Or he'd rather not say. He's basically defining a Zionist who happens to be a christian (lower case c). You are not one of the sharpest spoons in the drawer we've had around here. I dare not look if there is a counter definition in Conservapedia.

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with Christian Dispensationalism, mainly in English-speaking countries outside Europe.

Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to God's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.

Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with the ingrafted (based on Romans 11:17-24, Holy Bible) Gentile Christians. This has the added effect of turning Christian Zionists into supporters of Jewish Zionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Xmas... Xian or Xtain.

It's a shorthand or abbreviation that used to be no big deal until the wingnuts invaded a perfectly respectable religion. Now it's an insult, a reason to go to war, like a chocolate Jeebus. All revealed religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) are prone to this type of perversion.

"I'm not perfect, I'm a filthy sinner myself, but just as I would speak out against drunkeness, lust, porn, adultery, etc etc.,"

So does this mean you aren't going to point to Winston Churchill as some sort of posterboy for neoconservatism? Which one of these "sins" do you or did you engage in? Is it Arne who does the uncensored Churchill quotes. Maybe it's someone else over Eschaton. Very funny.

"He went to my website, quoted me, and callled me repulsive, so I responded..."

Glenn did not call "you" repulsive. Read it again. Allow me to call you repulsive.

"Jim C

Obviously you have never lived on a farm.

-- Jonathan Hoag"

Don't be so sure. JimC may abuse the sheep and the goats. And he may not be too fussy about it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. As long as they consented...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/14/the_mule_consented.php

There is a reason to watch TDS and Colbert:

Every wave of disgust is not a shallow issue, but a biological problem more serious than... losing a meal. "The reason we experience disgust today is that the response protected our ancestors. The emotion allowed our ancestors to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us," said Dan Fessler, associate professor of anthropology and director of UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.

He explained the methods through which disgust may have been useful for our ancestors: to guard them during such risky situations as pregnancy and to increase their fertility.

But what worked for our ancestors may not be so useful today, provoking xenophobia, sexual prejudices and other irrational reactions. "We often respond to today’s world with yesterday’s adaptations. That’s why, for instance, we’re more afraid of snakes than cars, even though we’re much more likely to die today as a result of an encounter with a car than a reptile," Fessler said...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uoc--eua032707.php

Or maybe JimC's got some other... issues. Like Ted Haggard:

Repressed Homosexuality Could Be Root of Homophobia

New research lends considerable credence to the psychoanalytic theory that repressed homosexual urges may be at the root of homophobic behavior by heterosexual men.

Take your pick, JimC. Is it Darwin, or Ted Haggard?

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html

This may help:

http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/

http://littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/

But this...

Is the coup de grace

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

I think you need to make the distinction, and it's a big difference, between the two. Jonathan Hoag makes a good point with "authoritarian follower" which is Shooter. Compare that to Col. Pat Lang, who is an RWA, like Altemeyer, (well, not like Altemeyer) but who warned about drinking the kool-aid years ago. The man is not a follower. He's more of a leader.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp

Gen. Powell and others drank the kool-aid. Col. Lang never did. He's no Stan Goff, that doesn't mean he is a High RWA or SDO.

When she debated that giant of conservative thought, Magnum P.I. (Tom Selleck) over the gun control issue. That and her recent excursions into 9/11 conspiracism have made her a likely whipping boy. She is about as leftist as Tom Selleck. In fact, I would wager she clocks higher on the RWA and DSO scales than he does.

http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/images/jenna.jpg

But I don't want to give away the plot for the political intrigue/spy novel I will never get around to writing.