This just in, from Rod Dreher at NRO's Corner:

Members of Egypt's persecuted Coptic Christian minority have been putting icthyus (fish) bumper stickers on their cars, announcing their Christian identities. Muslims have responded by putting hungry shark stickers on their bumpers.

The full story is available here from a source of unknown reliability, but there seem to be ties to the Associated Press and Media General, which does happen to have a significant presence in Virginia as a news-services company in television and print media.

Part of me is amused by this response. On the surface (no pun intended) this would be a cute little game of one-upsmanship between fans or something in another one of those ridiculous college rivalries held dear by so many booze-swilling alums. I can't help but chuckle when I think of it. If my undergraduate institution's enemies had a fish for a logo, I'd certainly think about a shark motif to show the Way Things Will Be.

On the other hand, being cognizant of the context in which this occurs makes me a little less likely to be charitable when Egypt comes crying for American dollars. One response that comes to mind is to think that there's something akin to Klansmen displaying a noose on their vehicles in response to a theoretical symbol of something (oh, say that distinctly colored cloth---kinte?---that is somehow tied to their history/heritage) on vehicles.

If you accept that the Coptic Christians of Egypt are indeed a persecuted minority¹ then these sharks are downright threatening. I don't like this, no sir, not one bit. It smacks of anti-Christian activity, or at the very least the deliberate creation of a hostile environment. I would be less certain of my finding if the Islamics had taken to displaying a crescent-and-star or something, but who in the world worships a shark? That doesn't have too many uses, and it does signal some sort of danger.

The historical parallel between Rome and Egypt is chilling---once again, people united by display of the second-most popular historical Christian symbol are under the boot of an oppressive government. This time, however, they're not alone, or so I would hope. Ideally, ol' Hosni Mubarak would get the proverbial horse head-in-the-bed or a pleasantly worded suggestion that it would be in his best interest to back off on policies that persecute these Coptic Christians.

I'm never happy when I see Christians under the boot of government and I very rarely excuse it. (Befuddled leftists who are more akin to apologists for Communism or the like, protesting American deployment of the Pershing II while the Soviets deploy the SS-20 generally fall within the latter class, if disapproval or arrest after illegal entry can be described as being 'under the boot'.)

Things like this will continue to happen, and I suppose that for the moment it can be excused, but if this erupts into open violence, I expect the bloody government over there to crack down. I wish I could follow that up with a threat of American intervention, but for a variety of reasons that threat could never be made, much less followed through on.

Ende.

¹ I'm not offering this for the truth of the matter but rather to show that the statement has been made. Evidence-law bloggers, descend and shred me on this, since the Federal rules of evidence are arcane to me.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.

While working on the update for the Halliburton post, I came across an ad at Slate which caught my eye and then drew my ire. The ad, which I'll upload later today once I get FTP access, is for some sort of electronic forum featuring Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. There will be no link, because I don't want to give any additional traffic to this loon. As Han Solo might've said, "Trust me."

The name of Spong is enough to draw cheers in some circles and snarls of revulsion in others. The Sunday school class I attended prior to graduation from college certainly had people who knew the name of Spong, and they weren't particularly pleased with him. Suffice it to say that Bishop Spong (this may be an inaccurate title; I'm a Methodist and we don't get wrapped up in all this quasi-Romish folderol in terms of titles) is more than likely an avid supporter of V. Eugene Robinson's advancement in the Episcopal hierarchy. (The Country Pundit is not, for a variety of reasons.)

The ad's money quote asks, "ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS STILL RELEVANT?" I'm from a small Southern town, hence the name 'Country Pundit'. I'm not used to sitting around pondering the relevancy of the Decalogue, but rather pondering just how I'm going to bring my actions into compliance with its contents. So, after I wiped a Tea Leoni-ish look of bewilderment (I saw it once on an ad for her NBC program back in the 1990s; can't find a shot of it) I decided to read the ad and click the link. My next reaction was to scoff: "You'd just as soon ask whether gravity was still relevant."

The ad promises "NEW CHRISTIANITY FOR A NEW WORLD" as "Bishop Spong Explores Biblical Truth in our Modern World". Pardon me for asking the obvious, but what new world? Did we colonize Mars or something when I was asleep in my carrel at school earlier? Furthermore, other than the fact that we're 1900-odd years away from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what exactly is so very different about our world that the denizens of the first century A.D. wouldn't understand after a bit of catch-up? Barbarians at the gate, a savage hatred of Christians among the upper class, and the army sent hither and yon defending the national interest. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It would seem that the single most important constant here is mankind. Yep, mankind. The same craven, fallen creature that departed the Garden of Eden a long time ago after noshing on the fruit of the Tree of Life. (See the book of Genesis, chapter 3.) The only way that that changes (for Gentiles, that is) is through the redemptive and life-transforming grace available for free through Jesus Christ. I consider it of minor significance that I don't see the name of "John Spong" listed anywhere in my copy of the King James Version or my battered New International Version.

Anyways, Spong's particular straw man is 'fundamentalism'. You know, wherein Christians hijack airliners and fly them into large buildings. Wait, that's Islamist fundamentalism. Sorry; the way most of the Left talks, America has more to fear from a bunch of devoted Christians than it does a cell of Islamist kamikaze pilots. 'Fundamentalism' is probably described as "disagreement with Bishop Spong" so that means that much of Africa and its Anglicans are "fundamentalists", along with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church which recognizes the authority of Rome and the Pope, me, and millions of other people who don't go around tinkering with a divinely-inspired book to create "progressive Christianity".

Here's the kicker, under "PRAISE FOR BISHOP SPONG": “…Spong provides enlightened reading for people who no longer believe in the God of Sunday school and are looking for something else to give their lives meaning.” This comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. Huh? If you no longer believe in the God of Sunday school, you do need to see a preacher man, but I think you'd need to go towards God, not into someone who I'd describe as a servant of the very devil of Hell.

To wrap up an irate post, I'll say this: It's a sign of Western civilizational superiority that Spong hasn't been killed by an angry mob on the orders of a bearded half-blind cleric who sits in judgment in a court of life and death that has no sanction of the governed. However, the Coulterish streak in me wants desperately to dare Bishop Spong to pull this kind of a stunt on al-Jazeera, where he promises a "NEW ISLAM FOR THE NEW WORLD", and await the response. John, I wouldn't plan on showing my face for the next 25 years or so. He can take comfort in the fact that Episcopalians don't issue fatwas, although I'm tempted to ask Rowan Williams to make an exception.

At any rate, the Christian church has endured many things over the course of two thousand years, and I suppose it will weather Spong and his heresy. This will, of course, irritate Spong, V. Eugene Robinson, and the Purple Pundit Who Shall Not Be Named, but go figure. My religious forebears faced down Nero and others, and some nitwit bishop doesn't match that kind of threat.

UPDATE: I promised the ad, and here it is:

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 907 words, total size 5 kb.

Normally when someone mentions "Crusaders", I think of the Vought F-8 used by the Navy and the Marine Corps.*

However, the term 'Crusader' apparently maintains a more ancient meaning to the people of the Middle East who consider themselves to be followers of the prophet Mohammed. They of course think of the Knights Templar and others like them, because the Crusades are the Big Example of the evil foreigner Western devils kicking the Islamic door in and laying the smack down. Of course, they kinda sorta got even by taking over much of Spain and so forth, but lay that aside.

Cold Fury has an letter posted in the Pakistan Christian Post by a chap who basically calls Osama bin Laden out for single combat. The man, who signs himself "Chevalier James R. Reese, Grand Prior of the United States", seems to come across as serious. If I were to evaluate this on the level of playground machismo, it does the job. Chevalier Reese goes way beyond the level of remarks made by Lieutenant General W.G. Boykin in framing the war in religious terms, but with far more uh, fervor, or something. He certainly considers himself to be in a line with the men who rode east with Richard the Lion-Hearted---notice the phrase "When we faced Saladin".

I was under the impression that, in the intervening eight hundred years or so, none of the major groups of knights who went on the Crusades had survived. I'm pretty sure that a couple of them ran afoul of various pseudo-Catholic monarchies and were gobbled up for their real estate holdings and their bank accounts. Needless to say, I'll be digging about to see what I can find out in regards to the modern day knights. I ran a few terms through Google and it seems that maybe this guy's a Mason or something. That's a kettle I won't be plunging into, because I'm not eager to muck about in the fetid swamps of conspiracists et al, but this guy seems vaguely interesting so I'll keep at it.

I'd pay good money to see this guy put a whipping on Osama, courtesy of Christendom. And yes, I'd accept the chivalric granting of mercy if requested, but I'd be more interested in seeing OBL hacked to bits.

As Drudge might say, this is a developing story and further information will be related in this space. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.