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 |
Share on Facebook | 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?
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 »
This is why it is important to learn the bible, and its context. The “turn the other cheek” is on of the most overused and misunderstood comments in the bible. It is, in this context with the greek word
Jesus’ complete statement is “If someone strikes (smites in KJV) you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone’s right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek. So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity.
You may want to spend some time looking at the Greek work for strike in this context. It will show the same, as being more of a personal, than a national or “macro” strike.
Thus ends the bible study for the day…
You are welcome AP, you no longer have to will mistate that quote again.
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are.
Now that’s an interesting statement. Not sure how true it is, but no one better be thinking about taking away my beer or forcing attractive women to “cover up”. Also, not going to pay some kind of stupid tax to not attend some lame religious ceremony.
What’s with this ‘Christophobia’? Equally as stupid as ‘Islamophobia’.
Krydor on August 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I agree. We are all created in God’s image, but those in enmity and rebellion do not know Him as their Father. Those who are His children are those who have peace with God through the Lord Jesus.
INC on August 21, 2007 at 3:04 PM
In that case, speaking as one of Satan’s children, I would think Mexicans should be pretty kosher. Lots of God’s children among them.
I’m going to e-mail Michelle’s husband, who was born Jewish, and welcome him to the tribe of Satan’s children.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Yeah. Consider that all the building blocks of Western Civilization existed when Islam was founded, Greek Philosophy, Roman Law, nascent Christianity, and yet Islam rejected them all. And not only did it reject them, it declared its hostility towards them, and made it its mission to wipe them from the face of the earth. Islam isn’t compatible with the Western Wolrd because it rejects it. The West should do the same to Islam.
Iblis on August 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM
This is common misconception. Not everyone is a “child of God,” in the eyese of Christianity.
Without getting too theological, the universe was created by God but we were all born of a man and a women. Spiritually, if we chose to follow the way of the Satan, then he is our father.
If we chose to accept God’s truth then we are adopted into the family of eternal life. Once we enter into that family we are to follow the law as revealed by Christ, the living word. Part of that revelation was “render under Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s”. i.e. follow the laws of the land.
So illegals comming here are either not children of God (think those who come with intent to murder, maim, overthrow, etc) or they are children of God but are not following the law for which the state is allowed to pass judgement, so long as it is done with mercy. (James 2:13)
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Brilliant. Practicing Christians need to go a little farther beyond “We’re a religion of peace and Islam is not.” Yes, it’s a very good thing that American Baptists don’t blow up other people. Congratulations. Paraphrasing Allahpundit, you really ought to be proud of yourselves for managing not to murder folks that don’t share your religious beliefs. Kudos, and kudos again.
Christianity is an enabling religion, because it teaches that each individual human being is utlimately pitiful and unworthy, and must constantly beg for forgiveness. It requires a perverse performance of self-loathing - “I am a lowly sinner” - as well as an insistence that you love your enemies. That’s sick. No sensible person would tell a battered woman that she had to love her abuser, nor should we be expected to love Muslim extremists. That’s absolutely suicidal.
I agree with AP that a lot of this comes down to “my religion is better than yours.” Well maybe that works for you if you think that there will be some great afterlife reward for your own naive self-destruction…BUT WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG??? What if there isn’t a heaven where you will reap this eternal bounty? The turn-the-other-cheek business only works if you know for a fact that there is an afterlife in which you’ll be rewarded for loving everyone and constantly apologizing for yourself. And since no one can claim to know for certain that an afterlife exists, it is suicidal and vain to wallow in this “Christians are better behaved than Muslims” muck.
Wouldn’t it just be better if we all agreed that religion should be kept out of the public sphere entirely?
Enrique on August 21, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Prove that in court buddy.
Iblis on August 21, 2007 at 3:07 PM
The only reason I’ve ever seen Christians bring this up is because we’re all lumped together as religious zealots when some idiot bombs himself over his belief in Islam.
I’ve never seen a Christian interject, “at least we don’t bomb ourselves,” whenever something like that happens, but I regularly see others say “suicide bombers come because of religion, all religion,” which understandably makes Christians defensive.
If, to borrow your Chris Rock example, a man were to say of a black man leaving his family, “that’s what happens in black communities,” it would make sense for a black man within earshot to say, “I take care of my children.”
That man would be responding to something indirectly said about him.
That’s all we do.
And what does that mean for the person here already who now can’t make enough to support his family? Is it OK to hurt one person in order to help another?
That’s communism, not Christianity.
Also, if we let those in who can make it over here, then what does that mean for those who are left back in their countries making unlivable wages? Wouldn’t the Christian thing be to help them as well and not just the ones who can afford to get here?
And by allowing countries like that one ignore their own problems by transporting them to our country, aren’t we allowing a problem to continue that the country’s leaders would otherwise be forced to confront?
The things is, Christians may have bleeding hearts, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t look past the individual. If we did, that would mean that we’d have no argument for keeping anything beyond what we absolutely need and donating the rest to the poor.
Somehow though, even KP manages to feel alright about wearing nice clothes and owning a computer.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Allah’s bringing up some really good points that deserve an attempt, at least, to answer them. He asks about why Christian theology isn’t, in essence, a suicide pact… why “love your neighbors” doesn’t mean “let them do what they want.”
Well, I’ll preface my statements by saying I’m LDS, or Mormon. Thus, this may or may not be standard creedal theology, but what the hey, I’ll toss it out anyway.
It is a mistake, I think, to believe that Christ never fought back. Loving your neighbor is not “tolerate and promote your neighbor.” Christ condemned the Pharisee’s and Sadducee’s pretty good. He cursed the fig tree. He said, “Render unto Ceasar the things that are Caesers.” How does illegal immigration enter into this?
Simple: we don’t need it. What would a true example of loving the illegal’s be? Enable them to break the law? Enable them to move someplace? No, loving the illegals involve something else. It’s far better that they stay where they already are and build up their own country. So for me, I’d say, prevent them from coming here and yet, do my best to clean up life for them there.
A concrete example of this: My church focuses a lot on ministry to spanish speakers; in fact, I believe that Spanish may now be the first language of the Church. Yet, the LDS church does not encourage people to move to the U.S. anymore (as we did in the 1800’s, and then it was legal immigration). Instead, the Church has set up something called the Perpetual Education Fund. Basically, it’s a completely volunteer funded loan program that makes educational loans at a very low rate of interest to people in third world countries, to enable them to get a good education from local institutions. Once the person graduates, he or she is expected to repay the loan with the interest (again, not high), and said interest is rolled into the Fund to help other people–no profit is made. It’s run completely by volunteers.
THAT, to me, is real “love thy neighbor.” It’s helping them become self-sufficent, create jobs in these countries because the graduates now have the skills to help the local economy and hire others, it is not a dole to make them reliant, yet is charity. The program has helped tens of thousands already, and is rapidly accerating. The people helped don’t sneak across the border into the U.S., they have a better life, and they help their local country.
That’s much better than inviting them to the US, where they won’t fit in, have no skills except manual labor, likely end up on the dole or welfare, can’t integrate, and weigh down people here, plus are a security risk, or enable that security risk.
Programs like the Perpetual Education Fund are, I think, how Christians should approach the issue of “loving your (illegal) neighbor.”
As for Christians being Pacifists….. heh. As I understand it, Christ is the God of the Old testament as well as the New… and He certainly destroyed nations and people then.
Vanceone on August 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
You know why you say that?
Because you’re one of Satan’s children, that’s why.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
And eliminate these mega-threads?
Never!
Slublog on August 21, 2007 at 3:09 PM
So it’s wrong to say “my religion is better than yours,” but it’s OK to say “my atheism is better than your religion.”
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:10 PM
On the contrary, one can indeed choose a spiritual father, since that’s what we’re talking about here. Remember that you asked whether Christians agree that God is not the father of everyone.
I think that we, you and we Christians, have a fundamental disconnect as to the definition of ‘love.’ IMO, loving someone does not entail giving them everything that he/she wants. If we do that, we may be hurting that person or someone else.
For example, most good parents would not give an offspring everything that he/she wants. (Not equating illegals with children but equating how giving them what they want would be detrimental–to others.)
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Aw, you pirate Allah. You yell some junk from the back row, lob a couple grenades up front, and light a cigar, sit back and laugh while the place erupts in mayhem.
You must be bored. KP acting like a DU commenter. Elvira, Mistress of the Border, isn’t around to kick any more.
As for the exit question, sure, I’ll take Hitchens on my team any time. But I’d rather have my boys from church in the Weapons and Liquor Committee. They know a good Islamophobia when they feel one, and have the Model 21s to back it up…
Jaibones on August 21, 2007 at 3:10 PM
No, not these days because Christians and Christianity do not yet feel threatened. But a time will come, as it has in the past, when Christian Soldier will march to war. The human right leftist are always beating Christians over the head with the violence and brutality of Christian history. But I for one am not appalled by it at all. Indeed I find comfort knowing that when push comes to shove the Christian West, clear in its conviction and secure in the belief of Divine Redemption, will defend itself and annihilate the enemies that beseige it.
Under the right circumstances the wackos quoting Scripture will not seem like wackos at all. They will be the very Voice of Reason and Justice.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 3:10 PM
So if I’m one of Satan’s children, then my daughters are his grandchildren? Deep!
Krydor on August 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I might pray for Osama to become a believer in the Son of God, but I sure am not going to pray for his continued health. And I do not see anything wrong with adopting some of the Old Testament prayers that, realizing that the enemy has become implacable and his heart is turned to stone, I’d pray for his swift and merciful removal from this earth.
I don’t usually pray for those kinds of things Generally when I think of the word “enemy” as described to me in the Bible, I think of someone who is my enemy. When the temptation is to hate them, you’re right, it’s my duty — or more accurately put, I am commanded to pray for them. What form that prayer takes is contingent upon what is in God’s mind for that person. I prefer to pray for His Will to be done, not mine. Because, face it. I’m not all that nice a person inside. Without Grace, I am nothing at all.
Tennman on August 21, 2007 at 3:11 PM
another big misquote along the same lines that bugs me is the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment. Its really thou shalt not MURDER, the Hebrew word being the same for kill and murder translated to English. In context its murder. Which also explains why in other parts of the Bible it says “there is a time to Kill”….and a “time for war”….and after 9/11 that time was here ;)
jp on August 21, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Actually, it’s Satan we’re talking about here. Incest isn’t really a problem. You and your daughter can both be his children.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Do you even understand/remember what a Christian would pray for regarding Osama? You were raised Catholic right? Do you remember who and what was prayed for at the end of each Mass?
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Wrong. Fortunately there are no grandchildren in this family.
Even if you chose to deny God your entire life your children are ever free to chose to live in the light and become a child of the living God.
Pretty cool huh?
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM
How about, “Please, God, let Osama renounce violence”? Good enough? Or is his conversion to Christianity essential?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Good point about changing the Law. If the law changes then it is no longer illegal. Problem then is what’s the point of having laws if we never intend to enforce them? What KP is advocating, really, is not to change the law but to eliminate the law. There is really no point having immigration laws if we won’t enforce them, or if they don’t mean anything.
It really doesn’t matter to me that much whether I am more conservative than you in context of worldly issues. If other Christians argue with you on these issues, then perhaps we are also missing the point, and straying from our core theological point of reference.
In the end, when the world ends, it won’t really matter whether we allow or reject immigration or any other law or policy.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I suppose that would be good enough. But it’s not my will that I’m asking for. I’m asking for God’s Will. And one thing we’re taught in our church is pray BIG. There’s no reason why Osama couldn’t become the next conversion story, like Paul — who persecuted the early church and stood by the stoning of Stephen — on the road to Damascus. There would be a certain symmetry to it, don’t you think?
Tennman on August 21, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Of course we try. If Osama were to repent, it would be better for everyone. I can’t say I want him to have a happy afterlife, but that’s my humanity speaking.
Paul, one of the first Christians, used to kill Christians. I can’t say many early Christians were happy about that, just the same as Jonah was pissed about having to preach to enemies who harmed his people, but yeah, that’s the human part, the one that doesn’t get God and doesn’t get His Justice.
Then again, not trying is also a Christian concept. Jonah was sucked into that whale (actually, it was just an unnamed fish), because he was specifically trying to not do what God wanted him to do.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:18 PM
“We all feel a deep sorrow for last Thursday’s atrocious terrorist attacks. We pray for the people killed, the wounded and for their dear ones,” he said.
“But we also pray for the perpetrators: may the Lord touch their hearts. To those who foment sentiments of hatred and to those who carry out such repugnant actions, I say: “God loves life, which he created, not death. Stop, in the name of God!”
– Pope Benedict
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=3680
bnelson44 on August 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Yes, Christ extolls us to pray for our enemies, but that prayer is that they should see the light. Personally, I don’t because I’m a bastard. But even if I did, that does not make me soft on the evil doers. A Christian soldier can pray for someone’s soul just before dispatching the jihadist to paradise from the seat of his Apache helicopter and be perfectly in compliance with the tenets of his faith.
Now some Christian liberals today have a different take. They don’t believe that the bad guys are evil at all, just misguided. There’s the rub. This is the pluralism and moral relativism I spoke of that has infected those that dispense Christian theology to the masses and this is the aspect that some are picking up as being evidence of Christianity’s inherent weakness.
But it is not inherent. It is the interpretation of liberals in their own political desire, in the last 60 years specifically, to use Christianity’s tenets of compassion for, and withholding of moral judfement of, the individual, and graft them onto social policy and then onto political foreign policy. This is not Christianity. This is politics.
jihadwatcher on August 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Asking him to renounce violence is pretty self centered. Asking God to help him find Christ not only is more important (for what are 80 odd years of violence on Earth stacked up against an eternity in heaven or hell?) but would have th added bonus of him changing his terroristic ways as well.
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Because KP is making a common hermeneutical error when she confuses or conflates duties, functions, or roles of the individual Christian with those of government or the State. Because of the hermeneutical error, this then leads to false theology, which then leads to more errors.
I think this comment is similar to the perennial subject of, “Marxism and Christianity” I hear referred to on the web.
Political Liberalism defined in 2007 (PL1) is of course different from political liberalism (PL2) defined in a different era. PL1 is hostile to orthodox Christianity because it offers a radically different metaphysics. It implies that problems of the individual are essentially rooted in society or culture, because the individual at heart (or human nature) is essentially good. This view is hostile to Biblical Christianity which teaches that human nature is not essentially good, but sinful. Thus, Biblical Christians feel “more comfortable” with Conservatism (C1) because C1 teaches a similar (though not identical) view of human nature. Biblical Christians may not feel “completely comfortable” with C1, but we see themes of philosophical overlap there, which are non-existent and downright hostile with PL1.
Thus, Marxism is essentially hostile to Biblical Christianity for the same reason that PL1 is hostile to Biblical Christianity.
The above point does not imply nor entail that opponents of PL1 (like the libertarian-leaning Allahpundit) are necessarily Christians themselves or even open to Christianity.
What it does entail is that Christians like KP have to be very good at “fudging around the theological tension” caused by the inconsistent embrace of both PL1 and Biblical Christianity.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Christians believe that true peace comes only from God, so really, it’s the best thing we pray for when we pray for others.
It’s not necessary that Osama become a Christian, but praying that he does is what an obedient Christian would do.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM
So you guys actually are praying for Osama, then? The reason I ask is because I got an awful lot of virtual high fives for that “feelgood” jihadi video last night and not so many “well, we pray for the repose of his soul” comments. Seems … somewhat un-Christian to me.
But then, I’m a child of Satan.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Well the problem with that view point primarily lays with its complete disregard for actual Christian theology. Christians are commanded to obey the laws of the law in which they live so long as those law’s do not directly contradict those of God. Thus so long as the nation they live in has immigration law’s Christians are obligated to obey those law’s. This whole sanctuary movement is in direct conflict with Christian theology and is predicated not on Christian theology or scripture but a feel good liberal ideology.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I think that any useful analysis of what Derbyshire thinks about Robert Spencer has to start here and then go back to here. One should note that he refers positively to Karen Armstrong, who has set herself up as an apologist for radical Islam and a critic of Spencer’s criticism of Islam. Derbyshire seems to have looked at the two strains of thought as represented by Armstrong and Spencer, and sided with Armstrong. Armstrong very consistently sides with Islamic rage against everything else, blaming most problems with radical Islam on “Western prejudice” and similar ills.
So keep that in mind.
Bryan on August 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM
There’s so much you don’t understand about Christ and Christianity. Christ taught the need for salvation and that he was the only means whereby we can be saved. If God himself dying on a cross isn’t good enough for you than nothing is.
It’s not self loathing when an alcoholic says “I’m an alcoholic.”
It’s not self loathing when a drowning man asks for help.
It’s not self loathing to admit to God your a sinner and ask for forgiveness.
It’s just an acceptance and acknowledgement of reality.
Loving your enemy doesn’t mean allowing him to continue to abuse you. That’s just weird of you to think that.
There are countries where religion was kept out of the public square, communist Russia and communist China during the cultural revolution. That only killed, what, over 100 million people. What a stupid suggestion.
Mojave Mark on August 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Yeah, many of us act unChristian. This shouldn’t be news.
Then again, I haven’t seen the video, so I can’t comment on it specifically. I do know though that being happy over the demise of someone or something evil is not unChristian.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I think there is some confusion on the commandment to love your enemies. In Greek, this is not a blanket commandment to love everyone everywhere who hates you in the abstract. In Greek it is a specific commandment to love your enemies in the community, your neighborly enemies. (Modern Western languages lack this term.) This is spelled out in some detail in The Concept of the Political.
Christians are not commanded to love Bin Laden but to love those near you who hate you personnally, as Tom or Sue, as a person. Christ never commanded that the Jews should love the Romans as depersonalized political oppressors, but rather that his followers should love their neighbors (not abstracted as faceless foreigners but as concrete people).
The same with turn the other cheek. This is a personal commandment that you, as an individual, should restrain yourself from conflict even if assaulted. It is not a broad commandment for society or government. Moreover, while you may turn your cheek when attacked, you have a duty to defend those in your care. You cannot turn their cheeks when they are attacked.
Christianity is not a suicide pact and it is not mindless pacifism. It is not some generalized idea about loving everyone all the time under all conditions. That is a distortion, often used by anti-Christians to attack the faith. Not without reason because many Christians have swallowed this distortion.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Is Armstrong even a Christian anymore?
bnelson44 on August 21, 2007 at 3:24 PM
In fact, it is not good for a person to abuse another. This is why we punish our children who do this. It is not love that allows someone to do something he/she shouldn’t.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:24 PM
It is socialism whose ultimate goal is human brotherhood.
aengus on August 21, 2007 at 3:25 PM
You think Derb’s problem is that he’s too soft on Islam? Bill Ardolino e-mailed me after I posted this asking why I omitted this bon mot from my post:
If what [Spencer] has told us is true—and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is—then the West should proscribe Islam, and the sooner the better. We should not allow Muslims into our countries, other than for necessary diplomatic or scholarly purposes. We should revoke the visas and permits of resident aliens who are Muslims, and ensure their departure. We should offer to purchase the citizenship of Muslim citizens, and bribe them to leave. Those who will not leave should be carefully watched by the police, and subjected to social disabilities—they should not, for example, be admitted to the armed forces, or allowed to proselytize in prisons. (Take a religion addled with violence and infused with a hatred of our society, and teach it in prisons to the most violent and antisocial of our people? Have we gone stark raving mad?) Mosques and madrassahs should be closed, or at the least punitively taxed.
Sure doesn’t sound like Karen Armstrong to me.
Right, and KP wants to change the laws. In precisely the same way many Christians, guided by their beliefs, want to change the laws about abortion. What of it?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Allah
You forgot the part about ‘Love your enemy’: that way, every traitor can claim that he acted out of religious conviction ;-)
On your suggestion that one pray for Osama (and presumably all Jihadis) to renounce violence, it isn’t good enough if they remain Muslims, since it’s Islam itself that commands them to wage war on Infidels. For me, they don’t have to convert to Christianity - anything else - Judaism, Zoroastrianism (for Iranians and Kurds), Rastafarianism, Scientology, Buddhism, Jainism - just about anything will do. But as long as they remain Muslim, they can’t be trusted.
infidelpride on August 21, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I don’t see how this is Derb being hard on Muslims. He prefaces this with “IF this is true…”
This is like saying “if Bush is really as evil as the Leftists claim, he should be hung.”
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Thank you for the good background. I enjoyed those articles.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Fair enough. All I’m asking is, are people actually praying for this? Are they sincerely trying to love their enemy? I’d love to see an opinion poll on the subject but we never will.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:32 PM
This thread is moving way too quick.
Thomas,
Christianity is not a suicide pact and it is not mindless pacifism.
There are some early Christian martyrs who would like a word with you. Christianity was mindless pacifism and it was essentially a suicide pact. That all changed when it became the glue to hold the Roman Empire together. Until that point, there were plenty of stories of devout Christians willingly sacrificing themselves for their faith.
Krydor on August 21, 2007 at 3:34 PM
In the larger scope, his conversion is the only thing that is really important. If he reounces violence, but denies the True Living God, does it really matter?
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 3:34 PM
It’s the difference between justice and mercy. Two rather striking concepts of the Christian faith. Justice means getting what you deserve. Mercy means getting what you don’t deserve, offered to you by a source that you cannot achieve on your own.
KP is describing mercy for the individuals; whereas, most conservatives are demanding justice for the sovereignty of the nation before we look to mercy for the individual.
It’s not dualism. It’s more logical that that. We should not be having a chicken-and-egg argument while the chicken is being violated daily.
Sorry for the Kentucky Fried Chicken metaphor.
Tennman on August 21, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM
How about…
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Like the quote AP used about “turning the other cheek”, you also have a lot to learn.
You haven’t spent much time studying the Christian faith have you?
I have often found people who take this kind of stance or belief are actually projecting. That is projecting their own philosophy and placing it at the feet of the people they are criticizing.
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 3:36 PM
No one can answer that question for another person, though you’ve been asking this one since I first got an account here because of the Amish murders.
The only person harmed by blind hatred is the person who hates. Christianity then teaches us to work against that, not because of the person who may be hated but because of the person who hates.
People can easily be consumed by anger and hatred, and for what? Does anyone think Osama cares that he’s hated? Does the idea that someone hates him cause him any discomfort whatsoever?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:37 PM
You make it sound like a simply stupid choice that they embraseed death willingly. They where given a choice to either renounce God, or die. What kind of choice is that? To renounce God and risk eternal death, or risk worldy death for the sake of eternal life?
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 3:37 PM
That’s the kind of love and forgiveness I’ve been waiting for. Hear that, Enrique? Get right with the big guy.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:38 PM
That’s not really the same. They weren’t a country that could defend itself. These were people who were arrested and executed.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Thomas,
Regardless of any upcoming violent clash between Christianity and Islam, there certainly is an deep historical fault line between these two religions, any biblical justification will not be able to be from Christ, as he never condones violence.
Again, Muhammad’s teaching condones and outright advocates violence, Christ does not. There is a difference between interpretation and what the actual scripture says.
Weebork on August 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM
That’s a psalm, the honest thoughts of a person who hated. It’s not used as an example for what to do any more than Anne Frank’s diary teaches anyone how to live.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM
AllahPundit,
Another thing about “love”: KP has the idea that if we give the illegal aliens what they want, we would be following Christ’s command to “love your neighbor.” Osama and his ilk want something from us also. If we don’t give it to them, does that mean that we aren’t following Christ’s command?
You see my point, hopefully.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Except that this is not what Christ says is required for forgiveness. What Christ talks about is repentance, not self loathing. Repentance with respect to being saved, not as in begging to be saved.
It is a great argument, Enrique, but based on a mischaracterization and/or misunderstanding of Christian theology.
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Bring back Pope Urban II.
MB4 on August 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Here’s the thing, Allah. I can pray for Osama to discover Christ and renounce his evil ways. That doesn’t mean I’m calling for him to get a pass on what he’s done or that he shouldn’t have to face the earthly consequences of it.
Kensington on August 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM
All I can tell you is that I pray for it and that I beseach the members of my congregation to do the same.
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Do you stick with the mischaracterizations because you truly believe this is what Christianity is about? Or is this tactic just to bait us for whatever purpose suits your funny bone?
;)
Lawrence on August 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
John 1:11-13
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
It doesn’t actually matter what other Christian commenters think. Christians should be in agreement with scripture.
shick on August 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
More than anything else, Derb is incoherent on the subject. There’s no crime in that, and may reflect that he’s moving in one direction or the other or just hasn’t quite figured things out to his own satisfaction. But he does call himself NRO’s resident “Islamophile” and has cited Armstrong approvingly and those facts ought to be taken into account.
Bryan on August 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Yes, I fully understand that. What I’m asking is, do you pray for Osama to discover Christ? Do you pray at least for him to be forgiven? I’m not asking for hypotheticals, I’m asking how many Christians actually try to practice what they preach.
C’mon, baldi. One of those scenarios is markedly less sin-inducing than another. KP’s trying to help out the poor, not enable mass murder.
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
“I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.”
-Pope Urban II
MB4 on August 21, 2007 at 3:48 PM
That’s not really the same. They weren’t a country that could defend itself. These were people who were arrested and executed.
Esthier
Not quite. They could have got out of the whole mess simply by rendering unto Ceasar, as it were. One particularly poignant story, to this day, is how one Christian woman would not save her child by swearing loyalty to Rome. Had she done that, her child would have lived and she would have died. Instead, the Romans killed her kid first and then burned her to death. She thought it would be better if they were both in heaven, or something.
Gotta find that story to provide a link.
The philosophy changed when a state religion was needed to bind a crumbling Empire. The history of the religion is fascinating.
Krydor on August 21, 2007 at 3:48 PM
If I may add one more point about the love your enemies thing. Alot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, miss the entire context of that message because they stop at verse 27. Real understanding begins by reading the entire chapter but at least down to 32 which reads:
12thman on August 21, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Hehe!
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I do, yes. I pray for him specifically, just as I pray for anyone who enters my thoughts during prayer. There’s nothing extraordinary about that, either; it’s as natural as breathing. I pray for the good to be well and the evil to become good.
Hell, AP, I’ve even prayed for you at least once. >:-)
Kensington on August 21, 2007 at 3:55 PM
About the Jews, someone about said that Christians alone have God as their spiritual father. Not true. The upshot is that God has not abandoned his people (the Jews) and will save them (lots more therein; however….
I’m beginning to think that the latter is true. :-) No matter. AP enjoys these threads, as do most of us. (1000 comments!)
Additionally, Someone Else may have a purpose in mind.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? Secular commie revolutionaries who employ suicide bombers? May wanna hold back on the high fives.
Darth Executor on August 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM
There where is the line drawn, in your opinion?
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 3:57 PM
TNPFIMF “Then where is the line drawn, in your opinion?”
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Look, forgiveness is great, and yes, we are required to forgive all men. What does it mean to forgive, though? Bend over and say, “do it again?” No, it means to not harbor bitterness and hatred. To be a real Christian means to be swift to forgive and slow to condemn. It doesn’t mean be stupid.
Should I pray for Osama? Pray what for him? To be forgiven? Well, I hope he repents and goes through the same process I have to to be forgiven of my sins. I don’t pray for him to be forgiven just because. Even Christ said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” He offered a reason to forgive the soldiers, not just a blanket unilateral forgiving.
I can pray for Osama to be slain, too, and still be Christian. For if Osama is dead, he is no longer committing sin that piles up on his ledger. He will therefore be better off than if he is still alive and kills more. Just look at what Christ said about someone who hurts children–it would be better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the sea than hurt one of these little ones. Killing that abuser would have been better for the abuser than letting him live. I feel the same about Osama.
Vanceone on August 21, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Admitting up front I can’t plow through these comments, as they look like they degenerated pretty fast into namecalling and the regular Do You Pray For Osama debate, I’ll try to get back to one of the main points. AP said:
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization.
Assume for a moment as granted his thesis that Christians, more than other groups, want to welcome more immigrants to America. Even if it’s true, and no reason why it shouldn’t be, why is it then assumed that this Christian view would not recognize the national reality that immigrants must acquiesce to learning the common language, accepting the laws, and normalizing to the culture?
Anwyn on August 21, 2007 at 3:59 PM
AP, this Atheist finds that to be a very condescending remark. Please.
I think you are trying to make valid points here, and I don’t intend to argue you on points, but rather point out some important notes about Christianity and its peaceful but responsible teachings.
“And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner”
That’s the “Do unto others” line. If they’re true Christians, they will treat you the same…
“And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?”
One must fix oneself before one can fix others…
“But he that heareth and doth not is like to a man building his house upon the earth without a foundation: against which the stream beat vehemently. And immediately it fell: and the ruin of that house was great.”
You know, the “let your life be a light” thing?
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.”
Follow the laws of Man when required, kind of like what the “Christians” from Latin America should be doing…
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
Anyone without sin? Didn’t think so. This is very unlike the stoning practices followed a another (arrogant) religion.
This is just a few of the lines I remember from reading the Bible when I believed…and I just wanted you to see some examples of why Christianity as a religion cannot be blamed for the actions of Humans, who may or may not be true followers of said faith.
Miss_Anthrope on August 21, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Turn the other cheek doesn’t mean what most people think it means. What it is not is a personal commandment that you, as an individual, should restrain yourself from conflict even if assaulted.
http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm
It really is necessary to look carefully at what is said to understand the meaning of what is said. Even today, as was in the time of Christ, being backhanded or bitchslapped as it is commonly referred to is and was considered an insult. By turning the other cheek you are not submitting meekly to assault but insisting that the individual striking you treat you as an equal.
Taken in its full context Christ is not demanding that his followers be pacifists in fact quite the opposite, that his follower do not meekly accept any dehumanization or subjugation that other might attempt to thrust upon them. Consider the context here…
This is the exact same Jesus Christ who said…”But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also“. No it clearly does not mean that you, as an individual, should restrain yourself from conflict even if assaulted.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 4:01 PM
If that’s the case, I wonder why they have such blatant disregard for Romans 13. No member of the ‘indigenous’ crowd has ever explained how they can be such good Christians and do whatever they want.
Good point. The Bible doesn’t offer you any assurance if you’re one of those people that professes and never manifests any evidence of that profession.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 4:02 PM
I always thought that there was Buchananite paleocon elements to Derbyshire.
Hilts on August 21, 2007 at 4:02 PM
I can not speak for ALL Christians. Just like you can not speak for ALL atheists. (I would think that you would be relieved that you don’t speak for Enrique and visa-versa.)
Like most Christians, I confess that I don’t spend ENOUGH time in prayer. Nevertheless, I DO pray for my enemies. Regularly. Like every single day. Again, I can’t speak for ALL Christians, but MY list of enemies is pretty doggone long. In fact, the list is SO long, I usually end-up praying ONLY for my NEAR enemies. You know what I mean, AP. I end-up praying for guys like YOU. I am sure everyone here will shame me now that I didn’t get around to praying for Osama Bin Laden’s salvation, right? Oh well. Bygones.
My collie says:
PRCalDude, I am sure that my collie meant that remark as a compliment. (Just doing my part to put this thread over 1000 comments.)
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 4:09 PM
We have shown love for our enemy. Many times our soldiers have cared for the conquered nations. We re-built Japan, Germany, and we will Iraq. Loving is not about embracing them and their beliefs, it is about helping. There has never been a more compassionate people than the Americans towards their enemies.
I truly beleive that on this site if a man is crossing the street and about to get hit by a truck, a boy scout pushes him down out of harms way. Some on this site would say it was an act of violence, others would say an act of love.
We are pushing people out of the way of death from a dictator, and we come in with our love for the people.
Love is also correcting, leading, directing, releasing people from tyranny, putting our lives on the line for people we may not know, but love as part of humanity. Love, in the biblical verse of Matt 5:44, is a love of action (look up the greek word love in this context), not of embracing. Using our resources, and lives of our brave soldiers, in correcting a wrong is compassion and love. It is love in action.
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 4:09 PM
How is it a mischaracterization? Dorian quoted actual scripture to me. I snarked on it for its appalling cruelty. If the clear implications of your own religion bother you, don’t take it out on me.
The line is drawn at self-defense. Loving thy neighbor doesn’t mean letting him kill you. But letting him compete for jobs?
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Hehehe. Ha.
But remember, I think the Sham-nesty thread went over 1,320 comments.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 4:17 PM
That passage of Psalms is interpreted eschatologically. In other words, the Psalmist is describing the day of judgment. Sounds cruel, doesn’t it? But so does hell to the unbeliever. Saying something is cruel doesn’t really prove whether or not it’s true though. It’s an appeal to emotion, not reason.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Allahpundit on August 21, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Bingo…And that is exactly the point of my quoting Psalm 58 to you. If you read my
post you will see how I develop this theme whist keeping the theologically within the groundwork laid by the scriptures themselves.
As long as that competition takes place within the framework of the law I am all for it. As I pointed out before Christian theology and scriptures require Christians to live in accordance with the laws of the nation that they live in.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Hmmm, great thread with lots of interesting comments.
Sadly works only lets me glance/survey most of them.
We are a nation of laws. We need to obey reasonable laws. Our immigration laws as written are reasonable. That Kirsten Powers wants them changed is acceptable. She needs to advocate for laws, have them passed. Heaven forbid they pass. Pun intended. America’s doom would be imminent with such passage.
I think it is hard for you to be Satan’s child, which I know you intended to be facetious. As I believe you do not presently believe in either God or Satan. I will keep you in my prayers.
I agree there are many Christian leaders that advocate submission on immigration an war sadly. I fear they do not understand the unintended consequences of such actions. The Catholic religion is binding on your faith, not your politics. I would dare say, my politics does not necessarily align with the leaders of the church on many political issues. Capital punishment, immigration, etc….
What can I say, but they are mistaken…heh. These are not matters of faith.
Thus we have the two kingdoms, that of God and man.
MarkB on August 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM
AP, personally man, there are tons of things I should be praying about in my own life that I am not. Osama’s salvation being least among them. If the purpose of this post was to show that Christian’s are hypocritical, then congrats, heh. I’m sure any of us could have told you that before hand. But in regards to Christianity in regards to illegal immigration, PRCalDude said it best and it needs to be said again…
I believe I need to do all I can to provide support for the poor. (And not just financially). But that does not necessetate that I force both you and the government to do the same thing as myself.
Also, PRCalDude, good to see another Calvinist here fighting the good fight. :P
CorinthianJest on August 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Thanks! Hopefully, calvinists and conservative lutherans can tip the scales on this blog. It’s been somewhat tough sledding at times.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 4:24 PM
When Jesus was crucified one of the thieves mocked Him. The other thief said that Jesus did not deserve what was happening to Him but the two of them did (the thieves). Jesus assured the remorseful thief that he would be in Paradise but he didn’t even acknowledge the thief who mocked Him. His forgiveness appears to be restricted to those who are remorseful for their behavior.
Rose on August 21, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Exactly. And that is why the role and functions of the individual believer are different from those of the State.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Very good point. And the main theme of the Gospel of Mark is that those to whom the forgiveness of Christ is extended to lead transformed, changed lives flowing out of their faith.
Note to Allah: just doing my part to get this thread above 1,300.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
That’s because us lazy/slouch/loafer type Arminians are more than happy to let you Calvinists pummel AP into submission — and I must say that you have all done a splendid job of it here in this thread.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Some may argue that sealing our borders is self-defense; not only against the errant jihadi or Mexican drug dealer who may steal across the border, but against those who would unlawfully take food out of the mouths of my (hypothetical) children (assuming I were competing low-wage jobs) or take money out of my pocket (via social programs).
You asked above “then why not make them all citizens? (Or perhaps it was KP who asked that.) Again, as someone else pointed out, because the inflow will never end. Of its own volition, the Mexican government will not change the social and economic conditions which cause its browner citizens to flee northward. Of its own volition, the American government will not change the security conditions which allow Mexican citizens (and others) into the USA illegally–proven by past actions. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that neither government has any incentive to change.
Taken to its logical conclusion–assuming that the inflow would never end without a radical change in our security situation–everyone in the world who has a will and a way will hightail it to Mexico to make a northern run for the border. And that will eventually be to the detriment of those who were born here or who are here legally.
No suicide pact, thanks.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Derbyshire basically agrees with Spencer’s points in his book, but summarily dismisses it under a thinly veiled disdain for religious faith in totality.
Bryan summed him up well with the fact that he calls himself an Islamophile and lauds books on slam by the likes of Karen Armstrong.
Christianity is far from perfect, historically and as it exists today, but let’s be real here. A moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam?
I also don’t subscribe to the “Christianity is to blame for the onslaught of Islam upon it”. Without Christianity’s resolve against the Muslims, a la the Crusades, Europe might look vastly different today. I mean, if that precluded the existence of Hitler then great, but you have to weigh the pros and cons in it’s respective historical relevance.
awake on August 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
From Derb -
What I find annoying is the way Derb assumes all western readers are as ignorant as he is about standardized Arabic-English transliteration. That “Q” is the closest approximation we have to the the Arabic letter “Quaff,” a letter and sound that doesn’t exist in English. And that apostrophe represents a “glottal stop,” there being no diphthong in most dia