Spencer responds to Derbyshire: Christianity’s done pretty well so far, hasn’t it?
posted at 12:48 pm on August 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You didn’t think I was going to the let the counterpoint to a 600+ comment thread waste away on the headlines page, did you?
Spencer’s point is simple but effective: If Christianity is the root of western malaise towards the Islamist threat, how on earth did Europe ever resist becoming Muslim?
The ringing peroration of Derbyshire’s review is his declaration that while “Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says ‘Judeo-Christian,’ but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.” (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that “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.?”
One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn’t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s. Were the Sixties, when immigration controls were effectively ended and globalization gained immense momentum, a time of some great Christian revival? In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.
As for Derb’s point about whether you’d rather have Hitchens or Bishop Muskens as a wingman in your fight against shari’a, the answer is clear — but what does it prove?
That truth, of course, is not coterminous with the desiccated and vacuous Christianity that prevails in so many places today. Derbyshire gets off some of his most engaging shots by playing up that hollow shell as the real thing: “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?” – that is, the befuddled Dutch bishop who recommends that Christians in the Netherlands, not hitherto known for speaking Arabic, begin to refer to God as “Allah” to please and pacify their Muslim neighbors. Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question. In my book, as Derbyshire notes, I call for an alliance with atheists, among others, but for his part I am not sure whether Hitchens would identify me as part of the problem or part of the solution. And there’s the problem: we know we’re under attack, but we have to figure out who or what the enemy is in order to be able to fight properly. Is it religious people? Religion itself? Islamic jihad? Christian theocracy? Determining the answer is the purpose of my book.
But John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught: “If—to put faces on the abstractions—Roger Cardinal Mahoney [sic] and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?” On Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?
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
Yep. That was the best sentence.
PRCalDude on August 23, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Robert Spencer is cool!
BadgerHawk on August 23, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I’ve gotta wonder, if we have to convince some of the leading intellectual lights of “conservatism” about the virtues of Christianity vs. Islam, what hope do we really have? Perhaps those who see destruction coming from far off should just make plans to get out of the way of it.
PRCalDude on August 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Zane the troll makes an appearance in the comments section.
mram on August 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM
no comment, and im not a troll, im a person.
zane on August 23, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I still need to look up “lagniappe”….
I left an apropos elucidation in the “headline” post. The gist of which was: Mr Spencer kicked English hiney.
jdpaz on August 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Excellent counterpoint!!
MarkB on August 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
It proves that Derb is being disingenuous, asking if you want a powerful atheist to defend you or a weak Christian is a pathetic characterization of Christianity. Rather than have Hitchens or Bishop Muskens, the question would have provoked a considerably different response had it been Hitchens or Robert Spenser.
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Eloquent as ever, Mr. Spenser.
Rock on!
Oh, and thanks for the two trips to http://www.dictionary.com I had to take today. This logophile loves a new word.
tickleddragon on August 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Thanks for posting this AP, and I actually caught it before it turned into a comment monster. Spencer’s response hit the right note, both in tone and pitch. His reference to Aquinas is right on, and I would even throw it back further, to the 4th century, to the Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. In his Kingdom of God, he makes several arguments concerning how a Christian is to live within a govt. that can either be opposed to or in favor of Christianity. One argument he makes is that the Christian is not to confuse civil govt. with the Kingdom of God; they are distinct and have different roles. However, this has never meant that Christians shouldn’t defend and participate in its government, if possible. We are never to simply “check out” and wait until we cross the River. Augustine notes that since in reality, the Church has to exist within a form of govt., then we as Christians should fight for and defend that form of government that is most friendly to the Church. And this is where it applies to Spencer’s point about globalization. Globalization continues to define down and fuzzy the lines of the idea of what nations are (e.g. open boarders). This continues to threaten, at a foundational level, (what is America and what is an American Citizen) the Church in America. Both Augustine and Aquinas understood the role of Law and Civil Govt., the role of borders and language. This was a great response by Spencer.
Weight of Glory on August 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
A quick comparo to solve Derbyshortsighted’s attempt to equate the two religions in the hostility realm:
Christianity - God sent the Apostles to declare God’s love and forgiveness, and to offer it as a choice with spiritual consequences
Islam - Allah sent Mohammed with a sword to declare Allah as great, and to offer Islam as a choice with physical consequences (convert or die)
Too simple of an answer? For Derbystupid, yes. Thankfully, Spencer’s long, but excellent response will suffice.
I agree with Spencer that the all-too-common “what about the Crusades?” question is completely irrelevant to the current situation. The Crusades event is a brief blip in history and is so far removed from Christianity today.
A more accurate comparison would involve analysis of contemporary systematic theologies in each religion, ranging from mainstream to fundamentalist. When looking at the latter, the most horrific element fundamentalist Christianity has to offer is bordering on oppression, which is a far cry from the oppression, torture, and killing of fundamentalist Islam.
“Wait…I know, I know,” says the misconception regurgitating secularist. “Abortion clinic killings! Those are just as bad!”
News flash for the secularist: killing abortion clinic staff is very rare, is not condoned by Christian fundamentalists as a whole, and is openly condemned by Evangelicals. The call to prayer for stopping abortions and the occasional peaceful protesting are the agreed upon methods. This is quite diff than imams and clerics calling for Jihad when offended.
jediwebdude on August 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
You know, we’ll never win the war of words if we still have to look them up in the dictionary.
Kini on August 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Oh yeah, Robert sent me off to the dictionary several times.
I would describe Spencer’s response as “Shock and Awe”, and wherever Derbyshire was, now you will find only a smoking hole.
Maxx on August 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM
From Spencer’s rebuttal:
Actually, for this to happen, Islam itself would have to be re-classified as a political ideology or more accurately a geopolitical cult, as opposed to a religion. If that isn’t going to happen, how does one make the case that Islam is a religion, but an Islamic group is a political organization?
Kini
You obviously haven’t read Hugh Fitzgerald @ JihadWatch
infidelpride on August 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Kini on August 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM
You know, we’ll never win the war of words if we
still have to look them up inthe dictionary to look the words up in.Ah..hem…Thank you thank you, I’ll be here all week…
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 2:00 PM
LOL. Surely you find Robert Spencer’s exegesis of the Koran enlightening?
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Yes! Yes! Excellent! The various contemporary postmodern views of bravery have, in some places, crept into the hearts of many Christians. This has not always been so. Good for Spencer in listing them.
Weight of Glory on August 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Ha!
Weight of Glory on August 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Touché, Robert.
Halley on August 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Actually, to be fair, ‘lagniappe’ was inserted by Derbyshire, not Spencer.
To those who would like to be saved a trip to the dictionary
infidelpride on August 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Yes, that must be difficult…but Spencer is not one to debase his linguistic abilities based on the assumption that one cannot deduce his meaning, whether direct or implied.
Miss_Anthrope on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
I know I am. When I get out of school I’m gonna invest in a large naval vessel of some sort. Call me a pessimist but I think Western Civilization’s days are numbered.
Darth Executor on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Viva Charles Martel!
jp on August 23, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Charles Martel, call your European heirs.
They’re getting intellectually and spiritually flabby.
John Sobieski, croissants all around?
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Darth Executor on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
What civilizations days aren’t? No civilization lasts forever, hopefully Western Civilization will outlast me, if not…well there’s always hunting with a bow and arrow and wearing semi-smelly animal hides to fall back on…
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM
jp-
I think Charles M. would appreciate the synchronicity.
(Bagels are also a culinary item invented to celebrate the saving of Vienna from the 17th century Islamic jihadists … in imitation of the Polish king Sobieski’s stirrups, just as croissants were formed by the city’s bakers to give a Bronx cheer- in flaky filo dough- to the defeated Muslim crescent.)
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Well then, ’bout time to ban them morally offensive bad boys from the whole EU, doncha think?
eeyore on August 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Despite all of my criticisms of Christianity, I will take Robert Spencer as an ally along with all the Christians here at HA over the atheists of the world who stupidly believe that Christianity is as equal a threat to life and liberty as is Islam.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Not trying to pile on–I know it was meant to be a funny–but to help: if you’re using Firefox, pull down the list of your search engines, click “Manage Search Engines,” then click “Get more search engines.” Merriam Webster will be one of them. (If you already know this, disregard. Someone else might be able to use the info.)
While reading the Derbyshire piece the other day and the Spencer rebuttal today, I had to copy and paste ‘lagniappe,’ ‘coterminous,’ and ‘dyadic’ (from a commenter)into the MW search engine. I’m always happy to add new words into my noggin.
baldilocks on August 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Not to pat myself on the back but Spencer’s answer (although more eloquent) is directly in-line with mine from the 600 comment post:
12thman on August 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Thanks, I was being facetious. I was amused by the whole discussion and yet, it did take me to the dictionary a few times.
I guess my understanding of the clash of civilizations and cultures should be limited to either a Cliff Note version or cinematic version like The 300. Let alone a Homer’esq (Simpson) view of world events.
Either way, I like my news with lots of pictures and no big words.
Kini on August 23, 2007 at 3:15 PM
The Christian memes are in general less toxic than the Islamic memes, however, certain elements of the Christian memes work in such a way to shield all faiths under the guise of “all faiths are worthy of respect”.
This type of thinking creates a justification for moderates to turn a blind eye to religous extremists and therefore encourages extremism to flourish.
However, to answer your question, in the same way that Chicken Pox is less toxic than Smallpox, I ag ree Christianity Memes are less toxic than Islamic memes.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM
baldilocks on August 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Didnt know that, thank you……
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Cool and cool!
baldilocks on August 23, 2007 at 3:32 PM
On Internet Explorer, download a toolbar - I recommend Advanced Searchbar, and in the search menu, make sure that the dictionary is there. Merriam-Webster is the one they use, so type the world you want ‘lagniappe’ in the search box, and from the pull-down menu, select dictionary. You’re good to go.
Unfortunately, Firefox doesn’t have any good toolbars except Google.
infidelpride on August 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM
For my money, it’s the Knights Hospitaller and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and Malta. I’ll take the 500 and you can have Mullah Omar and whomever else he wants.
Jaibones on August 23, 2007 at 4:15 PM
don’t feed the
troll“person”Moreover, why is it that otherwise intelligent people who happen also to be atheists so often end up saying such ridiculous things when defending atheism and attacking Christianity?
And in contrast, they seem to sound most reasonable when they offer due praise to Christians (a la Oriana Fallaci).
urbancenturion on August 23, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Derbyshire is a hack. I cancelled my long-time subscription to NR because I was sick of reading his crap. I also boycott NRO out of principle. Derbyshire is anything but conservative or libertarian. He’s just a cranky, anal whiner.
windbag on August 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
My chief problem with Derb is that he’s an intellectual lightweight. This isn’t a blanket-attack on all atheists, as I believe it’s entirely possible to defend atheism without attacking religion per se, but the old Derb-ster seems to take the path of least resistance in making all of us Christian kooks seem like the unreasonable ones. Where’s the tolerance, Derb?
gryphon202 on August 23, 2007 at 4:30 PM
We just need to reconsider who we call leading intellectual lights of “conservatism”
Not to mention completely misunderstood and mischaracterized by many Christians today.
The Real History of the Crusades
TheBigOldDog on August 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Based on your “response” to Robert’s rebuttal of Derbyshire’s critique on Pajamas, I and many others tend to disagree with you.
Remember, once you get on the troll list it is nigh impossible to get off.
awake on August 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
During the middle ages bishops and archbishops often bore arms against the moslem pagans. True, this was not entirely within their priestly calling ,which forbade them to spill blood. So instead of swords they fought with heavy maces.
Please, God, will you send us a few of those guys?
dhimwit on August 23, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Allah
Can this thread swap places with the 750+ thread? Or do you go by ratings, rather than most recent?
infidelpride on August 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
awake on August 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Count me in on that list of many others who disagree with him, in my book zane is just a troll.
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Speaking broadly, the accusation of weakness raised anew by John Derbyshire dates at least from the time of Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings. Look at the beginning of The Florentine Histories, where Machiavelli makes a discreet parody of the Trinity and the Incarnation. He explains that the “barbarians” of the North, when their populace has become over-large, divide into three parts. The two send the third part south, while the two remain behind to “enjoy the father’s goods.” The third part of the barbarians go south and ruin “Italy,” not in one or two sacks, but somehow continuously. For Machiavelli’s conclusion at the end of his book is that “the barbarians have ruined and are still ruining Italy.” Look at the exact center of The Florentine Histories for Machiavelli’s portrayal of a pope crying over his disastrous interference in the Italian politics of his day. In the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy, Machiavelli calls, plainly and almost directly, for the destruction of the Holy Father.
So anger over the Church’s meddlesomeness and weakness have been with us a very long time. I think John Locke thought that Protestantism and his own doctrines in support of toleration would be enough to make Christianity manageable in regimes founded to secure liberty.
One problem seems to be that, as tolerant as the Christians have become, post-Christian left-liberals have gone farther and turned toleration into a suicide pact. It seems left-liberals took a tendency, native to Christianity and nurtured by Locke, and made it an exaggerated, ridiculous, but also dangerous caricature. Yet the further problem is that it’s been altogether too easy for them to bring the Christians partway along with them.
Understand, I think it’s great that the Christians have renewed their toleration for the Jews and that they’ve developed toleration for the atheists and for peaceable members of the other peaceable faiths. I just think that Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Aristotelians, and everyone had better draw the line at toleration of Islam. Without Islam, everyone could peaceably discuss the Truth until Judgment Day or until the universe falls back in on itself. But Islam combines murderousness and parasitism with a conditional patience that masquerades as toleration. I think everyone is foolish to let muslims multiply in their lands or to calmly give money to muslims in exchange for “their” oil, as if you don’t know they’re using the money to spread terror and a most ridiculous faith.
Kralizec on August 23, 2007 at 5:51 PM
TheBigOldDog on August 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM
That article should be required reading for anyone posting here on the topics of Islam or religion, damn shame Allahpundit will probably never bother reading it.
doriangrey on August 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Makes me think we should pass a Battle of Tours holiday in this country. It would even the side effect of improving our relations with the French!
As for “lagniappe”, like others, I’m not ashamed to admit I had to lookup a word that is evidently a creole adoption of a Spanish phrase of regional American usage.
mjgreco on August 23, 2007 at 6:03 PM
One point that both seemed to have missed. The jihadists aren’t mad because Muslims are in the U.S. They are upset because non-Muslims are anywhere.
corona on August 23, 2007 at 9:36 PM
dorian,
I was referring to to others. You were a given. :)
awake on August 24, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Rarely, if ever, have truer words been spoken.
It looks like another anti-jihadist has done his homework.
Kudos. :)
awake on August 24, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Game. Set. Match.
John on August 24, 2007 at 12:31 AM
On IE7, I just clicked on the triangle in the upper right corner, selected “Find more providers…”
Then you add a URL that searches for the word TEST
In addition to dictionary.com, I also added a quick link for Bible searches by adding this URL:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=TEST&qs_version=31&language=english&optional.x=17&optional.y=10
pedestrian on August 24, 2007 at 1:22 AM
boil this doen to simplicity, historically:
Christianity produced imperialism
Islam produced jihad
Socialism produced globalism
Saying Christianity produced globalism is terribly flawed. It clearly is very different then imperialism which modern intellectuals complain about. There is little to even debate, Derbyshire is wrong out of the gate on this and Spencer is right.
I’m sure it isn’t PC to say but I think it is a fact that Imperialism is the only one of the 3 that tended to actually benefit its “victims”.
Resolute on August 24, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Resolute-
If your “empire” (imperium) is for human rights and freedom of thought, scientific development, rational medical advances, universal education, sanitation, and it vigorously defends its citizens, then what’s wrong with an empire, or “imperialism”?
You either have strength (an “empire”) or you are at the mercy of whoever has the instinctual will to develop their own.
Rome’s water projects still stand as a reminder of what good can come from the “imperial” impulse.
Nothing stands in memorium of Islam’s totalitarian thrust but a big, shiny tomb (the Taj Mahal), some tilework (al-Hambra), and a lots of ruins (former Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist and Berber and pagan sites throughout the world), and the ridiculous “Muslim universities” whose main production is issuing irrationalistic and superstitious “fatwas”.
Socio-globalism started with the Nazis (expansionistic “national socialists”), who luckily drove away their best scientists, giving us the Bomb first.
It is what each stands for, not their politicized names, that matters.
We defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Islam defends total slavery to a backward, intolerant, brutal thecoracy.
Globalism defends its utopian dream with a more cunning form of slavery than Islam, by aiming to restrict freedom “for the greater good”, instead of working to expand freedom as the primary good, itself.
profitsbeard on August 24, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Its actually the LEFTIST memes that preach “tolerance and respect for all things” no matter how demented they might be. I agree you will find respect for all people in the Bible, even to the extent of love thy enemies. But I don’t recall any verse stating all “faiths” are worthy of respect. I challenge you to find that in the scriptures.
Maxx on August 24, 2007 at 11:24 AM