There are times, though, that I just don't understand the logic behind an argument. Some opinions seem to masquerade as factual, reasonable dissertations on important topics, while really just an outlet for frustration and anger. When people I respect and love offer up these types of arguments, I have a hard time not offering an opposing viewpoint.

When Jon posted this article on his website, I had to reply. Rather than take up his space with my rebuttal, I figured that I would post it below for your enjoyment. Please feel free to disagree, throw things at me and call me names. That's the stuff that good times are made of.

Jon:

I am surprised at the lack of perspective in this article. It's your website, and your right to post this stuff, but if you want to argue that Christianity is more righteous than Islam, you've done a pretty bad job. The arguments here are specious, filled with rhetoric ("kidnapping ... has been a tactic of Islamic activists for years" - activists? A clear attempt to portray the middle as the extreme.) and poor citations ("93% of [muslims] supported the kidnappings." -- read the citation again because the original article is weak on details, other than it was a survey of Arab countries, not Muslims in general). It is easy to find websites that collaborate any view of any religion you want. I can pick and choose quotes from any source to back up an assertion that a particular religion tolerates, even promotes, violence against its foes. Isn't the Old Testament filled with this stuff? But if I were to write a diatribe against Christianity based on this stuff, I would be dismissed as an extremist, twisting the very nature of Christianity.

I think the bigger question revolves around the increasing popularity of the extremist viewpoints in Middle Eastern culture. Drawing on selected interpretations of the Koran (how do we know that these aren't the Pat Robertsons of Islam?), these extremists have successfully drawn Americans into a religious war. We have played right into their hands by ignoring the tenets of our own religions and travelling thousands of miles to kill Middle Easterners, regardless of their religious views.

Oh, but what about revenge for September 11, 2001? That's right, I forgot that the Bible tells us to avenge our fallen brothers, to kill terrorists wherever they are in the world. I think it was you, Jon, who posted a couple of years ago that we should pave over Afghanistan, essentially destroying any remnant of that civilization (I can't find the post because your archive only goes back to 2003). While we had every right, I believe (personally, not religiously), to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan for their role in that attack on our soil, this continued aggression, both actual and implied (our veiled threats to Iran and renewed development of small-scale nuclear weapons included), is at the height of immorality. We have turned away from the teachings of Jesus to proactively kill anyone who appears to threaten us.

Can you seriously argue that Christianity defends what our government is doing overseas right now? Or is it more a matter of sinning now and asking forgiveness later? You say, "Let them know that we love Jesus" without properly defining the context for your statement. Argue, please, that showing love for Jesus is accomplished by killing over 10,000 Iraqi citizens, who may or may not have been Muslim and who may or may not have supported the extremists, and sacrificing over 1,000 of our own troops. If you provide rationalization, please understand that we are responsible for the results of our actions, not just our actions. Explain to me the Biblical justification for what we are doing, and I will defend it as well. I believe that any argument about the morality and righteousness of this war is destined to fail against any Christian analysis.

Finally, I realized the true reason for this post was to bash Kerry. It took a while, but it became clear at the end that this was a natural outgrowth from your political research. Fine. But spare me the long intro and make sure that you state your purpose in the beginning, so that I have that context to review this with in the first place. Just remember, though, that quotes like, "a President who once courted Communism, was almost involved in a plot to kill U.S. Senators, is regarded in Vietnam as the war hero who had the single greatest impact to bring about U.S. defeat, and who has actively voted to reduce our country’s ability to defend itself?" do nothing to advance political discourse. Each element is defensible, if you take the time to understand the reasoning and try not to buy into right-wing propagandizing. In the end, I would caution against trying to tie religious arguments in with the presidential candidates that we have today. It is a lost cause.

Me? I am saddened by the choices we are given to lead our country. Both candidates are mouthpieces for the status quo. They are proud to announce their differences, while on a scale of -100 to 100 they are at -.01 and .01. Both have a vested interest in talking up their moderate views while scheming with their true beliefs. The discussion of Vietnam war medals, National Guard service, old money and Nazi affiliations serves only to distract the American public from issues of importance. For all the civility that no longer exists in this national electrion, I half expect the two candidates to drop their pants Thursday night and ask us to vote on who has the bigger penis. That is what we have been reduced to.

Jon, I respect you because you are intelligent and compassionate. I know that you have strong opinions and strong feelings, and are more than capable of eloquently stating them. Don't try to underestimate your readers, though, by using faulty logic ("an Islamic religious war is being waged on peaceful people") and weak counter-argument deflections ("Call me an intolerant ignoramus if it’ll make you feel better.") to bolster a viewpoint that advocates stereotypes and encourages racism. I hope that your further exposition on this topic will help to explain better the reasons you have for writing this post.

ADDENDUM:
As of this writing, you have responded to some of the comments on your site. You defend your argument by stating that you are not quoting out of context. By quoting full passages, you are sure that you have Islam figured out. Interesting...and also somewhat fallible since the same argument can be made that people can quote entire books of the Bible and potentially come to mischaracterized conclusions about Christianity.