How the West must win
posted at 7:30 pm on December 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If the West expects to defeat radical Islamist terrorism, it cannot rely solely on the language of secularism, Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia argues in a Pajamas Media column today. To the extent that the West relies on its post-Enlightenment institutions, the radical Islamists will adapt and pervert them; to the extent that the West offers secular arguments and ecumenical bromides, the radical Islamists will ignore us. In order to make progress, the West will have to relearn how to speak the language of faith — and to value its own heritage:
The West loves its court systems, its bureaucracies, its diversities, but jihadists use these tools to further their ends. They will not be legislated, jailed, sued, or celebrated out of existence. Appeasement and the stodgy language of diplomacy will not stop them, either, because “diplomacy” is not the language being spoken in these attacks. The fundamentalists who endorse and commit terror believe they are heaven-bound heroes. First and foremost, they “believe.” Their rhetoric of jihad rides the language of faith.
It is with the language of faith that Islamic terrorism must be engaged and defeated, and therein lies the disconnect for the diplomatic West. Having reasoned itself out of faith, its incomplete arsenal is fit for battle, but not for victory. The West can speak only of borders, boundaries, markets, and measurement. Faith exists beyond boundaries and borders; it defies markets and measurement. The negotiables of the West are worldly and “the world” means nothing in the face of paradise. Islam, like all faith, is not of this world but of the world to come. Islam’s extremists, like all extremists, would like to speed their agenda along.
Jihad is not interested in acquiring land, or money, or even control, which faith understands to be illusory. What these extremists want [13] is submission. To their book or to their sword.
We should consider that Islamic terrorism may not be defeatable, except on its own terms, [14] on the battlefield of the supernatural.
To secularists and avowed agnostics who work to expunge all religious language from governments, that idea is anathema. I doubt it makes many Christians or Jews happy, either. But the war on terror is as much about ideas and ideals as about security and strategy. If one side’s ideas are mayhem in service to transcendence and the other side is thinking about meetings and signed papers, then secular Western diplomacy is boxing with one glove.
Elizabeth makes an interesting argument. In past conflicts between Islam and Western civilization, both sides felt equally comfortable making religious arguments for their own side. The West did not indulge in moral relativism (and neither did the Islamists). Europe under siege did not aspire to rid itself of its religious underpinnings and never allowed itself to believe that such a development would bring mercy from their foes.
Of course, in many ways, the conflict has changed. No longer do entire Muslim nations want to march across Western nations and replace spires with minarets. Their descendants have dwindled to a tiny minority among Islam. However, they retain the sympathy of millions if not tens of millions of their co-religionists for their aims of imposing Islam around the world, as we can see whenever they take offense at editorial cartoons and the like.
If the West has put God on the sidelines, as Elizabeth argues, the Islamists have put him at the center of their offensive. Talking as if God doesn’t exist or is irrelevant to the distance between the Muslim workd and the West obviously has not done much for the West’s credibility. But it’s worth asking whether a religious debate would help much, either. The radicals won’t listen, and the rest of the Muslim world might get even more antagonistic.
In the end, power will be the final arbiter, as it is in almost all human conflict. Until the risk/reward ratio gets to the point where supporting the radical Islamists costs more than it’s worth, we can discuss scriptures until we’re blue in the face without impacting the sympathy and support the terrorists receive from their co-religionists. That doesn’t mean we should keep God on the sidelines — I agree that we have to stop being afraid of our own heritage in this conflict — but that Napoleon’s famous axiom about the Almighty favoring the side with the most battalions will have more application.
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: « Previous 1 2
We ARE being true to our modern values: tolerance, “diversity”, cultural relativism, white guilt.
That’s the problem.
The only thing that will defeat the incredibly powerful ideas and motivation of radical Islam is opposing powerful ideas and motivation. Modern society fails miserably. It might be that Christianity is our only hope. That is, if they don’t join up with Islam to attain joint cultural hegemony. Which would be futile, because Islam would eventually take complete control.
JimC on December 13, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Personaly I prefer Voltaire’s axiom better.
Dreadnought223 on December 13, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Glad to see we’ve banned Robert Spencer’s posts here at Hot Air. Please visit http://www.jihadwatch.org for more information on this topic. Michelle, please allow Robert Spencer to post here at Hot Air like you have in the past.
nazo311 on December 13, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Baloney. Catholicism is a withering influence peddler for a ruling system that hasn’t existed in ages. Protestant churches are nothing but extravagant social clubs for the middle-class that will evaporate when the American fiat currency does the same. These ridiculous parodies of Christianity are the source of our troubles, not the solution.
Anyone who wants answers can read the Book for themselves without having it filtered through the superfluous creeds and catechisms of self-serving hypocrites.
TMK on December 13, 2008 at 1:31 AM
The “West” has put its faith in the power of the secular state. Radical islam has put its faith in the power of private action, motivated by religious belief. Relativism will always be at a disadvantage when at war with those with certainty.
We will know that the West is prepared to meet the challenge when and if private religiously motivated groups take up the fight against radical islam. Such groups will wage war not on an amoral level, but on the certainty that their cause is just and meet. They will emerge when and if the secular state fails to protect us. Clearly we have not reached that point, and I pray that we never reach it. The first sign will be the disappearance of radical islamists in the West. Such will occur not by government action but in spite of it.
DaMav on December 13, 2008 at 2:02 AM
If you have banned Robert Spencer, then you must ban me also as I share many of his his views of radical Islam.
i personally feel that Islam has no more legitimacy than Scientology has. Both were created by men, to enrich themselves. The difference, mainly being, a Scientologist may leave Scientology with his head, an apostate, or one who leaves Islam may not.
I no more blame Muslims for being deceived into believing what is in the Koran, than I blame those that put their faith in Jim Jones, and subsequently lost their lives.
I hold no ill will against Muslims. I do however have a problem with those religious leader within Islam, that call for the death of all those who refuse to embrace Islam.
Army Brat on December 13, 2008 at 2:15 AM
I don’t think G-d has much to do with this fight. What is needed, domestically and abroad, is the death of political correctness. Not all cultures are of equal value and not all ideologies are equally sensible or matched to fit with modern society. We need to be able to acknowledge the truth. That’s all. Islam is not a religion, it’s a political ideology with an attendant mythology. Islam is also primitive and ill-suited to modern society. If we cannot acknowledge this, and speak publicly about it, then we cannot win.
It serves no one any good to try and compare Judaism or Christianity to islam, since islam was nothing but a theft of large parts of Judaism and Christianity (with a heavy concentration on Judaism and terribly twisted in the translation to arab culture) and sought, most of all, to steal the contemporaneous, and historical, legitmacy of Judaism and Christianity, while simultaneously declaring war on them. e.g. The koran plagiarizes the story of Isaac’s sacrifice, but sticks Ishmael on the rock, claims arabs descent from Ishamel, and then says that Jews are liars for having told everyone it was Isaac. It doesn’t get much lower than that. They do the same with Jesus’ crucifixion (someone else was on the cross, according to the koran) – no big surprise. And there are tons of other such examples – enough to make any copyright attorney blow a gasket and any author spit nails, let alone allowing the discussion of the righteous fury that any of Jews or Christians might feel about that sort of nastiness. But, as we see in Canada and Europe, even the mention of these obvious facts is grounds for public humiliation of the offending truth-teller and societal spasms of self-flagellation (along with increased muslim immigration) to atone for the sin of bluntness. This will kill us, if allowed to continue.
With respect to the hot war, we see the same problems there. We fight politically correct wars in which no one is really allowed to be killed. We are more interested in court martialing our own soldiers every time they shoot someone than acknowledging how many Western lives are put at risk by the arab/persian/muslim (APM) enemies.
When we do finally come to clear thinking on this, we will realize that much of the threat posed to us by the APM world starts and stops at the gulf oil fields. We could take those fields and defang the enemy in almost no time. They would have nothing left. Finished. But we wouldn’t dare do that, even they only have the fields because they stole them in their forced nationalization waves of 50 years ago. So, we allow forced nationalization for them but refuse forced internationalization for the civilized world. To me, that says everything anyone needs to know about why we’re having a hard time dealing with the APM threats.
But, this is all part and parcel of a society, like ours, that has a strategic nuclear arsenal but bleets on about how killing civilians can never be contemplated. War is hell. We don’t ask for it, but used to know what was required to fight it. That is what needs to return. Political correctness must die.
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Step aside muslim haters and neo cons..
Father Zakaria Boutros will handle this by himself.
You guys are just messing things up.
Father Zakaria is a Coptic Orthodox Priest whose shows are watched by over 60 million muslims daily.
We will not stop islam with war and hate, but with Love, converting the muslims back to Orthodox Christians.
http://www.fatherzakaria.net/
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Sorry, Ed, that is only partially true. Whole nations may not march, but wherever they do settle, they insist upon replacing spires with minarets – and the customs that go with them.
There is no room for Islam, and the rest of the world. They know that, why don’t we?
OldEnglish on December 13, 2008 at 3:38 AM
I just want to note that I am against any sort of “internationalization” and only offer this up to the twerps who like to put so much stock in insane institutions like the UN and naive “international law”, like the Geneva Conventions. For me, the value of the fields to the war against us, along with strategic death blow that retaking the gulf fields would be to the enemies, is justification enough. The oil fields would be taken, immediately privatized, and (civilized) world production would take off like gangbusters while the APM enemies would be without wealth, political muscle, or anything else.
They had 50 years of free cash flow (trillions!) through those fields and all they have to show for it is the destabilizing, and retarding, factors they have been on the rest of the world. Besides all that, the oil price spike was the match that lit the sub-prime fire that is burning up the world, and the OPEC countries are trying to do it again, with their new organized production cuts, which are acts of war, in my book.
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 4:08 AM
I have been making this same point for years now. Many of the same arguments that are presented by Scalia I have argued with friends. The jihadists do not care about our property and our values. They do not agree with that outlook on life. You are fighting a philosophy. You cannot defeat it with bombs or guns because death is not a punishment to the jihadist.
In the end, if we are to defeat radical Islam, we must defeat the philosophy. We must show the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of radical Islam. We must show that it is a religion of death and oppression. We must offer a spiritual alternative that attracts the adherents of radical Islam and turns them to peace.
The more we move away from the philosophical and spiritual battle, the more we are shooting blindly at the wrong target. It is an effort doomed to failure because it does not take away the strength of our enemy. In fact it adds fuel to the flames and creates even more distrust. The very nature of our response gives credence to the arguments of the jihadist.
Hawthorne on December 13, 2008 at 5:05 AM
You know, Hawthorne, they consider that the most serious provocation and act of war possible. If you go proselytizing in muslim countries, you probably won’t live too long.
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 5:15 AM
Really? uh…
Also, who is Robert Spencer? Why was he banned? I think people have a right to BE Islamic…I do not doubt that their are millions of them…but it doesn’t mean it is not a death cult. ALL of it.
Mommypundit on December 13, 2008 at 6:36 AM
Robert Spencer was banned???
keep the change on December 13, 2008 at 7:41 AM
Why?
Hening on December 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Someone please bring us up to speed about Robert Spencers posts being banned…?? Can that be?
The best books on this topic are Spencers Stealth Jihad and Mark Steyns America Alone.
CarolynM on December 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Oh, and anything Diana West writes on the subject.
CarolynM on December 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM
I think Ahmadinajad has made it clear that is what he wishes. and no doubt other nations, like syria, think that, but will not say it.
we can think we keep Him on the sidelines, but He is pulling the strings…as Iran will soon find it to their utter horror.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM
No. People are just making unwarranted assumptions about the fact that Robert no longer posts his Koran lessons.
Stop spreading misinformation, folks.
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Sometimes, when a comment starts off badly, it undermines a person’s whole position.
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Often times Liberals I know will ask me why, as an agnostic with no religious background or intentions, am I a Conservative? After all, the Conservatives are Republicans and Republicans are right wing religious fanatics.
Since most Liberals are unknowingly, and in many cases unwittingly, a part of their own cult like religion (called Liberalism) I generally don’t even try to answer their question.
But this idea posed by Elizabeth is actually very interesting and thoughtful. The problem with my “faith”, or lack thereof, is that, while it is pure and unassuming, there is little structure to it and no promise of paradise. This makes it difficult to tangibly offer to someone else as their way to salvation.
My perspective would be a particularly difficult “sale” to the Muslim religion where glory lies in the death of those that believe otherwise.
I believe that Elizabeth is on to something. Now, perhaps, when my Liberal acquaintances as me how I tolerate the “religious right” I will tell them that they are our only hope at defeating the factious Muslims.
watson007 on December 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM
You’ve written a few times on various threads about Orthodox Christianity. Here you have an interesting comment about Copts and a link. I thought the Copt community is just about totally descimated in Egypt? Ever since Nasser, formerly flourishing minority communities in Egypt are persecuted. Most no longer exist there. And I hadn’t ever heard before that historically, most or many Muslims were former Christians. So I don’t get your comment about converting them back to Christianity.
Also, I think it was CyperCypher who described you as a Pentecostal. I don’t know it that’s correct, and not much yet off the top of my head about that denomination, but I didn’t know it had anything to do with Orthodox Christianity. That’s why I was surprised you’re mentioning it. But I’ve found Orthodox Christianity very interesting every time I’ve read something about it. And your comment somewhere about no Inquisition, indulgences, reformation, etc. was something I also hadn’t ever heard said before.
So what’s the deal? Are you an Orthodox Christian? Like Greek, Russian, what? What would you want someone to read about Orthodox Christianity to understand it, especially in contrast to Roman Catholicism?
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Do you need religious structure to establish your moral self? Seems to me those that view Heaven with its promise of everlasting life, love and 72 virgins, etc. are more prone to view THIS life with little regard especially against those they view as “religious adversaries”. If you need a religion that is based on borrowed folklore, campfire stories and old-fashioned fear to guide you through this life, you’ve got bigger problems intellectually rather than spiritually.
dk on December 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
It seems many, if not most people do, and thereby benefit from it greatly. As they do, your neighbors, so do you. Your own moral self may be piggybacking on religious structure that permeates what we may think is the purely secular world. Philosophical people, prone to introspection and unwilling to accept on blind faith alone, may need to self-verify religious dogma, and some may end up rejecting it. But the rejection of any specific religious dogma isn’t necessarily the same as the belief that the individual intellect, or belief in hedonism, is sufficient to worship.
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Wrong. Muslims fighting each other is just practice for the war against the Big Satan (US) and the Little Satan (Israel). Domination of the world is the ultimate objective. Reestablishment of the caliphate and conquest through jihad or “stealth jihad”. (Read Spencer!)
Islam means submission.
Disturb the Universe on December 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM
If I remember correctly, Spencer was asked to suspend posting his Koran blog when Hot Air decided to focus solely on the election. Now that the election is over perhaps he will return.
Disturb the Universe on December 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Robert Spencer was banned from Little Green Footballs where Charles Johnson is going nuts.
Disturb the Universe on December 13, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Jihad has always been about conquering infidel (non-muslim) lands (dar-ul-harb/house of war), stealing their wealth and subjugating/enslaving their defeated foes as well as forcibly converting the ‘unbelievers’ or making them dhimmis and establishing Islamic rule (dar-ul-islam/house of peace).
This is plainly evident in their politico-theocratic texts. Muslims consider themselves the rightful, divinely sanctioned rulers of the world, we are their inferiors, it is a fascist Nazi ideology based on religion instead of race.
To defeat Islam, the ideology must be completely eliminated and the muslim world must be democratized. Trying to find ways to live with Islam or reform it will end in failure (and our defeat), they tried for centuries. It is a barbaric, inhumane, medieval death cult that must be ended and I’m dismayed to see that so few people across the political spectrum understand this.
I beg to differ. Islam is and always has been an imperialist, Arab supremacist, totalitarian enterprise it is a central theme within this political religion. It would be wishful-thinking to believe Islam no longer wants to dominate the globe, when its leaders are endlessly and fervently promising such an end game for us all.
Any weaker cultures they’ve encountered that were unable to repel Islam were completely obliterated. Their history, their beliefs/religions, even their identities/names have been Arabized and stricken from memory and their citizens converted into zombie slaves and carriers of the Islam plague, to continue spreading the disease globally.
This is also our fate if we also fail to understand and defeat this parasitic contagion in time. We can witness this process in action today in countries like Iran. While muslims are too weak to defeat us militarily at present, they intend to overwhelm us with numbers through breeding (high birth-rates) and immigration (the population bomb).
Once they’re majorities they will elect themselves into power and Islamify our countries using state power to genocide and convert infidels, like they did in Sudan and Lebanon as recent examples. Its a pattern they’ve used with great success to take over 55 countries so far.
Muslims are far from being a minority, 1 in 4 people in the world is a muslim and soon it will be 1 in 3, while the West and Christian population is in decline. If you were referring to the ‘radicals’, US intelligence estimates between 10-20% (100-200 million) are radicals/jihadists and based on polling the majority of muslims support them.
I think we’re in agreement in your final point, however I’d take it a step further. Not only do we have defeat the radicals, but we have to eradicate this cancer completely or it will just metastasize again as it has done repeatedly throughout history. Historian Will Durant said it best:
“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within.”
thinkagain on December 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Proselytizing is illegal in hard line muslim nations for a reason – it works
I have heard Christian converts from islam talk about how quickly many convert to Christianity if they are exposed to the differences in the two faiths. One mentioned high numbers of conversions in Algeria, but you will not hear this from the Algerian government
The islamic model attempts to encapsulates the members in a world where outsiders are considered a threat to the organism. Outsiders, apostates, are more than dissents, they are destoyers of the world so the ‘defensive’ war fought against the outsiders has no end.
You can only break this logic by presenting a better system that does not devalue God, because the atheist muslim is a minority muslim
entagor on December 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM
It seems many, if not most people do, and thereby benefit from it greatly. As they do, your neighbors, so do you. Your own moral self may be piggybacking on religious structure that permeates what we may think is the purely secular world.
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
No doubt that I benefit from having others morally controlled by religion. However, I think Christian Conservatives confuse traditional values with nationwide acceptance on Christianity.
dk on December 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Thanks. That’s certainly different from being banned.
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Well yes. That’s the Achilles heal bin Laden and others see when they survey the modern West. Liberal societies in Europe in particular, but the US as well, are viewed as susceptible to political manipulation via religious infiltration. Our world outlook and technology offer few protections from religious extremism. It’s true, and they’ve recognized that, and now exploit it.
What is ironic, I think, is that much of today’s turning away from Christianity in modern Europe was a reaction to what was widely seen as the failure of Christianity to protect Europeans from the ravages of the 20th century, two unbelievably destructive world wars, the toppling of centuries old dynasties and the traditional social order, the rise of socialism and communism, etc. If Christianity wasn’t a bulwark against any of that they say, why should it work against Islam?
Any answers?
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Yes. Islam was started as a Christian heresy. Mohammed was taught by a heretic who was excommunicated from the Church.
Yes I was raised Lutheran though. I was a pentecostal and then converted to Orthodoxy after studying the early church and Orthodox theology.
Probably the best place to start is the Antiochian Orthodox website.
http://antiochian.org/discoveringorthodoxchristianity
Check out the article on Theosis, and do some google searches on THEOSIS,UNCREATED LIGHT,DIVINE ENERGIES and you will find lots of good websites.
Evidently my last comment didn’t go through because of too many links so I will only post a couple.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
This site has lot’s of good articles too..
http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_4
Here is some background on the heretical Roman doctrine of Filioque
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Yes. Islam was started as a Christian heresy. Mohammed was taught by a heretic who was excommunicated from the Church.
Yes I was raised Lutheran though. I was a pentecostal and then converted to Orthodoxy after studying the early church and Orthodox theology.
Probably the best place to start is the Antiochian Orthodox website.
http://antiochian.org/discoveringorthodoxchristianity
Check out the article on Theosis, and do some google searches on THEOSIS,UNCREATED LIGHT,DIVINE ENERGIES and you will find lots of good websites.
Evidently my last comment didn’t go through because of too many links so I will only post a couple.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM
“Baloney. Catholicism is a withering influence peddler for a ruling system that hasn’t existed in ages.”
And a horribly corrupt ruling system at that, one that literally sold the faith in the market place and has kiddie-fiddlers for priests. I have patience with individual Catholics…but NONE for their precious pointy hat or his system of string-pulling cronies.
“Protestant churches are nothing but extravagant social clubs for the middle-class that will evaporate when the American fiat currency does the same.”
All too true. Most Protestant churches are full of “Sunday Christians, Monday Atheists”. There is about as much substance to most of them as a bag of cotton candy.
Dark-Star on December 13, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Oops it went through twice
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
SaintOlaf
thanks
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM
This is such an all-encompassing subject that it’s pretty hard to put into a couple of hundred words and I know the peril of putting a personal opinion in this forum. Basically, I believe that it’s time for America to contract. We need to find a “nut” around which we can coalesce as one nation. The last time we did this it was around our flag and an idea of “America” during the Second World War.
Today, following barrages of Secularism, unfettered immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, and unbounded greed and political corruption (not to mention the one largest, single anti-American organization within our borders, the ACLU) it’s going to be a bit difficult to find that Nut.
A new idea of “globalism” seems to be the latest catch-word. I feel that if one thing is for certain it’s that this planet is not ready for “global” anything with the possible exception of a tyrannical global dictatorship. As long as the world is full of competing religions there is little chance of global peace. Religion will always be a stronger unifying force than government. There’s always a chance to defeat a government but no way to defeat one’s fear of eternal damnation. There-in lies the reason that Messiah’s tend to be of a religious nature rather than political
We have all joked of Obama being the Messiah. Well, frankly I think we are all secretly hoping for a Messiah of some sort appearing as that “Nut” that makes us finally coalesce. Obama? I doubt it. I believe however, that at some point there will be a line crossed that brings all of our multicultural American brethren together as an undivided nation.
That line may be war or it may be religion, or both. I find it interesting that the secularists wage their war against Christianity or what I consider to be the weak brother of all religion. They choose to battle the religion that professes “Peace toward mankind” and turning the other cheek, brave soles that they are. Where do the secularists take on Islam whose radical practitioners kidnap and behead their enemies? Do we see restraint in that area?
If America can’t find a unifying force soon I’m afraid the great lady is doomed to be but a footnote in the eventual history of mankind’s struggle against himself.
Ernest on December 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM
This is what Michael Savage has been saying all along.
Labamigo on December 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM
The war, both at home and abroad, can best be summed up as:
Individualism/Guilt/Atonment versus Tribalism/Shame/Revenge
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Christianity worked against Islam for centuries…Charles Martel for example…but I think what killed christianity in europe was socialism. why bother with God when you can get whatever you need by whining to the governemnt? the government has become god, and its much easier to be on the dole than live a life of faith.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM
And exterminating the Godly and/or mouthy?
baldilocks on December 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM
no doubt that went on. you wonder how the heirs of wilberforce, CS Lewis, Wesley, etc could end up like they did.
Bunyan was imprisoned. the pilgrims had to flee..
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I see it more as socialism (like Islam) exploited the weakness in Christianity in Europe that was already there. France, Germany, Austria and Russia all collapsed economically and socially after WWI, unrelated to socialism or Islam, and they were all Christian nations. But the door was then open to Marx and Lenin et.al. Certainly Europe was no longer the almost perfect, bucolic Christian homeland described by people like Hillaire Belloc ( a favorite of mine.)
I hadn’t thought this through all that much before, but it seems like Christianity’s support of and dependence on the monarchial system in the 19th C., and that system’s demise, gave way to Christian weakness, and the infections that later ate away Europe. If so, our situation is different here in the US, and Christianity may yet save us.
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I would hope so, but I am afraid not. I find it interesting that in the book of revelation the anti-christ, the beast, uses beheading against his foes..things that make you go hmmmmmm
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 5:43 PM
One of the most fertile fields for evangelism is Iran.
How? It’s illegal for a Christian to witness to a Muslim.
Scores of Iranians are reportedly seeing visions of Jesus & turning their lives over to following him.
jgapinoy on December 13, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Dante placed Mohammad squarely in Hell.
Time for a mini-series of The Inferno.
Let the Mohammedans try to ban that.
profitsbeard on December 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Whenever I see the phrases “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremists” instead of “Islamic fundamentalists” or simply Islamists, I stop listening. It’s not an honest discussion to begin with.
nottakingsides on December 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM
If you don’t believe in God,, you will believe in anything.
JellyToast on December 13, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Do you use other words for “radical” or “extreme”, or have you just banned the concepts entirely? That would be linguistically “extreme.” Or is it some kind of extreme religious thing? Personally, I don’t like the words “cole slaw.” Each to his own I guess.
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I think nottakingsides’ point is that the problems are endemic to islam, itself, and not caused by some alleged extremist factions. I tend to agree with this. Most of the views that Westerners tend to call “islamic extremism” have popular support among muslim populations far exceeding anything that would relegate them to fringes. It’s hard to call something “extremist” when over 50% of the population agrees with it.
When people use the phrase “islamic extremists”, or anything of the like, they are being politically correct (against all availbale evidence) and that sort of political correctness is exactly what weakens us.
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 8:36 PM
2nd time I struck out today. Maybe I better hang it up. I thought he felt it was impossible for radical and extreme to ever be used as adjectives with Islam. My apologies for the snark.
JiangxiDad on December 13, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Not to worry, JDad. I just did the same thing, myself, on the JJJr thread right below this. Is there a full moon or something?
progressoverpeace on December 13, 2008 at 8:48 PM
The reason why it’s so great to live in the West is because of Christianity. The reason it sucks so bad to live in a Muslim country is because of Islam. Any questions?
The only final answer is salvation through Jesus Christ. Anything other than that is a temporal band-aid over an eternal cancer.
Mojave Mark on December 13, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Only if its factual. Who believes in God with you?
If they are Mormon, Islamic or great spirit Native American, just how specific is that? And yet they and you believe in an original creator.
Besides, what worth is any belief but that it stands the scrutiny of an open mind?
Your statement is just an excuse that absolves the need of anything but blind faith and denigrates people who honestly seek more than a feeling.
If your faith is Christianity, understanding is part and parcel of Man is created in God’s image.
Speakup on December 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Then there was this and this (what I had in mind), not to mention the inconvenient: all the end result of godless ideologies.
baldilocks on December 14, 2008 at 1:12 AM
That would be awesome!
Sower of Discord, indeed.
baldilocks on December 14, 2008 at 1:14 AM
What kills me the most is gung-ho denominationalists like Olaf who heave the non-biblical traditions and creeds of their particular heresy at others while denouncing the same sort of deviance in Muslims.
I suppose most people will always rather run errands for an impressive worldly organization that pays well rather than actually be slave-labor for an unseen King.
TMK on December 14, 2008 at 3:41 AM
Yep, you said it better than I did.
nottakingsides on December 14, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Somehow, being more like them as a way to defeat them seems counterproductive.
Look, they attack us based on our loose morals. You’ll find that thread throughout their stupid rants. We don’t subjugate women, we don’t kill gays, we don’t force religion down the throats of those not interested.
I rather like being hated for that.
Krydor on December 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM
I have yet to see the evidence of that. Anyone help me out?
Squiggy on December 14, 2008 at 7:57 AM
For those people who have or would oppress us all, governments and religions are mere tools to serve their purpose.
Some institutions lend themselves more readily to tyranny, such as socialism and communism which are bad things as would be state religion however its the people who are would be tyrants who have no issue with taking advantage of those opportunities, that leads to oppression.
Speakup on December 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I couldn’t find this when this thread started…
But Theo Spark has a good idea on how this gets won:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theospark/304882498/
darkpixel on December 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You think the Orthodox Church is heretical?
That’s a first.
Even any honest Roman Catholic or Proestant will admit that the Orthodox Church is the first Church and is the one unchanging Church.
Does that mean that the Bible is heretical considering that the Orthodox Church canonized the Bible?
SaintOlaf on December 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I don’t buy Ms. Scalia’s argument that the way to defeat Islam is by direct assault on its faith. My impression is that Muslims would be happy to trade some piety for material well-being. They are already persuaded that the Western way of life brings personal freedom and prosperity, much more so than their culture. The leading thinkers among them realize that the clerics’ hold on political power must be thrown off. We’ve already won the argument.
I travelled in Egypt about a year ago, doing the traditional cruise down the Nile, which I strongly recommend. I talked to dozens of ordinary Egyptians along the way, kids, pedestrians, cashiers, vendors, camel drivers, salesmen, caliche drivers, security guards, etc. Only one was interested in talking about Islam. I had several conversations with Egyptians talking about how to get to America and how to find work. Most of them were very impressed by our relative wealth, our material success.
While I was very impressed by how often the calls to prayer came in Cairo and how pervasive they were, I was also impressed by how few Cairenes actually responded to it. It was very common to see a handful of guys spread out their carpets and pray while the overwhelming majority of Egyptians walked on by without the least notice of them. Sure, they like their Islam, but they are not crazy go nuts about it.
The best way to peel back the Islamic fundamentalists is to hit them at their weak point, their worldly incompetence, rather than their strong point, their otherworldly faith. After all, you can’t prove or disprove faith. You can directly measure physical well-being. Even the most illiterate, uneducated, and ignorant observer can see wealth. It is a simple metric, understandable by all.
We can break Islamic fundamentalism by embracing Muslims with our secular success. If you allow a young man to get a good job with prospects for a better future, give him the wherewithal to get married, tie him to family, work, and his community, you have created a peaceful guy. Only unhappy men volunteer to be jihadis. Islam only delivers this by accident. Where Islam prevails, the economy is destroyed. Where Western democracy and capitalism prevails, the economy booms.
Muslims don’t need more faith. They need more material opportunities to have a better life, the kind of opportunities Western secular culture delivers best. We ought to expand that secular culture where we can. In that respect, a prosperous, free, democratic, capitalist Iraq can be a wonderful rebuttal to Islamic fundamentalism.
Tantor on December 14, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I think you hit on the most important point in the GWOT. We, our collective conscious in the West automatically buys into the false, politically correct myth that there is a ‘radical’ (undesirable/extreme) and a ‘moderate’ (acceptable/peaceful) division within Islam.
It would follow logically since most major religions such as Hinduism and Christianity are peaceful with some fringe lunatics and we unthinkingly and mistakenly assume this also applies to Islam. However Islam is the only religion in the world with a mandate for the forcible conversion, subjugation or death of unbelievers. It is also a political (state based) as well as a social religion, hence its totalitarian agenda.
This naive division we concocted to avoid “offending” the 1 billion allegedly “peaceful” muslims makes it significantly more difficult to defeat Islam since we don’t know who the real enemy is and they blend in with the muslim community.
So while our vast resources are focused on a wild goose chase hunting down some rag-tag terrorists, the majority of muslims are left undisturbed to continue building their numbers and working to destroy our civilization from within.
The common defense is how can you blame the whole religion that’s ‘racist’ (Islam is an ideology not a race), or it’s ‘hateful’, which distracts from the fact that Islam is a hateful, apartheid, war-mongering ideology. It divides the world into muslim and non-muslim and pits them against each other in a life and death struggle. This is self-evident if anyone reads their religious texts. Just an example:
Sura 8:12 – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Qur’an 9:5 – Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
Qur’an 8:39 – So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.
By accepting that there is a ‘moderate’ form of Islam, it sends the signal to muslims who might otherwise leave that there’s nothing wrong with Islam, aside from some zealots. It also confuses westerners/non-muslims because we get a false sense of security from thinking only a handful of muslims oppose us, rather than the reality that we’re in a civilizational war between two incompatible worldviews, that of Islam vs Modernity.
The day we all realize that we’re not at war with ‘radical Islam’ but Islam itself, our task will become greatly simplified, since we won’t be searching for some obscure, hard to find radicals. We’ll know our enemy is right out in the open and we’ll also know how to defeat them assuming we have the will and fortitude.
thinkagain on December 14, 2008 at 8:51 PM
There you go again taking religions out of context.
Islam is heresy pure and simple.
This is NOT what it’s about.
In fact, it is your “modernity” that drives arabs to islam in the first place.
Why can’t you understand that?
Muslims do NOT need to be killed like you think..
They just need to find the Truth.
Let them be proselytized and converted back to Orthodox Christianity.
You secularists try to hide it, but you always end up revealing your violent and murderous thoughts regarding religious people, sooner or later.
SaintOlaf on December 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Olaf, you are unable to see the death cult of Islam as it is because you Christians share in the same mental illness and delusions that muslims have in these dogmatic belief systems. I’m not partial to any religion so I can see things objectively. Its funny you label Islam a heretical religion when your own religion is a bastardization and plagiarization of Buddhism and other pagan texts.
The Bible was assembled at the Council of Nicea and your “divine word of god” was put together based on the tastes and whims of humans who kept what texts they liked and rejected those that seemed ‘too crazy’. All believers are gullible dupes of shrewd individuals who craved wealth, power and control over individuals.
Arabs were driven to Islam largely by threats, violence, terrorism and war from the cult-members of Islam like every country that is muslim today.
Modernity (Democracy) is the only cure for the Barbarism that is Islam. The proof is self-evident, we in the West are richer, freer, more advanced, tolerant and sane than those in the muslim world. Our women enjoy freedoms and equality that those in Islamic countries only dream about-all thanks to secular democracy.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion with me you need to stop putting your crazy words in my mouth and accusing me of things I’ve never stated. Nowhere have I ever said we need to kill all the muslim (or christians)-those are your own idiotic inferences no doubt due to your poor reading/comprehension abilities and hatred towards secularists.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, not one muslim has to die in order to stop Islam. All we need to do is recognize that Islam is a threat to our civilization and ban it. Those muslims who refuse to leave the cult should be deported. However we know in reality that’s not going to happen, muslims will fight us tooth and nail, since they think they’re god’s people doing his work by trying to conquer us.
In the past I would’ve agreed with you that converting muslims into christians would be a good way of neutralizing the threat that Islam poses but as an atheist I don’t think that it does them any favors. Religion is dying in the West anyway, most Europeans are secular and its growing in America. So I think muslims would be better served if they were given secular-democracy, with the freedom to convert to other religions if they choose.
thinkagain on December 15, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Are you sure about that?
Blaise on December 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Virtually all Muslim nations want to march across Israel largely because it is a Western nation, culturally.
Tantor on December 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2