone else.
And that's not "Biblical" at all.
Jesse:
Dan, you're an imbecile. Their holy book literally teaches them to harass and harm people of other religions.
No. I'm informed. I know Muslims. I hang out with Muslims and speak with them and share meals with them, as do many friends from my church and extended circles. Because I'm informed, I know that it's wrong to let some conservative Christian extremist to pretend to speak for Muslim's, telling them what they believe.
There's a difference between being informed and recognizing that there are SOME Muslim extremists - conservative zealots of their religion and human traditions - just like there are some Christian extremists - conservative zealots of their religion and human traditions... there are some Muslim extremists and there are some rational, compassionate Muslims. We don't blame the whole for the bad actions of a few.
THAT is the practice of bigots, but I'm informed, rational and not a bigot, by definition.
Same for you and your irrational, bigoted comments, Marshal.
The reality is: Rational people hold guilty people accountable for harmful actions, not everyone from the group they're from. Bigots blame them all.
And that IS biblical, moral, Godly and reasonable.
Understand now?
Just as a reminder:
Bigot:
"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
and
"a narrow-minded person who obstinately adheres to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership"
Y'all are literally operating as Muslim bigots, definitionally.
So, when young Jesse irrationally and falsely states:
It's best that you do not go around showcasing your bigoted ignorance under the guise of humble, reasoned inquiry.
We can see that I am not acting in a bigoted or ignorant manner, definitionally. I'm well aware that MANY bigoted conservatives make those claims about what Islam does and doesn't teach. And I'm informed (not ignorant) enough to know that some Muslims MIGHT teach what you suggest... but I'm also informed and not bigoted enough to know that not all Muslims think of Islamic teachings in the way you do. Another thing that is irrational and bigoted is presuming that you as a privileged white conservative Christian male are in a better position to decide what Muslims believe rather than actual Muslims.
Bigotry and arrogance are a bad combination, sirs.
December 2, 2025 at 12:59 PM
"I'm informed."
You certainly think you are. But you haven't convinced me you aren't more than a useful idiot for any number of groups of people. Muslims can only be but one more on the list. But given the teachings of islam, which has been confirmed repeatedly by muslims themselves, the fact remains that simply being muslim logically implicates one as being a threat because islam itself is a threat to all who are not muslim, too.
Are all muslims a direct threat to any non-muslim? That doesn't matter even if we could confirm a given muslim isn't, though that's impossible. The fact that a muslim "seems nice" and hasn't acted violently toward anyone, doesn't mean they won't. And again, unlike with any other group except for the extreme of progressives (known as "communists")...shit...ANY progressives if recent history is taken into account...violence is always an option, is rewarded by their false god if directed against non-muslims and there are many instances of support by allegedly non-violent muslims which are easy to find. The risk to our people is too great to pretend they're "just like us", when they all too often prove otherwise.
"I hang out with Muslims and speak with them and share meals with them, as do many friends from my church and extended circles."
Not the least bit compelling, as useful idiots are especially poor sources about the people for whom they serve as the useful idiots they are...as YOU are.
"I know that it's wrong to let some conservative Christian extremist to pretend to speak for Muslim's, telling them what they believe."
And just like the muslims themselves, you clearly believe it's acceptable to lie about conservative Christians. We do not "pretend" to speak for muslims. We repeat what their "holy book" has revealed as confirmed by many muslims and scholars of the "faith".
THAT is the practice of truly informed people...they go right to the source. Bigots are those who rebuke those who do because they speak the truth bigots like you don't like or want to hear.
"Rational people hold guilty people accountable for harmful actions, not everyone from the group they're from. Bigots blame them all."
Truly rational people hold accountable not just those who perpetrated heinous acts, but those who could have and should have prevented their own from doing so.
Truly rational people do not risk the safety of their own simply to posture. It's not bigotry at all to act on probabilities supported by 1400 years of history. And that IS biblical, moral, Godly and reasonable.
For those who were raised in muslim households but do not practice the "faith", I would prefer that they, like you, no longer refer to themselves as members of the faith they don't follow. But let them first reject the faith in their own countries and deal with those who would see them dead. Most don't come here to assimilate.
No Dan, you're not informed, or at least you're informed but do not care enough about reality. Millions of Christians through history have lived under the brutality of Islamic rule. No other religion on the planet has as horrible a track record as that. You're so desperate, that you take potential exceptions to the rule and use that as a wedge in an attempt knock down the truth that I set before you. But it still stands solid as is, and you have a noticeable lump on your head from banging it around in the dark. Also, you have no idea what my age is, what my nationality is, or anything else about me for that matter. Keep your moldy foot in your mouth where it belongs. I see you're casually mentioning other people's skin color. It's always nutcases like you who have to play that game. But hey, you're the left-wing version of flat-earthers. You fit right into the crowd of all of the political loons who run around today like chickens without their heads on. I will always be a morally and intellectually superior person to somebody like you.
December 2, 2025 at 1:20 PM
"Y'all are literally operating as Muslim bigots, definitionally."
YOU are operating as an asshole...a useful idiot for islam. WE are operating as people who put the lives of our own above rank posturing.
"We can see that I am not acting in a bigoted or ignorant manner, definitionally."
We can see that you're acting like a moron, and not so much ignorant, but more "there are none so blind as those who will not see" kind of stupid. The next line is a perfect example:
"I'm well aware that MANY bigoted conservatives make those claims about what Islam does and doesn't teach. And I'm informed (not ignorant) enough to know that some Muslims MIGHT teach what you suggest... "
It's not what "some muslims" "might" teach. It's what their "holy book" teaches...what their "prophet" teaches...what their imams teach. And those you want to believe are teaching something apart from that might simply be actually living according to those teachings and can see you as the chump you clearly are.
" Another thing that is irrational and bigoted is presuming that you as a privileged white conservative Christian male are in a better position to decide what Muslims believe rather than actual Muslims."
And thus you willfully, intentionally, consciously and happily lie once again. YOU have NO idea what those across the table from you actually believe. You simply swallow whatever they feed you and pretend you are "informed".
WE on the other hand, don't concern ourselves with what any individual muslim thinks, but instead pay heed to what is taught them by their "holy book", "prophet" and imams.
"Bigotry and arrogance are a bad combination, sirs."
As we don't emulate those qualities, it's unnecessary to say such a thing. It's worse, however, in dealing with you, a combo of bigotry, arrogance, condescension, stupidity and heresy.
OK, Dan knows a few Muslims therefore he's more equipped to comment on Muslim scripture, doctrine, practice, than other "christians". Despite the clear teachings of the Quran and multiple Imams, and simply observing the laws and actions of Muslim majority countries. Marrying 1st cousins, perfectly fine, marrying 9 year olds, also fine, subjugating and oppressing woman, great, but Dan knows all because he's hung out with a few Muslims. Or maybe they were just exposing him to taqiyya or something. One wonders what they'd say about Muslim religious leaders defending the rape and kidnapping of a 12 year old.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are a bigot.
Evaluating Muslims based on the literal tenets of Islam isn't bigotry, it's simply looking at the evidence.
I'll note that I've posted many examples of Muslim religious and political leaders who adamantly disagree with Dan's whitewashing of Islam.
A simple look at Dan, demonstrates why bigotry and arrogance are such a problem.
Educate yourselves, sirs...
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts
Jesse...
"Also, you have no idea what my age is, what my nationality is, or anything else about me for that matter."
My apologies if I was mistaken. You read like a young white privileged male conservative without a great deal of higher education (although one who has read a lot of conservative writings).
Are you not?
Jesse...
No other religion on the planet has as horrible a track record as that.
As the source I provided shows, extremists in both the Muslim AND Christian world have a bad track record. Rational people who are not bigots can recognize that observable reality. History shows what History shows.
Now, there are different ways to try to count atrocities and human rights violations, so precise numbers are not provable, but people from BOTH religions have committed their fair share of atrocities. As an informed and historically-aware Christian, I can admit that.
But for bigots who obstinately adhere to their own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership... I get that they don't see that in themselves.
Slave owners, after all, didn't view themselves as bigots or bad guys, either, but they were definitionally bigots, just the same.
Now you're just stereotyping. I don't talk like anything of the sort.
I read your article, Dan, and I wasn't impressed by it at all.
Miroslav Volf’s essay rests on a foundation of shaky statistics and sweeping generalizations. His reliance on Naveed Sheikh’s Body Count is particularly troubling. The classification of Nazi genocides as “Christian” is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Nazism was explicitly hostile to Christianity, replacing Christian ethics with racial paganism and pseudo-scientific ideology. To lump Nazi atrocities into the Christian ledger is as absurd as calling Stalin’s purges “Christian” simply because they occurred in lands once shaped by Christian culture. Worse still, Volf ignores the blood-soaked record of the Ottoman Empire, whose campaigns of conquest, enslavement, and massacre across Europe rivaled or exceeded many Christian wars. This selective accounting betrays a bias: violence in Christian-majority societies is labeled “Christian,” while violence in Muslim or secular societies is conveniently detached from religion. Such methodology is not scholarship; it is polemic.
His framing of modern conflicts as “Christian wars” is equally misleading. The United States, though majority-Christian, is a secular republic whose wars are driven by geopolitics, not theology. To describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “Christian wars” is a distortion that erases the complex motives of statecraft and reduces them to religious caricature. Coalition forces include atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others, yet Volf insists on branding these conflicts as Christian. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand, not serious analysis. Ironically, the Christian just war tradition he invokes has often condemned these very wars, showing that Christianity provides the moral tools to critique violence rather than justify it. To blame Christianity for wars waged by secular states is to confuse cultural demographics with theological causation.
Volf’s historical selectivity further undermines his credibility. He highlights Christian violence while downplaying Islamic conquests, Mongol massacres, and the genocides of atheistic regimes in the twentieth century. The Mongols alone killed tens of millions, dwarfing many European conflicts, yet their atrocities are not attributed to “Mongol religion.” Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together murdered more than any Christian empire, yet their crimes are conveniently excluded from the comparison. This cherry-picking of evidence creates a distorted narrative in which Christianity appears uniquely violent, when in fact violence is a universal human phenomenon. To single out Christianity is not historical analysis but ideological targeting.
His romanticized contrast between Nicholas of Cusa’s dialogue and Piccolomini’s crusade is another example of oversimplification. Volf claims dialogue “won” and explains Western ascendency, but this is historical fantasy. Western dominance was built on a complex interplay of Renaissance humanism, scientific revolution, industrialization, capitalism, and military power. Dialogue with Islam did not prevent centuries of conflict, from the sieges of Vienna to Barbary piracy. To suggest that “ideas, not guns” explain Western success is to ignore the obvious role of naval supremacy, industrialized warfare, and colonial expansion. Dialogue mattered, but it was hardly the decisive factor. Volf’s narrative reduces history to a moral fable, stripping it of complexity.
Finally, the essay’s one-sidedness is glaring. Volf emphasizes Christian failures while ignoring Christianity’s transformative contributions. The abolition of slavery, the rise of universities, the nurturing of science, and the birth of humanitarian movements were all profoundly shaped by Christian thought and activism. To present Christianity only as a source of violence is not balance but caricature. It is a polemical indictment masquerading as historical reflection.
Again, my standards are so high that you could not even begin to meet them.
It's weird how Dan's comment seems to imply that "white people" as a category are automatically somehow "privileged." This is just plain ignorant as to how the real world works, which is that people come from a variety of different backgrounds no matter their chromosomal makeup. I could describe myself as privileged in the sense of being born into a country with greater freedoms, but that doesn't mean people are inherently predisposed to a better outcome in life just because of who they are. Dan just sounds...so...childish, naive, simple. I guess that a grey head doesn't really mean all that much anymore. How pathetic.
Marshal...
It's not what "some muslims" "might" teach. It's what their "holy book" teaches...what their "prophet" teaches...what their imams teach.
Bullshit.
That's all. Bullshit. This is just the type of ignorant diarrhetic bullshit claim that bigots make.
Probably what you bigots are speaking of, from a place of removed ignorance, is the notion in Islam of Taqiyya. This teaching is that, while Islam demands truthfulness and honesty from its followers (understand? Honesty is a fundamental demand of islam) that says there MAY be temporal exceptions where it CAN be allowed to deceive... IF your life is at risk if you confess to being Muslim... BUT that is an exception in specific circumstances.
Is Taqiyya what you're speaking of? Well then, YOU fellas are not Islamic experts who get to tell Muslims what it means. That's just the thinking of bigots, by definition.
Dan
Read and learn...
https://al-islam.org/taqiyyah-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/taqiyyah
Shocking, Dan's bias/prejudice/bigotry on full display.
Dan's willingness to blindly accept the testimony of a couple of Muslims that he knows (ignoring the fact that Islam encourages lying) and extrapolate that tiny sample size as representative of all/most Muslims is kind of scary. That he chooses to ignore the evidence that is readily available of what Islam and Muslims intend to accomplish, imposition of Sharia over US law for one, and to ignore the history of Islam as a force for conquest and oppression, because he knows a couple of Muslims is the opposite of venerating DATA.
I read as much of the article as I could stomach. It seems clear that the authors have stacked the deck to attribute all sorts of deaths to "Christians", while ignoring the conquests of Islam.
For example, the Crusades were a response to aggressive attempts at conquest and oppression by Islam, and as such any casualties should be laid at the feet of Islam, not Christianity. Likewise, when Spanish patriots rose up to expel Islam after to conquered the Iberian peninsula. the deaths should be credited to Islam.
Excellent point about balancing Christianity's "failures" against the successes. While Christians died to end slavery in the 1800s. Muslims still practice it in 2025. Not to mention Islam's role in the selling of slaves.
Dan doesn't really have standards because his tend to be so incredibly flexible.
I guess my posting video of Imam after Imam, Muslim politician after politician, and DATA about the affects of cousin marriage and the vast number of rapes in Europe (and in the US) means nothing because Dan talked to a couple of Muslims.
Excellent point. Christianity has a tradition, going back to Christ and the very first of His close followers of clinging to The Truth even if it lead to death, while Islam claims to revere truth while given Muslims an excuse to lie.
It's hilarious that Dan who's information comes from talking to a couple of Muslims, and a couple of Google searches deems himself in a position to demean our knowledge of Islam. That doing so requires a straw man is just icing on the cake.
I'll simply note that I've posted many videos of Muslims speaking for themselves about what they believe and what they intend to do, as well as Muslims who have risked death to speak out for Truth. I've posted many news stories that quote Muslim sources (clergy, politicians, and the like) who are also quite clear about their goals.
For anyone to ignore what is being said, implemented, and practiced in Muslim controlled countries, and communities across the globe is to choose ignorance.
FYI, out of the 56 Muslim majority countries in the world, how many of them became Muslim by conquest, and oppression of the natives? How many of those 56 Muslim majority countries give non Muslims full and complete freedom and all of the rights and privileges of Muslims?
The problem is that we tend to look ate what Muslims across the globe are doing and saying, instead of simply talking to a couple of Muslims in Louisville.
Well, though Dan has again strayed from the topic of the post, he has nonetheless validated the main point of it in his support of those who promoted and engage in bad behaviors. We can always depend upon Dan to validate our low opinion of progressive ideology.
Jesse,
I applaud you for your analysis of Dan's "proof". Very well done. Dan constantly likes to play the "whataboutism/moral relativism" game. I will always take an "extremist Christian" over any "extremist muslim", as well as over any lefty of any extreme and certainly over fake Christians like Dan. The extremist Christian is no one to fear. What Dan has in mind are those who are no more Christian than he is, or like him they're CINOs exploiting the Name of Christ to further their truly non-Christian agendas.
Dan straying from the topic of posts is his MO. When people do so at his blog, they get deleted.
December 2, 2025 at 9:16 PM
"Bullshit.
That's all. Bullshit. This is just the type of ignorant diarrhetic bullshit claim that bigots make."
I see. So by your logic, it's the epitome of wisdom for a seeker to get his info about Christianity from a perverse heretic like a Dan Trabue than from Scripture, the Words of Christ or the teachings of two thousand years of Christian scholars. Got it.
"Is Taqiyya what you're speaking of? Well then, YOU fellas are not Islamic experts who get to tell Muslims what it means."
Fortunately, we do not hold ourselves as islamic experts, nor are we seeking to tell muslims what it means, as they already know. We're people who derive our information from islamic sources and tell fake Christian assholes like you what taqiyya means and is and how it is understood and practiced by muslims.
Read and learn...
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
I've heard this testimony from actual muslims who consider themselves "good muslims", so I would take their word over yours and your muslim friends (assuming they properly explained their faith....assuming they actually are faithful muslims....assuming [a big assumption] you actually asked them about this concept and understood their response, which of course assumes they weren't lying about it).
No doubt he'll justify it because "muslim" was mentioned in the post.
Still failing to understand the point, Craig said:
I'll simply note that I've posted many videos of Muslims speaking for themselves about what they believe and what they intend to do
I have made it absolutely clear that there ARE SOME EXTREMIST CONSERVATIVE Muslims who have ill intent, who would lie to take advantage of others. Those people exist, JUST LIKE extremist conservative Christians exist. My point has been that we don't judge all for the behavior of some. That is definitionally bigotry.
We hold those Muslims with deadly or harmful behavior accountable for THEIR misdeeds. We hold those Christians with deadly/harmful behavior for THEIR misdeeds. AND we don't blame the whole for the actions of some, because that is bigotry on the one hand and anti-biblical (for those who take the Bible sort of literally) and it is irrational and unjust.
And fyi, Craig, I have friends/connections who live in Muslim Morocco and Muslim Albania, so I'm not speaking of just local Louisville Muslims. Also, I have this special power called "Reading," which enables me to read about other Muslims I don't know. Y'all should try it instead of your special power of bigotry.
DO YOU ADMIT/recognize that blaming the whole group for the actions of a few is literally bigotry?
Marshal, as to being off topic: I hate to tell you this, but I didn't read your little screed, as I don't place much value on your opinions. I commented here solely in response to young Jesse's comment,
"I wonder whether rage over Trump and the GOP has exceeded rage over Muslims."
He's the one who brought up Muslims, not me. I just responded to this grade school opinion.
Anyone with half a brain who would study the religion and practices of Islam since its inception would see that there is no such thing as a truly peaceful Muslim. Their teachings are to pretend peace and friendship until in a position of power. The goal of Islam is world domination, as one can see by the current disasters in Europe and Britain, as well as New York and Minnesota. Islam is the religion of Satan, period.
Funny, you call it a grade school opinion, yet you still can’t pass the test. And if it’s so childish, explain why millions of adults worldwide share the same concerns. Honestly, your own writing reads more like it came from someone unschooled than anything I’ve put together.
So you're saying you just click on "comments" and read comments under posts you didn't read? Yeah...sure you do. Yet nonetheless you've read MY comments, too, and are now responding to them. You make it too easy, Buffoon.
In the meantime, you so eagerly and arrogantly, in your grace embracing way, choose without just cause to refer to us as "bigots" for believing our government is doing their job by preventing those from muslim countries to enter our country. It's our government's job to protect the people of this country, not to allow entry to anyone who wants to enter. Who gets to enter in the case of muslims particularly, requires they are not of a group known for murder, rape, and the spread of anti-American doctrines.
I don't care who you know. I don't believe you're capable of recognizing either a decent or an indecent person, and your choice of Joe Biden over Donald Trump proves it. Your choice of LGBTQ++++ people over actual Christians who encourage their repentance proves it. Your choice of illegal immigrants over those who have suffered by their being here proves it.
Vetting people from muslim dominant countries is too often impossible. Thus, without proper vetting, they don't get in. It's not America's fault they, as a group, have a horrible reputation.
We have muslims in this country already. A few...like Zudhi Jasser...have proven themselves to as good an extent as is possible, to not be a threat. Indeed, he heads up an organization striving to reform islam from it's savage and barbarous character (likely putting a target on his back). But where there are pockets of muslims asserting they can dictate to law enforcement as if they own the place is reason enough to check the immigration status of all of them and send back any who aren't legal.
Your special power is reading? Reading is one thing. Comprehension and discernment are far more powerful. You've never demonstrated either.
I've mentioned more than once next door neighbors of mine who are from Bosnia. They are muslim but didn't seem to be "practicing" muslims and both husband and wife seemed to be more than assimilated. They spoke English to their kids (though visiting parents didn't speak English at all). We got along famously prior to our moving apart. I also worked with a few muslims in my time, some no doubt foreigners, and others Americanized to a great extent, but still muslim. I worked with a Moroccan, though the subject of islam never came up. Got along with all of them just fine.
But none of this matters with regard to how our government chooses to operate with regard to more muslims coming to our shores. Even you Joe Biden's people warned about how many terrorists were likely here already, and you want to risk more. You want to risk that the next one won't rape your wife just because he thinks allah says it's OK.
You're a moron. And if you're not going to read my posts, what the fuck are you even doing here?
Indeed, Jesse. Dan is truly a legend in his own twisted, fake Christian mind. And here's the thing: Most of my family is of Polish descent. If the Poles were acting as muslims do and with the greater probability that it will be harmful as is the case with muslims, I would move to block more of them coming in as well. Even by Biblical standards, our government is not obliged to wait until we are harmed by people with a history of bringing harm before choosing whether or not to give them the opportunity. I love my own people too much to put them at risk. Dan loves his posturing too much to care about the risk to his own family.
So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated, you are a white male and you're youngish (ie, younger than geezers like Marshal and I)?
Bigots gonna bigot, Marshal. All I'm doing is noting the reality that you all are acting in a bigoted manner by definition. That's just observable.
Marshal:
So you're saying you just click on "comments" and read comments under posts you didn't read? Yeah...sure you do.
Not usually. This time I did. Why is that hard to believe? Why would I make something like that up?
You all consistenly behave in a strange and irrational manner, that's just one small example.
Jesse:
you call it a grade school opinion, yet you still can’t pass the test.
? This would be an example of grade school style of writing.
I still can't pass WHAT test? It's an empty accusation that's not pinned to anything that's been written thus far. YOU cited liberals presumably lacking something you called "rage over Muslims..."
ALL I did was respond to the unsupported and frankly rather silly little point by asking "Why would we rage over Muslims?"
You all responded as if it were a given that all people SHOULD be outraged against "Muslims" as a category because of reasons you all personally hold but have not supported. You all are literally encouraging "rage" against the Group rather than being opposed specifically to those who cause harm. Again, that's literally bigotry, by definition.
WHERE in any of that is there a "test..."??
If I had to guess - and I'm sure you wouldn't admit it even if I'm correct - that I "failed the test" of agreeing with you all because you all are, in your minds, faithful "christians" and therefore, all good Christians should agree with your opinions, even if they are literally bigoted opinions.
But again, regardless, that sort of vaguely accusatory but with no basis in the actual conversation or ANY kind of clear support is what makes it seem like you are younger and less adept at writing and rational thought. Again, my apologies and condolences if you are actually old and educated enough to know better.
Jesse:
Miroslav Volf’s essay rests on a foundation of shaky statistics and sweeping generalizations.,/I>
As both Volf and I made clear: There are many ways of trying to reach such a "body count..." and no clear One Right Way. I think his point, and mine certainly, is that both religious traditions have had their share of human rights violations and harmful, deadly violence. To try to pretend like Muslims are pure evil always trying to kill and subjugate while Christians are pure and sinless is a betrayal of reality and history.
If you are a student of history, as you presume to be (I think), then surely we can agree upon that much.
Jesse:
It's weird how Dan's comment seems to imply that "white people" as a category are automatically somehow "privileged."
Likewise, in our nation and in our history, yes, of course, white straight men have demonstrably, objectively led privileged lives over and against black people, women, LGBTQ citizens and others. Now, it IS true that bigots would object to that, but reality is what it is. This, too, would be an indication of immature and less-than-judicious reasoning if you're rejecting that reality. Of course, probably Marshal and Glenn, and probably Craig, too, are the same age as me and they'd probably reject that, as well, even though they're old enough to know better.
Jesse:
To describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “Christian wars” is a distortion that erases the complex motives of statecraft and reduces them to religious caricature. Coalition forces include atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others, yet Volf insists on branding these conflicts as Christian.
Another sign of immature reading and reasoning. Volf did not call the Iraq War a "christian war..." He stated quite clearly and factually:
That would be four unjust wars, all of them waged by
a country whose population is predominantly Christian.
This is a simple observable fact. Do you disagree, sir?
Do you then agree with the reality that he did not call these "Christian wars..." and that his statement is factually correct? And perhaps can you agree that you're doing precisely what you're accusing him of - a rhetorical sleight of hand?
Jesse:
Ironically, the Christian just war tradition he invokes has often condemned these very wars, showing that Christianity provides the moral tools to critique violence rather than justify it.
And you thereby prove Volf's point: Yes, even Just War Theory (Augustine's invention, mind you, not Jesus') would have/should have condemned the GOP war in Iraq. And progressives and moderates across the US and the world united to point out how wrong it was... And yet, the conservative Christians who put Bush in office (the Bushes, if we count both wars/invasions) are the ones at whose feet we can lay the blame for Bush not following even JWT, much less the Christian teachings of Jesus.
Thus, in the sense that it was conservative Christians who put Bush in office and supported him even in this misguided war, Volf is not mistaken to note that it was Christians who empowered this war, not Muslims.
See how when you think things through on a deeper level, you get a richer and more correct understanding?
Looking at your post, I continue to find grade-school level bigotry... Not even the "adult" "classy" bigotry of KKK types. You stupidly made the clearly bigoted claim:
Of course, those words...as well as words like "honor", "morality" and "honesty"...have no real value to either the political or religious left.
Of course, in the real world, there are countless numbers of honorable progressives, those who are honest and moral. The irony of you, who endlessly support an overtly dishonorable, overtly corrupt, overtly amoral and dishonest deviant like the Felon saying that there is no honor, honesty or morality on the Left is especially telling.
Now, I'll call your attention to the difference between my claim and your claim.
You made a bigoted-by-definition claim that all "those liberals" are "bad" (summing up your unsupported claim of no honor, no integrity, no morality).
I, on the other hand, made the supported by reality claim about ONE person (not all conservatives), in this case, Trump. And he IS a deviant, lacking in character, as evidenced by his hedonistic, skirt-chasing, money-loving, misogynistic, corrupt and dishonest life. People have counted. As president, he has told more overt stupidly false claims than ANY president that's ever been counted. He's generated a whole new field of journalism (or a whole new level of an existing field): Fact-checking. This is due to his endless false claims.
And he is clearly immoral/amoral, even by your partisan standards. His endless cheating on his many wives and girlfriends, his over-the-top hedonism, his arrogance and selfish pride... He is, on the face of it, an over-the-top moral deviant and even most rational conservatives are glad to admit as much.
And what Honor does he have? The honor of thieves? The honor of loyalty to other ultra-wealthy, privileged and powerful types? Come on.
You can't rationally make a sweeping charge like that of all progressives. Period. AND, you especially can't make that sort of unsupported, stupidly false charge WHILE supporting the single most amoral and corrupt president in modern history.
Be reasonable.
For my part: I make no such sweeping claims about "conservatives" as a group. My parents were and many family members are conservatives. I WAS a conservative for half my life. I know honorable, moral and honest conservatives... just like I know honorable, moral and honest liberals and Muslims. I wouldn't make a sweeping claim like that because I'm not a bigot, by definition, in the way that you are, by definition.
Can you at least acknowledge that you are acting in a definitionally bigoted manner with these comments about Muslims and progressives?
"So, Jesse, by not answering my questions, are you saying that, yes, you are not college educated, you are a white male and you're youngish (ie, younger than geezers like Marshal and I)?"
Not exactly. It means that I remain mostly anonymous, and have good reasons for doing so.
Dan Trabue’s reply is not simply flawed; it is a caricature of argumentation, a performance of intellectual laziness dressed up as analysis. His defense of Volf collapses immediately under the weight of its own evasions. To claim that Volf did not call Iraq a “Christian war” but merely noted that it was waged by a predominantly Christian nation is sophistry of the most transparent kind. This is demographic reductionism at its most juvenile. By such reasoning, Stalin’s purges become “Orthodox wars,” Mao’s campaigns “Confucian wars,” and Mongol massacres “Tengrist wars.” No serious historian would indulge such absurdity. Trabue’s position is not scholarship—it is a crude tautology: “Christians live in America, therefore American wars are Christian.” This is the intellectual equivalent of a child’s syllogism, unworthy of serious consideration.
His misuse of Augustine’s Just War tradition is equally embarrassing. The tradition exists to separate wars that conform to Christian moral reasoning from those that do not. To note that Just War theory condemns Iraq is not evidence of Christianity’s complicity but proof of Christianity’s ability to critique violence. Trabue’s inversion of this logic is a textbook case of incompetence. He confuses Christianity’s ethical resources for restraint with evidence of guilt, thereby demonstrating a failure to grasp even the most elementary function of moral theology. This is not “deeper thinking”; it is intellectual malpractice.
The claim that “conservative Christians put Bush in office” is crude reductionism bordering on propaganda. Elections are decided by coalitions of millions across religious and secular lines. To single out one demographic as the causal agent is empirically indefensible and analytically juvenile. Worse, the leap from electoral support to theological responsibility is a non sequitur so glaring that it should shame anyone attempting to advance it. Christianity as a religion cannot be held accountable for the geopolitical decisions of a secular republic, even if some adherents supported the administration. Trabue’s argument is nothing more than guilt by association, a fallacy so obvious that it disqualifies his response from serious discourse.
Finally, his patronizing admonition that “thinking things through on a deeper level” yields a richer understanding is laughable. What he offers is not depth but shallow conflation, not rigor but rhetorical vanity. His tone substitutes smugness for substance, and his reasoning demonstrates precisely the methodological sloppiness I critiqued in Volf. To call this “deeper thinking” is to mistake intellectual vanity for scholarship. It is the hollow self-congratulation of someone who confuses assertion with analysis.
In sum, Trabue’s rejoinder is beneath serious engagement. It confuses demographics with causation, misapplies theological categories, reduces complex political phenomena to simplistic blame, and cloaks these errors in a veneer of superiority. There is no intellectual merit here, no serious engagement with history, theology, or political science. His response is not worth further dialogue. To continue engaging would be to dignify what is, in truth, little more than polemical noise. He has proven himself not an interlocutor but a distraction, and thus not worth another moment of serious attention.
Dan Trabue’s reply is once again a performance of intellectual sloppiness masquerading as analysis. His defense of Volf’s reliance on “body counts” is a concession that the statistics are methodologically unstable, yet he attempts to salvage them by claiming there is “no clear One Right Way.” This is not an argument; it is an abdication of scholarly responsibility. Historiography demands rigor, not relativism. To excuse shaky numbers by appealing to the impossibility of precision is to admit the foundation is unsound while pretending the edifice still stands. Such reasoning is not serious scholarship but apologetics for error.
His claim that both religious traditions have committed violence is a truism so banal it borders on irrelevance. No one disputes that violence is a universal human phenomenon. The issue is Volf’s selective framing, which exaggerates Christian culpability while minimizing or ignoring other traditions and ideologies. Trabue’s defense reduces to a straw man: he accuses critics of pretending Muslims are “pure evil” and Christians “pure and sinless.” This is rhetorical invention, not engagement. No serious historian advances such a dichotomy. By fabricating extremes, Trabue avoids confronting the actual critique—that Volf’s essay distorts history through selective emphasis and methodological carelessness.
His pivot to race and privilege is equally shallow. To assert that “white straight men have demonstrably, objectively led privileged lives” is a sociological generalization that, while true in certain structural contexts, is irrelevant to the critique of Volf’s essay. Trabue introduces it not as analysis but as moral posturing, a way of signaling virtue rather than addressing the argument at hand. Worse, he couches his claim in condescension, suggesting that disagreement is evidence of “immature and less-than-judicious reasoning.” This is not scholarship; it is rhetorical bullying. It substitutes insult for evidence and smugness for substance.
The invocation of names—Marshal, Glenn, Craig—only underscores the unseriousness of his reply. Rather than engage with ideas, Trabue resorts to insinuations about individuals, as though historical analysis could be settled by personal anecdotes or generational stereotypes. This is the opposite of academic rigor. It is gossip disguised as argument, a tactic unworthy of serious discourse.
In conclusion, Trabue’s rejoinder fails entirely. It concedes the instability of Volf’s statistics, fabricates straw men to avoid substantive critique, introduces irrelevant sociological posturing, and descends into personal insinuation. There is no intellectual merit here, no serious engagement with history, theology, or methodology. His response is beneath further dialogue. To continue engaging would be to dignify what is, in truth, little more than rhetorical noise. He has proven himself not an interlocutor but a distraction, and thus not worth another moment of serious attention.
Once again, Jesse...Bravo! A wonderful take down Dan won't even be able to perceive, much less understand or rebut intelligently.
I have to say that I didn't read Dan's link, as I have to decide if I really have time to read Dan's offerings, which routinely result in time wasted, and too often suggest he never read them himself. One thing which sticks out to me in your review of his link is the similarity with Dan's constant comparison between muslim extremists and Christian extremists. I say again that those two groups are absolute and unequivocal polar opposites, with the latter being that to which all Christians should aspire. Not to brag, given what an especially low bar he is, but Dan continues to prove himself to be so much farther away from that lofty goal than even the poor example of a Christian I am.
"Of course, in the real world, there are countless numbers of honorable progressives, those who are honest and moral."
How shocking you would say so. But then, you're not honest or moral and thus not an honorable source for such information about those who support a political party like the Democrat Party.
"The irony of you, who endlessly support an overtly dishonorable, overtly corrupt, overtly amoral and dishonest deviant like the Felon saying that there is no honor, honesty or morality on the Left is especially telling."
I don't support anyone as that whom you describe. I support a president who was unjustly convicted of bullshit charges in a kangaroo court, the false conviction of which is ripe for reversal. But the first link I presented in my post you didn't read gave quite a comprehensive analysis of all which supports the contention, given the space limitations of the host website.
You seem to think that the constant cherry picking of possible exceptions to the rule negates the rule as false. Yet still, you have such a perverse notion of concepts like "honor", "morality" and "honesty" as to make them mean nothing. This is typical of your kind.
"You made a bigoted-by-definition claim that all "those liberals" are "bad" (summing up your unsupported claim of no honor, no integrity, no morality)."
And you're a massive hypocrite for daring to accuse me of what you do constantly with regard to conservatives. The true difference is that I fully understand what your kind is, while you still fail to demonstrate any understanding of conservatism beyond a possible superficial, cartoon version in your hateful mind.
continuing
"I, on the other hand, made the supported by reality claim about ONE person (not all conservatives), in this case, Trump."
You're a liar. Your attacks on conservatives as opposed to Trump is up for grabs as to which is more common, but both truly are. You base your grace-embracing hatred of both on your weak understandings and partisan rhetoric...not much on verified or verifiable facts, with next to nothing one can regard as the level of evidentiary support you demand for claims made by any of us at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. So who are you crappin'?
"And he IS a deviant, lacking in character, as evidenced by his hedonistic, skirt-chasing, money-loving, misogynistic, corrupt and dishonest life."
He's nowhere NEAR the perverse deviant YOU are. Digging hot babes is NOT "deviancy" or "perversion". LGBTQ++++ people and their enablers are both by definition. As such, you're lacking in character, particularly of the Christian kind.
Does he like having lots of money and the opulent life it affords him? Sure. Most who have a bank account like him do, including an incredible amount of "progressives" which makes your focus on him demented. In that regard he's no better or worse than any of them, yet you pretend he is.
He's hired too many women to run important aspects of both his business and his administration for a liar like you to dare accuse him of misogyny...another word you don't understand. Diggin' hot babes is not hating women. Hiring women is not hating women. Treating asshole women the same way he treats asshole men is not hating women. Misogyny is the hate of women. You're a moron. You're far more moron than he'll ever be a misogynist.
You know nothing about his life being corrupt except what you've read by Trump-haters. But YOUR life is corrupt in your defense of abortion, pervert rights, coveting the wealth of the productive to pretend it's YOU providing for the needy. And that's just a taste of your vile ideology.
continuing
"People have counted. As president, he has told more overt stupidly false claims than ANY president that's ever been counted. He's generated a whole new field of journalism (or a whole new level of an existing field): Fact-checking. This is due to his endless false claims."
I recall you old friend Geoffrey thinking he'd exposed Bush 43 by listing what he said were George's lies. Except that they weren't. You rely on Trump-haters of the WaPo who count every little thing he says that isn't 100% accurate, as well as repetitions of them as individual lies to pad the list. Yet, among them are none of any true significance...nothing which persuaded anyone to vote for him or hid anything which would lead to anyone rejecting him, ala the Hunter laptop. No lies that misled like "if you like your doctor/health care plan, you can keep it", or "my opponent loves nazis and hates brown people and is racist". No one lies like a progressive and Trump doesn't lie as much as you do.
"His endless cheating on his many wives and girlfriends, his over-the-top hedonism, his arrogance and selfish pride... He is, on the face of it, an over-the-top moral deviant and even most rational conservatives are glad to admit as much."
Actual rational conservatives judge his personal apart from his presidency, which no Dem in your lifetime can touch for benefits he's procured for the nation and many of our allies as well. But you, in your fake Christian grace embracing ignores absolutely every wonderful thing he's accomplished on behavior of others just as perversely as you ignore the perversions of your progressive friends to focus on their good deeds, none of which can match Trump's in number or quality.
And being an inveterate pervert, you judge a conservative as "rational" by the severity of their TDS.
"And what Honor does he have?"
The honor of an American who puts America first and who's suffered the slings and arrows of lying, dishonorable leftists, including assassination attempts, to continue doing it. You're not honorable and thus are unworthy to assess the honor of others.
"You can't rationally make a sweeping charge like that of all progressives. Period."
Of course I can. There's a time when generalizing is appropriate and acceptable, plus as a whole, progressives are not good people. How can they be when they defend the murder of innocent people, and marginalize progressives who don't (those being few in number percentage-wise)? I'm not going to go into the litany of all which supports my position, as the link I provided does the job well enough.
"AND, you especially can't make that sort of unsupported, stupidly false charge WHILE supporting the single most amoral and corrupt president in modern history."
But I don't support Biden or Obama or Clinton or any other Democrat, so that's nonsensical for you to say that.
"Be reasonable."
Another word of which you don't know the meaning.
continuing
"For my part: I make no such sweeping claims about "conservatives" as a group."
Bullshit. You do it all the time ("that the problem with 'modern conservatives'"). You're a liar.
"My parents were and many family members are conservatives. I WAS a conservative for half my life."
Don't bring up your parents and family, because there's no way for anyone here to verify what is likely untrue, given it's you saying it. And you were NEVER "conservative" or you would have at some point over the last 17 years demonstrated some understanding of what that word means.
"I wouldn't make a sweeping claim like that because I'm not a bigot"
Again, you're a liar. You do it a lot and are clearly bigoted against conservatives and true Christians.
"Can you at least acknowledge that you are acting in a definitionally bigoted manner with these comments about Muslims and progressives?"
No, because speaking the truth about a group isn't bigotry. It's speaking the truth, even if there are exceptions.
Post a Comment