An Act of Love

It is asking too much to expect a Jew to respect the sentiments of those who adore Hitler and the 3rd Reich. To show reverence for Swastikas. You wouldn’t do it.

Yet, you ask me, a Christian, to revere a foreign god.

Let’s call islam what it is for once. allah is not God. mohammed is not a prophet. allah is an invention of a sick, sadist, warlord. No one should praise him or follow his instruction.

I needn’t concern myself with giving offense to people of the Dark One.

As an act of LOVE… for the lost sheep of islam. I invite all of you to…

Convert to the one and only true God.

About Enoch_Root

Person with kids,a beautiful wife, a job. Catholic of the Latin Rite.
This entry was posted in Too Lazy to Categorize. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to An Act of Love

  1. If those Jews were true liberals, they would ask themselves why we hate them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. hebrew says:

    But your oppoonents don’t ask for islam to be revered, just that muslim freedom of religion be unquestioned just as any religion in america should be free from persecution.

    I’m fine with the mosque being built, though I despise islam.

    It’s harder to live by principles than by love.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Kill Truck says:

      Interesting. I don’t despise Islam, but I am the exact opposite of ok with the mosque being built THERE.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • enoch_root says:

      hebrew – thanks for commenting. my thought is that principle and love cannot be teased apart.

      and nowhere here have I mentioned the mosque. or, for that matter, moslems’ right to worship as they wish.

      in fact, that very right (which I would die preserving) is a gift of love from the very same God… some might say inalienable. Suppressed in places like the Arabia. But still inalienable. And unless human nature is modified, this is precisely why none will prevail against it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. hebrew says:

    oh and james wolcott on vanity fair (his blog) linked to this website, calling you a “crank” who wants attention.

    I’m also sick of sissy liberals who are afraid to criticise their own democrat party and so spend their time demonizing anyone who doesn’t agree with their manhattanite POV.

    Either liberals are neurotic in their political correctness or else you’re not trying hard enough, because you haven’t “offended” me. although I’m not a muslim so I guess it doesn’t matter?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • enoch_root says:

      i wasnt really looking to offend. although there is a saying about an old man who is a liberal. it’s been cited to Churchill… but I am too lazy to look it up. something about having no brain. So, without the ability to comment on Sir James Wallycott’s post, I guess Ill just flatter myself here on this blog – where no moderation is needed – but opportunity to exercise freedom of speech is alive and quite well. the old man can go… well, he can go flick his own Bic if he can still get to it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • David in NYC says:

        Not only are you “too lazy to look it up”, you are also too intellectually lazy to even bother to think (but damn — you are SO clever with the dick jokes, aren’t you?). Not to mention that you are too stupid and/or lazy to spell “Wolcott” properly (or is that just you trying to be funny?)

        Anyway, since you are too lazy to look things up, I did some looking up for you. Guess what I found?

        “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

        John Stuart Mill, letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866)

        http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmill.htm

        Just think, Mill had you and your ilk pegged nearly 150 years ago.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. hebrew says:

    James wolcott sucks and i am going to stop reading him. There, I said it. He’s a PHONY liberal and his aesthetics are effete.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. enoch_root says:

    I dont know who James Walcott is… nor do I really care. He writes for cash – which, well, removes any question for me of what he is. People do all sorts of things for money. Still I dont know him. And he doesnt know me. And so I honestly have no problem with him calling me whatever he likes. POWIP is about the least attention-craving group of bloggers on the webbertubes. My guess is that he is angry for someone just saying the obvious. And being willing and able to speak freely. He, on the other hand, has many, many masters… pimps if you will.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Tommy T says:

      “I dont know who James Walcott(sic) is”

      He’s the guy who gave your site more hits in one day than it gets in two months.

      Unfortunately for you, it’s just gawkers looking at the car wreck.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • enoch_root says:

        well, well. a fan has this sir wolly. I still dont know nor care much about him. In reading his post, he’s just a pointless being of self-importance. no where does he refute or even speak to anything I put forth in my little, insignificant post. makes me wonder what aspect of it sir wolly had an issue with. but he is genuinely smarter than I… more talent in the tip of his plume than I shall ever be able to appreciate – I am sure of it. but still. he has masters and many of them… pimps, as I have said. and dinner parties where nuance is discussed and never an honest word spoken. as for you, sirrah – you can spell walcott… but why defend it?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • enoch_root says:

        Actually – You can tell Sir Wolly that we got more hits from Ace of Spades HQ in an hour than we have from Wolly’s blog since he posted. I think that is to say, “suck it”.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • hebrew says:

      Commerce does taint speech, which recalls a close quote:

      He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain.

      attributed in various forms (liberal for socialist etc) to many famous figures since the 19th C. I can’t find a solid source right now either.
      It isn’t that I agree with it completely (tending to the more socioliberal myself) , but it’s damn pithy and I love it.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • hebrew says:

        Okay, I’m just going to steal another version of the quote from metafilter (where the commenter claims it’s the “original” version of the quote)

        The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

        From here, via here.

        Confirmed by the Yale Book of Quotations. (so metafilter “says”)

        and then on nyt freakonomics blog this, even earlier source:

        But I was delighted to find that John Adams had expressed a similar idea well before Guizot entered adulthood. Thomas Jefferson preserved this quip, writing in a 1799 journal that Adams had said: “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.”

        I guess in john adams’ day people were expected to harden their hearts to cold rationalism earlier and earlier.

        The next source I run across, if earlier, may be something like:

        “he who is does not share his possessions at 5 is a brat and he who still shares them at 10 is not to be lent nice things”.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Mayfly says:

    Just wondering if anybody here has read the Old Testament? The God of Abraham is the same deity worshiped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Jews trace their lineage through Issac, son of Abraham; and Arabs trace their lineage through Ishmael, son of Abraham.

    That is why Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all called “the people of the Book.” The three represent the great monotheistic religions based on on ancient texts. Islam is the youngest of the three, and in the Koran Jesus is honored as a holy person of great wisdom.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. enoch_root says:

    Jews are still waiting for the messiah – they havent had a prophet is, oddly, 2000 years. Christians have recognized the Messiah – and the Gospel is the Good News of the fulfillment of all of the promises made by God to the Jews before He dwelt among us. The muslims recognized Jesus as a prophet, but do not accept his Divine nature. in this vacuum a jag-bag named majammas stepped in and filled the void with his take and quite distinct from the Jews (many who converted and many who remained unconvinced) created a “god” in the image of his own self. This allah character. it matters not what one calls them. sorry, tis my take. sir wally may have some other takes of course.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • mcjeff says:

      “The muslims recognized Jesus as a prophet, but do not accept his Divine nature. in this vacuum a jag-bag named majammas stepped in”
      There were no “muslims” before Mohammed. There were tribes on the Arab peninsula who mostly practiced some form of polytheism or local tribal deity worship.

      Frankly, the origins of the books in the New Testament are a bit murky as well. Much of the story of Christ bears uncanny resemblance to the stories in Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and other religions practiced in the Mediterranean world at the time Jesus was purported to exist. This is not to be taken as a criticism of Christianity, but mainly to point out that much of what is taken as true in the New Testament is probably borrowed or fabricated.
      To criticize Islam for made up stuff is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
      It’s actually quite interesting that there are so many parallels between the Christian and Islamic civilizations:
      conquerors
      genocide (well, the Christians did that more)
      devotion to God and to good works and helping others – the Franciscans, the Sufis.

      And really, medieval Islamic society did more to advance science and other beneficial forms of knowledge than medieval Christian society did. To be fair, Christian society eventually produced explorers.
      However European science had to wait until the Enlightenment, which “refudiated” (now where have I heard that before?) the Christianity of the times.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Mayfly says:

    Of course, enoch_root, you are entitled to your own opinion–though not, of course, entitled to your own facts.

    Facts are sometimes inconvenient–but there they are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • enoch_root says:

      let us discuss then. please enlighten me.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • hebrew says:

      to mayfly: WHAT FACTS? !

      The accusation that mohammed created a fictional god in his own image (or his own desires or whatever) can equally be leveled at prophets visionaries and mythologizers and witch doctors in any religion.
      If saying a religion is true is not a fact for atheists, then neither is saying a religion is “not true”, not a fact.

      It’s all what we believe and what guides us.

      My only point was that these beliefs, in so far as they do not oppress anyone who doesn’t want to be oppressed by them (which is always a little impossible in any society where groups must interact), should not be restricted anywhere.

      So I brought up the mosque because I figured this kind of lately koran burning is part of the controversy/rhetoric/battles surrounding muslims and where they can build a mosque.

      The FACT, if you want facts, is that obama keeps bush’s security state regime in place, untouched mostly and in many ways strengthened.
      If democrats had any, they’d be raging against their own beliefs being belittled, instead of obsessively demonizing their opposition, who isn’t in power, with false accusations of racism that culminate in “let the punishment fit the crime” outrages of true race baiting and hate, which BY THE WAY in america, we have a perfect right to do, unlike anywhere else where “englightened” laws curb our right to express inflammatory anger and disrespect, thus reducing the experience of life itself to something tamer and lamer. So we can all “get along”, the politically correct way.

      Even if you want to defend islam in america today, you can’t do it by saying how wonderful those muslims are because they can’t even present themselves publicly as modern and calm (did you see the imam on larry king?! “you can’t call an area that has strip clubs sacred, the mosque has to be built because if it isn’t, it will give comfort and justification to the extremists”.
      Who was HE trying to appeal to? Super puritans who want all strip clubs banned (yeah, very modern) or fundamentalist christians (so why are liberal atheists so in love with him?).
      Or was he appealing to frightened lefties (the extremists will rise if we criticize).
      You can only defend islam’s right to not suffer government interference or violent harassment. Which I do.

      But why should he be condemned for burning a koran? Because someone is offended? How okay with fundamentalist speeches against the evils of the modern world are liberals, they they have equal room for banning bible burnings as they do koran burnings?
      I’d be fine with people burning torahs, bibles, vedas. That’s called liberty.
      It’s unfortunate that there are crazies out there who may step it up, feeling “emboldened” and go attack/flame a church/synagogue/mosque/temple. If I support burning a sacred book it doesn’t mean I don’t condemn attacking property or persons.

      Frankly, considering how self righteous people get about free expression, burning a koran is a wonderful thing, after the violence that certain muslim groups in certain communities around the world felt entitled to as a response to cartoons.
      I’d like to see more. AND I’d like to see more bible burning in america too. They’ll be back in power sooner or later and they deserve some good spite for what they did the last ten years.

      Seek to censor someone else and you invite censorship upon yourself.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • enoch_root says:

        I agree that this is about Free Speech. I agree that I dislike Lefties who jump at an opportunity to “defend islam” – but wouldnt be caught dead defending Christians. At least not in practice. I am equally disheartened that those who have beaten the drum loudest about Women’s Rights have no inclination to acknowledge islam’s view of the same. Also, for those who so savagely attack any who differ on views relating to homosexuals, for instance, they refuse to educate themselves on what islam does to the same. it doesnt surprise me, but it does point to a very bankrupt state of affairs in the melons of Progressives… who frankly are simply neo-liberals and look a lot more like Stalin than JFK.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Epicurus says:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Who are you to criticize the religious beliefs of another? Let’s call your so-called “Christianity” what it is…ignorant, bigoted speech against those who are different from you. My friend, you have just demonstrated for the world just how stupid and blinkered your world view is. I hope you enjoy steaming in a soup of hatred…it makes for a lovely life. I guess if ignorance is bliss, you are one happy fellow. “Do unto others”? Guess you never made it to that part of the Bible; you know, the New Testament? Funny, I don’t remember much talk about Christ in the Old one, but that’s the only part you guys seem to read. And you couldn’t carry James Wolcott’s water bucket, sonny.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • enoch_root says:

      Epicurus – erm – clearly you’ve never spent time with the Old Testament. Re: no mention of the Christ? Who is ignorant here?

      Show me where I have been ignorant or bigoted. Please.

      Also, please show me my hatred. I am called to love all of God’s creatures – including those who are misled. But I am also called to correct.

      And how have I wronged my fellow human muslims? I am correcting them with love and charity.

      as for Wolly. I wouldnt carry his water… unless he asked… if he asked me to carry it for a mile, I would carry it for two. Even Wolly has an inherent dignity. Albeit he is a prostitute who thinks too highly of himself… choosing to insult rather than discuss the merits of my piece.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


eight − 7 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting