[Kitschy]

From anncoulter.org, this is Ann Coulter's newest column.

---BEGIN---

Will The 'True' Imperialist Religion Please Stand Up?

April 23, 2003

MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS from CNN to the New York Times have all recently admitted to years of lying about conditions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They explain that they faced either losing "access" or subjecting their Iraqi employees � and, of more relevancy, themselves � to Saddam's torture chambers.

Stipulating for purposes of argument that the media were performing a service to anyone other than Saddam Hussein by being his pimp, rather than just pulling out, it still leaves another devilish question. Why, then, were these same news organizations � CNN and the Times in particular � so insistent that the United States take no action to remove Hussein from power, knowing what they now admit they knew?

Liberals learned to live with Iraqi citizens being fed into plastic shredders, summary executions, maimings and unanesthetized ear-loppings. Only now have they found something truly fiendish going on in Iraq: Christian missionaries are proselytizing! On the basis of the raw terror on display at the New York Times, I gather the operating theory is that Iraqis who withstood Saddam Hussein's sadistic tyranny for 30 years will be unable to withstand a Christian missionary.

I don't know. Liberals have resisted Christianity pretty well. Christians are already a majority in America, and we can't even stop public school teachers from passing out condoms to fourth-graders or prevent Hollywood from producing movies that portray Christians as marauding skinheads.

But in the left's doomsday scenario, Arabs who have been stewing in Islamic theology their entire lives could watch a 20-minute video on the life of Christ and convert en masse. God only knows what trouble that could lead to.

Interestingly, absolutely everyone concedes that a lot of Muslims are going to have to convert to some new religion. That's the point of the much-ballyhooed claim that the terrorists and their sympathizers are not practicing "true Islam." Well, they think they are. Muslims who share Mohammed Atta's religious beliefs as it pertains to infidels are bossily informed that they are incorrect and ordered to practice "true Islam." Only if a Christian mentions Jesus Christ, evidently, does it constitute imperialism.

In fact, the "true Islam" ruse is straight out of the imperialist's handbook. When the British colonized India, they encountered such charming Hindu practices as "suttee," which involved throwing the widow on her husband's burning funeral pyre. Instead of convincing the Hindus that this hideous practice was a priori wrong, the British went to great lengths to produce ancient Sanskrit texts proving that the natives were not practicing "true Hinduism."

As Anthony Pagden describes it in the book "Peoples and Empires": "The British ransacked Sanskrit texts and questioned local religious leaders in an effort to discover a 'purer' form of Hinduism" that would match � as Pagden puts it � "their own notions of 'morality.'" (Pagden, who has taught at Harvard and has written for the New York Times, would be finished as a respected academic if he ever expressed a personal view as to the morality of burning women alive.)

As luck would have it, the governor general of India, Lord Bentinck, made the exciting discovery that suttee was just such a distortion of the original Sanskrit! He outlawed it in 1829, proclaiming that he had restored the Indians to "true Hinduism."

Similarly, when Napoleon occupied Egypt at the end of the 18th century, he imposed a predominantly French culture, claiming he was merely restoring the Egyptians' true culture. (The only French custom that still survives is the aversion to bathing.) Indeed, Napoleon even declared that the French, not the Muslim warriors he had overthrown, were the "true Muslims."

Liberals don't mind pompously asserting that the terrorists are not practicing "true Islam" and demanding conversion to a form of Islam closer to their own "morality" (as per Pagden). Like the prim Lady-Do-Rightlys of Britain, they insist they are not destroying a religion, but rather restoring it to its proper understanding.

Inarguably, anyone who views flying planes into the World Trade Center as a matter of religious devotion is going to have to get a new religion. Could we at least stop pretending that the British colonial office approach of pandering "true Islam" is any less "imperialistic" than Franklin Graham's missionaries showing videos on the life of Christ?

Throughout the history of empire-building, Christians were a constant thorn in the side of the conquerors and slave-traders. They quaintly insisted that, as Pagden puts it, the biblical command "'Love thy neighbor as thyself' should be a real deterrent against pillage and the unwarranted expropriation of the goods of others, even when, as was generally the case, those others were not Christians."

Though some colonialists used Christianity as a fig leaf for pillage, they were precisely as Christian as Cuba, China and North Korea are "democratic" today. Someday, liberals will denounce democracy, citing the atrocities of Red China as proof of what such a monstrous system of government can do.

Christians who are willing to leave the safety and comfort of America to go to barbarous lands, risking disease, pestilence and murder, simply because they so love their fellow man � these are the miscreants who inflame and enrage liberals more than Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms ever did.

---END---

Thought this may spark an interesting discussion here.

Anybody?

[benb]

Christians who are willing to leave the safety and comfort of America to go to barbarous lands, risking disease, pestilence and murder, simply because they so love their fellow man � these are the miscreants who inflame and enrage liberals more than Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms ever did.

I feel that way sometimes. But mind you, I don't think that all liberals think this way. I think that it is a generalization, brought on mostly by the more vocal of opponents. Its easy for 5 people to give 150 million a bad rap.

[thunderous_funker]

The more I encounter her ramblings, the more I'm convinced that she has no idea who "liberals" are or what "they" believe.

She obviously lives in a binary fantasy of her own creation and I don't see why anyone should pay any attention to her at all.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
She obviously lives in a binary fantasy of her own creation and I don't see why anyone should pay any attention to her at all.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The more I encounter her ramblings, the more I'm convinced that she has no idea who "liberals" are or what "they" believe.

She obviously lives in a binary fantasy of her own creation and I don't see why anyone should pay any attention to her at all.

Yes, like her counterparts, it seems that she will say virtually anything to make a point about the highly-feared opposition. It's obsessive. She seems far more concerned with what liberals are thinking than with the issue at hand.

She's so obsessed with liberals that I suspect she has a suppressed desire to be one, or perhaps to be with one, in the shagadelic sense. I don't know if I qualify as a good liberal but I'll volunteer my services.

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
She's so obsessed with liberals that I suspect she has a suppressed desire to be one, or perhaps to be with one, in the shagadelic sense. I don't know if I qualify as a good liberal but I'll volunteer my services.

:: strokes chin ::

yes yes ziggy, we've heard about your views re: ms. coulter's gams, yes

:: ponders some more ::

[Nicko]

Is Ann Coulter speaking to the 'poor ignorant white trash' segment of society or am I missing something? Just who is her audience anyway?

[mo]

The perpetual book tour continues. She's dumber than dirt, but she does indeed have great legs.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The more I encounter her ramblings, the more I'm convinced that she has no idea who "liberals" are or what "they" believe.

She obviously lives in a binary fantasy of her own creation and I don't see why anyone should pay any attention to her at all.

Obviously you don't care for her, but is she wrong? And if she is, is she just rambling and making things up? I'm not attacking here, but I'd really like to know.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Is Ann Coulter speaking to the 'poor ignorant white trash' segment of society or am I missing something? Just who is her audience anyway?

Hell if I know. Never heard of her. How do you know she's not speaking to the 'poor ignorant black trash' segment of society? Maybe both? Maybe all four segments of society?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Obviously you don't care for her, but is she wrong? And if she is, is she just rambling and making things up? I'm not attacking here, but I'd really like to know.

Consider this sentence: "Someday, liberals will denounce democracy, citing the atrocities of Red China as proof of what such a monstrous system of government can do."

The woman might be right on one or another point, but mostly she's just shrill and childish. There are better places to get conservative opinion.

But I'd still like to shag her.

[Millennium]

It's interesting; major religions seem to go through this imperialist phase, when they're about 1000 - 1500 years old or so. Christianity did it when it was that age, Islam's going through it now, Judaism went through it a little early but it did have one, and it's not restricted to monotheism: even Buddhism -which isn't commonly thought of as a theistic religion- and Shinto, an animistic faith, have had their violent points in the past.

I wonder what's so special about that time period? I mean, if it were consistently right around the 1000-1100 year mark or so you could chalk it up to the psychological value of the thousand-year mark, but the window of time seems awfully broad for that.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's interesting; major religions seem to go through this imperialist phase, when they're about 1000 - 1500 years old or so. ...

HUh?



Muhammad died in 632CE, the Muslim empire reached its height in 750CE. So there goes your theory...

It kinda sucks that the whole thing collapsed, they were quite a bit more enlightened than europeans at the time.

[Swiss Bob]

Originally posted by Nicko:
HUh?



Muhammad died in 632CE, the Muslim empire reached its height in 750CE. So there goes your theory...

Funny. I don't see Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Far East, Birmingham, Sudan, etc on that map. The Muslim "empire" is way larger than that at present so how can you say it reached its peak in 750CE?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Swiss Bob:
Funny. I don't see Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Far East, Birmingham, Sudan, etc on that map. The Muslim "empire" is way larger than that at present so how can you say it reached its peak in 750CE?

Because that was a muslim empire, now there is no such thing. Now we have a great number of countries that are muslim but were not conquered with force but rather that the religion spread there. That is the difference, the conquering by force in 600-800 and the peaceful spread now. You see what I'm trying to say?


*walks of trying to improve my english which has become increasingly worse with every day*

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Swiss Bob:
Funny. I don't see Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Far East, Birmingham, Sudan, etc on that map. The Muslim "empire" is way larger than that at present so how can you say it reached its peak in 750CE?

What kind of history do your teachers teach you in English schools?

[pooka]

Originally posted by undotwa:
What kind of history do your teachers teach you in English schools?

Stupid beeyatches usually focused on English. Sometimes they would try to through a lil' history in their but we'd all start screaming "Hey, dumbass! We come here to learn da English not da past! Dats what History school is fo'"

[Spliffdaddy]

In French schools they teach the art of surrender.

[shanraghan]

They TRY to, but the instructors have learned their own lesson too well.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In French schools they teach the art of surrender.

Very inappropiate.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Very inappropiate.

He knows, but he is an idiot. So just ignore him.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In French schools they teach the art of surrender.

ahaha, that's classic.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Muhammad died in 632CE, the Muslim empire reached its height in 750CE. So there goes your theory...

True enough, they had an imperialist phase right from the get-go. Then it quieted down, and now, with the religion being some 1300 years old, it's starting up again. I'm not talking about the terrorists, either.

It kinda sucks that the whole thing collapsed, they were quite a bit more enlightened than europeans at the time.

At the time, yes, they were much more enlightened; at this time, Europe was stuck in what we now call the Dark Ages. But sadly, even good things are transitory in this universe. Eventually they were eclipsed, and they fell. Nastily, too, I might add.

[clod]

Originally posted by Nicko:
It kinda sucks that the whole thing collapsed, they were quite a bit more enlightened than europeans at the time.

What caused it to collapse? The crusades?

[theory]

Originally posted by Millennium:
True enough, they had an imperialist phase right from the get-go. Then it quieted down, and now, with the religion being some 1300 years old, it's starting up again. I'm not talking about the terrorists, either.

The imperialist age of islam started after Mohammad died. The wars that where fought during his life time (with the exception of those against rome) where fought in defence of other muslims.

The first battle (Badr) happened because the muslims that fled from macca to medina had made a truce with Qureish that neither party would attack each other (triable wars have been going on for centuries). Qureish broke the truce by attacking a town on the outskirts of medina. Mohamed organised an army which numbered ~300 to fight of the 3000 strong attacking army. Most of
the other battles had the simmilar cuases (attack of trade and pilgramige caravans was also a common cause for
battle).

[theory]

Originally posted by clod:
What caused it to collapse? The crusades?

The crusades did play quite a part in it's
collapse a war the goes on as long as
the crusades did would always have a strong effect.

But I think the reason it collapsed can
be traced back to the death of the 4th Calipha Ali bin Abi Talib. He was killed by the army of Moawyiah Bin Abi Sufian who would later clame control and set up a system where leadership was passed down do his sons. People who had power and influence where always fighting for control of the muslim empire. There where many battles fought between muslims for control of power which I think is the reason why it became much weaker than it could have been.

[raskol]

Theory please PM me again.... sorry inbox was full but it only had 2 messages in it!