Excitable Andy seizes upon the indictment of former GOP congressman — and born-again Evangelical Christian — Mark Deli Siljander on Islamic terror-funding charges as another opportunity to equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists.
At Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer addresses how detached from reality that claim is. I would note that Sullivan’s argument resembles the Greenwaldian paranoid style of blogging, reeking of a moral arrogance quite at odds with someone purporting to preach the conservativism of doubt.
Sullivan fails to consider that someone like Siljander may strongly identify with his religion, yet act in a manner wholly at odds with that religion. That is a bit strange, coming from a Catholic man who is married to another man. When Sullivan looks in the mirror, can he see his own reflection?
This Siljander guy was from Michigan. Things fester there. God has nothing to do with it.
“another opportunity to equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists”
Sullivan’s been using Christianist for some time, and he’s quite clear that it refers to those who would merge Christianity with gov’t. That doesn’t mean conservatives who are Christian are being equated to terrorists. There’s a big difference, which you completely ignore becasue the narrative that Sullivan wants to “equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists” is much more damning. Too bad it happens to be untrue..
For all the talk about lefties linking in a misleading fashion – you guys play fast and loose with the truth on many of your own links. I suppose it’s OK so long as you’re on the side of right, ha?
steve,
Sullivan provides no example of Siljander trying to fuse Christianity with gov’t. That would make you the dishonest one here.
If you research Siljander, you’ll find that long since his time in congress his beliefs certainly, um, changed. In fact, he appears to have become exactly in line with the popular progessive view on Isalm.
So, Steve, Sullivan didn’t coin/adopt “Christianist” in order to tie it to “Islamist”?
those who would merge Christianity with gov’t… NPR does this all the time. It’s one of the liberals’ favorite bedtime stories. In the real world these things are distinct cause of the Congress shall make no law thing. Huckabee totally relies on this. If theocracy was a for-real possibility it wouldn’t have a doofus from Arkansas with scads of excess skin folds as it’s standard-bearer. Theocracy when it happens in the real world is serious shit. I don’t think Andy realizes this at all.
“Sullivan provides no example of Siljander trying to fuse Christianity with gov’t. That would make you the dishonest one here.”
What? The whole point of excerpting the document that Siljander signed that was to show just that he was doing just that. Maybe you think that signing the document is not sufficient to indicate that, but it’s PAINFULLY clear that this is what Sullivan’s at the least attempting to do here. Ignoring this distinction is slothful or deceptive.
Maybe you’re not dishonest. Maybe you’re just unable to think outside of your false binary political POV which obliges you to ignore all that doesn’t fit into that model. I dunno. This one’s pretty obvious though.
“So, Steve, Sullivan didn’t coin/adopt “Christianist†in order to tie it to “Islamistâ€Â?”
No – he did. But he’s very specific about what it means – and I completely agree w/ him, BTW – and it does not mean that conservative Christians are being equated with terrorists. Not even close. Saying that Christianist DOES mean that is a lie. Like I said, maybe Karl is not interested in looking at evidence that he doesn’t like and it’s confirmation bias and not lying. This is not a small distinction we’re talking about here – and Sullivan has wrote PLENTY to clarify what he means. Karl must not want to read any of that, but it’s there.
“hose who would merge Christianity with gov’t… NPR does this all the time. It’s one of the liberals’ favorite bedtime stories. In the real world these things are distinct cause of the Congress shall make no law thing. Huckabee totally relies on this. If theocracy was a for-real possibility it wouldn’t have a doofus from Arkansas with scads of excess skin folds as it’s standard-bearer. Theocracy when it happens in the real world is serious shit. I don’t think Andy realizes this at all.”
This is a fair point. I think there are indeed Christianists, but I agree that they are largely innicuous.
That criticism in no way means that Sullivan is equating Christian conservatives with terrorists, though. My initial point that Karl is misrepresenting Sullivan is still completely true.
steve, apparently recognizing that Sullivan did not show any example of Siljander trying to fuse gov’t and religion, now thinks it sufficient that Sullivan intended to do it. That the label may be false in this case matters not to steve, holding fast to the lefty belief in “fake, but accurate.”
I don’t know. If I were part of a big scheme/plot that required infiltration, power, money, and patience to help launch attacks against the Infidel, I sure wouldn’t pose as a Christian or a Republican. Too obvious. I would go all Biden and open a Dunkin Donuts.
BTW, liked steve’s invocation of confirmation bias. Seems he could use a mirror himself.
Either way Siljander is a tres fabu opportunity for Andrew to be like totally insightful and look good doing it. The people that are nodding oh yes Andrew you are so right I just love how you say it I mean I think the same thing but I just can’t say it the way you can are a needy bunch and neglecting them would be kind of mean.
Oh. I just read your #9 and now I feel kind of like a dick. I’m gonna go eat something NG made cause I told her I would walk down about now. When I get back I will have a better disposition I hope.
Incidentally, should I ever meet Sullivan, I fully intend to ask him his opinion on the laws against murder, which historically derived from that whole “Thou shalt not kill” injunction. In the movie, Sullivan is played by Edward G. Robinson.
steve, apparently recognizing that Sullivan did not show any example of Siljander trying to fuse gov’t and religion, now thinks it sufficient that Sullivan intended to do it.
It is sufficient for my point, that’s what you’re missing. You didn’t attack him at the level of establishing Siljander as wanting theocracy, you falsely claimed that he wants to equate terrorists with conservative christians, regardles if they are seeking a Christian theocracy or not. But the key point here is that Sullivan is equating those who want Islamic theocracy with those who want Christian theocracy, and you misrepresnt that by saying he was taking “another opportunity to equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists.”. That’s quite a difference.
So EVEN IF Andrew is wrong and signing that document does NOT show Siljander was seeking theocracy, you are still misrepresenting Sullivan’s view. Why not attack him for claiming Siljander wanted theocracy when he didn’t (which I’m not sure is even true)? Then you would have to recount Sullivan’s views clearly and you couldn’t make the imflamatory and slanderous point that he equated Christain conservatives with terrorists. And what fun would that be?
steve,
The title of Sullivans post is “Mark Siljander: Christianist.”
The most Sullivan establishes is that Siljander was a conservative Christian (in 1986).
Sulllivan is opportunistically conflating Christian conservative with Christianist in this case to flog his point and smears conservative Christians in the process.
Let’s be clear: those seeking Christian theocracy are simply not as danegerous as those seeking Islamic theocracy. That’s the real point for you guys to make here, and I don’t dispute it. Sullivan has plenty of points for attack, but saying he is in any way equating Christian conservatives and terrorists is a lie – intentionally told or not.
That is not a false claim. It is entirely true and if you can’t tell that Sullivan intended to do just that, you haven’t been reading him, steve.
“Sulllivan is opportunistically conflating Christian conservative with Christianist in this case to flog his point and smears conservative Christians in the process.”
How can there be a conflation among assertions with no distinction? (/sarcasm off)
I was making the point that establishing Siljander as wanting theocracy or not was another matter altogether from what Christianist means. I look at that excerpt – and the dicument that it comes from – and I also see theocratic assertions.
“We affirm that the Great Commission is a mandate by our Lord to go forth into all the world and make Bible-obeying disciples of all nations.”
Like all religious writings, its’ sufficiently vague as to be open to debate and interpretation. I can see where Sullivan thinks this is theocratic, though. “make” is particularly distubing ot no religious types like me – and there’s a few mentions of gov’t in the manifesto. I think it’s enough, but it’s all quite vague.
And here, Sullivan more precisley defines Christianism – further eroding Karl’s slanderous nonsense that Andrew tries to “equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html
“And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”
“That is not a false claim. It is entirely true and if you can’t tell that Sullivan intended to do just that, you haven’t been reading him, steve.”
I read him all the time, and he uses Christianist pretty consistently. His own words @21.
Remember: YOU don’t get to decide what Andrew thinks – he does. Just thought I’d remind you of that.
How is that not equating them, steve? if they were exactly alike, they’d be the same thing. But they are not, and Sullivan is drawing parallels between them, that is to say – equating them.
Neither do you. But both of us can simply read what he writes, and comprehend it. It’s quite simple, really.
OK Pablo – let’s make it simple:
A. Christian wanting Christian Theocracy = Muslim wanting Islamic Theocracy (what Sullivan claims)
B. Conservtive Christian = Terrorist (Karls summary A.)
Are A. and B. the same assertion? No. Therfore Karl’s recounting is a lie or slothful omission.
steve,
Citing Sullivan’s definition proves nothing, as in this case, he has failed to show Siljander is a Christianist, as opposed to a conservative Christian.
However, your quote reminds me that Sullivan has never been on particularly solid ground,as half of the formula is “politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.†Politics do dictate the laws for everyone, unless he somehow thinks politics are not involved in the legislative process (and I’m guessing he’s not that far gone yet). Islamists believe in forced conversion or death. Sullivan by his own admission defines “Christianist” in a non-parallel fashion to work his politicl agenda, but the analogy is so flawed that it should be dismissed as propaganda.
I don’t get to decide what Sully thinks, either. But I will point out that it is both flawed and every bit as bigoted as he believes his targets to be.
I should add that steve is blithely glossing over the fact that Siljander is indicted for conspiring with Islamic terrorists. Thus when Sullivan writes, “Er, yeah. Osama bin Laden has prayer circles too,” he is very directly suggesting that someone he has not shown to be a Christianist (by his own definition) makes truck with OBL because of his Christian beliefs.
And in case steve forgot, OBL is an Islamist terrorist.
“Citing Sullivan’s definition proves nothing, as in this case, he has failed to show Siljander is a Christianist, as opposed to a conservative Christian.”
I think he has shown it. That manifesto id pretty theocratic from my vantage point. I just think that here, at least, there’s room for debate.
“politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.â€Â
Is it possible for you to not straw man this guy, this time by selective excerpt?
Let’s look at the whole quote:
“It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.â€Â
IOW, I have to obey CHristian law as a non-Christian. Again, a pretty obvious mis-interpretation.
Read the whole article – he doesn’t even equate ISlamist with terrorism neccessarily.
You politicos are obsessed with making demonized caricatures of those who disagree with you – even if you have to twist their words like this. It’s sick. Look what media matters & C&L did with Limbaugh and the spade comment. Totally took him out of context. Same shit. Whatever you have to do becasue hey – you’re right, and the other side’s evvvviiiilll.
I don’t get it.
So let’s sum up: AS is saying that regular conservative folks – catholics, baptists and what have you from across the country are really terrorists. Any day now, a Pentacostal minister may just blow up a building or hijack a plane. THis is his implication. From Sullivan’s own words, this is what he is inescapably saying.
Just do me a favor: spare the mellowdrama of calling everyone a liar and saying that everyone on the left takes your guys out of context. I mean, they do – but you guys are JUST AS BAD. Doppelgangers if ever there were.
Er, yeah. Osama bin Laden has prayer circles too. Somewhere, Dinesh D’Souza is happy.
steve – How is that not a direct comparison to Bin Laden ?
At least steve is willing to admit that St. Andrew of the Perpetually Gobsmacked is a member of the Left. Baby steps.
Is this some elaborate fashion of suggesting he sucks?
Because steve said so, JD. Because steve said so.
Give him a minute and he’ll redefine “comparison”.
Obviously, Sullivan disagrees with you, or he would not have written what he did. Hence, my original post.
I agree that Sullivan does not equate Islamist with terrorist. Moreover, I agree that there are Islamists who are not violent terrorists. But they are generally supportive or acquiescent of violent jihad and often engaged in takiyah. Furthermore, most people do not study the underlying issues deeply enough to recognize the distinction, and I view Sullivan as exploiting that ignorance to demonize those he disagrees with. Today’s post is a case example.
But thanks for the “hey, both sides do it.” Where is Sullivan’s admission that he does it and did it today?
Karl – If, as steve says, “both sides do it” isn’t he admitting that is exactly what Andrew did, and what steve has wasted all of this time arguing that the Gobsmacked was not doing? Doesn’t that give you a headache, steve?
JD,
You know it doesn’t give steve a headache. And you know why.
Bonus round: Is the Declaration of Independence theocratic? Show your work.
Karl writes: Excitable Andy seizes upon the indictment of former GOP congressman…Siljander on Islamic terror-funding charges as another opportunity to equate conservative Christians with Islamist terrorists.
steve writes (paraphrasing): Did not!
Exciteable Andy writes, in response to a note about Siljander’s religious observations in office: Osama bin Laden has prayer circles too.
steve writes (paraphrasing): That’s totally different from comparing conservative Christians with terrorists!
Squid writes: What color is the sky in your world, steve?
““And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.â€Â
How do you non-violently dictate the law? I suspect that this little paradox may be the root of steve’s confusion.
Steve, may I interject as the loudmouthed evangelical in this group?
What Sullivan consistently does is equate those who have values issues when it comes to politics with the tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians who would like to see a Christian State. That tiny minority is wrong on so many levels and so completely different from radicalized Islam as to be in another galaxy. My problem with Sullivan has always been the self-serving nature of his “Christianist” label. Rather than just stick to debating the issues he feels the need to darken most conservative Christians with this semi-conspiratorial concept of lockstep religious zealots taking over the republic and establishing some Christian version of Sharia law. All he’s really doing is disagreeing vociferously on issues like gay marriage. He’s equated opposition to gay marriages to the Theologisizing (made up word) of government, which is a straw man writ large.
If Siljander’s statement reflects his personal faith statement, then the vast majority of fundamentalists will disagree with him. You know, that whole “render unto Caesar” thing. Most of us are fully prepared to fight for the concept of separation of church and state as long as Freedom of Religion doesn’t become Freedom from Religion.
The other problem I have with Sullivan is the idea that his “values” represent some kind of fundamental right while my “values” represent an opportunity to overthrow the government. His position is absolutist and reflects his own self aggrandizement while giving us a peek inside his own religious bigotries.
I wanted to throw my two cents in on Sullivan’s so called “tolerant” view of Evangelicals. In his heart he knows just like you do that there will never be anything resembling a real; “Theocracy” in our republic and his raising the flag for this fantasy has narcissism written all over it.
XXX-ist … That is the root of the problem. To deny that he is lumping in Christians with all of the other -ists, ie. racists, sexist, Islamacist, terrorist, etc … is simply laughable. That is why I find my midwestern insouciancy more closely resembling someone laughing in the face of steve’s contortions. Not in a provocative manner, in a matter of fact manner.
This fear of a theocracy is even more laughable than steve’s contortions trying to defend the Patron Saint of Gobsmackiness.
Aa an agnostic, I’d just like to say that I find the term “Christianist” deeply offensive.
General flow of such discussions:
A: You said X, and that’s bad.
B: We didn’t say X, and anyway it doesn’t mean what you think, and we only said it because you said it first, and anyway it’s true so nyaaah!
Did we get to the “it’s true anyway” part yet? I’m skimming.
Andrew claiming he isn’t trying to use “Christianist” as a parallel to “Islamist”–with all that comparison implies–is and always has been ludicrous.
It’s as if I were to say that I needed a new word to describe narcissistic self-congratulatory bloggers, and I chose a six-letter word beginning with “f” meaning “bundle of sticks” to mean that. Oh, and MY use of that word to refer to Andrew is ENTIRELY the WAY I MEAN IT, and IN NO WAY implies an insult to Mr. Sullivan’s sexuality!
Would anyone believe that claptrap? I hope not. Nor should they believe Sullivan when he uses the term “Christianist” in his attempts to conflate people on the other side from him in comparatively minor American political disputes with the enemy overseas that conducts routine beheadings.