Setting Brooks Simpson Straight, continued....

More from Simpson's blog post "The League of the South Calls for Violence?"

Sez he:

    ... If Ms. Chastain really believes that we must condemn a whole religion because of the horrible behavior of a few people who profess allegiance to these ideas, then she needs to notice how Hill reminds us all the time that his understanding of the South he wants is not only white but also Christian. Thus it stand to reason that unless Ms. Chastain is a bigoted hypocrite, she wants Christians ousted from the United States to protect Americans from violent acts.

This is so full of bullcrap, you can almost see Simpson sitting at his computer making it up as he goes along...

First I haven't said "we must" condemn a whole religion. I said I don't want it in the United States. I further explained, clearly, that the likelihood of terrorism was not the ONLY reason I do not want it here. I said that Islam isn't compatible with the Constitution, and the two cannot co-exist.  Actually, I do not believe Islam is a religion; it's a pseudo-religion plus political system -- an ideology made for nations that are man-made Islamic theocracies. If someone wants to live under Sharia law, let them immigrate to one of those nations. Do not try to make the U.S. an Islamic theocracy.

And no, what Simpson says does not stand to reason. I have stated repeatedly that there are things I disagree with the "new" League about, and Simpson knows this. This conclusion he draws, as if its the only conclusion that can be drawn, is more of the slimy linguistic trickery he loves to employ.

Vis a vis race, I agree with how the League used to conceptualize the South -- that European settlers from the British Isles created the core culture of the South, which was further enriched by the contributions of its sub-cultures; blacks who were originally brought here as slaves, native Indian tribes of the Southeast, Cajuns in South Louisiana....  The first two, in case Simpson doesn't realize it, are not white.

Moreover, if Hill is saying he wants a Christian theocracy in an independent South, I vehemently disagree, because it's my belief that theocracy is instituted only by God, not man, and He has instituted only one -- ancient Israel.  Humans may construct a country/government based on some religious creed or other, and we may call it a theocracy, but it would not be a God-created theocracy and thus counterfeit.

I would want a government that does not suppress Christianity or oppress Christians; and I would like to see a return to the respect for Christianity that used to be shown everywhere in the United States, from the government to Hollywood movies and TV, to the popular culture -- a respect that was attacked and gradually shattered by destructive leftist forces starting around the middle of the 20th century.

Only in fragile minds like Simpson's could these preferences and likes I've identified be construed to support a Christian jihad.

I would note, however, that a fight for survival by those who are mostly Christians would not begin to approximate Islamic jihad because Christianity isn't remotely like Islam (and fighting for survival is not aggression and conquest). Christianity does not mandate stoning, cutting off limbs, beheadings, etc., for punishment. It does not condone adult-child sex, bestiality, or the "honor" killings of one's family members. It does not mandate conversion by the sword.  There are many more differences but that should get the idea across. Yes, there have been those who called themselves Christians who practiced unChristian acts and behaviors, but they were violating New Testament teachings, not following them. Many of the reprehensible things Islamics do are mandated by their "holy" book, or at the least, permitted by it.

I'll close this installment by noting that it is not bigoted hypocrisy to agree with someone about some things, and disagree with them about others.

More discussion of Simpson's scummy post coming up....