Crusade bad, jihad good

It’s hard to make out exactly what’s going on, but it appears that in the Australian state of Victoria if you give the term “jihad” its usual meaning and say Muslims believe in it, you’ll be taken to court for “religious vilification” and the Catholic Church will take the side of your prosecutors.

4 thoughts on “Crusade bad, jihad good”

  1. It will always amaze me how
    It will always amaze me how the liberal, secular, anti-religion liberals in this country react to Islamic fundamentalists. If a Palestinian Imam calls for “death to all the infidels!”, they say he is simply responding to social injustice applied by the west. However, when the Holy Father urges Catholic politicians to oppose gay marriages, he is accused of being harsh, backward, tyrannical etc…How can these people look in the mirror every morning?

    Reply
  2. Yes; kinda like how the
    Yes; kinda like how the amoral liberal media has reacted to the indiscretions of Bob Packwood, and Arnold Schwartzenegger, compared to those of Clinton and even worse, how they’d reacted to those of JFK…

    La Rochefoucauld once said something like “hypocrisy is the tribute vice renders to virtue”. But I’m not so sure if that’s always the case; amongst liberals, I think their hypocrisies are just about their side gaining power by any means necessary, and doing whatever it takes to keep their political opponents out…

    Reply
  3. The comparison to JFK is
    The comparison to JFK is unfair as the media operated by different principles during his day. It wasn’t the same media who kept quiet about Monroe, etc.

    Reply
  4. Absolutely. I almost busted
    Absolutely. I almost busted a gut listening to Grey-out Davis say how distrurbed he was by Schwarzenegger’s rumored behavior, and how that made him unfit to govern, when only a few days before he had been cheek to cheek with Bill Clinton, who went far beyond cop’in a feel. Not that I’m an Arnold supporter by any means, but the blatant hypocrisy absolutely blows the mind.

    I really underestimated the ability of the Democratic Party. After Monicagate, I said they would never be able to point a finger at anyone ever again, yet they sank to new lows and continued to surprise me. Proving that it is not “what” you do, but “who” you are that determines whether or not you have done wrong. Bill Clinton could have raped a nun on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and the Democrats, while condemning his “unfortunate mistake” would have still said such an act has no bearing on how he does his job as president.

    Reply

Leave a Comment