Newt Gingrich: America In Danger From Secular Atheist Radical Muslims, Or Something

Count on Newt Gingrich to be right on top the latest threat to America, the creation of an atheistic society dominated by radical Muslims:

SAN ANTONIO — Newt Gingrich stood before thousands of evangelical churchgoers Sunday night to deliver a dire warning that nation’s Christian roots are under attack.

“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

Two thoughts come to mind. First, if Gingrich is really concerned about the nation’s spiritual well-being, he should be running for Pope, not President. Second, as Jonathan Turley notes, Gingrich fails to recognize that radical Muslims have more in common with the people Gingrich was speaking to than they do with atheists:

What is always striking is the failure of religious conservatives to recognize that they have much more in common with radical Islamists than do liberals or secularists. Islamic radicals love the attacks on the separation of church and state, crackdowns on free speech in the arts, the anti-homosexual measures, and other morality issues pushed by some conservatives.

Indeed. Expect more of this phony moralism, along with the Muslim-bashing, from Gingrich and others as the 2012 campaign continues.

 

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Islam, Quick Takes, Religion, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Moosebreath says:

    “radial Muslims”? I prefer whitewalls.

    (and I know picking on typos is not sporting, but you did it twice).

  2. tom p says:

    radicals love the attacks on the separation of church and state, crackdowns on free speech in the arts, the anti-homosexual measures, and other morality issues pushed by some conservatives.

    The GOP in a nutshell.

  3. Vast Conspirator says:

    Yes, it’s absolutely unheard of for people who don’t agree with one another on everything (like secularists and Muslims, say) to form alliances. And anyone who thinks the US religious right wants anything like what is routine in Muslim-majority countries (never mind the religious contradictions that are supposedly oh-so-important re the first point) is either ignorant of Islam or a liar about the Religious Right.

  4. legion says:

    Every so often we have the “can we stop taking Sarah Palin seriously now?” conversation. I think it’s time to start asking if we can stop taking Newt seriously also. A “secular atheist country… dominated by radical Islamists”? Really? Moron.

  5. Hey Norm says:

    What strikes me is this idea that there is some kind of struggle and that Gingrich and his ilk are the white knights come to rescue us from ourselves. I have no interest in Gingriches America. The idea that he can anoint himself as some sort of moral compass, given his personal history, and be taken seriously is disturbing.

  6. deathcar2000 says:

    secular athiest racial muslims must be hanging out with all those tax draining Cadilliac driving welfare queens. or the lazy welfare collecting stupid intellectual elite Harvard ruling class tax leaches.

    it is’nt as if we dont have enough real issues to deal with, we dont need to create make-belive ones.

    Newt baby, get back in yer hiddie hole.

  7. hey norm says:

    @legion…
    needless to say you are just a few folks away from “can we stop taking republicans seriously”.

  8. Neil Hudelson says:

    Most of the internets is (are?) abuzz about his inability to see the contradiction of secularist and radical Islamism.

    What no one seems to point out is his belief that currently America isn’t a secular country.

  9. deathcar2000 says:

    not so fast there mr Neil. the claim that this happens to be a secular nation flies in face of all conservitive(tm) claims of the being a nation formed for the exclusive use of christians.

    you sir might be one of these very people the Newt is warning us about. please leave Newtie’s little grand-babies alone, and may god have mercy on yer soul.

  10. legion says:

    @Hey Norm,
    Evidence suggests you are not wrong…

  11. Moosebreath,

    No, I deserved that one. Fixed now

  12. vastconspirator says:

    his belief that currently America isn’t a secular country.

    Depends what you mean by “country.” Culture? Government? Public space? And depends what you mean by “secular.” Officially atheist? Culturally atheist? Religion not-privileged? Certain religions not-priviliged? Certain religions considered mainstream?

    Big flat statements like that one are enemies of reason.

  13. MM says:

    Yes, it’s absolutely unheard of for people who don’t agree with one another on everything (like secularists and Muslims, say) to form alliances.

    But secularists and Muslims don’t really agree on ANYTHING besides water being wet, so what preciciely would they form an alliance on? the role of women? Gay rights? Bacon?

  14. vastconspirator says:

    secularists and Muslims don’t really agree on ANYTHING

    ANYTHING (your all-caps)? Really?? You can’t think of ANYTHING???

    How about … oh … the dangers of Christianity? The evils of American power? Multiculturalism (in the short term at least)? Loose immigration (ditto)?

  15. Neil Hudelson says:

    vast,

    You could consider me a secularist. I see no danger in Christianity, I believe America is no more or less evil than any other world power. I don’t know how to respond to a one word question of “Multiculturalism?” so I’ll leave that alone. And I don’t see how immigration falls into a religious category…

    But way to chastise one person for making a blanket statement, and then proceed to make a blanket (and even less realistic) statement about a ill-defined group. You’re really following in Newt’s footsteps there.

  16. Ben says:

    ANYTHING (your all-caps)? Really?? You can’t think of ANYTHING???

    How about … oh … the dangers of Christianity? The evils of American power? Multiculturalism (in the short term at least)? Loose immigration (ditto)?

    You think secularists believe that Christianity is a bigger danger than Islam? To a secularist, any religion that seeks to enshrine their beliefs into law and that seeks governmental recognition and establishment is equally dangerous.

    The other things are typical republican characterizations of liberals, which is not a group of people that is necessarily coincident with secularists. I know secularist conservatives, and I know evangelical liberals.

  17. mantis says:

    Depends what you mean by “country.”

    Ha! Umm, how about “nation?” Government works too.

    And depends what you mean by “secular.”

    Not a whole lot of meanings for this regarding governments. Do religious bodies or religious officials run the government? Does the Constitution define a national religion? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then you’re pretty much a secular nation.

    Big flat statements like that one are enemies of reason.

    Not really. Unreason is the enemy of reason.

  18. wallyc says:

    I’m glad that evangelicals are okay with thinking that a Roman Catholic can be a “man of God”. And the forgiveness for Newt’s affairs is admirable as well. One can remember times in the not so distant past when neither was especially tolerated.
    But I do love his unironic saying that we will be a “secular atheist country… dominated by radical Islamists”. It’s not any inherent contraditions in that description, it’s the whole idea of “I’m going to cover a lotta bases here to push buttons for these people I’m talking to, and I know that those words get ’em fired up!”. I think that if he really wanted to cover all the bases to push evangelical Christian buttons (perceived, at any rate), he would have added “gay; women-dominated; socialist; pro-union; anti-military” to the mix, and found a way to slip in some euphemism for Jewish (because you Do Not Badmouth Jews directly – there are so many ways to imply it). … unless he winked and mentioned NPR…

  19. a2toedmonkey says:

    How do you have an atheistic society dominated by Muslims?

  20. MM says:

    How about … oh … the dangers of Christianity? The evils of American power? Multiculturalism (in the short term at least)? Loose immigration (ditto)?

    So you’ve encapsulated secular humanists and Islamic fundamentalists to include strawmen. Yeah, I’m quite sure they all sound pretty much alike to you, then.