Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Predictable Haters are Predictable

I did note in my previous blog post that I thought it likely that some people might make the association that the Yezidi have been called "devil worshippers" to assert that this is the wrong thing to do.

Because of course they would:

Fischer believes that President Obama only intervened to stop the extermination of the Yazidis, who practice an ancient religion yet are considered by ISIS fighters and others to be “devil worshipers.” He began today’s edition of “Focal Point” by railing against Obama, saying the president only decided to launch airstrikes in Iraq in order to defend “devil worshipers.”

“They go after devil worshipers and all of the sudden the entire weight of the United States government is sent in there to relieve them and to avenge them,” he said. “Those are the Yazidis.”

 To Fischer's mind, this is just proof that Obama is also a Satan-worshipper. To my mind, this sort of thing is proof that Fischer is terribly uninformed. You know, the Bible is a good book, but it wouldn't hurt if the man cracked open another one and tried to broaden that narrow cell he calls a mind. Also, note that he seems to be endorsing letting thousands of people be wiped out because they believe something different. Huh. Reminds one of the parable of the very bad Samaritan who...

Oh. Or maybe I am thinking of the time Jesus said something about go ahead and let folks starve because who are they to you anyway? Or said "Hate your enemy"?

Sheesh.

Oh.

3 comments:

Alicia said...

What I got from Fischer's written and spoken words was that he believes Obama does not care about how ISIS or other Muslims treat Christians. The theological questions of who is Satan and who worships Satan are beside the point.

On August 8, Fischer wrote as part of his essay:

"The Yazidis are without a doubt in a terrible, terrible plight, with 40,000 of them trapped by Muslims on a mountain with no food or water. Many of their children have already died of thirst.

The point here is certainly not to criticize President Obama for taking action to relieve their suffering. The point here is that he has shown no empathy or inclination to intervene to stop the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Muslims in the same part of the world. It has taken the suffering of devil-worshippers to get his attention and rouse him to action.

The city of Mosul, long a haven for Christ-followers, has been emptied of Christians who were ordered by the armies of Allah to convert, submit or die. All 45 Christian structures in the city have been seized and converted to Muslim use. Obama yawns.

ISIS has been beheading Christian children and crucifying Christians by the side of the road. Christians for months have been fleeing Iraq in droves ahead of the murderous hordes of Al Qaeda. And Obama yawns.

When Christian wife and mother Meriam Ibrahim is imprisoned in Sudan for being a Christian, and forced to give birth in a filthy jail cell while shackled to the wall, Obama yawns. While Christian pastor and American citizen Saeed Abedini languishes in the hellhole of an Iranian prison, Obama yawns.

But when worshipers of Lucifer get in trouble at the hands of the same blood-thirsty savages, suddenly Obama springs into action.

What this reveals about the president’s religious sympathies I will leave for others to decide. But it can’t be good."

Perhaps you linked to scripture before you remembered the part about the Yazidis' suffering.

And you conclude from that last paragraph means Fischer thinks Obama is a devil worshipper? You may have forgotten that Obama's years as a child in Indonesia gave him a Muslim sensibility. He has been open about this: here I am thinking about his professed love of the sound of the Muslim call to prayers.

Mr. Obama is steeped in far left secularism overlaying his early madrassa impressions. And it seems the far left generally takes a sympathetic approach regarding Islam.

As Fischer might say again, for Christians persecuted by Muslims anywhere, this "can't be good."

Vixen Strangely said...

But when worshipers of Lucifer get in trouble at the hands of the same blood-thirsty savages, suddenly Obama springs into action.

What this reveals about the president’s religious sympathies I will leave for others to decide. But it can’t be good."


I don't think this snippet could be intended in any way other than to imply Obama sympathizes with the Devil. Sad to say though, there is a point taken--the plight of Iraq's Christian population.

I've given a thought to why the Yezidi were the breaking point for him, and it's a bit rueful--the thing is: location. The Yezidi's location on a mountain and not a location that might require "boots on the ground" to do anything might be a strong reason why this stand was more acceptable. The idea that the Yezidi refugees were there as a large enough group whose incipient massacre seemed probable--a genocide--likely also played a role.

The less idealistic side of me also wonders if this stand wasn't really about broadcasting that the US would take very seriously the threat to Kurdish-held oilfields--I mean areas.

I don't tend to see Obama's decision here as having much to do with Obama's sympathies, so much as his tendency to be a calculator. I think he gives a lot of thought to the odds of his success before engagement. It does fall a bit short, for me--I have given a lot of thought also to the plight of the Chaldean Christians. From 2003 to 2013, the population in Iraq fell from something like 1.5 million to something under a half-million today--largely due to displacement and not massacre. But still, this is a giant disruption of a group that basically wasn't under a threat under Saddam. The militant threat against them was present enough in 2010 and 2011, while we still had a significant military force there--so why weren't we on that?

The answer I come up with when I really think on it doesn't make me happy with the politics of the thing--religion is politicized. I think the idea that any intervention specifically on the behalf of Christians may play into the west/near east divide that we'd call "The Crusades" as short-hand. Would the US be so crass as to short-shrift Christian communities to not piss off Muslims to save face? I don't know, and also tend to believe that paying attention to them by specifically trying to assist in their plight might actually result in a negative outcome. A stepped-up "final solution" sort of scenario.

I tend to be a foreign policy pessimist myself. These ISIS people are really something different in that I don't quite think I can imaginatively "out-bastard" them. They may truly be worse than I think they are. Obama may suffer from "logical man's disorder". He thinks he can minimize their damage.

I am not 100% on that. I think we are at war again even if we don't want to admit it. It might be a good idea if Obama decided "war president" isn't the worst thing that could happen to him by a long chalk.

My general experience of Fischer's commentary leads me to believe that he considers Muslims essentially Satanic and liable to bring on the End Times. I'm leery of people who play on Obama's familiarity with Islam to make the point that therefore, his sympathy with any other faith is suspect. That's what I think he's doing here. Playing the "Obama's not a real Christian, so he's up to no good" card.

Formerly Amherst said...

Hi Vixen, perhaps a note of clarification or illimunation about the Yezidis. (You know, Crowley was into them for a while.)

I don't know what metaphysical theophanies may have occurred to point the Yezidis in the direction that they pursue.

However, for what it's worth, the word on the celestial street is that the peacock worshippers have a different raison d'etre than is usually thought.

The general warp and woof has taught that Jesus is a very nice, guy, wants to be helpful, wants to be loving, and therefore you do not have to worry about him.

Lucifer, of the other hand, is a thoroughly hemorrhoidal SOB who treats humanity almost as bad as politicians do.

Therefore, the strategy is to worship the hell out of the peacock to try and placate him much in the manner of the old practices of sacrificing virgins to various volcanoes or tossing them into a pool of giant octopuses. The consequence is that you keep Lucifer happy by staying in line and being a good little devil worshipper and trying to follow the Charcoal Rule and maybe he'll give you a pass.

The consequence is Lucifer will be happy, stay off your back, and Jesus will understand because, you know, maybe he's a Democrat or something.

As I say, there very well may be an entire different metaphysical series of events that caused this religion to take shape. The graceful and lovely Alicia and I live near a house in the country where peacocks are kept. And if you were ever wandering along at night whistling past the graveyard and heard a peacock as it swept down in its feathered regalia, sister, I'm tellin' you somethin' -- you'd get religion. And I don't mean EST. You don't just acknowledge a manic, psychedelic peacock with the call of a shrew plunging at you in the dark of the night.