replied to...........
I don't take this image as an attack on Christianity, even though I have seen what you mean about atheists going after Christianity much more vigorously than they go after Islam. The poster is still right. If we Christians want to draw on Christianity to guide our politics or legislation, then we have to be willing to engage in debate with people. The only way to escape the responsibility to engage in free and open debate is to insist "We're just doing something private that has no impact on anyone else." No one can force me to debate my personal experience of my relationship with Jesus Christ, for example. But if I were to run for Congress and say that on the basis of that experience, I'm opposed to euthanasia (as I am), people have a right to expect me to engage in some robust discussion and defense of my views.
Islamists want it both ways: they want the "it's your private business" exemption for religion, but then they want to use their "religion" as a basis for legislation that would affect all of us. They want to advance arguments for why they should be able to radically transform our society, but then they want to hide from the rebuttals. They want to take a public stand for a certain kind of society -- one in which women are covered up, gay people are dead or in jail, Christians know their place, etc. -- but if you repeatedly point out that that's what they're working towards, as Robert Spencer does, you get attacked as a "bigot" merely for noting the agenda they're pushing and responding to it. If we Christians were engaging in that kind of duck-and-weave maneuvering, I think we'd deserve to get called out on it. And we certainly shouldn't be able to hide from debate by insisting that people should respect our religion. So I'm not offended by the placement of the Cross. It would have looked unfair if the Cross had been omitted.
