Most of the time when I write about Erick Erickson, I start off by refusing to insult him. Usually it's something along the lines of "I will not call Erick Erickson a choad." But this time, I'm not going to do that.
I absolutely refuse to deny that Erick Erickson is a choad. Why? Erick Erickson is a choad. A sweaty, scabby, itchy little plot of skin that stinks of ass crack and nut sweat. And yet despite all of this, Erickson manages to get a paycheck from CNN.
Now, you may ask, why the change of heart? Well, it's pretty simple: Erickson has gone too far. I just can't stand it anymore. And it all comes down to his most recent article at Red State on President Obama's speech at the UN yesterday, which has such a grossly misleading headline that I wonder if I wrote it myself: President Obama Declares the Future Must Not Belong to Practicing Christians.
Of course, you know that Obama said no such thing, but Erickson the Choad is trolling. He writes:
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he’s just speaking bold truths. His bold truth declares that the future does not belong to practicing Christians.
And Erickson got all of this from this little bit in Obama's speech:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
Then Erickson goes on to suggest that all Christians by definition slander all Muslims — and pretty much all the other non-Christian believers on the planet. He writes:
It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe me, you go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.
Well, actually, Erick, lots of people "go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way." In fact, they live there. Heck, you might even say the Middle East, despite what Erickson claims, is positively crawling with Jesus Freaks. The BBC reports:
Lebanon has 1.3 million Christians
Egypt 8.9 million
Syria 1 million
Saudi Arabia 1.2 million
United Arab Emirates 944,000
Now, you've got to ask why Erickson makes this outrageous claim? Surely, he knows that the Middle East is swarming with Christians, and they're just part of the fabric of the region. Of course, he does. Erickson is playing his Red Staters for sucker, and he knows that among the Rabid Right, the myth of the Persecuted Christian is one that they cherish as dearly as they cherish their guns and their government handouts — which they'll never admit to taking.
More importantly, Erickson has written a flame-fanning piece that is designed to get the Red Meat Red Staters all in a let's-bomb-the-fuck-out-of-the-Middle-East-and-turn-it-into-a-parking-lot frenzy. In short, he's a warmongering douchebag with a not-so-closeted belief that President Barack Obama is a closet Muslim and who wants an apocalyptic showdown between the U.S. and Muslim world.
Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone can take issue with Obama's UN speech. I mean, since when did tolerance go out of fashion? And since when did the average Republican get so sex nuts for the end of the world.