Is this a threat?

I am convinced that ever since the lunatic Muslims went on violent rampages over the Danish cartoons that the cowardliness of the West in the face of this intimidation has told religious people around the world that violence, the threat of violence, or even the hint of violence is the way for them to get their way. Don't be decieved they want power over others. They drool for it. And power over others is obtained through the use of force.

The corner merchant trades with me. I get something I want from him and he gets something he wants from me. We make an exchange of value for value. Each of us benefits. Very, very rarely do such businessmen threaten violence. Why would they? They have something of value to exchange with the customers. Force is not necessary. Free markets are about the most peaceful thing around where individuals are allowed to act according to their own personal values and everyone can come out ahead. Not so when force is used.

Government is force. It is nothing but force. You may think it is force used for the good but it is still force. The bigger the government the stronger the force. This is why socialism is inherently violent. It relies on a huge state to impose it's program on non-consenting participants and that always requires force. So the state can force me to pay taxes but no businessman I know of can force me to buy anything against my will. This is why the religious resort to government. They resort to force. Force and faith go hand in glove. The two have travelled together for millenniums.

And the most recent example is poor Madonna. This woman flits back and forth between religion and heresy. She really can't make up her mind. She is now on a new tour which includes a giant cross in the show. And the Christianists are alarmed, worried, upset, unhappy unpleasant, deranged, etc. In other words they are their typical selves --- unpleasant and nasty.

Sounding like the mullah that he is, David Muir of the Evangelical Alliance whined: "She should drop it from the tour and people need to find their own means of expressing their disapproval." Exactly what does "find their own means of expressing their disapproval" entail? This actually sounds rather threatening. Considering how Christians around the world are now openly making threats against others this would not be outside the trend.

Of course it's vague enough that this fundamentalist can deny that he meant anything violent. He could have said that people should protest the use of the cross by refusing to attend the concert. He could have even said they should picket. There are lots of options that are non-violent means of crying over something you don't like. He doesn't mention them only this idea of finding their "own means of expressing their disapproval". Personally that sounds like he is encouraging an unlimited range of options and not merely time-honoured options within the non-violent tradition.

Now maybe I'm wrong but Muir also said Madonna's show "is an abuse and it is dangerous." Dangerous to whom, Mr. Muir. Granted Madonna could fall off the thing but somehow I'm not sure that is what Muir had in mind. And Muir can't help making reference to the violence of the Muslims saying "if the same thing was done with the imagery and iconography of other faiths the reaction would be very different."

Am I the only one that thinks these Christians are just biting at the bit to get loose and do the same kind of violent protests that the Muslim have done? In recent weeks we have posted of various Christians, from all sorts of sects, constantly saying how other faiths would act violently. Such constant references to Islamic violence seems to be them dreaming for the day when they can unleash their own fatwa.