Ohio Pastor Parsley’s anti-Islam Statements
Link:
Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence, to conquer the world.
The fact is that America was founded — I am going to stagger you right now — America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.
Muhammad received revelations from demon spirits, not from the living God.
America has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam in the world.
In fact, I’ll tell you this, I do not believe our nation can truly fulfill her divine purpose, until we understand our historical conflict with Islam.
When it comes to Islam, now the greatest religious enemy of our civilization, its dangerous.
Yep. Obama gets slammed for Pastor Wright, but nobody’s pestering McCain about this yet. Super.
A response to Mr Parley:
In 1797, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the “Treaty of Tripoli”. One of its clauses read:
Nattuk said: “… nobody’s pestering McCain about this yet.”
Exactly — YET. McCain may yet pay for the endorsements by Hagee, Parsley, and the like, especially after the Democratic convention. Until then, McCain’s embarrassments won’t sell as well as Hillary’s nonsense — unless Hillary Clinton concedes before the convention.
But it should also be noted that since McCain has never been part of Hagee’s, Parsley’s, or any other far-far-right congregation, McCain can receive and later repudiate these nutcase endorsements without too much damage to his personal “brand” (or so I think). For Barack Obama, it is harder to shake off Wright’s shadow because Obama was one of Wright’s parishioners for 20 years. That does not make Obama liable for Wright’s ranting, but it requires more effort for Obama to distance himself from his own pastor of 20 years. At any rate, McCain’s not going to be elected, so Parsley’s support is wasted theater, even if annoying.
Tariq Nelson cites the “Treaty of Tripoli” (I thought the clause was from the treaty with the Kingdom of Morocco, but it might be the same treaty) — Not only does this clause in the treaty repudiate an anti-Islamic foreign policy, but the Founding Fathers themselves, whether Christian, Deist, or Unitarian, were fanatically anticlerical, and would have been aghast at Parsley’s promotion of a sectarian foreign policy. Parsley is playing to his congregation’s ignorance of 10th-grade American history, unless he can find someone in Puritan Massachusetts who saw Muslims as a threat (as competitors in the slave trade?).
One further note, FWIW, on Hagee’s and Parsley’s endorsements. These Protestant nutcases can be shrewd and unscrupulous politicians. I seriously speculate that Hagee, Parsley, et al., know that their movement has lost all political credit with the American electorate right now, and if they seriously thought that McCain had a credible chance of being elected, they might hesitate to publicly endorse him, lest their endorsement undermine his standing with moderates and independents. I speculate that Hagee, Parsley, and other nutcases are endorsing McCain in order to position themselves for any future Republican coalition, rather than to improve McCain’s chances in 2008, which they must understand are nil.
It has been speculate by others (cited on the blog “AmbivaBlog” by Annie Gottlieb) that even Jeremiah Wright’s appearance on MSNBC (or Meet the Press or whatever it was), after Obama’s initial Philadelphia speech distancing himself from Wright’s ranting, was pure political theater coordinated with the Obama campaign in order to set up Obama to make the final, “decisive” break from Wright before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. The alleged proof was to be that, if Wright was silent during the period after Obama’s second, “decisive” break and before the primaries on Tuesday, then Wright’s appearance on MSNBC (or whatever) must have been calculated to allow Obama to repudiate him unequivocally. I myself happen not to believe that, but it’s not completely implausible, power-hungry Protestant preachers being what they are these days.
To be honest, I think part of the reason for the inconsistency between how the respective pastors are treated is that on some level the white christian neocon right-wing premillenial reconstructionist (in their various combinations) is closer to the mainstream than black liberation theology.
Ah, yes. The Treaty of Tripoli - America’s first appeasement treaty. The Founding Fathers had a pretty low opinion of Musselman, actually.
““As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.””
Those words were inserted for a specific and somewhat disingenuous reason. The Barbary pirates used religion to justify their attacks, so The Treaty of Tripoli was worded in such a way to remove that justification. It’s that simple.
Connie - Could you show us something in where the Founding Fathers expressed their low opinion of Muslims?
Also, even if what you just said is true regarding the insertion of the “Muslim religion” into the treaty to remove justification (and I have my doubts about your claim), it still doesn’t support in any way what the pastor is saying here: That America’s mission, one of the main reasons it was founded, it’s destiny is to destroy Islam as a religion or civilization.
Thomas Jefferson owned one of the earliest English translations of the Koran. Keith Ellison was sworn in with it. Seems an odd thing to keep around and show interest in if your goal is to destroy everything it stands for…
Wright and Parsley are not comparable. You guys are missing the forest for the trees.
Parsley is a problem because he is a theocrat. Who gives a shit what he says in his Church.
Explore at my latest Guardian:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2008/05/mccains_christocrat.html
“America has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam in the world.”
What a massive load of f*cking nonsense. Pointing that out should be stating the obvious. It depresses me that it’s not for some people.
“Wright and Parsley are not comparable.” True.
first appeasement treaty?
all treaty appease in some way- don’t they?
that makes no real sense-
let’s suspend all logic and pretend the 2 have any corrolation-
there is nothing more odious and evil to the christian religion than the anti-christ.
even if connie’s contention were completely true- let’s accept that for a moment-
calling islam derived from demon spirits and a rep of the anti-christ doesnt really lend to much tranquility-
one might even suggest there is a trace of hostility in the statement- by the pastor-
also covered by the treaty-
the treaty itself distances itself from hostility under the guise of religion from both musselmen and christians
which includes the good pastor-
i’m glad the statement was posted, as i have heard reference made to it- but was too lazy to look it up-
wow is that ugly- (didnt they say that about communists when they were the in vogue bogeymen?)
Maybe Vince wrote his sermon, which i why he’s not been around for ages and ages cos he’s working on his scripts and stuff
Read, “The Evil of Black Da’wah- Denial, Propaganda and a Search for the Self”, by apg. Price $9
That America has always understood itself to be a bastion against Islam is not “exactly” right in the way it is worded, although as Islam is certainly anti-Christian, it is understandable that Christian denominations would preach that. (And please don’t give me the usual Jesus and Mary are beloved by Muslims stuff). It doesn’t wash.
This country was established by those looking to worship Christ as they wished. There is no doubt about that. But even Martin Luther called Islam “the scourge of God.”
And John Quincy Adams had this to say:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar,
the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural
energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a
messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive
portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the
doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious
falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new
Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he
humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the
gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the
fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy;
and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion,
against all the rest of mankind.
“THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE!
“Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve
hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant. While the merciless and
dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can
never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men.”
So one could say that Adams would have somewhat sided with Parsley.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist who considered himself what he called a “true Christian.” He did not believe in the supernatural (although in all fairness, as he did a believe in a Creator, one could say he must have had some belief in something out there). The reason he called himself a “true Christian” was because he believed that Jesus Christ was the greatest philosopher of all time.
And of course, the reason for his separation of church and state speech at Danbury had to do with his utter frustration with the constant arguments and power struggles between Christian denominations. This is why this country was founded - so people (mostly Christians) could worship freely, rather than as the state dictated. Jefferson did not want any favoritism shown by the government for any particular Christian denomination, as escape from that is what brought our ancestors here.
This is also why Islam is antithetical to our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. It does not separate church and state. Even those Muslim countries like Turkey that have secular governments, there is always a danger that Islamic Law will be reimposed by the ruling power. In America, the only way for this to happen is if Muslims become majority rule and manage to alter the Constitution. This is why there is a fear of the increasing numbers of Muslim lawyers and elected officials. We are already seeing successful attempts to change laws and policies (even in the private sector) to accommodate Muslims. This, as you are most likely know, is called “creeping shari’a.”
In regard to Keith Ellison using Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an, this was another of CAIR’s deliberate in your face maneuvers. Jefferson studied law, including Mosaic Law. His copy of the Qur’an, called the Alcoran of Mohammed, was translated by George Sale. He appended his translation with an essay called “The Life of Mohammed,” in which he said, “when the character of Mohammed is attentively surveyed—-it is so shocking that it is a wonder that the country of his nativity has not been buried in oblivion. Any country would have blushed to produce such a monster.”
So, even though I consider Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Qur’an a travesty, I am also somewhat amused. He used a Qur’an wherein Sale condemned Muhammad.
It is very late, so I will stop here. I hope I’ve provided some interesting information to those of you who would like to study the subject further.
*One more note. As Ambassador to France, Jefferson wanted to stop paying ransom to the Musselmen. As Vice-President, he wanted to go to war. As President, he sent our troops to Tripoli and thus ended the demand for payment of tribute (the jizyah).
200 years later, here we go again. Every time we fill up our tanks, we are pretty much paying that same Islamic tax.
To Victoria
“VICTORIA said, on May 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
first appeasement treaty?
all treaty appease in some way- don’t they?”
True, but how many American treaties have religious language in them such as that one?
Connie: Jefferson fucked his slaves as well. The fact that a black man took a book from his library and took a picture on it to celebrate his arrival in the US House of Representatives shows that we’re over our era of slavery.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land, equivalent to Congressional statutes.
Article VI Clause 2, US constitution.
US had friendly relations with Muslim nations at its founding.
“The first nation to extend formal diplomatic recognition to the fledgling young United States was not France, or Prussia or any other Christian power of Europe. It was the Muslim Kingdom of Morocco, and the recognition was extended in 1777, when America’s independence was little more than a matter of wishful thinking. One of the first diplomatic representations the United States opened in the world was the legation in Tangiers, opened in 1786.”
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000308
Hi connie- well Mary and Jesus (blessings of the god to them) are certainly beloved to ME- and I”M a muslim-
so there is that- if that doesn’t wash with you- it’s ok by me.
islam is certainly not anti-christian- nor anti-christianity-
it is however, anti-trinitarian. (not all christians are trinitarians)
but thats another subject.
so, jefferson, like george dubya bush- held that Jesus was the greatest philosopher of all time?
i din’t know that- nor was i aware tha john qunicy had such a prurient preoccupation with matters of sex- live and learn.
so basically what i’ve learned is my forefathers were a great deal less rational and impartial than ihad previously imagined-
im going to amend your contention a bit- your statement-
“This country was established by those looking to worship Christ as they wished.”
is more truthfully said- as-
This country was established by WHITE MALES looking to worship Christ as they wished.
lets fast forward from the 18th century- to the present-
This country was established FOR ALL PEOPLE looking to worship as they wished.
there are only 2 possibilites-
1) our forefathers posessed some degree of foresight in their constructionof our governemnt- (deliberately ommitting mention of jesus or christ or god)
or
2) our forefathers were sexist racists who only intended rights extended exclusively to those who looked and thought like them- PLUS stupidly excluded mention of jesus or christ or god- and inexplicably used the term ‘creator’ instead.
isnt it interesting how different minds interpret things so differently?
i never knew john quincy adams had such a libidinous nature- but i DID enjoy anthony hopkins portrayal of him in amistad.
i shouldn’t have commented- because mr eteraz’s comments really did blow your whole argument and assertion out of the water-
to mr eteraz- a triple
YEEEHAW
YEEEEHAW
YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAW!!!!!!!!!
PEACE ALL
Interesting that my post from early this morning didn’t show up.
Ali, I have responsibilities which prevent me from replying in full this morning. However, your last posts are somewhat vague and crude. Research in recent years has shown that Jefferson apparently did have a special relationship with one inherited slave, Sally Hemings. That is quite a bit different from your statement, which I will not repeat here. There is more information on Sally Heming here:
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
Whereas America is past slavery, slavery had nothing to do with Ellison’s use of the Qur’an. Islam had everything to do with it.
And please do not forget the historical association of Islam with slavery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
In regard to Morocco and America, yes, Morocco was the first nation to recognize America. Sultan Mohammed III told America that it would protect our ships in the area. Morocco was also in a state of flux and it was politically and economically beneficial for it to enter into such an agreement.
Regards
By the way, Ali, I’ve cross-posted in several places including the remarks you did not allow. You will be marginalized accordingly.
‘But even Martin Luther called Islam “the scourge of God.”’
Connie, read what Martin Luther said about Jews sometime. Then decide whether he’s the best source for such quotes.
Jefferson was such a devout Christian, that he described his disinterest in the existence of a god who may be real, but neither picked his pocket or broke his leg.
Actually, just reading through your posts, you have the air of a cut and paste scholar about you…
I am not necessarily a fan of Martin Luther. However, whether I agree or disagree with him is not relevant. Nor, if you paid attention, did I say that Thomas Jefferson was a devout Christian or even that he was religious at all. Ali’s post about Jefferson and Ellison was completely incorrect and Victoria deliberately distorted what John Quincy Adams said to make some wacko statement about sex.
I was asked to provide proof of some early American thought on Islam, so I did. What better source than a direct quote?
You can not and should not divroce Martin Luther from the time in which he lived, and like evryone knows, in the 1520’s being “the scourge of god” simply meant threatening Europe, which at that time the Turks were doing and contined to do so until their defeat outside Vienna in the 17th century. Luther was making a geopolitical statement, similarly, Atilla the Hun was given the name - “scourge of god”, when the threatened Rome. For Luther, there was no deeper spiritual meaning in his attack on Islam. People who come to this blog are a bit like Eric Von Daniken, they disconnect statements and ideas from their anthropological reality, basically, to support their own viewpoint.
It is obvious that cos I got accepted by one THE BEST university in the entire western world that someone like me is unqiely placed to understand the forces of history, and I do, cos being basically a genius is not enough, you need a real ‘feeling’ also. This is why when i talk about RAD FEM, u should listen, i don’t mean to be arroagnce person, no way, but i am in more of a position that most people to comment on these huge issues. what other persons think about for decades and write millions of books about, i can figure out in just a few minutes even.
So I can just look with total confidence and with one sweep of me hand say, “God and Allah does not exist.”
That is a genius.