Top Menu

Radical Right Wing Christians Who Supported the Iraq War Want to Convert, Deport and Kill Muslims

holy_war_cass_charisma

By Garibaldi

Right Wing Watch recently brought to our attention the Christian dominionist, Gary Cass’ call for Holy War against Muslims, in an article titled, “I’m Islamaphobic, Are You?” Cass is a former San Diego GOP official and founder of the organization “Defend Christians: A Ministry of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

Cass’ article was originally published on the website of the popular Evangelical Christian magazine, Charisma. The article was pulled down without any apology or note as to why it was published in the first place or why it was subsequently pulled; it is still proudly displayed on Cass’ website.

Many Christian writers and commenters were deeply offended by the bellicose religious hatred and call to violence in the article, deeming it “Anti-Christ.” A minority of Christians however supported the article as can be witnessed in the comment section to Cass’ article.

Cass writes in racialist terms about Muslims, stating for instance that the “vicious seed of Ishmael” must be “crushed.” This characterization of Muslims is based on a particular interpretation of Genesis 16:11-12 that some Christians such as former Florida congressman Allen West have forwarded about Islam, Arabs and Muslims.

Cass says that what ISIS is doing is real Islam and we should thank them for their actions, which is the same vile view propagated by the likes of Deacon Robert Spencer.

ISIS (sic) is doing to America journalists what every true follower of Mohammed wants to do to you and yours; subjugate or murder you. They believe they have been given a mandate by Allah (Satan) to dominate the world.

Cass proposes three possible “solutions” and in fact only one “real solution.”:

1.) Conversion: Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see Muslims turn from Satan (Allah) to Christ? But, I agree with Phil Robertson, this is not biblically doable. Why? God has a plan and he revealed it at the birth of Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. “The Angel of the Lord said….He [Ishmael] will be an ass of a man; His hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…” (Genesis 16:11,12) The Arab Muslims are God’s sworn enemies and are ordained by God to be against everyone. That’s not to say there will not be a small percentage of Muslims who will be saved by faith in Christ. But, even if they escape with their lives after “apostatizing” from Islam, their influence will be negligible. History does not record a mighty move of God in saving masses of Muslims. I believe the scriptures militate against mass Muslim conversions.

2.) D.A.M.N.: Depart All Muslims Now. Deport them like Spain was forced to do when they deported the Muslim Moors. Muslims in America are procreating at twice the rate of other groups. So, either we force them all to get sterilized, or we wait for the “Army of Islam” to arise in our midst and do what Muslims always do, resort to violence. Just see what they are doing in France, Britain and Scandinavia. Fat chance our politicians will do anything until its too late, unless, of course, “We the People” demand otherwise. But, history shows America is always late to the fight. Or, we can do what most Americans are doing, wishfully think we are the exception and Muslims will all of a sudden change and want to co-exist. This is irrational and stupid, but it makes life more tolerable. Knowing that every Mosque in America is conspiring to kill you and yours is terrifying.

3.) Violence: The only thing that is biblical and that 1400 years of history has shown to work is overwhelming Christian just war and overwhelming self defense. Christian Generals Charles Martel in 732 and Jon Sobieski in 1672 defeated Islamic Turks and their attempts to take the West. Who will God raise up to save us this time? Will God even intervene or turn us over to the Muslims for turning against Him?

Cass is right about one thing, Muslims are not about to leave Islam for Christianity despite centuries of bloody effort by various Christian kings and states.

There isn’t much need to highlight the self-evident warped and repugnant nature of the American-Christian-kill-Muslims-brigade. The vast majority of American Christians reject them as imbeciles and I would agree with them that such Christians are in fact “Anti-Christ.”

One fact I want to expose and stress however is the canard that violence in the name of Christianity is a thing of the past. This idea is not only prevalent among Christians but is also propagated by Ex-Christians such as Bill Maher who was recently on Charlie Rose propagating this idea.

Lest anyone forget, there was a whole machine of fervent, zealous Christians who practically worshiped President George W. Bush and were shouting “Halleluja!” and “Glory to Christ!” when he announced that the USA was going to invade Iraq in 2003.

Iraq had zero Alqaeda influence or presence prior to the 2003 invasion. The status of Christians was good, they weren’t a persecuted minority, whereas today the situation is a catastrophe. The pastors, Christian writers and officials who supported and prayed for that war are implicated in the destruction of Iraq and the creation of ISIS.

Gary Cass, who now calls for converting, deporting and killing Muslims is one such hypocrite who is responsible for the creation of ISIS and the destruction of Iraq.

In 2007, Cass was on CNN where he was asked by host Roland Martin, “how would Jesus vote on the war in Iraq?”

According to Cass, Jesus would be all for the Iraq war since it would liberate “his people.”

CASS: Well, I absolutely believe the Republican position is the right one. Self-defense is a duty we all owe to ourselves, our families and our neighbor. And it’s the first duty of government. A strong defense is essential. The Iraq war was justified on the basis of the intelligence that we had at the time. So, self-defense and liberating those under tyranny are Christian virtues just as Christ defends and liberates his people.

Any Christian who supported the invasion of Iraq and now complains about ISIS should be shamed in public and exposed for all to see.  As for Gary Cass, he may be nothing but hot air but he exposes a virulent extremist and radical element that is flourishing on the Christian right.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Awesome

    Would you define the Jihad of Boko Haram, the Taliban and Hamas as defensive?

    The “jihad” of Boko Haram is illegitimate to begin with so that doesn’t even count. Boko Haram itself is as Islamic as the LRA is Christian, and are only doing what they are doing because they are being paid to.

    The Taliban’s fight against armed, foreign occupiers would, by definition, be defensive. Hamas’ fight against the IOF would also, by definition, be defensive. However, whatever harm they inflict on civlians/non-combatants is not defensive, and if they are targeting civilians/non-combatants, then their “jihad” is illegitimate, just like the fake “jihad” of Boko Haram is.

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    Apartheid exists.

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    Are you prejudiced against trolls?

  • Awesome

    I understand the Mecca interpretation but also the Medina one, a big difference there. I also understand the principle of abrogation.

    Contrary to what some may believe or advocate, there is no real Mecca-Medina dichotomy in interpreting Islam so the principle of abrogation does not apply here. The verses from both periods are complementary of each other and still applicable unless specifically stated otherwise in the Qur’an or in the ahadith.

    Further I came across these definitions:

    These definitions, as you have presented them, originate from Wikipedia, which is sometimes incorrect and does not describe everything. It is counter-intuitive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, to only understand Islamic concepts from sources that are not Islamic (or even anti-Islamic), just as it would be to only understand Christian concepts from sources that are not Christian.

    Offensive jihad (Arabic: جهاد الطلب‎, Jihād al-ṭalab), in contrast with defensive Jihad, is armed Jihad meant to expand the realm of Islam (Dar al Islam) at the expense of the House of War (Dar al-Harb). Offensive jihad is the instrument to transform the Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam so as to achieve the ultimate aim of universalization of the Islamic faith and to establish its social order, Sharia law. This is seen by its advocates first as a collective duty but also an individual one. Since the goal can be accomplished by peaceful as well as by violent means, the participation could be fulfilled by the heart, the tongue, the hands, as well as the sword. Offensive jihad accordingly is a form of religious propaganda carried out by spiritual or material means. Offensive jihad requires the authorization and supervision of a “legitimate Muslim leader”.

    What can legitimately be defined as armed “jihad al-talab” is basically defense through armed offense, and is the exclusive responsibility of the state. So, rather than being in contrast to defensive jihad, it is in fact a part of it. The term “Dar al-Harb” (“Land/Domain/Abode/Realm/etc. of War”) is an intuitive concept from the 8th/9th centuries CE that refers to territory that is under the hegemony of the unbelievers, who are actively, or potentially, belligerent against “Dar al-Islam” and are presumably hostile to Muslims within “Dar al-Harb” as well.

    The turning of “Dar al-Harb” into “Dar al-Islam” is the inevitable consequence of a successful campaign against “Dar al-Harb” by “Dar al-Islam”. However, the ultimate goal of an armed offensive against “Dar al-Harb” is security, which is a part of defense. This sort of armed offensive, however, is not, and cannot be, about universalizing Islam, because there is no compulsion in religion, much less an armed one. The goal of universalizing Islam is achieved only by gaining willing converts. Islam, like Christianity, is a missionary religion that encourages people to convert to its faith, so that they can attain true peace and salvation in the hereafter and enter an eternal bliss in God’s Paradise. One might call seeking of willing converts a type of unarmed “jihad al-talab” of sorts, but it is not an armed offensive against a warring nation or tribe.

    During the 8th/9th centuries CE, the de facto state was war, unless there was agreement in place, which is the context in which the concepts of “Dar al-Islam” and “Dar al-Harb” were conceived. Those territories where there was an agreement in place would have been referred to as “Dar al-‘Ahd” (“Land/Domain/Abode/Realm/etc. of Covenant”), in which an armed offensive would be completely prohibited. Today, there are international laws that are based on mutual recognition of state sovereignty, human rights and a prohibition against hostility, which would render “jihad al-talab” redundant. However, if the systems become undone, it may see a return to the mainstream if war becomes the de facto once again.

    Islamic scholars have differed on the issue of offensive jihad, to pursue non-Muslims in their own lands without any aggression on their part. Some scholars have even gone so far to say that it is illegitimate, while others say it is legitimate and even required. Most scholars agree that offensive jihad cannot be totally prohibited, since two schools of Islamic jurisprudence have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure the borders of the Islamic lands, to spread the Islamic religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, and to remove every religion other than Islam from the Arabian peninsula.

    Islamic scholars have differed, because some incline more towards classical understandings and view them as applicable today, whereas others view the classical understandings in their historical context (i.e. de facto warring empires) and do not view those understandings as necessarily being applicable today. They may point out that the situation seems to have changed from what it was over 1000 years ago, whereas as the classicalist scholars may view those changes as irrelevant, maintaining that what the schools established then transcends all time periods. Whatever the case may be, the first 2 points that are used to show when offensive jihad is permissible (border security, hostile governments persecuting Islam) are basically defense through armed offense. Removing all other religions from the Arabian Peninsula (if it wasn’t also about defense through armed offense) is a very notable exception to the general rule.

  • Reynardine

    The Sermon on the Mount, for starters. What is your point?

  • Omar_the_Egyptian

    Turkey was not the first christian nation. That was Armenia.

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    Hey, there’s a person on that article called Tanveerkhan. Sounds young and hopeful and enthusiastic. I like him.

  • Friend of Bosnia

    He’s all right , that’s all.

  • Jekyll

    I don’t even know what..too…say…all my teachings…

  • Jekyll

    Don’t care much for liberal Zionist propaganda either…when it comes to masters, they all bow.

  • Jekyll

    Touche for wiki history learning from you. Perhaps you aught to get out of the meadow and into a library.

  • Matthew Meadow

    We should all watch those deceptive ‘useful idiots’ liberal media outlets shouldn’t we?

  • Matthew Meadow

    ‘godless secular Zionist racist’ – I hear a famous German leader from last century speaking…

  • Dr.S

    Julian Assange in his book ‘ When Google met WikiLeaks’

  • Dr.S
  • Jekyll

    Was it not Obum that went to the Waling Wall, as does very president ? You are increasingly looking like a fox news watching fool.

  • Jekyll

    Kudos. The elections are a public spectacle.

  • Jekyll

    don’t laugh but I was about to put the quotations marks too…

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Whatever Obama’s faults, the policies I’m describing didn’t begin with his presidency. I do agree the American people deserve better leaders.

    Under the current system, they have the luxury of deciding which candidate will sell them out to the rich and preside over the next foreign policy disaster, which is really not much of a choice at all. You can’t really vote against our aggressive foreign policy, which is why I boycott presidential elections. I don’t want that blood on my hands.

  • http://www.loonwatch.com/ Ilisha

    Put a “b” inside of the “” at the start and then a “/b” in the “” at the end–what is between will be in bold.

    For italics, use an “i” instead of a “b.” Case doesn’t matter. so B and I will work just as well.

  • Jekyll

    how do you bold stuff ?

  • Jekyll

    Oh my gah not YouTube!!!! Pff those Harvard historians are wasting their time…the Armenian genocide was perpetuated bu a secular nationalistic Turkish regime i.e. forefathers of Atta Turk

  • Jekyll

    I actually thought you were a reliable Christian, but you are yet another copy and paste fool brainwashed by the Zionist media…does gehaad watch have a list of Arabic terms you can select to your in your inane commentary ?

  • Jekyll

    LOL yazid’s lover probably.

  • Jekyll

    The people of Bani Israel bare no resemblance to to the godless secular Zionist racist that proliferate and disease the Holy Land…where was the apple during to the WWII ?

Powered by Loon Watchers