Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »
Let the Jews fight it then :-p
Defector01 on August 21, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I have not read the book. I will have to do so. Until then I will say this, Derbyshire is not a Christian and he is commenting on a faith that he does not understand. (I say that not only from this excerpt, but from things I have read by him in the past). He is originally from England, which has been riddled with a pale, milquetoast, liberal imitation of Christianity for decades and he now resides in NYC, which is really not the place to find a whole lot of vigorous, devout Christians.
INC on August 21, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Throwing a spanner in the works is l’essence de Derb.
P.S. Hitchens. By a long shot.
saint kansas on August 21, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Does AllahPundit, aka, AP, stand for Aggressive-Passive?
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 1:39 PM
No, why do you ask? I didn’t write this, Derbyshire did.
You know for a fact that Derbyshire doesn’t understand it because … he criticizes it? I.e., to understand it is to accept it and believe? Or do you have some specific evidence that he doesn’t understand it?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Ugh. Did Derbyshire really need to use the word “Islamophobia?”
Slublog on August 21, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Slubbo, didn’t you have a piece where Derb was saying we oughta just run Ron Paul for the hell of it?
Bad Candy on August 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM
2,007 years and counting. 2.1 billion people and counting.
it’s the secularists - the CINOs, atheists and agnostics that opened the doors. Not the Christians.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Use the word “Islamophobia” and I’m in on it. My ears perk up every time I hear that work.
KCtheKat on August 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM
I have to admit, those “God Bless Everyone. No Exceptions.” bumper stickers really annoy me.
Tanya on August 21, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Theocracymania!
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Go chart what’s happened it Europe and compare it to the rate of religiosity and tell me there’s no correlation.
Like nature abhorring a vacuum, the decline in Christianity in Europe created a void that Islam rushed in to fill.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Yeah, it was on Ace’s site a while back. Overall, I think Derbyshire is kind of a crank, but he does make an interesting point in this review, despite his use of the “-phobia” construction/cliche.
His main point seems to be that Christians like Spencer are quick to give Christianity credit for the good in civilization but not so quick to claim responsibility for some of the unintended consequences of the culture Christianity created.
Slublog on August 21, 2007 at 1:58 PM
In 2000 Muslims mostly backed Bush liking his conservative values.
Today he is villan #1. Despite all his efforts not to make the WOT look like a war on Islam. And his freeing of millions of Muslims from Taliban and Saddam rule
Now the Muslims vote overwhelming Democrat.
Why ? Because they are the ones who have deceided that the WOT is a war against Islam.
William Amos on August 21, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Unrelated to Spencer’s book, but I have to say, it does bug me when members of non-Islamic religions make a point of noting how peaceful they are vis-a-vis Muslims. It reminds me of Chris Rock’s old bit about people in his ghetto neighborhood growing up boasting about the fact that they haven’t abandoned their kids. His response: you’re supposed to take care of your kids. Behaving like a minimally decent human being isn’t something worth patting yourself on the back over. Hitchens should incorporate that into his next speaking tour — start off each speech by congratulating himself and his fellow atheists for not blowing up any kids that day. Big accomplishment.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:01 PM
I could get into it, but you probably don’t want to understand it. Moreover, I’d get pilloried by the functional Anabaptists amongst the Christian readership in the HotAir audience. Suffice it to say, Derbyshire doesn’t understand the Christian view of civil government, neither does he understand the two-kingdom distinction Christ himself makes of “the present evil age.” I guess I should just resign myself to the fact that Hitchens, Derbyshire and the like can’t bring themselves to actually read any of the Reformers or at least pick up a Reformed confession, or read Augustine. Why do I bother.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Make that two faiths.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Mr Derbyshire is afflicted with an a priori conclusion against Mr Spencer’s book. Mr Derbyshire admits in the above excerpt that he lumps Mr Spencer in the category of “Islamophobia”.
Speaking of red meat, there certainly is a lot of it in Derbyshire’s piece and it is of the herring kind.
Weebork on August 21, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Just Hitchens and Derbyshire and their like? Or also the myriad Christian sects who aren’t into reformism?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:04 PM
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:04 PM
He is right in the sense that modern Christianity has become very magnanimous in its political view and no longer advocates physical struggle of any kind. That’s unfortunate for we are in a struggle of epic proportions but we are still too comfortable and distracted to see it. Modern Christianity, most notably the Catholic Church, is a pacifist organization. It eschews war of any kind. So it naturally wants no part in a war of civilizations.
But is there something intrinsic in the tenets of Christianity that welcomes cultural suicide the likes of which we now see? Yes and No. If those that lead our Christian institutions have their way, and Muskens is cited, then yes, Christianity has no imperative for self-defence. However we see this pacifist phenomenon only because those that are attracted to a life in Christian service are those with a humanistic, and often liberal, disposition that unfortunately mistake withholding moral judgement of a man, with refraining from judging societies. In that critical oversight, they have made a fatal flaw.
Christ taught to judge not, lest you be judged. But that critical moral judgement is to be withheld from the individual, not from societies, nations, cultures, or civilizations - the very entities that threaten Christianity and the free world today.
So is Christianity somehow complicit in the demise of the West? Yes, in one way. Its leaders, and to a great extent, their flocks, by process of indoctrination, have made that one great mistake of introducing cultural pluralism into Christian theology.
jihadwatcher on August 21, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Good point. Them too. They make it infinitely harder to explain things to you.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Godwin?
Bad Candy on August 21, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Right, but they’d say the same about you, yes?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Here you go, Allah.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Yes, but I’d win the argument. See the link above.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I second that, the pre-mil type like a Hagee are atleast on the right side of the war. The other problem is the liberal/humanist theology, but then it always has been.
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Non-reformists, the gauntlet has been thrown down!
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I looked at the article you point to above, but I don’t see the connection to Christianity “is a great enabler of globalization”. Are you pointing to the fact she was living in a church ?
Maxx on August 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM
This one’s more accessible. T. David Gordon is very good.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Two words: The Crusades
Were it not for the Christians, we’d likely all be Moslems if we even existed at this point given how utterly incompetent Moslem government and culture is.
Peaceful also doesn’t imply subservient which seems to be what Derbyshire simplistically argues.
Laddy on August 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Yes, but he’s a word-faith guy. Since we’re always guilty by association, why would we want anything to do with him?
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Having read Derb’s article, it reads like a pretty desperate attack on the notion that religions are different from each other–coming from someone who has an emotionally vested interest in the idea that all religions are equally bad.
In fact, he obfuscates Spencer’s entire central point that there are scriptural, historical, and interpretational differences between Christianity and Islam that lead to terrorism, preferring instead to just say, in essence, “they both have wacky beliefs.” That is not a serious criticism.
Derb instead moves on to the globalism point to desperately try to show Christianity’s complicity in the problems we now face. Well, when the “complicity” stems from being naively charitable to those who would do us harm, isn’t that a bit like blaming the victim? In this world, victims may be stupid, shortsighted, and lacking in the kind of vigilance that would have prevented the harm, but that does not for a second mean they are both equally harmful as Derb seems to be arguing. That type of intellectual dishonesty has been foisted on America by the left so long that Derb should know better than to make the same argument.
In the end, Derb comes across pretty desperate and incoherent.
mjgreco on August 21, 2007 at 2:13 PM
So “love thy neighbor,” “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you,” etc., doesn’t mean letting people who are working for slave wages in their home countries come here to work? If I were Mexican and making 60 cents an hour or whatever in Guadalajara, I sure would want America to “do unto me” by letting me in.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Geez, I didn’t get that at all. In fact, he’s proposing some pretty draconian measures directed explicitly at Muslims, not any other faith. He’s simply criticizing Christianity for enabling the problem.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Derbyshire is quickly approaching Sullivanesque standards. Yes, that Sullivan.
Niko on August 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I know that you’re not asking me, AP, but I agree with INC’s comment because of this from the Derb piece:
Derb admits to being one of those people who eschews religious faith because of the supernatural aspects of both religions and uses those aspects to render equal both sets of instructions from Muhammad and Jesus Christ. A cursory look at the ministry of the two would show that the instrcution are vastly dissimilar. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that Derb doesn’t really understand either faith.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Agree. Derb’s linking 10 million new Muslims in “Christan” nations to Christanity is just silly. You can put the Islamization of Europe down to a need for labor and to lefty European ideals about building a “colorful” community. These European sophisticates laugh at any hint of faith.
But the only reason Christians feel the need to make these comparisons is because the first thing out of so many liberals’ mouth re: violent Islam is, “Yeah, but the fundamentalist Christians are just as bad,” etc. etc.
ThanksMo on August 21, 2007 at 2:16 PM
That’s a preposterous question. If given the choice between the most prolific anything and the most awkward anything else who wouldn’t chose the prolific?
It’s like asking if you had to get from D.C. to New York City would you rather use a Lexus IS350 or Wright Brothers’ Flyer?
Well of course the Lexus. But give me a better plane and the answer may just change.
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Spencer, in his determination to contrast Christianity against Islam, puts far too much emphasis on Christianity as a religion of ‘Peace’. Modern Christianity has devolved into a religion of mere peace due to its historical success. It was one of Kierkegaard’s main complaints 150 years ago in Denmark and it’s even truer today in suburban America: modern Christianity has become a religion of politeness and niceities, at the cost of it’s world-changing message.
Part of this is a confusion of the meaning of the word ‘peace’. Belief in Christ brings peace to the believer, not necessarily peace to society. Indeed Christ told his followers to leave their families to follow Him; hardly a recipe for social harmony. Christianity was certainly not always a ‘religion of peace’, defined as social peace; it will not always be so in the future. An entirely different Christianity is sleeping inside itself, under the recently acquired layers of propriety and politeness. When it awakes, all bets are off and Islam is doomed.
Put it this way: against the Islamic hordes, who would you rather have on your side - Richard Dawkins or Cardinal Richelieu?
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Here’s the tendancy to paint “Christianity” as a monolithic entity again. It’s a fun argument but baseless.
TBinSTL on August 21, 2007 at 2:18 PM
If you want to get really theological about it Jesus pretty much had little to nothing to do with the Government of his time aside from being persecuted by it.
He also said little to nothing about immigration. Though some people will say that his statements about “feeding the poor” and being a good neighbor do tend to reason out that we should accept those who come here and take care of them.
There’s one major problem with that.
Jesus in no way shape or form was setting up guide lines for a new earthly government. He was telling people who fall under His rule how to behave, and quite frankly all through out the Bible it also speaks of poor people who refuse to work, and scorns them much.
So really the whole close the border to illegals who are running our revenue into the ground by abusing the welfare system, and open it to those who want to work is absolutely sound.
Anyone who wants to debate that ought to read the proverbs that directly reference lazy people who prey on others to take care of them, and the parables that Jesus taught about people who refuse to “work in the field”.
But hey, that’s just … the bible. Ya know? That thing that Christianity is… based on?
:-)
One Angry Christian on August 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Yeah, Christianity isn’t a suicide pact.
Iblis on August 21, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Always makes me kind of smile when people of non faith or little faith tell people of faith what to do and how to do it…or how wrong they are.
It’s like a scuba diver telling a sky diver how to ascend.
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 2:24 PM
AP said:
Ah, but Hitchens and other atheists in fact do the SAME THING.
Hitchens generates a lot of ink and wind defending against the fact that more blood has been spilled by atheists (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro et al) than by religious zealots. His basic argument, that Communism and Nazism are a form of religion, is so transparently self-serving and circular I doubt it has persuaded anyone of anything.
Nonetheless, atheists are as “guilty” as anyone of pointing out the violence in other faiths while trying to explain away the violence from their own.
mjgreco on August 21, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Yes, but as some Christians say when accused of trying to impose theocracy, what’s wrong with trying to turn your deeply held moral principles into law? Every other group does it. Notice that KP didn’t say last night that we should let illegals in because the Bible tells us to love our neighbor, she said it’s because freedom of movement is a human right. She’s using legal language, but surely it’s informed by her Christian outlook. What’s wrong with that?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I just think we should speak against the pre-mil theology itself when given opportunity, same with the humanist. However, I think with things like the war its important to have a united front. there are those on the fringes of the reformed camp in on the ron paul crusade, a guy that blogs at chalcedon told me the war on terror was a myth. he was nuts of course as are many but not all of the theonomist. Drives me nuts that we cant have a unified voice on the war on terror, otherwise known as a modern crusade. Instead they are blogging about a bush dictatorship looming, the FISA bill and Ron Paul worship. It’ll take a Hillary presidency to get these people on same page politically again, they prefer to argue on things they are not fully knowledgeable on instead.
I’ve read that T. Gordon piece before, I don’t agree with all of it. I think Francis Schaeffer showed why things like the 60’s rebellion happened(philosophical change) and how so pretty convincingly. the final reality of nothing but material/chance existence is insane and is what must be confronted. The artist that took that worldview to its logical conclusion(abstract art founder or Kurt Cobain for that matter) are labeled as insane, when really they took an insane beleif system to its logical conclusion.
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM
While I was reading the first section of the article, I was kinda hoping for some careful philosophical argument or sound reasons that would at least provide some support for the atheistic assumptions or presuppositions that the author frequently makes, often without proof or any evidence. I was disappointed.
As a professing Christian myself, I do not believe that “all men are brothers.” I do believe that all men (and women) are made in the image of God.
My point may have profound implications for future work in bioethics. Indeed, sharp divisions and battle lines are being drawn up between atheist versus theist, naturalist versus non-naturalist over the direction of bioethics. But this point in no way provides any support at all from Christianity for “open borders” or globalization. This point does not weaken the State’s interest in fighting and winning the War on Terror from a Christian perspective.
The “most Christian thing” the State could do is to enforce the law by promoting the good and punishing all forms of evil. That is the purpose of government. From a Christian perspective, the purpose of government or the State is not to redistribute wealth, it is not to promote self-esteem, it is not to “convert souls”, nor is it to promote “compassion” or tolerance. Rather, the purpose of government, from a Christian perspective, is to punish evil and to promote the good.
When people confuse or conflate the role or functions of the individual Christian with the separate and distinct functions and role of government (like George W. Bush does all the time), they do so in contradiction and direct opposition to the Biblical text. Misusing Biblical verses and employing hermeneutical errors do not glorify God.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Quite right, and I’ve criticized him on this site on those same grounds. But as far as self-congratulation goes, I simply must disagree: no one in my experience as impressed with their own good behavior as Christians are. They mention it again and again whenever jihadis blow something up. It’s a fair point — they certainly are much better behaved than Islamists, a point which even Hitchens concedes — but it’s wearisome because it transforms the war on terror into a “which religion is superior” contest. I couldn’t care less about that. And neither could most people, I’d bet.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Who are these mythical Christian technocrats of which you speak? How many Christians want a theocracy? How many Christian nations are governed by theocracies? How many Christians in America support KP’s position based on being a Christian? It’s all strawman stuff AP.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Agreed.
But don’t many others, Robert Spencer included, do the exact same thing with Islam,i.e., treat it as a monolithic entity?
billy on August 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I’m not quite sure how freedom to violate a nation’s laws and boundaries is a human right.
Civil government is set up to restrain evil and punish wrongdoers, nothing more. The “love your neighbor” ethic doesn’t apply to civil government. The government’s job is to bear the sword. The cult (the church) and culture(civil government) operate distinctly. In this case, “the poor” from Mexico are coming here and doing real harm. Why shouldn’t the government bear the sword against them?
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:30 PM
well said, but much like the constitution you have to watch for the heretics.
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Exactly. That is the mistake. Love thy neighbor doesn’t mean dismantling your borders and flooding your economy with Mexicans. But too many liberals think it does. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar is Christ’s view of obeying the law of the land. Today, liberals, Christian or otherwise, think that Caesar owes you and that Caesar owes the people in every other nation as well. This is the mistake.
And in Mexico, those are not slave wages. They are slave wages in the US, not in Mexico.
jihadwatcher on August 21, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Primarily because this is a false argument that completely misses the point that Christianity is not about world domination, but about spiritual salvation. It is really easy to build a straw-man argument mischaracterizing Christianity in worldly based terms. Thereby blaming Christians on whatever ills happen to be politically-correct- du-jour.
The problem is that people who base their existence and theology solely in worldly terms (secularists, pagans, even Islamists) generally can’t (or refuse to) understand the full spiritual focus of Christian theological thought. So, yes, it makes it pretty easy to mock and ridicule something that is so foreign to one’s perspective.
Christian theology portends that the world as we know it will destroy itself in its effort to deny and reject God, and the only real survival from this destruction is spiritual. Which is, btw, exactly what is happening.
What would happen if Christians all stopped participating in world politics and culture?
Would Islamists stop trying to enslave their neighbors?
Would secularists stop trying to create a global government and economy?
Would pagans stop trying to rebuild our culture according to their own individual ideological designs?
The answer is the world on a global scale would still be in conflict and turmoil. So, what drives Christian participation must either be a futile effort or it must be about something completely different that what drives everyone else.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM
But that blog is run by theonomists. They’ve never shown themselves to by inside mainstream Reformed thought, unless you consider the Southern CA presbytery of the OPC mainstream. Much effort has been expended rebutting them, but they just carry on as they always have.
Agreed. Which is probably why we’ll lose. Schaeffer would recommend the preaching of the gospel as a means towards changing those presuppositions. I agree that the church should present a unified front toward the government and people in condemning terrorism, but because of the higher critics, that’s impossible anyway.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Excellent.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Whoever says Christianity is a religion of peace didn’t read the Bible. Christ himself specifically said in Matthew 10:34-36 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”
There is a whole ‘nother definition of “peace” when it talks about “My peace I leave with you…My peace I bring to you…the Peace that passes all understanding.”
Not to get all technical and all, but the Peace Robert Spencer is talking about can only be the peace we feel individually. The sword that Jesus spoke of is the fundamental philosophical difference of Chrisitianity versus the World. God has come to man and redeemed him. Man does not and cannot redeem himself to God.
Just thought I’d throw that in here.
Tennman on August 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Islam is a monolithic religion, i.e. monotheism. Christianity is very different, i.e the Triune God
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:37 PM
The point isn’t what the law is, it’s what the law should be. Why shouldn’t KP support a very generous temporary worker program and amnesty? She’s loving her neighbor, doing unto others what she’d have them do unto her. She’s not talking about legalizing terrorists. Just the workers. This theme comes up again and again in these religion debates: I give you guys an example of very basic Christian doctrine — e.g., turn the other cheek — as applied to, say, 9/11, and then you spend the rest of the thread explaining to me why that doctrine can’t mean what it appears to mean and why it doesn’t apply and how, almost miraculously, Christianity is precisely coextensive with the conservative position on everything. Seems to me that Christianity is a lot closer to liberalism than conservatism, but I know, I know, I don’t understand the faith and that’s why I don’t grasp the nuance. Funny how so many Democratic Christians seem to misunderstand it, too.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Or they think Caesar is somehow a charity agent for the church.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:37 PM
The danger is in comparing and contrasting Islam and Christianity as equal opposites, of which they are not.
Enemies? Yes. Equal opposites? No.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Heh, that’s why God invented Kingsford.
Iblis on August 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I just don’t think you’re appreciating the nuance contained in the Scriptures regarding the two-kingdom view it takes of things.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Actually Spencer takes pains to note and discuss the different strains of Islam.
Iblis on August 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM
I do appreciate your point.
But your point above is the sad point about living in our post-modern age. Everything is blown wide open. As the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche saw clearly at the turn of the century, ones’s perspective (example:
what Allahpundit deems “minimally decent human being”) is just another competing meta-perspective among others, and is therefore open and subject to contentious and unending debate.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Because she is also advocating the breaking of laws. If it’s okay to break one law, why isn’t it okay to break another law?
How about the next time my car breaks down I come over and steal your car? You don’t need it as badly as I do, so you should be happy that you could help me out. Right?
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM
and a United front against the atheist, material/energy final reality worldview which is the source of the West problems. Instead these different sides within the Church argue with each other instead of focusing on the big problem. granted a guy like Hagee looks nuts on TV with all the dragon and beast pictures behind him which is because of his theology for most part.
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Quite a revealing statement, that.
Niko on August 21, 2007 at 2:42 PM
But if she had her druthers, and she may yet if the Dems sweep next year, she can change the laws to accommodate her own Christian viewpoint. Amnesty for everyone, open borders, the whole nine yards. This comes back to my fundamental point always when arguing with you guys about this: I’ll concede that Christianity is more conservative socially than secularism, but I don’t see how it’s more conservative in terms of things like war and immigration. And yet you somehow very conveniently reconcile it to that fact.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Which neighbor is KP loving here? Certainly not her American neighbor who’s now out of a job. That’s the hole in her argument. Why should we give them a job at the expense of our own citizens, especially when they’ve raised all kinds of hell and have a territorial claim on the U.S.?
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:44 PM
You nailed it,Lawrence. Why is it Christian for KP to support policies that takes thousands of dollars away from me to give to illegal aliens, a good portion who are criminals separate from illegally crossing the border?
Blake on August 21, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Why not? They’re all children of God, are they not? Make them citizens and you don’t have that problem.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:46 PM
She has to defend those views from SCripture, otherwise they’re just hanging in mid-air. Giving amnesty to people who’ve been bad guests isn’t defensible.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I don’t think jp qualified. It was a direct quote, not an analogy. Not sure if that falls under the Rule12, Sec(d)(4), SubPara(h) exception.
eeyore on August 21, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I agree with Hitch that Fascism, Communism, etc are political religions. Michael Burleigh argues as much in Sacred Causes. It’s not a new or controversial claim.
I’ll go futher. Our current international system is a theocracy run by religious fanatics and mystics. The UN and most of the other elite, “atheistic” NGOs and the entire structure of international law is explicitly based on a religious belief in the existence and primacy of Human Rights. These Rights cannot be proven empirically or, like the proofs of geometry, derived through logic. These Rights are metaphysical entities posited to exist, like Plato’s Ideas, beyond time and space in some undefined eternity. These Rights are constantly changing because mystics at Amnesty International and their fellow seers in other NGOs have divined them from the ether. The Secretary General of the UN acts as the High Priest of the Church of Human Rights, performing the rituals and blessings and proselytizing the True Faith.
To doubt these Rights, to say in public that they simply do not exist, never have and never will, is to be branded a heretic, beyond the pale. Even Hitch and Dawkins, supposedly atheists extraordinaire, never seriously doubt that these Rights exist and have meaning. But they in fact do not. They are less substanial that Thor.
As Derb said about religion: as an outsider looking in its an absolute absurdity to claim that you can, through some mysitcal union with another dimension, access these timeless Rights. But I doubt that even Derb is brave enough to say that.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Bringing Hitchens into it makes it not a preposterous question but a rhetorical one; e.g., whatever the debate, whom would you rather see riding to your aid?
saint kansas on August 21, 2007 at 2:50 PM
You’re simply ignoring the proof AP. The majority of religious Christians are what? Conservatives.
The majority of atheists, agnostics, CINOs and like, are what? Liberals.
Now why do you think that is? Could it be that you fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and religion in general?
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 2:50 PM
They’re not all children of God. God is the Creator of all, not the Father of all.
But more to the point: you can’t rob from one neighbor and give it to another neighbor and call it “loving your neighbor.” Taking someone’s job and giving it to someone else is doing exactly that. If you make them citizens, the employers will just go look for still more illegals to pay under the table. Citizens are more expensive because of the laws we have on the books. In the meantime, the government will have undermined its own authority by rewarding lawbreakers. This isn’t what the Bible says the government is supposed to do. If KP is advocating that, she’s not defending it from Scripture.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:50 PM
“loving they neighbor? Now, you are being facetious. The wheels of your argument come off now. If she introduces millions of low-skilled, uneducated workers to compete for work with her American neighbors, how is she “loving her neighbors? Remember, she has neighbors that live right next door, not just in Mexico.
This is not Christianity in action, this is politics AP. Christian tenets deal in the micro, not in the macro. The example you cite is absurd as suggesting that she should have relations with the guy that lives next door, in order to “love thy neighbor”. Or suggesting that we should let the criminals out of jail, because, after all, if we were in jail, we would like to be released too, right?
Surely, if this is your simplistic take on Christianity, no wonder you are an atheist. I’d be one too, if I thought like that.
jihadwatcher on August 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM
God is not the Father of all? Do our other Christian commenters agree with that? It’s a new one on me.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:52 PM
There is no doubt that Islam filled the void for many Europeans that disposing of Christianity created, as others here already have said. No one is pretending the Christina world is without sin, we’re just trying to find a Muslim world with any grace.
doufree on August 21, 2007 at 2:52 PM
CINOs? You don’t think it’s possible to be a Christian and have liberal political beliefs?
Slublog on August 21, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Thanks to PRCalDude and baldiblocks for picking up my thoughts. I am in and out and busy so I don’t have a lot of time right now to reply.
First of all, this statement by Derb really needs some explanation:
Jesus showed a great deal of forbearance, mercy, compassion and forgiveness to those sinners who knew themselves as such and repented, and none at all towards those who believed in their own righteousness. Read in the gospels how he treated prostitutes and tax collectors (in great mercy He told them to stop sinning) in comparison with the self-righteous religious and political leaders (he called them whitewashed tombs and a brood of vipers). He brought peace between man and God. In our sin we are in a state of rebellion against God. Through His death, He took the just punishment of God deserved for sin, that all who repent and ask for forgiveness and turn in trust to Him might no longer be enemies of God, but at peace with God.
As a side note on the subject of peace with God v. pacifism, John the Baptist did not tell soldiers to quit the military:
As to Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount, I think the application is off. His words were to His disciples, not to nations as a whole. A Christian employer should certainly make sure his employees are fairly treated and fairly paid. Loving your neighbor does not mean liberal, dysfunctional squishy love. Many Christian missionaries and groups obey Jesus’ command to love your neighbot by going all over the world to share the good news of Jesus Christ, and to ease suffering and teach and provide training in various livelihoods.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul writes that government has the sword to insure that law is followed:
Going back to the end of Derb’s statement:
I have no idea what he means by moral universalism implied by Jesus’ teaching. A Christian would say that the entire world is accountable to God and His standard, and that God’s truth and righteousness gives life and has no seeds of self-destruction within, either for an individual or a nation. In fact, one of my pastors used to emphasize that God has morally underwritten His universe. Have you noticed that when family relationships are faithful and loving and true, that the children are secure, well-adjusted and hard-working? This is just one example of how following God’s ways leads to life.
A final caveat: I am reformed Baptist in my doctrine and I have been a Christian for over 37 years. I became one in college, back in the heyday of Viet Nam, protests, and Marxists.
INC on August 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Again, you ignore the proof. Christianity has been around for 2007 years. There are plenty of Christian nations, including Mexico. What Christian nations in history have ever embraced open borders?
Now how in the world can you get that out of what I wrote?
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Certainly true. But, though good behavior is nice, it isn’t what saves Christians. Paul stressed this over and over again. Christians who are impressed by their own good works forget this. That’s because we’re just as flawed as that next person–as Paul asserted even about himself.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 2:55 PM
BigOldDog - If I’m mistaken, then I apologize. However, I couldn’t help but note the distinction you drew between “religious Christians” as conservatives and liberals as CINOs.
Slublog on August 21, 2007 at 2:55 PM
In defense of Mr Spencer, the bottom line, as he put it in HotAir’s recent interview of him when the issue of violent passages in the Bible came up, is that Muhammad’s teachings condone violence and Jesus’ teachings do not. He also goes on to point out how modern jihadist are recruiting among moderate muslims by quoting Koranic scripture, the same cannot be said for any would-be Christian wacko who wishes to do the same.
Weebork on August 21, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Allah may have difficulty “seeing it” for the same reason I personally had difficulty seeing it many years ago.
That reason is the fact that most professing Christian churches in America do not preach expository Biblical sermons, nor do they preach theology from the pulpit. Instead, most professing “Christian” churches preach topical sermons so that the congregation, over time, has no clue what the Bible says (or what the Bible entails), but rather, only what a nifty, charismatic, motivational speaker in a church building really says and believes.
Personally, I have learned that the “2 Kingdom” view referred to by PRCaldude is indeed taught by the Bible. But it is not taught by most churches. So therefore, in practice, we are used to Christians being “conservative on abortion, but liberal on immigration” in part because Christian pastors do not use the Bible alone as a “grid” for their sermons.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Good one. I forgot about that.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I didn’t catch the Godwins law claim, however I was showing a historical example from one of the muslims allies, Hitler. In regards to critical Western Civ. history, i.e the battle of Poiters wich rarely gets mentioned or taught. ie, we’d already be islamic culture if not for Charles martel and the battle of poiters by Christians defending Europe from true Imperialist.
jp on August 21, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Yes, and on the one hand that’s perfectly human and understandable but on the other hand it does seem to be used a bit freely and easily. I remember when he had a big religion debate after that scumbag shot those poor Amish girls and I asked our readers, “Do you guys even try to love your neighbor? Granting that you may try and fail due to your own essentially flawed humanity, do you at least try to pray for Osama and the jihadis when you hit your knees at night?”
Not too many did.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Yes, I agree. Some have chosen a…different father.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM
For those who don’t make it to the end of Derb’s long piece, here’s a juicy red slice of the crux du Derb for your chewing pleasure:
saint kansas on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM
True? Are you kidding me or what? Secular progressives have patented the “goodness” card. They use it in every argument concerning immigration, welfare, gay rights, etc., etc.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 2:58 PM
What’s your point? Do our failures somehow negate or invalidate the Scriptural imperatives?
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 3:00 PM
You can’t choose your father, and besides, most illegals really aren’t bad people. They haven’t “chosen” evil, although some certainly have.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Once again Christianity right behind the US government taking the blame for everything that’s wrong with this world. I’ve got a great idea, blame the real problem. The Mexican government! Wow imagine that. Why do these guys keep getting a free pass from: A. Our government, B. the mexican people, and C. the American people. They just keep getting more corrupt and the drug dealers runneth over. But it’s the Christians fault of course. We enabled this. And this whole peace thing drives me nuts. Everyones always throwing around quotes fromt he Bible with absolutely no context. I can pull out any verse from the bible and make it sound like what I would like it to believe. Don’t quote a verse without relevant backup. I as a Christian like many others would vigorously defend my faith and family no problem.
gator70 on August 21, 2007 at 3:02 PM
That’s not what she’s saying. She’s saying that those who believe in Christ are God’s children. Those who don’t are Satan’s children. True, you can’t choose. God chooses you. She wasn’t making a point about illegals there.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 3:02 PM
My point is that to the extent that you don’t even try to follow the scriptural imperatives you project your own contempt for them. It’s one thing to try and fail; if you try to pray for Osama but your mind keeps returning to the people jumping from the Towers, hey, you’re only human. What I’m asking is, how many Christians even try. That would seem to me to be a very basic duty.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »