I couldn't really get my eyeteeth around Michael Gerson's two-sided comments, so I did a search to see what further he might have said on terrorism, and found this in recent archives:

"On the other side of that debate are two administrations and the majority of members of Congress from both parties who, since 9/11, have found the threat of terrorism both real and unappeasable. In this period, the American government, with congressional authorization, has destroyed terrorist training camps; undermined terrorist communications, fundraising and planning; targeted terrorist leaders; and disrupted at least 40 plots aimed at U.S. targets.

Far from perpetrating imaginary terrors on Americans, the government has protected them from real ones."

Michael Gerson Archives

I failed to copy the date, but it was only a few weeks back, and you can find it readily with a search.

IMHO, Mr. Gerson knows little about Islam's authority, the Qur'an, or it's actual practice.

A radicalized Christian would be one who ignored the teachings of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, Injil (Arabic), or Brit Haddasah (Hebrew).

A "radicalized" Muslim is one who actually obeys the literal teachings of Muhammad, as recorded in the Qur'an.

That is a difference that can not safely be ignored.

"I have to wonder how much you people actually know about Islam. Did you study it? More likely you just absorbed it from other h**e mongers who think that they know what they're talking about, or pretend to know. I admittedly don't know much about it. I have no use for any of the authoritarian religions. It's all bunk."

Hi "Chardo,"

Thank you for asking.

I worked in a professional office setting with Muslims, including a Muslim director, for almost a decade, years ago, long before I retired. I lived it. I received a qur'an as a gift at the time, at a time they were not readily available as they are now.

To know who someone is you have to understand what they believe, and what the basis of that faith is, the founder.

The Bible says that God is love. He is also righteous, and he is just. I looked at the index in the back of the qur'an, down the Ls, where the word, Love should appear. It wasn't there, not even once, but there were one and one/half pages of the wrath and ire of Allah.

I studied the qur'an thoroughly. I know what it says and what it doesn't.

The god of Allah is not the God of the Bible, nor is he the God of Judaism.

Incidentally, the Chardos, as I'm sure you know, are Indian Christians from Goa, India's smallest state, which borders the Arabian Sea... They are a warrior class; motto: Unity and Freedom.

A radical Christian would be one who , through HIs grace, tightly adheres to the teaching of Jesus, in as far as humanly possible.

The less than a dozen individuals who have attacked a******n
clinics/doctors did not understand:

Luke 9:54 -56: When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them,"You do not understand the spirit you have received." And he said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

As for homosexuals, Muhammad commanded that homosexuals be stood up against a stone wall, and that it be collapsed upon them.

Incidentally, to condemn practitioners of a religion is different than condemning the religion. "All have fallen short of the glory of God."

Study the founder of that religion, his life and instructions to understand the religion.

Islamic people are, as a general rule, much better than Muhammad, unless snared by his "satanic verses."

Christians are, 100%, far less than Jesus Christ.

Well, to start off, there IS hope for you. At least you accept the possibility that there is a God. I was sure I had you pegged an atheist. Glad to be wrong. {Don't hold too much hope. At 65 I am what I am. Not going to change. As a child I was told that I was Catholic, as though it was genetic. It never sunk in, I never felt it. I was sent to Sunday school and would ask questions like" how do you know....."I would drive the nuns crazy. I can still picture the apoplectic shock. LOL}

Second, religion is all about faith. I couldn't make the claims I do if I didn't have faith. Of course it is possible that I could be wrong. However, I have faith that I'm not wrong. Neither of us can conclusively prove this one way or another until the final accounting. { That's true}

"I live by what is obvious to me," That's the first problem. It is based on perception. As everyone knows, perception is flawed. "the here and now ," Here and now is constant change. Not much to grasp onto here. "the real world ," What is the real world? Science struggles to define it. So far they have failed to do so because so much of it is based on assumptions. Those assumptions are based on observations (perception again). "not an ancient text of questionable origin." Herein lies the essence of your dilemma...faith. It takes faith to believe in the Bible, faith that it's divinely inspired, faith that God is who He says He is, faith that God made Himself a man so that He could bear the weight of the sins of the world, to die in place of us for our rightful judgement, that He then was resurrected as a sign (first fruit) that the Judgement had been paid and His sacrifice deemed worthy, faith that belief in his sacrifice for us, and our need for Him is the only path to restoring our relationship with God. Without that faith, you will never understand those of us who have such faith.

{Yes perceptions are faulty but begin with something tangible. Faith is entirely made up to fill a need, a void, to explain the inexplicable.}

If my faith can be construed as arrogance, then so be it. However, you are wrong about one thing. I never compel anyone to believe or do anything. In fact, I cannot. No one can. For you to come to know Yeshua (Jesus), it must be a sincere choice. How can you be sincere if you are coerced? You cannot. { Perhaps you do not push your faith....but if you, or anyone tells others that they must live according to your beliefs- that gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed- because YOU believe it's wrong- is just as bad.}

As for your final question, again you misunderstand (at the very least) the dynamics of the situation. First a little history lesson.

Our forefathers (at least initially) came to this country for religious freedom. That was certainly the case for the passengers of the Mayflower. Obviously, over time, others came with different ideas. All were seeking the same thing, freedom and opportunity. However, as demographics were for the day, the majority of people were predominantly Christian. Whether they were merely acculturated Christians or true believers is a matter of academic question. When our forefathers established this country with its present Constitution, they did so acknowledging God from the beginning. They established this as a Christian nation. { Listen to yourself….because they acknowledged God this is was established as a Christian nation?? That is rather insensitive to other religions based on a belief in this God. In any case I fully reject that notion. If it was intended to be a Christian nation, why is Christianity not mentioned in the Constitution? Why is there no religious test for high office. Why doesn’t the first amendment give Christianity some special status.?}

However, having the example of the oppression of the Roman Catholic Church, they wisely made it so that no church could prevail over another through the government by forbidding the establishment of a national religion. Nevertheless, this was established as a Christian nation. The first prayers of Congress and the President were to consecrate this nation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is a matter of historical record.
That said, back to your question. It depends on what you mean by "subjected to your religious beliefs". If by subjected you mean me or any other Christian sharing our beliefs with you...? { NO that’s not what I mean….advocating for how you think others should live and behave and what rights they have or don’t have based on your beliefs}

My answer to that is very simple. I have a first amendment right to practice my religion, and a first amendment right to say (or print) what I will, especially if controversial. {No one is saying otherwise}
This is also keeping in line one of the commandments Yeshua gave His disciples: "Go forth and make disciples of men (and women), and to spread the Good new of salvation through Him. Once again, this is a gift freely given. It cannot be bought, sold, traded or taken by force. One only has to ask for it." One cannot do that if one doesn't have the freedom to do so. Many Christians have died fulfilling this task.If you meant using the law to force people to live by Christian standards...? { Isn’t that what’s being done?}
Then I have to agree with you there. No law should be of a purely religious nature. You cannot force people to change. They have to want to do so willingly.

It is this fact that has me at odds with you liberals. No matter how nobly intended you seek to force people to do what you want "for the greater good". {. In some case that is true. That’s how most societies function, unless we’re talking about an oligarchy or dictatorship. Gun control and health care are two current examples. You can’t please all of the people….. But we won’t go there. It’s off topic. However, gay rights is different. You may disagree , but it’s about civil rights. The rule of law applies. Equal protection under the law…..no matter how many people don’t like it.

And, It’s not us who are trying to force anybody to live at odds with their beliefs. You got that exactly backwards. You want to deny gay people the right to marry because you disapprove…No that is the height of arrogance. You can’t turn that around on us try as you will. There is no rational reasonable argument against e******y. It will not change your life and it will not be detrimental to society. If you that you have are your religious objections, you have nothing }

But whose greater good? Taking tax money intended for the purpose of running the government and giving it to entitlement programs is misappropriation at best; theft at worst. You are forcibly telling everyone they have to pay so that others can have. The same is true of the EPA and other such regulatory bodies. You attempt to use law to force people to change their behavior. Nothing good ever comes through the use of force. { This is another topic}

The same is true of Obama Care, and gun regulation. In fact, gun regulation is exactly why the second amendment was written in the first place. It was to prevent the government from taking power from the people. Sadly, it would appear that the people will voluntarily disarm themselves for the promise of food and a false sense of security. { This is another topic}

Now, back to your holy grail, Gay Marriage. My personal objections ARE religious. Not because I don't want gay people to be happy. Not that I oppose them having civil unions. I oppose it because what they want is a redefining of millennia old terms ans traditions. The ramifications of such redefining is that Pastors, Priests, and Ministers would be FORCED to host or perform marriages to gay couples even though it goes against our religious beliefs. That is a violation of their first amendment rights! That I cannot abide! { That is pure bull…..there are always religious exemptions. It’s just a standard right wing talking point. I don’t think that you actually believe that. If you do, research states where it’s legal}
Settle for civil unions with the same legal protections in the law, and leave marriage alone. { Civil unions don’t work like marriage. We have civil unions in NJ and there are lots of problems. Aside from legal issues , the stats of marriage is being denied and that’s discrimination http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html}

You complain about the religious coercing the secular. Can't you see your hypocrisy when you, the secular, coerce the religious? You can't cry foul when you do the same thing you accuse us of doing. { No my friend I do not see any hierocracy on my part. To say that you are being coerced is to say that you are being forced to do something against your will……..just what is that now?}

I have to wonder how much you people actually know about Islam. Did you study it? More likely you just absorbed it from other h**e mongers who think that they know what they're talking about, or pretend to know. I admittedly don't know much about it. I have no use for any of the authoritarian religions. It's all bunk. However, I do know enough about radical Christianity to know that they are enemy of all decent, thinking people. It's the likes of Michelle Bachmann and others who are IN OUR GOVERNMENT NOW that I fear. Those who would make us into a theocracy. And Zemirah, a Christian radical is one who would k**l an a******n doctor and advocate the death penalty for gays.They are among us and you know it. Even those who just advocate bigotry are, in a way , terrorists....just a more subtle
form

Statistics of Human A******ns and Anti-A******n Violence

http://prolife.com/

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1973 that the homicide of human children in the womb was a legal event, and would, from thenceforth be the law of the land.

Since that time, during the last forty years, there have been fifty five million (55,000,000) life ending a******ns of tiny helpless human beings in the U.S.


I have heard this refrain over and over, "Oh, the violence of the murdering "Christians."

They're identical to radical Islam.
Here are the figures, as of today, from the Pro-Choice-Homicide website and the Pro-Life website regarding the deaths of unborn infants (55,000,000) and the number of murders of a******n doctors since 1973 (8). That's right, there have been eight!

That's eight too many, but in a period of forty years, it's not in any way equitable with either the murder of infants or the murderous rampage of radical Islam, which in 2007,was 60,000 since 2001, worldwide. http://Militant Islam Monitor.org
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/usage.html

Since 1973, there have been, over a period of forty (40.0) years, a total of two hundred (200.0) a******n clinic arsons or bombings.

That is an average of five (5.0) a******n clinic arsons or bombings each year.

In addition, there have been eight (8.0) total murders since 1973.

That is an average of one (1.0) a******n doctor/provider murdered every five (5.0) years,

They also report anti-a******n extremists have employed butyric acid to vandalize clinics and have sent letters threatening anthrax to frighten clinic staff.

Butyric acid (from Greek βούτυρο, meaning "butter"), also known under the systematic name butanoic acid, is a carboxylic acid found in milk, especially goat, sheep and buffalo's milk, butter, Parmesan cheese, and as a product of anaerobic fermentation, It has an unpleasant smell and acrid taste, with a sweetish aftertaste (similar to ether). It can be detected by mammals with good scent detection abilities (such as dogs) at 10 ppb, whereas humans can detect it in concentrations above 10 ppm.

I couldn't really get my eyeteeth around Michael Gerson's two-sided comments, so I did a search to see what further he might have said on terrorism, and found this in recent archives:

"On the other side of that debate are two administrations and the majority of members of Congress from both parties who, since 9/11, have found the threat of terrorism both real and unappeasable. In this period, the American government, with congressional authorization, has destroyed terrorist training camps; undermined terrorist communications, fundraising and planning; targeted terrorist leaders; and disrupted at least 40 plots aimed at U.S. targets.

Far from perpetrating imaginary terrors on Americans, the government has protected them from real ones."

Michael Gerson Archives

I failed to copy the date, but it was only a few weeks back, and you can find it readily with a search.

IMHO, Mr. Gerson knows little about Islam's authority, the Qur'an, or it's actual practice.

A radicalized Christian would be one who ignored the teachings of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament, Injil (Arabic), or Brit Haddasah (Hebrew).

A "radicalized" Muslim is one who actually obeys the literal teachings of Muhammad, as recorded in the Qur'an.

That is a difference that can not safely be ignored.

These words from the Gerson article we read here tell me too much about what he is trying to do to protect our Glorious Leader from the rest of us.

He would alienate an entire faith tradition from the American experiment. He would insult every Muslim ally and Muslim soldier who fights at our side against terrorism. He would fulfill the fondest hope of Islamist radicals: to turn the war against terrorism into a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam.

I think that failure to understand that the perpetrators of all of these crimes against people is done by people of the Muslim faith is just more of the attempt to paint them all as moderates. If our President had spoken out about Hasan being an Islamist when he shot all those people at Ft. Hood and caused all the rest of them to leave our country because of his mistreatment he failed at a chance to be a real hero. Move them all out and use some serious profiling to keep any others from coming in.

This kind of home grown mujahideen that has worked so well in Afghanistan and Pakistan is moving into the US and people are trying to protect the movement through the use of the word, diversity.

"In the years just before a******n became legal in 1973, hospital wards were filled with women seeking a******ns–who either had been injured or become sick obtaining an illegal a******n under dangerous conditions, or who had tried to induce the a******n themselves.

Desperate women used a number of dangerous means to terminate pregnancies. Some sought a******ns from back-alley a******nists, with usually humiliating and sometimes deadly results.

Other women tried to induce a******ns with homemade means–such as a bleach douche, or inserting sharp instruments into her cervix. This is why the now almost forgotten image of the wire coat hanger became the symbol of the a******n rights movement."

Read the whole story here.... http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/01/20/a******n-before-roe/

http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/562_06_A******n.shtml