HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Panich52 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: WV
Member since: Thu Jan 15, 2015, 01:37 AM
Number of posts: 5,829

About Me

Ancestral WV hillbilly & old-style liberal who believes in US Constitution & detests RW revisionism of its principles (esp Establishment Clause)

Journal Archives

Radical Christian holy warriors really need to stop throwing stones

The following is a long article with over 400 comments. It shows the absurdity of so-called Christian outrage over militants, known as ISIL, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, et al, who are mistaken as representatives of the Muslim faith.

Daily Kos

Radical Christian holy warriors really need to stop throwing stones


The base argument has been that Da’esh and other terrorist death cults have all been Islamic and that this kind of barbarism is a unique and inherent portion of Islam, as one recent comment noted to me here:

Violent jihad was baked right into Islam by Muhammad himself, who used militancy to spread Islam.

Some argue this same militant streak is a base feature of Islam because of passages such as this:

Quran, 048:29: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves;

Yet the truth—which is often forgotten—is that the origins of Islam stem directly from both Christianity and Judaism, and that you can find similar passages in both the Old Testament and Talmud. You can also find more than a few Christian death cults not only in history, but in the present.

Buckle in, because listing just the highlights of radical extremist Christianity is gonna take some time.

Let’s proceed onward, Christian soldier, starting with the very first two commandments:

Much more:

The Very Worst Of Fox Business, Host Of Tuesday’s GOP Debate

Article is long, both Vids & recaps. Shows why #FauxNews watchers are so damn ignorant and misinformed as to reality.

National Memo

The Very Worst Of Fox Business, Host Of Tuesday’s GOP Debate

This piece originally appeared on Media Matters.

Fox Business will host the fourth Republican presidential debate tonight. Unlike its sister network Fox News, many are unfamiliar with the low-rated Fox Business. But Media Matters has been watching since the network’s debut in 2007. Here are 35 of the worst things to appear on the “business” network.


Weird coincidence (and info request)

I found this photo on Twitter:

I immediately thought of a painting I did ages ago while in college. I copied it from a hardback edition of NY Metropolitan Museum catalog. (I painted several from it as practice.) I didn't intend this as an exact copy, but as a present f/ parents. My painting (photo is a bit washed out):

Now the request: I can't find that catalog, and I've forgotten the original artists name. The original is more rectangular than mine. If anyone recognizes it, please let me know.


Daily Beast



We do indeed know there are “ways” to stop gun violence in the United States, yet we adamantly refuse to name them. The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly.

For the gun-control side, the unspoken belief is that nothing short of all out confiscation will have an appreciable effect on decreasing gun deaths. Then again, it’s not that unspoken—gun-control advocates just prefer tergiversation to clarity. Democratic candidates, officeholders, and liberal websites frequently invoke the example of Australia, for example. After a 1996 shooting rampage killed 35 people, the Australian government outlawed an array of firearms and instituted a compulsory buyback program that effectively eliminated private gun ownership. Since then, gun violence has dropped precipitously.

Rarely in American gun-control advocates’ references to the Australian policy, however, do they acknowledge that the program amounted to confiscation. ...


Holding up Australia as a model of sensible gun policy without mentioning how that government forced its citizens to turn over their weapons is like praising Chinese population-control efforts without mentioning the one-child policy.

These advocates of gun control note the efficacy of the confiscations they only hint at while sidestepping the fact that none of the restrictive measures they explicitly endorse—banning so-called assault weapons, limiting the size of magazines, or requiring background checks on the private transfer of firearms—would have prevented these mass shootings, committed as they were by individuals using legally obtained firearms that did not fall under the definition of “assault weapon.”


To understand why, we must first recognize the incompatible nature of the values at stake. Those advocating for stricter gun laws believe that the harm produced by private gun possession outweighs whatever benefits it entails.

Go to Page: 1