‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say

By Michael Brown Published on December 20, 2016

For eight years, we have watched Islamic terrorist attacks take place around the world and on our own shores, with the bloody, gory death toll rising by the day (roughly 30,000 attacks since 9/11). And for eight years, we have listened carefully as our president addressed these horrific acts, studiously avoiding the words that so needed to be spoken: “Islamic terror” or “radical Islam.”

Instead, President Obama and his surrogates spoke of “extremism” or “terrorism” — without any reference to Islam — or, worse still, of “workplace violence.”

Mr. Obama and his team would not even identify Nidal Malik Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood mass murderer, as an Islamic terrorist, despite the fact that he identifies as a Soldier of Allah, was mentored by a Muslim terrorist (Anwar Al-Alaki, whom we killed in a drone strike in Yemen), and slaughtered our soldiers in cold blood while shouting out Allah’s name. No, this was an instance of workplace violence. (It was not until 2015 that Obama referenced the attack as “terrorist,” but still refused to mention the word “Islamic.”)

This is not just perverse, it is utterly irresponsible, since it fails to acknowledge that we are not just combatting people, we are combatting an ideology, and if we cannot even name that ideology, let alone describe it, we certainly cannot fight it.

And so yesterday, in the aftermath of the horrific truck attack at the Christmas market in Germany, the Obama administration (not the president himself, who is apparently on his final Christmas break) issued a statement, saying, “The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to have been a terrorist attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, Germany, which has killed and wounded dozens.”

In stark contrast, President-elect Trump stated: 

Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.

In one short statement, Trump has done what Obama failed to do in eight years.

1) He identified “Islamist terrorists” by name, directly associating them with ISIS.

2) He specified that their victims have often been Christians, here during the Christmas season, and at other times, in their places of worship.

3) He declared war on these terrorists, asking “all freedom-loving partners” to join him in the battle, thereby opening the door to so-called moderate Islamic nations to join us in the battle. (Would Saudi Arabia fit in this category? How about Pakistan? Yemen? Syria? Libya?)

4) He used the term “global jihad,” again with specific reference to Islamic terror.

The significance of this can hardly be exaggerated.

The UK Mirror reminds us that “Europe was warned that ISIS planned terror attacks at Christmas markets 25 days before the Berlin atrocity.”

Yes, “The attack came after intelligence agencies warned in November that terrorists are planning a wave of Christmas attacks throughout Europe, targeting shopping areas and crowded market-places to maximise casualties. The main groups plotting Yuletide blood-letting are Islamic State and al-Qaeda and UK intelligence agencies and counter-terror police are on high-alert.”

The world needs leaders like Donald Trump who will call out Islamic terror by name.

ISIS has now claimed responsibility for the Berlin massacre, which means that we have: 1) Islamic terrorists stating that they will launch Christmas attacks against Christians in Europe; 2) a terror attack taking place against Christians at a Christmas market in Germany; and 3) ISIS taking responsibility for that attack.

Yet it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who has connected the dots (really, these dots are all but connected for anyone with eyes to see), which is one reason that many Americans said No to four (or eight) more years of Obama policies (in the person of Hillary Clinton) and Yes to dramatic change in the person of Donald Trump.

It is true that his tweets can be reckless and unpresidential and that not all his saber-rattling is helpful. But it is also true that the world needs leaders like Trump who will call out Islamic terror by name, which is why right-leaning, populist movements are growing around the world — and it is not because Americans and Europeans and others are suddenly becoming “Islamophobic.”

No, the problem lies with radical, murderous, terroristic Islam and the failure of these governments to address it head on, as the leaders appear to be more concerned with offending “moderate Muslims” than with protecting their own citizens — including unarmed children, women, and men.

The time for that is over.


Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Christian Cowboy

    It is good to hear a leader of America talk tough again!

    • Ken Abbott

      So long as the words are backed up with strong and reasoned measures. Talk of whatever toughness is cheap.

  • Aloha12

    What a contrast: ‘Sophisticated’ elites hell bent on national suicide in the name of multi culturalism (ObamaMerkel) compared to Trump. We (the sane) choose Trump.

    • Gregory Peterson

      My extended family is now quite multicultural. We look like America. We get along great. Why would you defame us like that and turn us into your pet scapegoat?

    • pc

      That’s like reading about a white man going on a murdering spree and then saying we need to lock up white men because they might be murderers and a danger to society. Trump chooses people groups that aren’t him and then vilifies them for his own gain. I think it’s okay to address issues of extremism and violence and race and have those discussions but the white folks, particularly men, tend not to address or recognize the violence and extremism within their own groups.

    • AndRebecca

      Very well said.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    It’s tragic that this country & it’s allies have been seduced by political correctness, so called. This nascent ideology has perhaps been almost as dangerous as the very forces of evil it refuses’s to name. Truth has a way of dispelling darkness. History will record the deliberate & seemingly clueless ( or worse ) administrative decisions of this passing administration & it’s near emasculation of the nation.

    • Gregory Peterson

      In my observation, often confirmed on this website, is that people who disparage political correctness are just bragging about being calloused jerks.

      • Howard Rosenbaum

        I cannot speak for any of those you disparagingly classify as “calloused jerks”. I presume your reference to those w/out your discernment in these matters by virtue of their political ideology & perhaps ethical & moral distinctions from yourself are unqualified, by politically correct orthodoxy to substantiate their position on most anything. Perhaps, were we to evaluate political correctness , so called by standards sanctioned by the presumed viewpoint of many who would justify this political correctness by discounting the motivations & intentions of those they disagree with, we would then have a philosophical paradox of sorts. For in the affirmation of that which you so ardently promote – the discrimination of any who compromise the views of those who by virtue of their positions on many things become something other than “political correct”, you discount the very premise of political correctness as it is promoted today. Which is, the refusal to marginalize or insult social groups that have been discriminated against in some form or another, to the point of being considered a disadvantaged class. Bottom line, The “politically correct” have become in effect a class unto themselves.
        One in which tolerance & compassion is frowned upon towards any group other than their own. Disagreement among a people in any homogenous society is inevitable & even welcomed. Political correctness has become the enemy of the freedoms this country was founded upon. Should that make me a “callous jerk”, then welcome to the “upside down world” of one who for the sake of conscience & the experience of The One from Whom & for Whom are all things. Oh, & Merry Christmas ….

        • Gregory Peterson

          There is very little compassion in Dr. Michael “Race-Baiter” Brown’s shabby, self privileging propaganda that reads like lightly edited and updated columns from the Citizen’s Council Newsletter. I mean, really…what does he think he’s doing, acting all ‘white’ like that?

          “Political correctness has become the enemy of the freedoms this country was founded upon.”

          This country was founded for the freedom of privileged white men, of which I am. But, I’m getting on in years and my family is now multicultural and multi-ethnic, so we don’t have a lot invested in whiteness. I don’t want to take America back, I want to take if forward to a safer world for the grandchildren who look like America instead of Norway.

          I did indeed have a very Merry Christmas. The New England branch came out West, some of them combining Christmas with an art tour of minimalist sculpture. We gathered at the Peterson family matriarch’s semi-desert home to celebrate Christmas and enjoy the warmth and the sunlight. The Christmas service was especially meaningful to me this year.

          I photographed pintail ducks and antelope outside of my mother’s place. I’m not a wildlife photographer, but it was fun to pretend to be one.

          I hope you had as nice a Christmas, too.

  • Matt Schefer

    This 8 year experiment with political correctness is almost over and we will once again have adults back in the White House….thank God.

    • Gregory Peterson

      Way to be not so subtly racist. No wonder you hate “political correctness.”

      • Matt Schefer

        Anything and Everything is racist in your mind. What does political correctness have to do with racism anyway?

        • Gregory Peterson

          People who disparage political correctness are usually just bragging about being a hateful jerk. All racists are hateful jerks, though not all jerks are hateful racists.

          Judging from writers like Dr. Michael “Race-Baiter” Brown, PhD, “The Stream” seems to be pitched towards white addicts of the Evangelical politics of white privilege and resentment, which roughly began in the 1830’s in their burgeoning defense of slavery, soon to become the main cultural production of the antebellum South (though not confined to there).

          However whitewashed and carefully condescending white theology is today, I still going with probabilities here.

        • Gregory Peterson

          This is America. Racism was tightly woven into the American fabric from the beginning of European colonization…before, as Euro-Christianity predisposed people to develop a racist, white supremacist mindset. There are still a great many racist threads to tease out of the warp and weave.

          • Aloha12

            America, horrible for sure. What country are you moving to?

          • Gregory Peterson

            This is my country, I was born here. I am a veteran, as is my father, grandfather and great grandfather (who was a Union Civil War veteran), and I don’t want it to be heavily invested in whiteness anymore.

            My family originated in Norway, where my great great grandparents were disfranchised, second class citizens. Why should I tolerate that here in the 21st Century, when the Petersons now look like America instead of Norway?

            I’ll do what my aged self can to help make the country safe for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I do not want any of them to be burdened with minority stress.

          • Matt Schefer

            Why did millions of “racist whites” die in the civil war ?

          • Gregory Peterson

            Slavery was the core reason for the Civil War, though it wasn’t the core reason why white Union soldiers, such as my great grandfather, fought in the war. They fought to preserve the Union, which had been split by a slave holding plutocracy who also used white supremacy to gain the support of non-slave owning Southern white people.

            I think that the slave owning aristocracy, confederate generals and office holders should have had their lands and any other assets confiscated, and they and their sons should have barred from holding political office for life.

            Most white people were racists, even, with few exceptions, white radical Abolitionists, which goes far to explain the collapse of Reconstruction.

      • Ken Bagwell

        Way to call someone a racist with no justification. No wonder you love “political correctness.”

        • Gregory Peterson

          He said that the President, who is Black and his administration weren’t adults. That’s racist in my book, with a lot of historical precedent of condescending racists disparaging minority adults as being like children who don’t know what’s best for them.

          • Ken Bagwell

            Thanks, for being our judge and jury on racism. Perhaps I can be morally superior as you someday and pass judgement on people.

          • Gregory Peterson

            You can study the history of American racism just as well as I can. Matt Schefer essentially called the President a “boy” when he said that there were will be adults in the White House.

            The Obama administration has been good for my family and friends. I doubt that of Pres. Elect Trump, and his grotesque statements and picks for his administration are not promising.

  • NickRepublic

    SO over, and thank God for it.

  • Jeanene

    It will be great to finally have a president who will stand up for us.

    • Gregory Peterson

      Pres. Obama stood up for me and mine. Wish I could have voted for him again.

  • speedy10

    I like his twitting and knowing what he is thinking!

  • El Bala

    I ‘m so happy and grateful to God the Obama years are over-just a month to go. I just hope Trump helps out with the terrorists in Nigeria aka Boko Haram and influences President Buhari to wipe them off including the rampaging herdsmen that are being paid taxpayers money (by governor El rufai) to stop killing the Christians of southern Kaduna in Kaduna State of northern Nigerian.

    • Gregory Peterson

      It is a terrible time to live in those places. I have friends in the ‘Nollywood’ sector of the Nigerian economy and I worry about them, though their area seems fairly safe.

      I would suspect economic motives hidden under a religious gloss that is used to justify the terrorism.

  • Comrade Molotov

    Obama certainly could have connected the dots, had his pen not been working overtime signing Executive Orders. But then, if he’d said it, it would have ruined his narrative, which has always been more important to him than innocent human life. The genocide occurring in the Middle East against the Christian community is probably approaching the level of genocide against the whites in South Africa, where again, Obama, and everyone else, has been totally silent.

    Thank God we’ll have a president who will call it like it is.

    • Gregory Peterson

      The poorer, less skilled white South Africans, who are apparently mostly Afrikaans-speakers, are very stressed these days. However, “approaching the level of genocide” is a big stretch.

      • Comrade Molotov

        Perhaps, Greg. I see the number of 70,000; a friend in South Africa wrote to tell me it’s probably close to 80,000. No doubt if we’re on the losing end of the 70,000+, we’d be calling it that. I’m not sure at what number the definition becomes real. Still, it’s many dead. Which is unfortunate. I really don’t know if we’ll ever have an accurate number. Even if it’s only 30% of that, it’s still a shame that no voices are really raised against it.

    • AndRebecca

      So true. The violent crime rates in S.A. are way higher than in U.S. cities.

    • galatians328

      Satanic Lord Putin carpet bombed the innocents of Aleppo – slaughtering all, including dear wee children, Christian and Muslim and otherwise, and unborn infants …. for his own lusts of power … just like Satanic Lord Herod massacred the innocents trying to kill infant Jesus … for his own lusts of power …
      Trump has a bizarre silence about Satanic Lord Putin:
      – Trump denies the Satanic Lord Putin invaded Ukraine! HOW IGNORANT IS THAT! … what does Lord Putin have on Trump and his family to make Trump so ‘ignorant’?
      – Trump denies that Satanic Lord Putin is responsible for shooting down MH17 killing nearly 300 innocents, including children, and likely some unborn infants … what does Lord Putin have on Trump and his family?
      – Trump denies that Satanic Lord Putin is a $70Billionaire because of corruption, theft, perversity and immorality
      – Trump denies that Satanic Lord Putin abuses Christians (Putin’s new law prohibits preaching the Gospel or discussion Jesus outside and official church building)
      What DOES Satanic Lord Putin have on Trump and his family?

  • jdumon

    The wedding ring of Obama bears an arabic inscription that proves that he is a crypto-muslim. So it is obvious that he will not condemn the slaughter of christians by the jihadists.

    • galatians328

      If that is evidence of a crypto-muslim … the surely Trump’s refusal to denounce Satanic Lord Putin’s demonic violence is ‘crypto-sycophant to-Satanic Lord Putin’

      Satanic Lord Putin:

      – killed innocents invading Ukraine, itself an illegal act
      – killed innocents – including many unborn infants – by carpetbombing Aleppo with Russian jets and artillery
      – is responsible for killing nearly 300 – including children (and perhaps unborn infants) – with missile attack that brought down MH17
      – commanded a new law suppressing the religious liberty of Christians in Russia
      – is a $70 Billionaire: on a salary of about $100K …. so how did that happen …. and don’t say God rained down money like manna upon him

      Putin is a Satanic Lord and Trump refuses to denounce him …. leaving suspicions that Trump is beholden to His Satanic Lord Putin. What hacked info, pictures, recording does Satanic Lord Putin have over Trump? Why is Trump such a liar about Putin?

      It appears, by all this, that Trump is a ‘crypto-sycophant to Satanic Lord Putin’.

      • AndRebecca

        It looks like you and your friend here are team trolling. Do you get paid by SPLC? Is it $15.00 an hour?

        • galatians328

          The bloggers at The Stream are well paid. Ask them. Also ask The Stream to transparently release its balance sheet for readers to know if any money comes from any political entity, any foreign entity, or any entity engaged in immorality.

          Ask them too about any sleeper cells in their midst from the Satanic Lord Putin.

          Oh, btw, …. look over there! what’s that? … was that guy just giving you the secret salute of the Satanic Lord? And did you just flash one back? WOW!

          • AndRebecca

            Really, and how would you know about bloggers at the Stream? And, you need to take your again before you go off the deep end.

          • galatians328

            HELLO! White working class folks KNOW that jobs involving blogging are NOT ‘REAL JOBS’. Such do not encounter the risks to health and safety, and harms to human dignity, that they face in the ‘REAL WORKPLACES’ that they endure. They revolted against elitist cultural imperialisms to vote for Trump. AND JUST AS SOON as Trump’s Administration fails to eliminate those risks, get them fabulous jobs that they can keep for years and decades until a great secure retirement on Social Security, improve the prospects for their kids and other dependents, IMPROVE THEIR HEALTH THROUGH THAT FABULOUS replacement for Affordable Care Act for 100% of Americans – as Trump promised … just as soon … just as soon …

          • AndRebecca

            You have a typical communist view of work, like your comrades in all the third world toilets. You spend your life trying to make yourself little and useless for revenge against the Capitalists. Meanwhile, you are exploited by the communist dictators instead, and end up with nothing at the end of your life.

          • galatians328

            IN baseball three strikes and your out:

            1. Jesus was from the ‘third world toilet’ of Nazareth. John 1 describes the locals discussing whether ‘anything good could could come from Nazareth’. STRIKE ONE

            2. the early followers of Jesus were ‘socialistic’: Acts 2 describes that “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need …”. STRIKE TWO

            3. There is an old saying ‘to do well by doing good’. In our community the Mennonites – who try to follow the New Testament closely and have vast charitable work – are well know as very successful in professions, business, agriculture, etc. Jesus said “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, …” which is a Godly critique of laissez faire Capitalism. Christians are NOT to rely on Capitalism instead of relying on God.
            STRIKE THREE

          • AndRebecca

            You really have a comprehension problem. 1. I mentioned your lack of a work ethic, which came across by what you said. 2. Jesus worked and so did his disciples. Jesus was a carpenter. Paul was a tent maker. Everyone worked and so did the Christian followers of these men. They had to own something in order to give it away. They carried on the tradition of giving to the poor as in the Old Testament, but did not beg, borrow and steal in order to give to them. 3. Of course they helped each other, just like Christians today do all over America today. Christian charity and Christian virtue has nothing to do with being socialistic, but everything to do with being capitalistic and having a profit in order to provide for your family and other dependents and the poor. 4. All of the notable Protestant ministers wrote about the Protestant work ethic, which is based on capitalism which is in the Bible and which this country was built upon and which has allowed all of the giving to the poor that has existed on any major scale. It’s unreal that you have no idea about these things, and I think you are lying about being anything remotely resembling a Christian.

        • Gregory Peterson

          I don’t need the money. Why would I work that cheaply?

          Life is just one big conspiracy theory to you, isn’t it?

          • AndRebecca

            Since your comments are just like what is said on the atheist talking point websites and SPLC, I thought you were part of that group, but no, you’re just a lone hateful anti-Christian bigot with time on you hands- trolling the net. My mistake.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I’m a United Methodist who thinks that people like Dr. Brown PhD are not doing Christianity wrong, but are making it a moral and intellectual imperative to not be Christian at all.

          • AndRebecca

            You’re a Christian hating troll and worse.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I do no hate Christians, I study people like Dr. Brown PhD who are heavily invested in ‘whiteness.’ You don’t even have to be white to be heavily invested in whiteness.

            Do an internet search for:

            COLD TAKES

            ‘Nice, decent folks’

          • AndRebecca

            I’m curious, please tell me what “heavily invested in whiteness” means. I’d like to know.

    • Gregory Peterson

      No it doesn’t. The ring has a loop design on the sides that someone, using low res photographs, imagined had an Arabic inscription cast in it.

  • Gregory Peterson

    Moderate Muslims, of course, deplore the attacks and call it what they are, terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. But someone with your morally blinkered mindset wouldn’t bother to find that out.

    Not to mention that Muslims are also victims of extremist Muslim terrorists… much like American Christians were victims of white American Christian terrorist attacks back when I was young, and when my father was young and when my grandfathers were young. When two of my great grandfathers were young, slavery was legal and especially entrenched in the Bible Belt.

    • Ken Bagwell

      The difference is that one side is repenting of it’s violence and injustice, while the other is carrying out world wide jihad. Your moral equivalence argument is a ‘politically correct’ liberal fantasy. There are no white Christian terrorists. Christians are not enslaving people, Christians are not killing people with car bombs. Muslims are doing all that, and they have to own it.

      • Gregory Peterson

        I wish you were wrong, but you’re not For starters, ask any Gay man who has been driven almost to suicide, if not survived an attempt, by their churches.

        They many not have been attacked with Christians with clubs, bombs and guns, but nevertheless, the are terrorized by Christians, and in the name of Jesus.

        White Supremacists in this country are often ‘radical’ Christian extremists (think Christian Identity Movement) intent on ‘taking back’ the white Christian nation…that it was.

        There was the terrorist attack on the Colorado Planned Parenthood, murders at a Sikh Temple because a white supremacist apparently thought they were Muslim, an attempted firebombing of an Islamic Center in my own town, two murders at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because they were LGBT accepting (oddly enough, that didn’t seem to get much notice from the Evangelical media). That’s from memory. I could probably dig up many more with some research.

        Then there was the horrendous terrorist attack in Norway by someone who thought that he was defending Christian civilization. The Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa. The Rwanda genocide was committed by Christians against Christians (like our own civil war), Northern Ireland factions were both claiming to be defending their Christian sects, and not all that long ago. The Christian South African apartheid regime was defending by many American Christians such as Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell and others, if memory serves.

        For starters.

        • Ken Bagwell

          No one ever said Christians have been perfect. Christians have been horrible at times. Christians have killed people in Jesus name. But you know what the difference is? We owned it. We call sin sin. We condemned it, and other Christians came in and tried to make it right. Who fought for the slaves? Who were the abolitionists of the day? Christians! Christians died in the cvil war and two world wars for the freedom that you enjoy in this country. There were Christian slave owners. But there were other Christians who died for the freedom of those slaves. Christians (black and white) marched with MLK. Christians started the civil rights movement. Many Christians stood against apartheid and supported Nelson Mandella. Many Christians voted for the first black President.

          For starters.

          • Gregory Peterson

            It was usually not conservative Evangelicals who were the abolitionists. The modern abolitionist movement was founded by Quakers and given legitimacy by Unitarians/Deists. The evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham and his racist, segregationist father in law, Dr. L. Nelson Bell, ‘Christianity Today,’ actually scolded the few Evangelicals who marched with Dr. King. Conservative Evangelicals generally opposed the Civil Rights Movement, to wildly understate. Conservative Evangelicals essentially were the American apartheid state governments. Only 26 percent of conservative Evangelicals voted for Pres. Obama in 2007, 20% in 2012.

            Cultural appropriation isn’t a Christian virtue, however much conservative Evangelicals do it to deflect criticism from their own history.

            I was reading Frederick Douglass, and here he is on the anti-slavery Black church which had ordained him, which pretty much defines American Protestantism in general.

            “I tried other churches in New Bedford, with the same result, and finally, I attached myself to a small body of colored Methodists, known as the Zion Methodists. Favored with the affection and confidence of the members of this humble communion, I was soon made a classleader and a local preacher among them. Many seasons of peace and joy I experienced among them, the remembrance of which is still precious, although I could not see it to be my duty to remain with that body, when I found that it consented to the same spirit which held my brethren in chains.”

            My Bondage and My Freedom
            by Frederick Douglass

          • AndRebecca

            The Quakers and others were not pure of heart in their deeds either then or now.

          • Gregory Peterson

            You wrote: “The Quakers and others were not pure of heart in their deeds either then or now.” Yet, despite their flaws, Quakers were, and are, generally more ‘pure of heart’ than conservative Evangelicals were and are (with the notable exception of raised Quaker Richard Nixon.).

            Quakers did own slaves as you pointed out, until they freed them as Quaker abolitionism developed. It’s not correct to say that that slavery didn’t work out for them financially… it made a many wealthy. Quaker abolitionism began in 1698 and was, at first, mostly ignored and slow developing. But as the old Quaker slavers died out,and new Quaker generations arose who were especially influenced by John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, the Quaker tide for abolitionism began to turn. By 1781, Quakers were prohibited from owning and trading in slaves.

            If memory serves, there was a Quaker exodus from the South.Who could blame them? Who would want to live among conservative, “Bible Believing” Southern white Evangelicals?

            This is very different from the ‘pure at heart’ Southern Evangelicals (and many northern “Bible Believers” as wwell) who became staunch supporters of perpetuating and expanding slavery after 1830, which, of course, lead to the very bloody Civil War.

          • AndRebecca

            Yes, I said the Quakers were not pure in heart regarding freeing the slaves, or much of anything else they did back before the Civil War. That is, according to the people who lived around them. Since you know so little about slavery, I have a suggestion for you. You may do a net search for the “1860 slave census.” If you do that search it will lead you to statics and charts with information that you don’t have, like the fact that there were over 31 million people in America in 1860 and less than 400,000 were considered slaveholders, hardly the entire white population, or anywhere near the total number of Christians. If you want to increase the whites involved in slavery you would include the families of the slaveholders and come up with about 8% of the total population of America. The slave population was 13% of the total population. No one at that time called themselves “Evangelicals” like you keep using the term… Many of the slave owners were Catholics and some were Protestants. If you can get your memory to serve you, you will remember the Quakers pestered the Christians in the North and South alike, and also had indentured servants, and had the Scots as a barrier between them and the Indians on the frontier, and many were Tories in the Revolutionary War. A few were hanged as Tory spies. They also excommunicated congregants. They helped get 500,000 of their fellow citizens killed in a war they helped start. They migrated West in groups, like the other religious people did, and passed through the South on their way. Many of them stayed on the East Coast and became very rich. They were the “Old Philadelphia Money” people… Still are…Many good people left the Quakers before and after the Rev. War and became Protestants. Since almost no “Evangelicals” owned slaves, there was no reason for them to want to spread slavery, and they didn’t… Ben Franklin was a good ex-Quaker along with Daniel Boone. Thomas Paine and Richard Nixon were two not so good ex-Quakers. Nixon sure liked that abortion stuff and Planned Parenthood and Paine became an outcaste and a drunk.

          • Gregory Peterson

            What revisionism.

            I don’t think that Ben Franklin was a Quaker. Being of Puritan stock, he was baptized in an historic Boston Congregational church and later worshiped Church of England’Episcopalian churches. He was quite the free thinker and entertained many religious and irreligious thoughts. He made his wealth in a Quaker founded colony where they had much influence.

            Thomas Paine’s father was the ex-Quaker, I think, having been expelled when he married an Anglican.

            Few white people lived lived on plantations, but that wasn’t true of Black people. In Mississippi, 49 percent of families owned slaves and 55% of the population was enslaved.

            In other states, of course, there were no slaves… so while a very small minority of white American families owned slaves overall, that wasn’t true in many states where slave holding families were influential and the controlled the local economies.

            Owning slaves was something for which ambitious Southern men aspired, a mark that you had arrived. The foundations of American wealth were built upon slavery, North and South. Enslaved people not only did work but were used as collateral in wealth building.

            “Many of the slave owners were Catholics and some were Protestants.” For the Antebellum United States, you got that reversed. There were just not that many Catholics in antebellum America. Yes, some of them were slave owners, including the Catholic’s Georgetown University.

            But it was Protestants who were the main slave owners, and after the watershed decade of 1830, when Evangelicals reached a critical mass and gained political power. many of them were elite Evangelicals, such as the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and some Southern Presbyterian organizations.

            For starters, see John Patrick Daly’s book, ‘When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War.’ Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002.

          • AndRebecca

            You may not think Ben Franklin was a Quaker, but he thought he was and said so in his auto-bio. Ditto Thomas Paine. I’m so happy you have now looked up the stats and know that few white people owned slaves. What does the inspiration of southern men 150 years ago have to do with you hatred of Christians today? Especially Dr. Brown? His family most likely did not own slaves. Your comments are off the subject- and off the wall. And you have the nerve to recommend a book written by another hater. I read real history books not revisionist garbage.

          • Gregory Peterson

            The movers and shakers owned slaves. In some states, substantial numbers of white families owned slaves. Slaves were collateral . A lot of American capital was tied up in slavery.

            I grew up in Nebraska. Not many families owned tractors, but…the wealth of the region depended upon tractors. If we needed a tractor to plow our large garden, friends and relatives had tractors. Same with enslaved people. Even if you didn’t own a slave, you could rent and lease slaves, borrow one or some from generous friends and relatives,

            Every American, even those who just took the Oath of Citizenship two minutes ago, has inherited our history of slavery and its consequences.

            My grandfather was born when slavery was legal, two years before the adoption of 13th Amendment. We aren’t talking about ancient history.

            I do not “hate Christians.” I study ‘whiteness.’ Dr. Brown, PhD misrepresents himself as an expert on “homosexuality.” And he does that in the same sort of way that I recognize in the segregationist propaganda being cranked out by the self righteous, conservative Evangelicals back when I was growing up.

            My job is to recognize reliable sources, and if I didn’t recognize a reliable history source, my brother the historian would shortly set me straight.

          • AndRebecca

            Tell me something I don’t know. You are trying desperately to find some reason to justify your hatred of a certain group of people. And now, you don’t even like the idea of tractors because whites invented them. Tractors have kept many people from doing hard labor in fields, and the invention of machines by white people have allowed all sorts of people to have a better life. Machines and the invention of Capitalistic Agriculture and were two of the main reasons slavery disappeared in America. You wouldn’t have the time or the electronics to spew your garbage if not for white people. And you would have never lived so long. Your grandfather was born before 1865? You must be one old dude, kept alive by the vaccines and medicines and nutritional health invented by whites. And, of course we get to your real problem: homosexuality is underneath all your complaints. You are a Marxist dream. You job is to recognize reliable sources? And your brother approved of that Marxist revisionist history book you mentioned? You have a load of problems. You need help.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Where on earth did you get the idea that I didn’t like tractors because whites invented them? I was making an analogy.

            19th Century capitalism didn’t directly make slavery disappear, though it created a middle class that had the time and resources to be abolitionists. The invention of the cotton gin actually made slaves more valuable. encouraged the spread of slavery, and solidified white Southern pro-slavery attitudes. Without the Civil War, I’m guessing that slavery would have been legal in Southern States for decades more, like in Brazil.

            Peterson men and women have a habit of having late in life babies. Ask my much younger brother about that.

            John Patrick Daly is a respected professor of American history with the State University of New York, as is the University Press of Kentucky, which publishes the book.

          • AndRebecca

            I looked at what you said above and got the idea you don’t like tractors and associate them with slavery. Combines (invented in 1830), reapers and threshing machines, all invented to make money by saving people from doing heavy labor. The middle class came about long before the middle of the 19th century. You need to check your Marxist fake history sources. And, I’ve read in Marxist history books that the cotton gin was invented to increase slavery. Eli Whitney created an invention that caused all of us humans to be able to own cheap cotton clothes and all you Leftists can think of is slavery. The communist Howard Zinn most likely invented the garbage about Eli Whitney. Mr. Whitney was a Northerner and didn’t own slaves and the cotton gin was invented in 1794 (in order to impress a woman), not the middle of the 19th century… Also, there are the cotton picking machines which were invented in the middle of the 20th century and got rid of a whole bunch of farm labor jobs. There were still plenty of poor people in the U.S. in the 1950s who could have used those jobs. So you have some weird idea that slavery occurred recently, due to your family history. I’m sure in isolated Nebraska, civilization was slow in coming…You probably remember when there were no cars and no electricity and no running water. No doubt you used an outhouse and pumped water and brought it in the house and heated it up on a stove…and with your aversion to work, you detested all of it. John Daly is no doubt a Marxist professor. His book would not be published by any university if he wasn’t. I did research for a history book by a non-Marxist historian and her book had to be edited to conform to Marxist political correctness in order for her to get it published by a university. The schools in America started teaching Capitalistic Agriculture (Agri-business) in the colleges in the 1800s and things took off in farming and of course all sorts of labor saving tools, machines and devices and systems were invented outside of the schools. One of the great things about our constitution is the inclusion of the patent office.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Oh good grief. Life is just a big conspiracy theory to you, isn’t it?

            The cotton gin was invented to more easily separate cotton fibers from seeds… in India before the 5th Century AD. Whitney produced a much improved gin… which lead to an expansion in cotton planting in US controlled areas in North America, and with the industrial revolution. manufactured cotton cloth… which lead to an expansion of slavery as cotton planting expanded, which made slaves more valuable and created a huge internal slave trade… thus encouraging a hardening of pro-slavery attitudes, advocacy and an increase in Evangelical pro-slavery apologetics, many of which are now online. (Yes, I know that there were abolitionist Evangelicals, too.)

            Obviously if slavery was abolished in Dec. of 1865, and I was talking about the educated middle class that was created by the industrial revolution, which began, roughly, around 1760, I’m not saying that the middle class was created in the middle of the 19th. I’m also not saying that there was no middle class before then, either.

            Some of the most popular pro-slavery literature were by one of the founders of the Southern Baptist convention, the Rev. Thornton Stringfellow. (A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery, 1850; Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery, 1856; Slavery: Its Origin, Nature, and History, 1861. He wasn’t especially novel in his defense of slave owning or his racism. Probably the most learned andintellectual proslavery apologist was the “Old School” Presbyterian, James Henley Thornwell.)

            According to the excessively handy Wikipedia, “Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.” (Footnoted to: ‘Seeds of conflict’ By Parke Pierson, History Net, 8/11/2009 • GATHERING STORM)

            I actually did live on a farm with an outhouse for the first few years of my life, but it had electricity, thanks to the Roosevelt Administration’a rural electrification program. However, my father decided that working a full job and being a part time farmer was just too much, so we moved to a fully modernized house in town (we even had air conditioning and a TV in a big cabinet, but with a tiny roundish screen).

            By the way, my grandfather who was born before the 13th Amendment, was an elected Republican politician.

            I do agree with you on the Patent Office.

          • AndRebecca

            You are an obsessed Left-wing kook with a stack of Marxist revisionist history books handy. Not all of the Baptists in the South were taken in by the pro-slavery people no matter who they were. There was and is slavery all over the world and the Christians in the South did not invent it. No Christian invented slavery. You are just another hateful anti-Christian bigot. I’m very happy that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. He was a great man, unlike you.

          • Gregory Peterson

            The Southern Baptist Convention, like the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was founded specifically to soothe the ever so delicate sensibilities of slave masters. They and other Southern white Christians were directly culpable in encouraging secession, which brought on the Civil War, After the war, Evangelical white supremacists created terrorist organizations that ushered in the Jim Crow era, which was kept alive by lynch law and the threat of terror.

            Figures that you’re defending them. Just who is calling me a bigot?

            The copious production off pro-slavery Evangelical literature was not created by Marxists. Marxists did not create the Red Shirts, the KKK and other Evangelical lead white supremacist terror organizations. Marxists did not cause Reconstruction to fail. Marxists did not turn Birmingham into “Bombingham” in my lifetime. Marxists did not beat Emmett Till to death because his speech impediment did not conform to “race etiquette.”

            Eli Whitney did not invent the cotton gin, which was at least 1400 years old by his time. He greatly improved the cotton gin. He was a great inventor and popularized the concept of interchangeable parts, which made him a very important figure in the history of the industrial revolution.

            Nevertheless, his greatly improved cotton gin played a major part in rejuvenating the then faltering slave and plantation based Southern economy, which eventually brought on the Civil War. Ironically, he didn’t financially benefit from it.

          • AndRebecca

            Lies, lies ,lies. I hope Eli Whitney’s cotton gin is used all over the world to increase cotton production and more and more people can benefit from cotton textiles and all sorts of other textiles. I do appreciate your rants against white people though. I was able to find, through net searches, many communist groups ranting and raving about white privilege and evangelicals. Leftists are so brainwashed and hateful. You’re like programmed zombies. Anyway, “The Privilege Institute,” a communist group out of Greenwood Village, CO holds White Privilege Conferences around the country and has a pdf detailing a conference in KY. Also, the net searches “white privilege and communist video,” “communist white privilege videos,” and “evangelical white privilege video youtube,” will lead the searcher to all sorts of hateful videos against white people and Christians. Marxism is the antithesis of Christianity. Nihilism, divisiveness, hatred and lying are your hallmarks. Marxists have gone all over the world fighting to keep people in constant war and poverty, misery and corruption. cpusa. org, Marxists. org, committee of correspondence for democracy and socialism, and raw story are other great searches for anyone wanting to know about the enemies of Christianity.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I may be wrong, but that doesn’t make me a liar. Why would I be lying? Have I accused you of being a liar, even though I think that you’re often wrong?

            Being of Scandinavian descent, white male privilege has been very good to me, but I’ve seen how the absence of which effects friends and relatives. No police officer, for instance, has ever demanded to know what I’m doing in “this neighborhood” when I’m standing in my own front yard. Unlike with a relative, I’ve never had to get politically powerful contacts pull strings to have a police officer who kept stopping me for driving while Black given extra training while being reassigned to desk duty.
            I didn’t know about the “The Privilege Institute.” Thanks for telling me about it. I have studied whiteness theory because of the experiences of my friends and relatives, but that was before the institute was founded.

            The founder of the institute is apparently associated with a Quaker school, and seems Quaker-like to me.

          • AndRebecca

            I’m not a liar and you are. Propagandist might be a better description of you. I’m sure the “privilege institute” was founded by Quakers, Unitarians, or one of the other secular humanist groups working to get rid of Christianity in America. They’ve been doing this since the country was founded, but didn’t have much success until after WWII when there were enough of them in the government to change things. Prejudiced means not knowing what you are talking about and that’s you.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I didn’t say that you’re a liar.

            “Conservative” Christians are doing an excellent job of chasing people away from Christianity all by themselves.

          • AndRebecca

            Unitarian-Anabaptists, Quakers and the other Marxist front groups have been doing a great job of going after real Christians for years. They want to get rid of Christianity in America so that we will become slaves. They have been pretty clear about what they are doing. Lots of money in it. The National Council of Churches, the Left-wing religions are the ones losing members. The Social Justice movement is a Marxist movement and the “emerging churches” are not Christian. The Marxists need a religious cover in order to appear moral.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Judging from Dr. Brown PhD, if I had to chose between tweedy marxists and “conservative” Evangelicals, it wouldn’t be the latter. Though of course I can reject both.

            While the use of capital goes way, way back, capitalism, as an “ism,” was invented by Marx. Someone once pointed out that communism was secular Calvinism, and given Marx’s Protestant upbringing and schooling, perhaps that’s not all that surprising.

          • AndRebecca

            You are so totally mixed up. You can’t be this lacking in knowledge, so you’re purposely distorting the facts.

          • AndRebecca

            Truth telling isn’t in your character. I doubt you were ever a Christian of any kind, regardless of how you were raised. Capitalism, according to the Marxists was invented by Calvin, but others have taken to it besides Protestants. All of the Protestant ministers including Calvin have commented on money and jobs and finances. People came to America and went West in America and built America through Capitalistic methods long before Marx. You need to read some real books. Here’s a real book you can read online: “Treatise of the Vocations,” by William Perkins. There is an edited version, about fifty pages long written in modern English about work and Christian men. ” Now, the idle slothful person is a sea of corruption; and when he is most idle, Satan is least idle. For then he is most busy to draw the person to manifest sin. The idle brain or body is the workshop of the devil”. Food for the soul.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Are you sure that you haven’t mixed up Marx with Max Weber and his “Protestant Ethic?” They were both critics of capitalism, but in different ways. Marx, if memory of long ago reading serves, saw capitalism as a sort of machine for alienation, commodity fetishism and injustice, that in his pure capitalism economic model, can spur great technological inventiveness which is offset by ever more wild and destructive business cycles which eventually will become either intolerable and/or, too exhausted to rebound from once again.

            Weber thought that capitalism was inherently irrational, leads to the bureaucratization of humanity, and that what seems to be progress is an illusion. Both thought that capitalism encouraged a process of reification, of treating abstractions as powerful realities (if I’m remembering correctly here….it’s been decades.).

            Karl Marx was baptized as a Lutheran (August, 26, 1824, to be precise) and raised in a generally Catholic part of Germany (I once lived in that very scenic and historic area). That is why he could become a student of the still influential theologian/philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Marx famously “inverted” Hegelianism, but later Western Marxists apparently reincorporated some of Hegel’s philosophy back into their Marxism, making it somehow less heavy, tedious and authoritarian minded.

            One of my great grandmothers was a direct descendant of several famous Puritans. There were probably many good reasons why that branch of the family didn’t remain in that “reform” tradition any longer than they had to (for which I’m grateful). Conservative Reform doctrines, in my opinion, tends to become an arrogant, soul crushing, deeply immoral and intellectually pretentious and authoritarian mess if taken seriously…and if not taken seriously, why bother at all? It was probably predictable, then, that the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism, founded by the racist, proslavery Rousas John Rushdoony, seems to have become the favorite form of Protestantism in the neo-confederate movement.

          • AndRebecca

            I haven’t mixed up anybody. I’ve read Marx and Weber and Lenin and Engels and others who have made positive and negative comments on Capitalism and Christians. We can see what Capitalism has built and how it has helped the world and we can see the evil Communism has brought into the world. It is really simple. You have to be brainwashed to not see the difference between the two.
            Plus, Marx was a hideous person and Calvin was not. All of the famous Leftists were hideous in person. And, to show your lack of judgment and scholarship, you’ve brought in Rushdoony. Are you smoking funny cigarettes?

          • Gregory Peterson

            Marx was a brilliant, but tedious and pathetic person… which might explain why his hard core believers are generally tedious and pathetic people. Same with Calvin. Their ‘true believers’ tended towards tedious authoritarianism and they got what worshipers of false messiahs probably deserve.

            On the other hand, both have something worth studying, they were brilliant observers of their times and places, after all. Marx was an astute observer of the beginnings of the industrial revolution. Their work has had a great impact upon history, but… we should remember that they were very much people of their times and places, and the world, and knowledge of the world, has moved on and left them behind.

            How do you base a political/philosophy upon the solidity of material in an age that understands material as sort of being congealed energy? Depending upon what scale you’re observing material, materialism may not be all that solid an intellectual foundation upon which to build a comprehensive, social/political model of society.

          • AndRebecca

            I’ve read Marx and Calvin. Calvin is brilliant and not tedious. Marxism appeals to the uneducated, manipulated masses and people who love tyranny and constant strife. Christianity is for adults and Marxism is for the neurotic who has never grown up and who can’t help but live only in a material world.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I was using an analogy. One of my grandfathers was proud to be a mechanic and helped keep many a tractor running in his fifty year career. As his grandson, I very much appreciate tractors.

            The Industrial Revolution expanded the middle class. Pay attention to qualifiers.

            Whitney’s greatly improved cotton gin was’t “invented to increase slavery.” It was invented to efficiently remove seeds in short fiber cotton. It inadvertently made cotton planting more lucrative, slavery more entrenched and created a mammoth internal slave trade for the expanding plantation economy.

          • AndRebecca

            Pay attention to what? The Industrial Revolution was started by the Middle Class and carried on by Protestant Christians in Western Europe and America. My ancestors were part of that middle class. They did great things for people. I’m happy to see you no longer agree with the Left on why Whitney invented the cotton gin. So many things were invented during America’s history which have been great for the world. The history of America has been about the pioneers. The ones going West, and the ones in business and industry, using the useful arts and sciences, and the ones who wrote the Constitution. Karl Marx was against Capitalism and inventions and before his death in the 1800s stated Westerners had already invented everything anybody ever needed. That shows how much he knew.

          • Gregory Peterson

            “The history of America has been about the pioneers.” And my ancestors were pioneers, too. I’m proud of them. My Peterson grandparents were pioneer educators who founded the high school from which my father graduated.

            However, they couldn’t have gone West without the government pushing out Native Americans to the point of genocides and clearing the land for the taking. The history of America is also about the creation of white supremacy, and only freeing enslaved people after a terrible Civil War.

            Then there was the Jim Crow regime that ruled the white Evangelical dominated Bible Belt into my lifetime by terrorism and a corrupt political/judicial system.

            Not that the rest of the country has all that much to be proud of when it comes to real equality under the law for all Americans… but the white Evangelical dominated Bible Belt were the most extreme and oppressive.

          • AndRebecca

            Yes, the history is about the pioneers. The Native Americans were doing a great job of killing each other off before the white man came here and after the whites came, they started in on them. You did not get an accurate picture of history in school regarding the Indians. Obviously you have no contact with any Indians today. They were teaching a P.C. version of Indian history long before the diversity history of today. The Indians were stone age people and even after hundreds of years of contact with whites, some of them still only wanted to go on raids as a way of living. This certainly was not true of all of them. But, you know this. Why don’t you move back to Europe if you are so upset about this country?
            And, as I stated before, only 8% of the people in America owned slaves, and have you ever been to the South, a part of the country which you so despise? You are a very hateful person and seem to wish ill will on an entire race and country for things almost none of them did, and no one today has done. And it is against the law to punish people for crimes they didn’t commit. Thanks to our Anglo-Saxon based laws. You would like to get rid of those laws and fire up the ovens for all white people. Do you want to go first?
            And what do you think of the wars and slavery going on around the world today? You might try traveling, since you do not have a realistic picture of America and the world. Seeing things first hand would have to help.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Native Americans were a very diverse lot of people who didn’t think of themselves as being “Native Americans.” They created many different forms of societies on two continents. Given the extremely bloody history of Western Civilization, when it came to killing people, most were rather small timers, though the Aztecs were no slouches..

            Some Native American societies were “stone age” hunter gatherers, but perhaps not as many as you apparently presume.

            Many pre-Columbian societies had become agricultural, some very advanced, or mixed agricultural/hunter gatherer. Those in the early stages of becoming agriculture societies were the most egalitarian, with the most individual liberties. Advanced agricultural societies usually are pretty authoritarian.

            Mezo-Americans had invented writing and were sophisticated mathematicians and astronomers. The Bronze age was dawning in S. America.

            All this was done without the work animals like oxen, horses, burros, mules, elephants and such that existed in the Old World continents but not in the New World (except for dogs, and in S. America, llamas, which were fairly light duty, though sure footed, pack animals.)

            I have Native American colleagues and neighbors, no surprise given where I now live.

            I went to a university on the edge of the ‘Bible Belt.’ Most of my friends were Black and Puerto Rican because I generally found the other ‘white’ people in the area just kind of annoying in their worldview and in what I would later called “Bible Belt Amnesia.” They were generally just the nicest people; people who would gladly give you the shirt off of their backs, until suddenly, some of them would turn into awful very white people saying… very awful white things.

            Of course, you don’t have to be ‘white’ to be an awful bigot.

            It’s no coincidence that our modern concepts of liberty were apparently absent in European thinking until contact with New England Native Americans and the Haudenosaunee confederacy in upper New York, which captured the imagination of some Enlightenment thinkers. It’s probably not a coincidence that the modern American woman’s rights movement began in Seneca Falls, New York. The Haudenosaunee’s “Great Peace Maker,” Deganawida, should probably be more widely studied. Of course, they were humans, and us humans can do awful things to other people…and to ourselves, too.

            “only 8% of the people in America owned slaves” is misleading and minimizes the impact of slavery in American history. Enslaved people didn’t own slaves, to begin with, and in several states, they were the majority, or often close to, of that state’s inhabitants. I see that 57% in S. Carolina in the 1860 census were enslaved, and were still pretty substantial percentages of the populations in most other Deep South slave states, which had a lot of clout in American politics, to say the least,

            In some states, white families who owned enslaved people were not only fairly common (with a high of 49% in Mississippi), but were also were the wealthy, governing class in those states. That means that they were also often highly influential in national politics and had national and international business dealings. Owning enslaved people was what ambitious Southern white men aspired to do. Owning enslaved people meant that you had arrived.

            While the majority of white Americans did not live on slave economy plantations, that’s not true of Black people, if memory serves of long ago research.

            Even white people in non-slaves states financially benefited from American slavery in their business dealings with wealthy slave owners, in shipping and in the commodities trade. Enslaved people were used like any other form of business asset and as collateral, which benefited Northern financial institutions.

          • AndRebecca

            All of the Indians were stone age people in North America. They used stones for tools. Understand? They did not know how to work metal. They were illiterate. Many of them were cannibals. Christopher Columbus invented the word cannibal after meeting the man eating Caribs of Cuba and Haiti. There are cannibal maps on the net. Do a search. The Indians in New England were cannibals, and they were savages in the true sense of the word. The Indians fought each other and the French, Spanish, and English. They lost. Some of the wars involving Indians were started by the French or English in colonial days. The French and Indian Wars by the Jesuits, and the Tories got the Indians to fight the Americans even in the War of 1812. The Indians took sides in all the wars.
            The Americans and the rest have written about it, including the Indian Chiefs. Some of the Indians were on the side of the Texans in the Texas Revolution.
            Some of the South American Indians were more advanced than in North America but some of them like the head hunters seemed to be more backwards, but what does that have to do with your hatred of Southern Christians?
            And now you want to rehash everything you said before about slavery. I think you are pretty well at the end of your argument, but for some reason you don’t know it.
            From your statements, you make it sound as if you come from a long line of apostates and you are just carrying on the family tradition of hating Christians. Scapegoating it’s called.

          • Gregory Peterson

            I have in-laws in Mexico who would disagree with you that Native Americans didn’t work metal or have writing. The did have writing and were sophisticated metalworkers in gold, silver and copper. They were close to entering a Bronze age. This technology would have eventually spread north along established trading routes.

            But without the Old World work animals, there simply was less need and demand for advanced metallurgy.

            Even if stone tools are used, agricultural based societies aren’t strictly “stone age.”

            European Christians were a bloodthirsty lot themselves, right up into the 20th Century. WW I, after all, was started by Christian nations and Christian leaders, though some non-Christian nations, such as Turkey, became involved.

            Of course my Scandinavian ancestors once had all the rest of Europe praying for God to protect them from the Norsemen.

            As Charles Darwin pointed out, if memory serves, in his chapter on the “so called races” in the ‘The Descent of Man,’ wherever (Christian) Europeans went, death and oppression followed. Granted, some of that was inadvertent, such as Old World diseases being introduced into the Americas, but even then, Christians often characterized that as being an act of Divine providence, as I believe my own Mayflower/Plymouth colony ancestors did. While that isn’t strictly racist, it’s certainly a racist precursor.

            I don’t hate Southern Christians. I know many wonderful Southern Christians, though they’re mostly not ‘white,’ come to think of it. But, many white Southern Christians sure seem to have hated me and mine for decades. I’m all for forgiving and forgetting, but you kind of have to let me forget.

            But white Evangelicals (and other “conservative” Christians) all over the country have recycled old racist propaganda into anti-LGBT propaganda, often with very little editing. Perhaps not purposely, but from an ingrained way of thinking about other people. (Granted, some Black bigots are also using the same old pathetic arguments. When it comes to privileging yourself at the expense of “those people,” you don’t have to be white to sound like a racist.)

          • AndRebecca

            You have no grasp of history and have an inability process what you read. You can watch NPR documentaries on the Indians and come up with what I’ve said here. Darwin was an evil racist. And, atheists in Europe and Asia started the bloodbaths of the 20th century. And now, of course in your last paragraph, you get back to your real problem- homosexuality. Maybe someday God will help you with all of your problems. Of course, you would have to believe in Him first for that to happen.

          • Gregory Peterson

            You kind of have to believe that there are “races” to really be a racist. Darwin didn’t, except as broad groupings in an older sense of the word. Unlike your Southern Evangelicals in his lifetime, he was solidly anti-slavery, too. His grandfathers were noted abolitionists and both their families were very active in abolitionist causes.

            Of course he was a man of his time, and those deeply Christian times were also deeply racist, and class ridden. He was probably less so than most other white Anglophones however, since he, at least, suspected that they didn’t really exist except as excuses for exploitation and oppression.

            I don’t have a problem with “homosexuality.” “Homosexuality” is a much abused, modern-era social construct (like “race); a Victorian attempt at a sexual taxonomy, both of which have a lot of long discredited scientific baggage. As a scientific theory, neither are all that useful. Other than as a social construct and obsolete science and pseudo-science, “homosexuality” exists mostly as a handy scapegoat for the religious-right, which sees sexual minorities as threats to their tawdry fantasies of a patriarchal status quo ante.

            God is quite welcome to help me with my problems, but “homosexuality,” whatever you think that is, is not one of them.

            As with Archbishop Tutu, I would not want to worship a homophobic God or go to homophobic heaven.

            “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,” Archbishop Tutu said at the launch of the Free and Equal campaign in Cape Town.

            “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.”

            Archbishop Tutu said the campaign against homophobia was similar to the campaign waged against racism in South Africa.

            “I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level,” he added.

            (Archbishop Tutu ‘would not worship a homophobic God’ 26 July 2013, The BBC)

            Atheists did not start World War One. Christian Germans enthusiastically allowed Hitler to be their leader. Christianity had it’s chance with Stalin, a seminary student, and Marx, for that matter, who’s first publication was a Christian apologetic , if memory serves.

            Oops, gotta run.

          • AndRebecca

            Now you are an expert on the workings of the mind of Darwin and his family. The problem is, what you’ve written is contrary to what others have written. Your judgment is poor due to your inability to be able to categorize and group things or people you are talking about. Except when it suits you. You can lump all Indians together from North and South America, but can’t deal with saying race for some reason, at least for the moment. And, homosexuality has been studied since Biblical times. The Greeks and Romans and some other pagans had homosexual cultures… You don’t get to pick whether you go to heaven or not. Neither does Mr. Tutu. Antinomianism is a heresy… I guess you could say Tutu would worship a hemophilic god. Socialists and Communists started WWI and WWII. And other wars and uprisings. Socialists and Communists are anti-Christian. You really need to read the works of the Marxists you believe in. Hitler, the atheist dictator did not murder the most people out of the tyrants anyway.

          • Gregory Peterson

            “Homosexuality” didn’t exist until the late 1860’s, when it was conceptualized for a sort of scientific sexual taxonomy which became a widely used, and abused, social construct in the 20th Century. As science goes, it’s not been fruitful as a theoretical foundation, as was starting to be recognized in the 1950’s.

            The ancient peoples had their own much abused social constructs. They likely had sexual orientations, of course, but understood and acted upon them very differently. Backward projecting our social constructs upon them (and upon the Bible) obscures more than it illuminates.

            As L. P. Hartley wrote, “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”

            I’ve denounced Marxism and communism as being tedious and said that its materialistic foundation was wrong, yet you insist that I’m an admirer.

            Hitler wasn’t really an atheist, even if Christians understandably don’t want to claim him, nor should they. He would seem to have had some sociopathic concept of a supernatural Aryan uber-fureur that he called God, who, of course, was the image of Hitler.

            He was was baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church, so I guess that he could be characterized as having been a lapsed Catholic since he wasn’t shy about dropping God into his writings and speeches, and while definitely anti-Christian, had never formally renounced his baptism nor was he excommunicated that I know of.

            Fred Taylor’s translation of the The Goebbels Diaries 1939–41 (Hamish Hamilton Ltd; London; 1982) apparently has Goebbels saying that Hitler was deeply religious, but anti-Christian. I would say that Hitler’s trinity was Aryan “race, blood and soil”

            Young Hitler apparently flirted with occultism, Protestantism, paganism, occultism, Eastern religions etc but he didn’t stick with any of them for long… but each may have left some mark nevertheless, along with childhood Catholicism (his father, however, was anti-clerical, which would also have left a mark on his beliefs). Unfortunately, it would seem to have have been the worst aspects that stuck with him and the best in them that was rejected.

            In other words, his religion was a vague, inchoate, syncretistic, ever shifting, evil mess…but he was religious nevertheless, which means that he wasn’t atheist.

            Archbishop Tutu was saying that God isn’t a homophobic god and that there is no homophobic heaven…anymore that there is a racist God and a segregated heaven despite what conservative, proudly “Bible-believing” Protestants were claiming back when we were young.

            Neither of us believed them then, and why, since they are using similar, self-privileging arguments about a different minority group, should we believe them today?

          • AndRebecca

            “Homosexuality didn’t exist until the 1860s,” states G.P. I guess all the writings and art work from ancient Greece and Rome were actually made after 1860… As I stated Hitler was not a Christian. He was a National Socialist and was an atheist bent on getting rid of Christianity like the other Socialists. Hitler used the Christian religion for propaganda purposes and other purposes. It is amazing that you are defending Hitler. It doesn’t follow that if Desmond Tutu approves of homosexuality, that the God of the Bible approves of it. God’s truth does not change at the whims of the people in the world… Many of the Marxists were apostates since they were raised on a Christian continent. In contrast, the Islamic Marxists generally don’t give up their religion for their politics, but combine them. The Unitarians and Quakers of today as well as some of the Episcopalians and others have become secular humanists. That way they can pretend to be religious, but their politics have become their religion and they have access to the money and the ability to raise money with their pretend “religion.” Social Justice is Marxist justice and not God’s justice. Since one of the many definitions of evangelical is a Bible believing Christian, and evangelicals go all over the world building missions, schools and hospitals for people of all colors, I would go with what they say over the likes of Tutu or any other closet Marxist. The Bible says in over 400 places that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible states any sexual relationship out side of the one in Genesis is a sin. The Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. Telling lies is a sin. If you don’t repent of your sins and stop doing them, you will not go to heaven. That is what the Bible says. The Book of Common Prayer, used by the Anglicans also states marriage is between one man and one woman.

          • Gregory Peterson

            When I said that Native Americans had a great many different societies, you read that as saying that I lump them all together?

            The only thing that they really all had in common was a lack of large work animals, unlike with Old World societies (except for llamas as pack animals in western South America.)

            Nevertheless, many of them had developed agriculture in various degrees, which means that they had left the “stone age,” and a few of them had developed writing (which has only fairly recently been decoded), metallurgy and fairly advanced astronomy and mathematics.

          • AndRebecca

            Yes, you lumped them altogether and made generalizations about them as a race. And you have unrealistic ideas of what life was like for primitive people. And you still have no idea what the simple words “Stone Age” means. You really should invest in a dictionary. Your inability to grasp and use the English language is remarkable. Again, I am speaking about the Indians in what is now America and Canada. The whites taught the Indians in the southwest how to work silver and other metals. If you want to talk about the Aztecs and other tribes who captured and killed thousands of Indians for sacrifices to their gods, we can talk about that.

          • Gregory Peterson

            The ancestors of my Pueblo neighbors in the SW were agriculturalists in a harsh land. They probably had the largest pre-Colombian city in what is now the United States. We have villages far older than the United States.

            Stone age people did not build cities.

          • AndRebecca

            Now you have Pueblo neighbors in the Southwest? Well, the ancestors of your Pueblo neighbors in the Southwest used stone tools, which makes them Stone Age. “We” have villages far older than the United States….And that is supposed to prove what exactly?

          • Gregory Peterson

            “We” means that my neighbors and I live in the same area.

            While metallurgy was less technologically sophisticated than in Mezo-America, there was a lot of native copper trading and metalworking going on in the SW. A major advance was the casting of copper bells in wax molds.

            It was expensive stuff, so it was mostly used for beads, sacred and ceremonial objects, I think.

            In any case, obsidian, chalcedony and chert, which are plentiful in the SW, are superior to copper for a lot of uses.

          • AndRebecca

            I did a net search on Stone Age Bronze Age and Iron Age facts, and a timeline. The Indian civilizations were all stone age. It seems working gold, sliver, and copper as well as living in villages puts you into the “New Stone Age.” So, what this has to do with your hatred of Christians, I have no idea, but facts are facts. “Ages” have to do with the ability to make tools and work metals. It’s very interesting. The Stone Age is not a period anyone would want to live in. People lived short and brutal lives. That’s why the missionaries work so hard to change things for people. Great advancements happened in Europe due to the Christian influence. The Protestant nations were the first to come into the latest developments and the Modern Age. Missionaries are working today around the world to bring people better lives through Christianity, both in the here and now and the hereafter.

      • AndRebecca

        Don’t you love the trolls like this one?

    • Ryan

      What, “white Christian terrorist attacks,” are you talking about?

    • No Whiners Aloud

      Everything you post is a lie.

    • Rubayet Hossain

      Don’t blame all Muslims by seeing some so-called and misguided Muslims’ activities that they do in the name of Jihad. If you want to justify Islam, read Quran and real Hadiths. and justify
      Islam seeing what Mohammad (peace be upon him) said and did.
      God says in the Holy Quran that “if anyone kills an innocent person as
      if he has killed whole of the humanity, and if he saves him as if he has
      saved the life of the whole people. (Sura Mayeda: verse no 32).

  • Ken Bagwell

    Trump is being more our President right now more than Obama is.

  • This will be such a welcomed change. Even George W. Bush was a wussy when it came to calling out Islam. But Obama takes the cake. Obama goes so far to appease the Muslims I really have to question his loyalty.

  • Brenda Boe

    So how will his choice of words change anything? Will the attacks stop now because he used certain words? I think it might take a bit more than this over-inflated improvement…….

  • Rubayet Hossain

    Those who kill innocent people in the name of ‘JIhad’ are not true muslims. They don’t have any idea about real Islam. God says in the Holy Quran that “if anyone kills an innocent person as if he has killed whole of the humanity, and if he saves him as if he has saved the life of the whole people. (Sura Mayeda: verse no 32). Don’t justify Islam by seeing what Muslims are doing. If you want to justify Islam, read Quran and real Hadiths. and justify Islam seeing what Mohammad (peace be upon him) said and did.
    Don’t blame all Muslims by seeing some so-called and misguided Muslims’ activities that they do in the name of Jihad.

I Am No Angel, He Said
Bobby Neal Winters
More from The Stream
Connect with Us