As easy on the eyes as she may be, I rarely read Anne Coulter (pictured above). But I wanted to see how she defended Sarah Palin.
So I followed THIS LINK to WorldNetDaily to find out.
I was appalled to read the following by Anne Coulter …
That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington – a charter member of the Founding Fathers – rallied his troops, saying: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. … The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army.”
So Washington not only used the phrase “under God,” but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the “unborn.” That’s right! George Washington was a “pro-life extremist,” just like Sarah Palin.
It may well be the case that Washington was anti-abortion. I don’t know, and I don’t know who does.
But I’m pretty sure the above-quoted statement by Washington was NOT a reference to or defense of fetuses or embryos, or that General George Washington was in any way motivated at the time of making this speech by any desire to prevent abortions.
The term “unborn” can certainly be used to refer to fetuses and embryos.
But it is also used to refer to “future” – not yet born – as in not even yet existing within a womb. As a reference to generations to come, perhaps centuries or more into the future. Not even alive yet in any sense – not physically conceived. The context of Washington’s statement is clearly this line of meaning.
Elsewhere in my reading of George Washington’s letters – and those of the other Founding Fathers – it is clear that they did not consider the ideals for which they fought as relating just to Americans. They considered them to rest on Universal truths and principles that were valid for all people, everywhere, for all time.
The “unborn millions” are the future generations – of Americans and probably of others. They are not the “about to be born” (provided they’re not aborted).
(Note: There is also another, far less common meaning of the term unborn: “existing without birth or beginning”)
Furthermore, I’m not convinced that Christianity, the Old Testament, or the New Testament prohibit abortion.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: Let’s try some Sharia!
The recent speech by Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, about allowing British Law to get just a little pregnant with Sharia Law …
There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law …
… is just the tip of the iceberg. The Archbishop is a real piece of work and no friend of moral principles – let alone Christianity.
The purpose of this article isto clear up three misconceptions about a controversial leafletcreated and distributed by Danny Nalliah of Catch The Fire Ministries. These misconceptions have been busily circulating across the mainstream media, and the web.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between dumbness,intellectual sloppiness,and just plain bigotry. Here are some examples where one or all (can you separate them?) of these “methods” are applied in aseamless stream of smearing.
Their target is a man I admire greatly: Evangelical Christian Pastor, Danny Nalliah.
20 min 55 sec:
Well, I believe with all my heart believe … that the Prime Minister will be re-elected to government. And also that the Federal Treasurer would be handed over the leadership.
21 min 32 sec:
Now this was something I knew because God spoke to me and told me very clearly a few days prior to the meeting with John Howard and Peter Costello – as to what was going to be the future of this country in the next election.
And that we should pray for righteous leaders to lead this country because the word of God says righteousness exalts a nation.
I also note that Catch The Fire also has an article, dated November 20, 2007 (4 days before the Federalelection in which the Howard government was slaughtered by Labor)on its website, titled Kenneth Copeland a Leading Prophetic Voice in the World Predicts PM John Howards Re-Election, which states:
God’s man in Australia [referring to John Howard] stood up and publicly declared Australia a Christian nation!
[Allegedly quoting Mr Howard] “If you want to come here and join us in our Christian faith you are welcome here but don’t think you can come in here and try and force some other religion here on us and don’t think you are going to tell us how to believe God and who we are going to worship.”
He publicly did that, now this is no time for that man to be defeated. Well he’s not going to be. Amen. He is Lord to the glory of God the Father. He is Lord to the glory of God the Father. He is Lord over Australia! It has been announced! Amen.
I’m not aware of Mr Howard ever having made such a statement.
Regarding the above quote, I note thatCatch The Fire blogger,Office 2, is supposed to be quoting Col Stringer who in turn is supposed to be quoting Kenneth Copeland who in turn is supposed to be quoting John Howard.
This is pretty messystuff, to put it mildly.
Danny Nalliah has doneoutstanding and heroicwork in defending free speech. His defence of free speech has notrelied onthe sorts ofdubious (again, that’s putting it mildly) “prophetic insights” exemplified above.
It can be time-consuming and tedious work separating the good from the bad from the ridiculous when understanding or judging an individual.
It’s wrong to de-legitimise the good work of an individual by clumping it together with his flawed work.
Equally, it’s wrong to ignore or gloss over the mistakes or sins of an individual because we admire him.
The truth is the Whole Truth.
Click here to listen or download this interview
(4.5 MB mp3 )
PRODOS interviews thecontroversial PastorDanny Nalliah of Catch The Fire Ministries.
Topics covered include:
I didn’t ask Danny Nalliah this question, butI wonder what he’d reply: What would Jesus have done?
If Jesus Christ had been invited to address a group such as the League of Rights, would he have accepted or declined?
If he accepted, on what basis would he do so?
If he refused, on what basis would he do so?
Christianity isn’t new. It’s been around for 2,000 years. Unlike Judaism, one ofthe key features of Christianity – supported by passages from The Bible -has always been an emphasis on proselytism.
Evangelical Christians such as Danny Nalliah are especially active and energetic in this regard.
It’s somewhere between amusing and pathetic that ignorant, dumbassed lefties like Jeff Sparrow of Crikey and Misha Schubert of The Age act sooutraged that Danny Nalliah, a well-known Evangelical Christian would speak at any gathering of the dubious or undesirable.
And it’s bad logic – at the very least – to declare that John Howard and Peter Costello should cut ties with Danny Nalliah because he has basicallybeen doing his job as an EvangelicalChristian Pastor.
Double guilt by association: The League of Rights are baddies. Danny is guilty for “associating” with the League of Rights. Howard and Costello are guilty for “associating” with Nalliah. Of course the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are the key targets here.
Recently, writing for slag-rag, Crikey.com.au, Jeff Sparrow wrote: “Catch the Fire [Ministries, run by Danny Nalliah,] is a bigoted group, and it is shameful that mainstream politicians associate with it.”
And with staggering ignorance, Jeff Sparrow refers to the accusations made by the Islamic Council of Victoria*, later upheld by VCAT, and then later DISCREDITED by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeals, that Catch The Fire “had described Muslims as drug-dealing demons training to make Australia an Islamic state.”
He then dares the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (who, by the way, do great work) to join his chorus of viciousness and ignorance.
* By the way, the supposedly “moderate”Islamic Council of Victoria’s website recommends IslamOnline.net – which advocates the murder of apostates. Justthought, Jeff Sparrows and Misha Schubert might be interested.
Click here to listen or download this interview
(4.5 MB mp3 )
Misha Schubert in Melbourne’s The Age reports on Pastor Danny Nalliah’s (Catch The Fire Christian Ministries)not so recent talk (October 08 2005) at the anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denyingAustralian League of Rights.
Nalliah is quoted as saying:
“I thought maybe it is a good opportunity to go and speak and I can change some of their thinking“
“Let me be honest and truthful – if I am invited again, I will go again. I am not going to talk about anti-Jewish and anti-Islam; my message is about Christ and salvation.”
One guy in the crowd put his hand up and said ‘Do you believe in the Holocaust?’ …I said ‘To deny the Holocaust would be like saying there will be no daybreak tomorrow morning’.”
The “guy in the crowd” seems to have been Gerald Fredrick Töben, the founder and director of the holocaust-denialist Adelaide Institute, and last yeara guest at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Review of the Holocaust: global vision.
From Töben’s Adelaide Institute website:
Fredrick Töben asked Pastor Nalliah one question: ‘Pastor, do you believe in the ‘Holocaust’?
He replied indirectly that Jews had suffered greatly in the past. Töben asked again: ‘Do you believe in the ‘Holocaust’? The good pastor said something about not knowing anything about the topic.
You will note the difference between this coy response and Nalliah’s new claim to haveasserted that the Holocaust was as undeniable as daybreak.
… it’s hard to knowwhich of them is telling the truth.
Nalliah is not making a “new claim”. The”old claim” was not made by Nalliah.
The “old claim” by Töben does not include the “undeniable as daybreak” phrase,but it does refer tohow Nalliah had “replied indirectly …” which could just as well be Töben’s way of referring to the metaphorical “undeniable as daybreak” statement by Nalliah.
I spoke briefly with Danny Nalliah about 12 hours ago and will be recording an interview with him on Thursday afternoon (Nov 01 2007).
I asked him if he supported Israel. He statedhe did – very much so -and that his office displays the flag of Israel in a prominent position.
I asked him if he accepted the Holocaust. He saidhe most certainly did and said a few things about the vastness of the horror.
I asked him about whether, at theLeague of Rights meeting,he’d “said something about not knowing anything about the topic”. He replied that he had said something at that meetingto the effect that he was not an expert or scholar on the subject.
Before phoning Danny Nalliah I phoned the Adelaide Institute and left a message on its answering machine explaining I was wanting to clarify what was actually said at the meeting in question. As yet I’ve received no reply.
From Catch The Fire’s website:
We also oppose the denial of the plain facts of history concerning the suffering of religious or racial groups, including the Holocaust, the treatment of non-Muslims under sharia conditions, or the persecution of religious communities by Communist regimes.
Was it wrong for Pastor Danny Nalliah to attend the League of Rights meeting? Even after he was warned by colleagues that they were anti-Israel and anti-Jew?
I’ll put this to Danny when I speak with him, but it’s hardly any sort of secret that Catch The Fire is an Envangelical group.
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
And Matthew 28:19 …
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
It’s their job – their “mission” – to go anywhere and everywhere. To spread the Word, to preach, to save, to convert. That’s what Evangelicals do. That’s what Danny Nalliah does. That’s what it seems to me he was doing at the League of Rights meeting.
The Evangelical tradition is, to my knowledge, not a feature of Judaism.
The (not unreasonable) concern that many would have about associating or being seen mixing with unsavoury people or groups doesn’t apply to the Evangelicals when they’re engaging in their Missionary work.
AsCatch The Fire Ministriessays onits website, their job is ….
To take the good news of the gospel from town to town, city to city, state to state, country to country and proclaim the name of Jesus through prayer and action.
[Update: Regarding the section below, I’m replacing the quote I had from this link with verifiable Bible references.]
And, asthe followingstory about Jesus clarifies, Danny Nalliah is not only acting according toChristian principles, he would be going against such principles if he was to place fear of”reputation” above his Mission. [snip]
And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.  And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.  But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?  And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?  But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.  But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.  And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?  When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Danny Nalliah is a good man. I stand by him.
My SOLID VOX interview with Gerard Jackson examining some of the claims made by Chris Berg and Andrew Kemp (Institute of Public Affairs, Australia) in their article, Islam's Free Market Heritage is NOW ONLINEat PRODOS Worldwide.
Today in the Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt has a very good article about Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot of Catch The Fire Christian Ministries.
Pastors’ Toil and Trouble (article and blog site).
An excerpt from the article which talks about how the Two Danny’s were done over by Justice Higgins of VCAT:
Most of the case over the weeks that followed dealt with the lecture given by Scot, and some curious things soon became clear.
First, even one of the converts had to admit that Scot, who’d been born in Pakistan and got degrees there in theology and applied mathematics, actually understood the Koran far better than did the people complaining he’d misquoted it.
Second, as I wrote at the time, many of the complaints accused Scot of no more than quoting the Koran accurately.
Yes, the Koran did tell men they could beat their wives.
Yes, it did have verses calling on Muslims to fight infidels until they submitted.
The verdict was also odd.
The pastors were found guilty of vilifying Muslims even though the judge identified only one thing Scot had said that was factually wrong: he’d given the wrong birthrate for Muslims here. And, the judge, added, he’d failed to quote a verse that showed Allah was merciful.
Higgins [the original judge who convicted the Danny’s and Catch The Fire] said the real problem with the seminar was that it was not “balanced”, and neither Scot nor Nalliah had said clearly enough that the hard-line Islam they were talking about was, in the judge’s opinion, not followed by most Muslims here.
Here’s another strange thing: Scot and Nalliah were convicted of stirring up hatred – of being “hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people” – even though they’d again and again told their congregation to love Muslims, however wrong their faith.
“We have to love them”, Scot had insisted.
“Love should be not only in theory, in word, but should be shown in practice. You invite them for (a) cup of tea. You invite them for dinner, for lunch.”
On he went: “Of course do not criticise their culture . . . We should not criticise their dress . . . Don’t be afraid of (the) Koran . . . there are a lot of things in (the) Koran, which are very similar from (the) Bible.”
What’s more, there was no evidence that those listening to him were a danger to a single Muslim.
The worst the judge could say of them was they’d responded “at various times in the form of laughter”. Dear God – save us from the laughing Christian.
So, this is the kind of dangerous hate-preaching that had the pastors convicted under our new laws, and sentenced to apologise in expensive advertisements in the Herald Sun and Age.
And that was odd, too. Why did the pastors have to apologise to 2.5 million Victorians for comments they made to just 250? Why did the judge also ban them from repeating any of their claims from the lecture, no matter how truthful, in any state?
Mad, you say? Welcome to witch-hunting in Victoria.
The complete text of the Appeal is available HERE.
The 3 judges who ruled on the appeal didn’t agree on all points. Andrew Bolt recommends the findings of Justice Geoffrey Nettle.
Report This Blog