Join the all-new Crusades and smack the Muslims with Jesus (working knowledge of the Russian tongue required for battlefield promotions).

It's a mistake to berate fundamentalist Christians in America for their inability to grasp that dispensing with church-state separation leads directly to a theocratic situation not unlike the one favored by Islamic militants.

In fact, they grasp it perfectly well, and it's what a good many of them actively desire. If you're wondering why many of these reverse-jihadists are untroubled by the Trump-Putin bromance, it's because somewhere underneath the residue of godless Bolshevism, there is Orthodox Russia's traditional imperative to bring Christianity to its surroundings.

Sound familiar? Russia is a potential ally in the Jesus pincer movement against Them Muslims. Consequently, the Trump presidency is the ideal time to relaunch the Crusades, but this time as a reality television show.

For a taste of the script ... the dude seems serious.

A New Crusade Must Be Declared Against Islam, And Christendom Must Rise Again To Have The Cross Crush The Crescent, by Theodore Shoebat (some crazy ass website)

The nations of Christendom will soon restore themselves back under the refuge of the Holy Cross, the Holy Roman Empire will rise again through divinely destined Russia, and the Holy Cross will crush the crescent.

"It's not about immigrants, it's about ideas."

A bit of thought provocation on Super Bore Sunday.

As testaments go, there are new and old -- so I'm told.

Muslim terrorists aren't the only ones being called to militancy by the "internet.' You'll see something like this on social media, repeated hundreds of times daily.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?? THEY WANT TO KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF US.

It tends to be followed immediately by self-identified Christians competing to topple the most mosques, close the greatest expanse of border, and confine the most Muslims in concentration camps.

I'm just the village atheist, and to be completely honest, very little of my time has been spent perusing that "good" book.

But really, an eye for an eye?

Jesus Christ, that's dumb ... although, on further reflection, He beat me to this conclusion long, long ago.

Sunday thinking: "Islamic Extremism Is Not the Root Cause of Europe’s Terror Problem."

The problem is “not the radicalization of Islam, but the Islamization of radicalism.”
-- Olivier Roy

In America, we have BOTH kinds of glib explanation: Black or White. Perhaps the only reason I continue to link to articles like this one is the entertainment value of being called out by local "Christians," who advise me that it doesn't matter -- just kill 'em all, and let the Christian "god" sort it out.

Islamic Extremism Is Not the Root Cause of Europe’s Terror Problem; European elites have a “youth revolt” on their hands, by Joshua Holland (The Nation)

 ... There’s a lot of focus on radical theology, and not enough on the conditions that allow it to take hold. European law enforcement, says Ahmed, “are analyzing this through the prism of theology. They’re studying the Koran for explanations, but what we’re seeing is nothing more than disaffected, disenchanted, illiterate young people who are not adjusting to society. Look at these young idiots who are blowing things up—they’re looking at ISIS videos with a beer in one hand and a joint in the other.”

Must read: "What ISIS Really Wants."

A long and very worthwhile essay, and perhaps the best place to begin understanding what ISIS is about. It's also worth remembering that as we focus on choreographed atrocities, more than 200,000 Syrians have died in the country's four-year civil war.

What ISIS Really Wants, by Graeme Wood (The Atlantic)

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

Two must reads: The myth of religious violence, and why there’s no such thing as Islamic State.

It's impossible to reduce this "long read" of Karen Armstrong's into a single convenient pull, but I'll take a stab at it.

The myth of religious violence (Guardian)

... After a bumpy beginning, secularism has undoubtedly been valuable to the west, but we would be wrong to regard it as a universal law. It emerged as a particular and unique feature of the historical process in Europe; it was an evolutionary adaptation to a very specific set of circumstances. In a different environment, modernity may well take other forms.

Another commentary in the Guardian approaches the issue from the standpoint of language:

Why there’s no such thing as Islamic State: From Isis to Aum Shinrikyo, the way language works can distort reality. We must be vigilant in reading between the lines, by David Shariatmadari

 ... Linguists have argued for decades about the strength of this effect: the consensus is that language guides, rather than determines, thought. It can set up habits, no more. But habits can be tenacious.

Politicians have long known this. Advertisers know it. And so do terrorists. And with the evolution of Islamic State (Isis) we have a neat case study in the power of proper nouns.

Olbermann: "You and I speak up."

Perhaps his finest commentary, ever.