Dutch Cardinal: Moral Breakdown Has Left Holland Open to Islamic Takeover

No, I think it's the lunatic PeeCee left that has left all Western societies open to attack from Islam. You don't need any religion to defend yourself from Islamic takeover. Just common-sense. And the ability to call a spade a spade. And the freedom to tell certain segments of our population that their culture is an anathema to our collective well-being and they need to either change or leave.

Our worst enemy is not Islam but our own pathetic apologists, our own fifth-column who infest the media, government, schools and even churches. The ones who are filled with such self-loathing for their own Western identity and culture that they willingly and eagerly destroy our defenses and allow Islam to infiltrate our schools, our governments, our neighbourhoods and even our churches. The ones who'll scream and fight to have aspects of our Judeo-Christian culture and lifestyle destroyed, while encouraging lunacy such as "Islam awareness" in our schools and government institutions. They'll fight to remove the 10 Commandments or little crosses from public view but force the caterwauling from a mosque on everyone within earshot. And on and on and on it goes.

No, we don't need religion. We just need balls.

Feralee: one reason we don't have balls is because we hail as heroes those who raised the middle finger to God the Creator and Redeemer. Hence, I see the Dutch cardinal, who says "fundamentalism is always a problem" as part of the problem, too.

The original Christian "fundamentalism" insisted simply that denying that Christ is God incarnate, that he died for our sins, rose from the dead, and will come again to judge the living and dead makes a man a non-Christian--even if he's a theology professor at Princeton. It was not a violent political movement by any stretch of the imagination; and before the Dems made lifestyle liberalism and abortion on demand political planks, Christian fundamentalists were as bi-partisan as any other group of Americans (yes, Democratic appeals to "compassion" played very well with that audience). Indeed, some up in Wisconsin and Minnesota were even non-Communist socialists.

In short, the original Christian "fundamentalism" simply insisted that there are limits, that certain things simply aren't allowable in church--unless the church wants to cease being itself. It was and remains a protest against the sort of moral relativism that would disarm us even to the point where we won't defend our own children.

Face it. It's those who refuse to fear God who say that right is simply the opinion of 51% of the country that can lick every other (Oliver Wendell Holmes)--which means that right can be simply the silence of people too terrified by a bullying government, if that government can lick all others. We came perilously close to this in the days of Leonid Brezhnev, when, inspired by a so-called "Peace Movement", people who refused to bow before the God who made them were prepared to live on their knees before every fleabag Mao, Castro, or Arafathead who came along. I'm old enough to remember. The same set of moral and political midgets would lead us to kiss the filthy 肛門 of Muslim terrorists, and blame non-Muslim Dutch for the murder of Theo van Gogh.

The cardinal is right. What so many people in the west don't understand is that it isn't really our democracy that makes the west humane...it is the values prevalent in our culture, influenced in good measure by the predominant christian religion.

While I am not a religious person, scientific thought at the moment seems to suggest that the need for religion is hard-wired into our brians structuraly due to our genetic code. This adaptation developed it is beleived so as to give a human soceity more cohesion so as to better survive. It is a fundamental and unavoidable part of our psychological make-up. This scientific theory has only just begun to be accepted by many as near scientific fact.

Not everyone has the same genetic predisposition to religion, but we all have it to some degree and it DOES fundamentally influence what our values are, humanistic or not.

SO, with this knowledge it is important to realise that if we as secularists, abandon the religion that has given us our humanistic values, then because most of us NEED RELIGION (to varying degrees) we will get our relgion from somehwere else..and our values will change according to the values of the new religion we adopt and become mentally dependent on. If for example we abandon christianity for Islam, since Islam doesn't have anything approaching the same level of humanistic values that Christianity does, our values will become Islamic and therefore less humane (depending on the individuals dependency on relgion). Our brains will be hard-wired for Islam and our values will also change (for many people).

Europe has undergone a extremely dangerous transformation from a christian humanistic based society to a secular and godless one where a religion deficient in humanistic values is filling the void. It is this growing void from the loss of a humanistic religion that is the European society's achilles heel.

Europe thought it could do without christianity, but its people NEED it...or atleast a relgion with similar humanistic values. The state in the short run might not need it but its people do and so does the state therefore in the long run (if it wants to remain a humanistic democracy).

Me and religion were just never a good fit. I was raised a Catholic and hated it. Spent too many years in fear of this and that. I probably had unusually bad experiences than others here. The nuns at the school I went to were horrid. These days they'd be arrested for abuse. Then my mother dragged us all into the JW bunch. I hated that too. Left as soon as I could. They scared the hell out of me and I hated living in fear and refused to put up with it anymore. I know what's right from wrong, know that you should treat others as you want to be treated. Perhaps I absorbed that somehow during all those years of fear, perhaps I have my Christianity-based upbringing to thank for that. But these days, I don't need any church or priest to tell me what's good or bad. And my kids turned out great without any religion either. And I didn't need religion to tell me that Islam stinks. I did the research on my own and realized that the crap spewed out by the PeeCee types - religious and non-religious alike, was just that: crap.

Feralee, I have a particular hatred of religion as well.

Being raised Church of England, left me with a lot of guilt and other problems.

The only religions I have any time for are the earth-based pagan religions, though that said, I'm a non-believer in any religion.

P.S. I am not religious either, but many people are influenced by it, and its their behaviour and values that allows us in many ways the freedom to be who we want to be. If we lived in an islamic society the majority would strangle our freedoms...we wouldn't be given the choice to be atheists or agnostics...BUT in a predomintly christian society we do get to be free because the more religious majority doesn't value exterminating us.

There are christans that may disagree with me strongly me for my agnostic beleifs but the majority of even fundamentalist christians would not murder or terrorise me for them...this isn't the case in most islamic societies.

I am very fortunate to live in a society where those who are religious tolerate me because their christian/jewish god and/or sacred texts tells them not to hate me or murder me for being different. If their god and religious texts ordered them to murder me it could be all so very different for me.

P.S. if we could somehow make all people non-religious then we could have a atheistic secular democratic state totally immune from the influences of inhumane religions and cults. However the science suggests that many people just can't do without relgion. I wish it was different, but not everyone is me.

There is a difference between religion and religiosity. Religion is the belief and religiosity is the form and practice. Many people that object to religion do so because they don't believe and others because they object to the form some believers take.

Whether we like or not, Western culture is based on Christian philosophy and values, the glue that holds Western culture together. (Yes there are some shared values among the different Western nationalities and societies.) Giving up these values is giving in to our common enemy, Islam, that WILL SUBSTITUTE all of our Western values and culture for a fascist totalitarianism that will make you wish for the return of that religion that has plagued thus far.

Remember - be careful what you wish for. This time it will be worse than what you have.

Commenting on Feralee line: "Our worst enemy is not Islam but our own pathetic apologists, our own fifth-column who infest the media, government, schools and even churches." I have to say that:

In silence from distant Spain I have been a regular visitor of the Dhimmi Watch pages for the last few months and in the process have learnt an awful lot of very interesting things concerning the main subject, that is, Islam, and the menace it as a whole represents to all our Western countries (I was about to say ‘Christian countries’ but refrained form it after careful consideration, for very few of them actually deserve the name). In the meantime I have been busy writing a book aimed at alerting my countrymen on the perils ahead but then, the killing of Dutch moviemaker Theo van Gogh woke me up to the crude reality of a menace I was fully aware of from the start but kept denying to myself.

I was to dedicate one of the chapters of my thus aborted book to dwell on the idea that Islam is not a proper religion but a sect -a cult- and therefore well deserving to be declared illegal to all practical purposes, as has been done here in the past with many other self-denominated religious associations of malign or simply dubious leanings, whose statues and deeds seem to be a tale for children though when compared with what one can read in some of the Qur’an verses and see almost daily in the Iraq terror scenario and practically all over the world where the sons of Allah have any sort of presence, Spain been one of the most conspicuous places.

One aspect that strikes me is the keenness of clever people like Mr. Spencer to entangle himself in dialectical battles against self-proclaimed moderate islamists. To spend his valuable time doing so is in my opinion a terrible waste insofar as Islam is an essentially immoderate creed. If ever is to be a decent muslim, he wouldn’t by definition be preaching the Islam we all know, the one that matters and the only possible. Things been what they irremediably are, either we engage in naive discussions with a deceitful turbanted automaton or waste our time interchanging honest views with someone who is not islamist at all and presumably is not aware of it, for there are not credible middle roaders in this totalitarian, monolithic faith whose basic tenets are written on the steel of a sword blade. If the former, we must take for granted that no amount of persuasive reasoning will ever convince our counterpart that he belongs to a belief-system invented by a rapacious, barbaric psychopath preying upon tribal greed and dominance through torture, treason, abduction and murder. After all, a good muslim knows by heart and recites several times a day the suras that contain the evil doctrine he blindly adheres to, thus rendering void the excuse by ignorance. If the latter, we will always arrive to the empty conclusion awaiting the one who chooses the wrong debating partner who in the case here contemplated would only be representing himself.

My personal suggestion is that of dedicating time and action to prepare ourselves for what I presume is the inevitable and imminent war ahead. No, I am not referring to the one against the muslim hordes, something that indeed has to be addressed immediately after having concluded victoriously the first one… directed against the traitors and collaborators amongst us.

You in America call liberals the same people we in Old Europe more appropriately know as communists (and their socialists cousins), the fresh allies of the Islamic scum, aren’t they? Yes, I am speaking of civil war(s), the one(s) that will decide the future of our civilization, for the second, the action to get rid of the mohammadian menace will for sure be carried on with total success, in our spare time, once our backs are secured. Have you watched how they flee like rats when confronted by the American arms, like the latest example in Fallujah has shown?

Returning to the civil war theme, the same social split you characterize by giving it colours (red and blue America) is the one we have been suffering here since the French Revolution, which at this side of the pond has evolved itself into an unmanageable monster, the deeply rooted confrontation about core ideas and ideals that it happens to be nowadays. It was more or less tolerable when the matter of social conflict brought upon by the two meaningful revolutions we have endured was about money: the famous “distribution of wealth” thing; or the number of working hours. Or even over the rights of the gay population or minorities of any kind in our midst.

But at the present historical junction, the choices presented in relation to the future of our societies are of a very different nature. So much so that for many of us they are not choices at all. Simply stated, at the stake now is the very essence of our culture and the future of our children in a free, decent world, something put at risk by the unholy alliance of the murderous sons of Muhammad with our own socialist bred. There cannot be compromise on such things, therefore the sooner we realize what the hidden dangers posed by the contemporary attitudes of our lefties are, the better, for it will permit us direct our energies towards what really matters, that is, preparing ourselves for the inevitable clash. Physically and to some extent spiritually disarmed, people like me in Europe are easy prey for the depredatory practices of the parliamentary left who since the Berlin Wall collapse seem to have decided that -deprived as they find themselves of any good inner reference- going anti-American is the best and only way to get it right, so they seem to think. In the process, they are alienating our American allies, debasing our Christian tradition and corrupting our morals, mouth kissing the declared enemies of everything we as westerners represent, while in all temerity attacking the Chatholic church, such is happening now in Spain under the socialist party under the command of that reprehensible coward who took our troops out of Iraq, disgracing the good name of a country I simply find hard to recognize as mine. Mind you, I am more of an agnostic guy that anything else, but that doesn’t preclude me for seeing not in the horizon anything that can plausibly replace the values taught to us all by our ancestral faith, least of all the muslim creed, our ancestral enemy too, besides the French. Yes, I admit that we, bellicose bunch, have been warring with practically all the old European countries, but nowadays there is no resentment against any of them except the latter, those “gabachos” who invaded us in the name of their bloody Revolution to teach us good manners but ended up thoroughly looting our artistic heritage, something they usually do wherever they go to, singing their Marseillaise, like the recent Ivory Coast episode shows to the ones who know what’s cooking there. As for the muslim crowd, it is almost laughable to hear that SOB Osama bin Laden reclaim our Andalusian land that took Christian Spain eight centuries of non-stop war against his treacherous ancient cousins to recover. I say ‘almost’ because these ridiculous “mahometanos” would make an ideal laughing stock at any friend’s reunion were it not for their lethal preposterous claims, behaving, as they use to, like spoilt brats capable of slitting anybody’s throat who dares deny them any of their infantile whims.

Anyway, thanks to Robert Spencer and ‘bonne nuit’ Hugh for their unfailing magisterial comments and to the rest of the regulars in this page for their valuable input.

Anyway, thanks to Robert Spencer and ‘bonne nuit’ Hugh for their unfailing magisterial comments and to the rest of the regulars in this page for their valuable input.

Posted by: Cid Campeador

I concur with Cid.

ps. The Spanish military museum in Madrid with El Cid's sword is simply one of the best museums I have been in lately. It was a little….. moving to stand there and look at his sword and to think of the history that it had seen.

I don't believe in any religion. However the truth is that I do feel that a large section of people NEED the comfort of religion or something of that sort that appeals to the emotion. In my view most of the Europeans who aren't religious is not because of choice, but by default.

True, a reasonably intelligent and sensitive person does understand the futility of organised faiths, and is beyond the temptation of any religious ideology, but s/he is a minority. Those vast majority who are non-religious BY CHANCE, fell for Islam which is fast occupying the vacuum created by the death of Christianity.

In fact I think one need not revive Christianity, any system capable of touching the emotion would suffice. If you notice people who practice any of those Eastern meditation techniques, which are not at all religious, they are as much comforted as religious faithfuls. In a sense, secular intellectuals alone will not be able to challenge Islamic growth.

Cid Campeador -- Thanks for a great post. As an admirer of Spain, it has pained me immensely to see the Spanish lumped in with the French after their recent elections.

As inheritors of Western culture, we need to keep the faith, even if only in appearance. Our laws are based on Christian-Judeo beliefs. If we reject those values, we have no foundation for society. Moral relevancy will prevail, until something like Islam replaces it.

It all revolves around religion. Intelligent people tend to believe they will be seen as less intelligent if they "need" it. But people need to exercise and discipline their inner selves as much as they do their physical selves. Even intelligent people can benefit from this. The Christian bible provides a ready-made, inner health regimen that, if followed closely, is proven to lead to becoming a more loving and healthy person. (It should be in the Self-Help section!)

I am an agnostic in thought, but Christian in practice. I DO need a religion but haven't been able to completely believe in one. Actually studying about Islam has helped in that respect. I compare the abhorrent practices of Mohammed with the model practices of Jesus, and I am positively certain that Islam is a false religion. With that certainty, my moral relativism has come to an end.

Yahoo! Great to hear it from Voltaire and Feralee. I concur with you both. Stuff religion here in Europe! It did us no good whatsoever except cultivate sectarianism, fear and ignorance, and bathe our continent in blood. I am in opposition to Islamicism exactly because it manifests all the worst features of religion, per se, in the contemporary world. There's too many religious obsessives ranting and hogging space on this site. We've had enough of these belief systems and we certainly don't need a revival of the old ones or the widespread establishment of another.

God has used Islam (a violent and virulent heresy which is a mixed up combination of Judaism and Christianity, per Hilaire Belloc) to chastize the West since the 7th century.

Until we return to the practice of Judeo-Christian moral norms, we are in trouble.

This is bigger than the West vs Islam.

This is the struggle between good and evil. The West has given up its moral compass and is now foundering in a morasse of situation ethics (abortion, gay "marriage", euthanasia, etc.).

The Dutch were among the first modern Europeans to "tolerate" such abominations, but certainly not the last or the worst accomodationists among the Western nations.

For those with eyes to see and a rudimentary knowledge of history, we can anticipate what comes next.

Oh no, this means (of all things!) we may have to get down on our knees and pray.

Maybe this will be an amusing anecdote for you all, but maybe it's just sad:

I lectured at a local university for 28 weeks, two terms, on The History of the Early Christian Church. Durning the course of my lectures I didn't qoute the Bible, didn't quote Jesus, and actually made no direct reference to Him. I started as a joke, expecting someone to bring up some point or anything at all; but nary a word. They didn't notice. They, my students, weren't stupid, they simply had no expectation that anyone would bring up Jesus as a part of Christianity.

Less amusing to me is the other course I taught, the one in which I threatened to fail the entire class who seemed incapable of writing cogent and intelligent papers on:"Why Queston Authority?"

I wrote recently asking Hugh, Benelux, and Yahudimrevenge to say I'm interested in further details regarding past posts. Hugh and Benelux on Oct. 22, re: cards; and Yahudimrevenge on clarityandresolve. I think that was yesterday. Will look closely later if I don't have the right info here.

Skip gently over my incoherence, please, I'm still sick. Getting better though.

Maybe Sonofwalker's students thought, quite reasonably, that as lack of contemporary sources make a historical Jesus pretty much unretrieveable, that discussion should rightly focus on the various Christian sects, their personalities, their development, consolidation and dispersal. Backed up, of course, by a critical examination of the sources. In that context, discussion of 'Him' would be irrelevant. It was 'They' who founded and built the Early Christian Church.

I was going to respond to that, but I think I'm at a loss for words. Yup. I'm numbed.

Sonofwalker, much as I often respect your posts, shame on you for avoiding all mention of Jesus and the New Testament in your course. You ought to give those poor students their money back. Some probably were honest seekers hoping that your course could've pointed them in a fruitful direction. I only hope for their sakes that Clement of Rome, "Barnabas", Justin Martyr, Aphra'at, Habib the Deacon, Tertullian, Athanasius, or Augustine may have pointed them back to THE source.

Modern academic religious study's attempt to say that the historical Jesus is irretrievable is question-begging and running and hiding in the bushes when they hear the footsteps of God (a fine old family tradition for all of us, as Genesis 3 says). Jesus is either God Incarnate and Messiah of Israel, or else he was some kind of insane liar--and then we can safely jettison the "love your neighbor as yourself" and :do unto others as you would have them do unto you" along with Paul's strictures against homosexuality. Of course, we'd have to batten down for the sword-and-wolf age of Norse Mythology; and the fearsome Teutonic bellicosity of which Heinrich Heine warned should the cross lose its hold over the West (wasn't one WWII enough?).

As for religion and religiosity, I agree with EPG. There's a big difference. James--the brother of Jesus--had some rather interesting comments about undefiled religion in the NT epistle that bears his name, things about visiting widows and orphans in their distress (not taxing support out of your neighbor, of which most has to go to the people administering the thing before anything actually reaches the needy. Funfamentalist that I am, and much as I believe in God, judgment, and even Hell (having seen Pol Pot's boys, there must be a Hell, or God is not just), I've sure got my problems with many kinds of religiosity, too. I certainly hold no candle for inquisitions and crusades (of the medieval kind), even if I am no Anabaptist.

But, friend Fieldvole, do you know that since the French Revolution, more people died, were exiled, or imprisoned in the name of the General Will, Nation, Class, Dialectic, and other modern gods than suffered for the wrong kind of Christianity or none at all between Constantine and 1811, when Rugges v. New York upheld imprisonment for blasphemy? Maybe modern credulity towards everything that calls itself "science" or "reason" is an even worse moral blinder.

Like a praticant catholic and a friend of USA and Israel I am against islam and I am happy because the cardinals and priests say publicly what I think, several days ago in the university I spoke with a muslim and he said that he believed that Zapatero is a good president and he thinks that marriage homosexuals and adoptions are good, and this person is from Morocco, a country that an homosexual is illegal, and do you know what I believe that they want our moral destruction because it opened a lot of doors to dominate us, in the Western we have little children, and few moral valors and what is the answer, islam, why? because a society without valours is dead, for example three months later of the kidnapping of two french jurnalists none remembered them and the explosion in Toulouse either, why? because many people are selfish, and they believe that IT ISN´T MY PROBLEM.
My answer is Christ, for other people not, but I know that Islam is the worst problem that we have in the XXI Century and only end with their destruction or the ours, greetings