From the Bahrain Tribune, with thanks to Ruth King, who cogently observes: "The Vatican spokesman ignores the long history of the suffering of Christians under Muslim rule. Blaming the war on terror is easier than confronting dhimmitude."
Indeed. The situation for Christians in Iraq has deteriorated not just because they are identified with the West, but because the newly assertive jihadists, who since the fall of Saddam have been trying to institute Sharia there, are already treating Christians according to Sharia rules. Thus they kill those who sell alcohol, for example, because to do so in a place where Muslims can buy it is forbidden by Sharia. Thus to sell it violates the dhimma, the contract of protection for non-Muslims in Islamic society, and makes their lives forfeit. Also, if Christians are viewed as cooperating with the Americans, they are also considered fair game.
But ultimately, Lajolo shows no indication of being aware that for centuries, wherever Islamic law was in force, Christians were despised, discriminated against, humiliated, and persecuted. That is not a situation that will change if the U.S. leaves Iraq, because it is based on Sharia, and is not a reaction to any events that jihadists might nevertheless point to as a pretext.
ROME: Anti-Christian feeling is spreading in Muslim countries and other parts of the world because the war on terrorism is seen as linked to Western political strategy, the Vatican’s foreign minister said yesterday.Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, in a speech to a US-organised conference on religious freedom, was the latest Vatican official to decry what the Church fears will be a difficult future in regions where Christians are in the minority.
“It should be recognised that the war against terrorism, even though necessary, had as one of its side-effects the spread of ‘Christianophobia’ in vast areas of the globe,” he told the conference.
Lajolo, the Vatican’s second-ranking diplomat, said anti-Christian feeling existed where political strategies of Western countries were believed to be driven by Christianity.
He said this was why the Vatican had insisted that “Christianophobia be condemned together with Islamophobia and anti-Semitism” in recent UN human rights documents.
While he did not specifically mention Iraq, his comments appeared to be a reference to it and other Islamic nations where minority Christians have come under attack.
A spate of bombs have hit churches and hospitals in the past few months, leaving numerous dead and injured.
Iraq’s 650,000 Christians, mostly Chaldeans, Assyrians and Catholics, comprise about 3 per cent of the population. Many have left Iraq and the Vatican fears more will go if attacks go on.
Time Warp Alert!!!!
Did 9/11/2001 not occur before our war against terror networks?
Not to disrespect the church, but this fecklessness reeks of pure dhimmi, sell-out politics, Vatican style.
It is right up there in the free-fall elevator ride to shiri'a category as the blessed father kissing the Koran in a mosque (former church).
Can you ever imagine ANY such accomidations being made by Muslims to Christians?
http://www.garykah.org/html/popekoran.htm
Andrew: That's unbelievable!
This is truly the Grand Sell out!
I never held this pope in high esteem, but kissing the Qu'ran, that makes him...(I'm at a loss for words, I have to take a deep breath...
The senile fool! He is an insult to all his followers...Did he never learn about history, did he never get to read the Qu'ran and don't his preachers from all over the world report to him when churches were burning?
If he is in the know, then it's even worse...
But it is hard to believe that he can just fake ignorance in the face of the evidence to the contrary...
I shake my head in disbelief. As their light dims, I wonder if the Church will ever be able to recapture its moral authority and rekindle Catholicism.
No wonder the more muscular American Protestant movements are so popular and may be the only religious force that can counter the world's growing Islamism. However, the Left and Islam have teamed up, understanding the impossiblity of separate encounters. Using the ACLU, these movements are systematically removing any vestige of Christianity and Judaism from public schools and the public square, while at the same, carefully and slowly insinuating Islam to fill the spiritual void, making their protestations against the effect of religion on government a travesty.
...Still can't get over that pope kissing that dirty book...
How many centuries has this been going on now?
Catholic dhimmis STILL have no champion in the Vatican. I certainly pray the next pope will do more than his predecessors to defend and promote the human rights of Catholics in the Islamic world.
epg-
It IS high time that people started threatening legal action against local governments that permit da'wa in their public schools. I wonder if the ACLU has ever been approached in this regard? After all, the rules are all the same - the problem seems to be that no one has been willing to iniatiate such action, either out of apathy or ignorance.
I love the Pope, but he should've never kissed the Qur'an. When he did, his liver spots doubled in number and his front teeth fell out.
I know he just wants to do the right thing and promote peace, but we can't have peace if Muslims are involved in the process.
Anyone that wants the ACLU to be challenged should contact the American Center for Law & Justice. They've been going at it with the ACLU in the courts on many issues.
Another thing that needs to cease is the ACLU receiving Attorney fees for the cases they file, even if they lose the cases......These are our tax dollars paying the salaries and overhead of this group......I don't know about you guys, but I'm not too hip on paying anyone that attacks the Boy Scouts and other clean and honest organizations.
Here's the link to the ACLJ
http://www.aclj.org/
I read this article 4 times, trying to find something that could have provoked the inane responses that followed.
I think in the future, the actual article should be in quotes, and the commentary clearly separated.
The Pope didn't say a word! Read the text people!
Not one person's criticism refers to the text - the Pope is not quoted in the article - so why exactly is everyone insulting the Pope?
When allegedly critical review denigrates to personal insults ("The senile fool! He is an insult to all his followers" and "sell-out politics, Vatican style") and completely avoids the content of the article, what does that tell you?
KEN
Anything said by a Vatacan official has the blessings of the Holy father. I respect him, but feel the church is not doing enough to counter the advances Islam is making in Europe, much of which is sanctioned by the Vatican, i.e., Islamic immigration, assylum seekers, appeasement in the Holy land which has only seen the loss of Christian lands down through the centuries.
Appeasement is the road to dhimmitude and kissing the Koran doesn't sit well with my understanding of spreadig the Gospel, that is the word and message of Christ.
The sell-out comment was intended to be a light-hearted attempt at expressing my disapointmment in the Pope's leadership in this serious regard.
One can argue that the Vatacan as one of the oldest institutions in history, has a long memory and knows exactly what it is doing, as its experiences predates Islam by hundreds of years.
I was honored to be only feet away from the Holy father several years ago, I respect him very much.
The Vatican has never been very good at politics, understanding, policy, decision-making or otherwise.
Twenty Points for Archibishop Lajolo:
1) If "the war on terrorism is seen linked to Western political strategy" and that this is responsible for "Christianphobia," then what explains the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh in Kashimir? Or on Buddhists in Thailand, and the Bamiyan Buddhas -- the people and the artifacts -- in southern Thailand?
Is this because Hindu (and Sikh) and Buddhist villages and artifacts have also been linked "to Western political strategy"? And if they are so linked, how was it possible to link them, when 60-70 million Hindus were killed, over 250 years, according to the testimony not only of Hindus, but of complacent Muslim observers -- just read the "Rihla" of Ibn Battuta, as he calmly notes the mass enslavement of surviving Hindu villagers? At the time the United States, that center for "anti-terrorism," did not exist.
2) if "Christianphobia" is merely a result of the modern "war on terror" then what shall we make of the treatment of the Copts in Egypt over the past, say, 1300 years? Was it something they said or did that led to their slow and murderous asphyxiation, so that they have been reduced from being the entire population of Egypt, to about 10% of that population? And if the "war on terror" which has been linked "to Western political strategy" began, say, a few years ago, then what explains the murder of close to 100,000 Assyrian Christians, beginning wihtin a year after the British soldiers left Iraq in 1932?
3) if "Christianphobia" is a recent phenomenon, then what explains, over 1350 years, the attacks on Christians and Christian sites -- let's start with the fabled churches of Byzantium -- everywhere that Islam conquered.
4) How is it, if "Christianphobia" is a recent phenomenon, that the Christians of North Africa, from which came some of the most important Fathers of the Chruch, including St. Augustine and before him Tertullian, all disappeared over time, or were reduced to levels, and to a role – as on-Muslims – of insignificance, so that where Tertullian and St. Augustine had once walked, the last French and Italian monks, pursuing a purely charitable vocation, had their throats slit by members of F.I.S. – years before that “war on terror” got started.
5) If “Christianphobia” originates in a reaction to the “war on terror” what explains the imprisonment and torture of foreign Christians, some for supposedly conducting Christian services, others for merely singing Christmas carols, over the past three decades (ever since foreign Christians were allowed in as workers) in Saudi Arabia? When English nurses sang Christmas carols and were punished for it in the 1970s, what connection did that have with a non-existent “war on terror”?
6) Why do the Christians of Ethiopia worry openly about the spread of Islam, and Islamic militancy, in their country – are Ethiopians identified with the “Western war on terror”?
7) Why, ever since the founding of Pakistan, have Pakistani Christians been subject to assault and murder? Why did Archbishop John Joseph kill himself, years before the so-called “Western war and terror,” leaving a note that showed clearly he was protesting by his act, the intolerable cruelty with which Christians were treated by Muslims in Pakistan?
8) Why, if it the “linkage of “Christian West” to the “war on terror” that explains “Christianphobia” and not what can be found texts in Islam (Qur’an, hadith, and sira), have Indonesian Christians, from 200,000 Christians in East Timor, to Christians in the Moluccas, Sulawesia, and throughout the East Indian archipelago, been subject to persecution and murder? Why were between 2,300 and 4,000 churches destroyed in Indonesia in the year 2003 alone, according to the British-based Barnabas Fund?
9) Why were hundreds of Maronite villagers in Damur, and thousands in other Christian villages, massacred by the Muslims in Lebanon in the 1970s? Was this a response to a non-existent “war on terror” that was supposedly linked to the West? Why does Habib Malik, why do Walid Phares, why does Franck Salameh, why do a hundred other Maronite intellectuals and writers, all deplore the misunderstanding of Islam in the West – and deeply resent the continuous efforts at appeasement by the Vatican in order to win some temporary reprieve not for Monophysite Christians (the Copts, the Maronites) but specifically for Catholics? .
10) The Vatican is seeing under its very eyes the first slow, now more rapid, islamization of Europe. Does it care? What is it doing to rally the ranks of Believers? So far the most intelligent and brave opponents within Europe of that islamization have not come from within the Vatican, but from the ranks of such traditional anti-clerics as Oriana Fallaci, who never fails to be as scathing on the Vatican as she is on the European left. Nor did Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh exactly strike a pious note – but of course, they had the luxury, you may say, of being able to tell the truth, while the Vatican has to constantly worry about the situation of the Christians in Arab lands. Never mind the Vatican’s indifference to the Monophysite Churchres, or for that matter the Serbian (or Russian) Orthodox who have their own historic memory, and present experience, with the Jihad. Why is it that those who understand the situation perfectly, from within the Vatican, have not managed to take complete control of what is now a mortal assault on Christian Europe? Why is this man, despite Cardinals Biffi and Ratzinger, and Sandro Magister, and a good many others (including the Cardinals from black Africa, who know perfectly well what Islam is all about), still allowed to speak his appeasing piece – his “peace” that passeth understanding.
11) Do many in the Vatican think that the way to deal with Islam – a belief-system whose adherents do not understand or respond in the slightest to any concession or yielding on the part of Islam’s opponents, except to take such yielding as a sign of weakness, and to make use of any temporary “truce” or hudna only to prepare for the next assault – because there can be no permanent peace between Islam and Infidels. It simply cannot be permitted.
12) Has the Vatican’s appeasement of Islam made things easier, in the end, for Christians worldwide? Has its defense of Arafat made, for example, the position of Christians – who in the last few years have fled from the P.A. so that where once 20% of “Palestinian” Arabs were Christian, that number is now down to 2% -- fleeing not only to the West, but to Israel as well (an Israeli residence card is the most sought-after document by “Palestinian” Christians) – any easier?
13) How does the Vatican regard the refusal, led by France and Belgium, to recognize the “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” roots of Europe? As a temporary aberration? As something that required worried inquiry? And what does the Vatican think of attempts by the likes of Tariq Ramadan, aided by such Western “scholars” of Islam, to exaggerate beyond parody the “contribution” of Islam to Western civilization? What does the Vaitcan think of Romano Prodi’s address at the Library of Alexandria, offering Europe’s “services” to the Arabs, and specifically to a regime that permits and even encourages the continued persecution of the Copts (with the Egyptian legal code expressly takingthe Shari’a as its model)?
14) Now that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France is Muslim, how does the Vatican see its continued influence in Europe? Does it think that constant appeasement of the Arabs has, as a strategy – leaving aside the moral idiocy of it all – has worked? How is Europe, formerly Christian Europe, doing in the little task of protecting its own legacy, created over centuries, by those who would no doubt be aghast at the cravenness of their descendants? Is Europe doing fine, so-so, or not fine at all? Check one.
15) How, with all the appeasement that the Vatican has offered over the years, are the Christians of the Middle East doing? Where are they safest, and best protected? Could it be that the answer is “Israel,” a country which the Vatican has in many ways, in its promotion of the Jihad that is disguised as “Palestinian” nationalism, done so much to harm? And if Israel were to be pushed back still further (or, in its own demoralized and confused state, voluntarily retreat to the pre-1967 lines, which were not borders, but simply the armistice lines recognized in 1949), would this make things better, calm things down, make the Muslims give up their Jihad against Israel as an Infidel sovereignty – or would it, after the passage of a year or three, simply start all over again, a relentless assault with a now-strategically hopeless position for the hapless Israelis?
16) And leaving aside the little matter of morality, that thing called by some the Holocaust, the centuries of persecution and forced conversion and murder of Jews in Western Christendom, which are not erased by an apology or two, what will happen when Muslims again control the Holy Land? What do you envision, in the Vatican, will be the situation of free Christian access to these sites? What was it like before Israel, in the centuries before the Western world could impose its will on a decrepit Ottoman Empire?
17) And what will happen, in the end, to those who within the Vatican have counseled appeasement and tried to inveigle others, Catholics and other Christians,into parroting that appeasement? At what point will the folly of these willful misunderstandings and misstatements become clear – just as clear as they are now to all the far-sighted who come to this website? Will there be any consequences for those who have been so damagingly interested in pretending that appeasement has worked, just as those outside the Vatican (Solana, Chirac, Patten) wish us to believe – credunt quia absurdum – in their policies, and their own power and significance, as long as they can.
18) If the “war on terror” is the cause of Muslim hatred of Christians (“Christinaphobia”) then one wishes to understand whether Archbishop Lajolo, or the Vatican itself for which he is naturally assumed to be speaking, believes this “war on terror” should end? Does it think, for example, that it was wrong to destroy the Al-Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan? Is it wrong to disarm Iraq – or would it be wrong to disarm any Muslim polity, for none one can be trusted with major arms? That might increase some local danger to local Christians – but so what? Is Western policy, helping to determine whether or not Western societies and peoples survive, to be permanently inhibited so that the condition of those Christians who, held hostage in Muslim societies, are permanently insecure?
Surely it is more important to draw the right lesson: that we do not the slightest extension in size of that Muslim world, the slightest increase in Muslim power, for wherever that Muslim power goes, non-Muslims within dar al-Islam live in permanent thrall to the threats of Muslims – and surely no one knows this better than Archbishop Lajolo and all those who, in their appeasement, reveal just how keenly aware they are that Muslims are quick to scapegoat, to threaten, and to carry out threats, against Christians (or any and all non-Muslims) when they feel their wars on behalf of Islam are being responded to, not in kind (for no non-Muslim power has ever stooped to the methods now routinely being used, and applauded, by Muslims) but at least with a certain steadiness.
It is too bad that the Israelis for so many decades allowed themselves to be so inhibited in their responses. Had they allowed themselves – or been allowed by a tsk-tsking world – the Arabs and Muslims might have been taught a lesson, and claiming “darura,” (the doctrine of necessity), withdrawn to a at-least temporarily more peaceful kind of behavior.
The Arabs and Muslims have never suffered the kind of injury that the American armed forces inflicted on Germany and Japan to hasten the end of World War II, including the reduction of Berlin and Tokyo to rubble. They therefore have a very unrealistic sense – based on the mild measures of tiny Israel, so concerned with its “purity of arms,” – of what can be done. Nothing like whast could be done – Falluja, Baghdad, all of Iraq, indeed all of the Muslim Middle East, could be taken care of overnight. This has to be made clear, and understood. And in the same way, the Muslims within Europe have to understand that they should not be fooled by the sufferance of the long-suffering Infidels. At a certain point, when “civilized” behavior becomes suicidal and is widely recognized as such, it can be, quite properly, jettisoned.
19) If Muslims take out on local Christians their own fury at the Infidels daring – daring! –to act to defend themselves, that is regrettable. But Western policy cannot be held hostage to Arab Christians. As for the Christians – Arabic-speaking but not Arab – such as the Copts and the Maronites – well, they have been singularly unimpressed by the indifference of the Vatican to their permanent plight. France was once the protector of the Maronites; it abandoned that role, which was then assumed by Israel, and would still be Israel’s role if it were not constantly under assault by that “Christian” Europe which will, in the end, suffer whatever Israel suffers, and will, psychologically, be far more likely to undertake certain measures of civilizational self-defense if it had not, a decade or two before, so noisily condemned such measures if undertaken by Israel – such as some transfer of Arab populations from one side of the Jordan to the other, for reasons even more comprehensible than those which led the Czechs after World War II to expel 3 million ethnic Germans, and many other countries – Poland, Hungary, and so on – to undertake similar measures on a smaller scale.
20) Who in the Vatican has carefully read the Qur’an, the hadith, and sira? Who in the Vatican has read that indispensable history, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam” by Bat Ye’or? Who will read her forthcoming “Eurabia”? Who will understand that it is not Archbishop Lajolo, but Bat Ye'or and a few of her Vatican admirers, who have a better sense of what Islam is all about? Who will realize that it is not merely a “war on terror” but a war of self-defense against the Jihad, and that two of the most formidable instruments of Jihad are Da’wa (the Call to Islam) and demography (in this case, the overbreeding of Muslims wherever they are, and especially in Europe, where the Muslim birth-rate in some countries is five times the non-Muslim rate – 7 ½% versus 1 ½%. Do the math. Draw some lines. Figure it out.
Anyone making plans to ship the statuary in St. Peter’s across the ocean? Or all those paintings with Madonnnas? The Pieta alone would be quite a headache, to get it over to American shores, and safely in Kansas.
Who is in charge of long-range emergency planning at the Vatican? Time to get cracking. The mixture as before just won’t do.
Hugh's article should be read not only by every Catholic policy maker, but by every literate Catholic and Christian on the face of the earth.
This is simply the truth, no more or less.
Being a shameful Spaniard under the rule of that king of dhimmitude Mr. J.L Rodríguez Zapatero is, I was developing a complex until I came accross the down-below piece of news form Italy, a country I presumed was a good example of healthy attitude in the face of the islamist onslaught:
ROME (Reuters) - An Italian teacher's efforts to make a Christmas carol more acceptable to young Muslim students by removing the word "Jesus" has rekindled the debate over religious symbols in the Roman Catholic country.
A middle-school teacher in the northern Italian town of Como set off a storm when she told Muslims in her class that if they preferred they could replace the line "this is the day of Jesus" with "this is the day of virtue."
"Jesus banned in Christmas songs" the daily Il Giornale, run by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's brother, said in a front-page headline Sunday.
"Substituting the word Jesus in a Christmas song is a serious mistake and an offence against the entire Catholic community," Como's mayor, Stefano Bruno, from the center-right Forza Italia (Go Italy) party, told Agi news agency.
Religion has been an increasingly prickly issue in Italy as immigrant communities grow.
A judge sparked a nationwide controversy a year ago when he ordered that a crucifix be taken off a school wall. Pope John Paul weighed in saying it was undemocratic and dangerous to try to erase a country's religious symbols.
Tension mounted again earlier this year when a nursery school refused to hire a Muslim woman, saying her headscarf could scare the children.
But before the latest standoff exploded into a full-blown controversy, the 10- and 11-year-old students resolved the issue by opting to stick to the original lyrics.
The director of the school, Pasquale Capria, told reporters on Sunday: "The foreign students themselves told me it wasn't a problem for them to sing Jesus."
Foreigners, many of them Muslim, represent about 20 percent of the students at the school. There are some one million Muslims living in Italy, a country of around 57 million people.
Thank you for your article Hugh. What makes the Archbishop's commentary so convincing here in the United States among nearly the whole of the populace is the cultural and educational inculcation of self-hating guilt through the oft-repeated trespasses of Christianity imposed on the world, namely the Crusades. They then however completely ignore the history "antes de" the Crusades, and also ignore the contemporary documentation detailing the Islamic subjugation of non-Muslims. The resulting omission makes the historical Islamic world appear to be the innocent victims of agressive Christian policy that is viewed as the prototypical model of Western agression which many people believe ultimately inspired the contemporary Islamic terrorists.
We would all do well to properly research Hugh's points as well as peruse the appropriate theses of those, most notably Bat Ye'or, that report primary historical documents that detail the expansion of Islamic conquest, since if we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it.
For the Pope
(whose membership I departed from at the age of 13, once I discovered that throughout history people have believed all number of absurdities with demonic faith and murderous design, from Aztec heart-rippers to Holy Inquisition thumb-screwers)
to kiss a Koran shows that senility has overtaken Il Papa and mandatory retirment laws need to be added to the rulebook of the Roman Catholic dogma.
I guess none of the guys holding his walker or driving the bullet-proof Popemobile (wasn't there a Muslim guy a few years ago who shot some holes in Ill Pappy?) or doling out his medications have explained to the old fellow that half of suras in that oh-so-kissable book are either calls to slaughter his 'flock' or to enslave them until the moment is ripe to kill them (for some 'transgression of dhimmitude').
Hey, John Paul the Second! Your acting like a Jew in Auschwitz kissing 'Mein Kampf'. Somebody put him in the Old Popes home, quick!
As Jesus said:
"You must judge not by the appearance of things, but by the reality." -John 7:21-24.
How come I always read so much about poor Muslim "asylum seekers" that the West must take in for humaneness's sake, but I never read of us taking in poor Christian dhimmies fleeing from Islam? (Except for the lost boys who came to the US from the Sudan.)
Our FIRST priority to "asylum seekers" should be to dhimmies. They will help us stem the Islamic demographic tide as well as provide a strong response to the propaganda-mongerer's claims of Islamic "tolerance."
There are about 5 million Christian Pakistanis alone who need taking in. They should get first priority for immigration to Great Britain for example, ahead of the Pakistani Muslims who have caused so much trouble there.
Susan-
Maybe we could have an exchange?
(Our parasites for their prisoners?)
They can have their Muslim brethen back who intriftrate the Infidel World in return for the West, etc. accepting the non-Muslims who want to get the hell out of the Islamic zones where they are tired of being second-class, at best, citizens?
The People Exchange?
I've met guys from the former Rhodesia (now a tyranny under a new name, until it is changed again) who are animists whom I would much prefer over any member of the Islamicist cult. They are cheerful, broad-minded, life-loving and tolerant of other people's 'gods'.
I'll take those who laugh at me -becuase I don't worship a bird or my ancestors- over those who plot my murder for failing to bow to a desert pedophile's schizoid suras.
As we approach Christmas, it should be remembered that the Church of the Nativity, which should be one of the holiest sites of Christianity in "O little town of Bethlehem" second only to the site of the crucifixion itself (if the exact site could ever be proven with absolute archeological certainty), is under the total control of the palestinian authority. That should be an insult of the highest order to Christians everywhere, especially after palestinian terrorists defiled the sanctity of this church, not to seek refuge therein, but to carry out murder of Jews in the name of islam. Instead of the sovereign state of the Vatican, through its spokescardinal, trying to explain away christianophobia amongst muslims, perhaps it should start addressing the crumbling state of the Church of the Nativity and the protection of the basic human rights of christians living there or seeking to make a pilgrimage there at the highest international levels.
Lisa:
Sadly, the PA were aided and abetted by the Orthodox Christian clerics who are the custodians of the Church.
Suzan and Profitsbeard: I too just love it when I hear of Islamist refugee claimants seeking assylum in Canada (sometimes sheltering in churches) because the countries (typically Egypt, Algeria) they fled are trying to crack down on religious extremists.
God forbid the Pope kissed the book of the Devil.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Islam is the Devil at work.
This is very very insultive!
I can't imagine an ordinary Iman kissing the Bible.
Well, the bible has said it that it is not all those who call me lord, lord that will enter the kingdom of God,(although I am not judging neither am I in the right position to classify even the pope... just quoting the Holy Bible)but know this that heaven will be a great surprise!
In addition to this, the pope should remember that Christ is the head of the church not the pope and he should stop representing the church if he can not stand and speak against evil clearly, or else we shall tell him what the Israelites told Rehoboam, "To your tents oh Israel" !!
N.B: No offence against the Pope only against his action towards the koran!
I rest my case.
Written by,
Ayatollah Dase (SWT).
Susan, prophetsbeard
I have posted along similar lines for quite sometime.
Demographics will eventually lead to Islamic separatist movements in Europe and America. Primary immigration is now a red herring. It is muslim growth from within, that is the greatest danger. Bradfordistan etc will be the talk of the News media in the coming decades. There is no doubt of this eventuality. It is predictable. One just has to look at the muslim separatist movements around the world. Once a new muslim state is created, non-muslims will be forced out or worse. Muslims in the remainder of the non-muslim state will then continue to increase, till a new separatist demand is made, and so on.
So what are the choices
1. Wage war selectively in the Arab/Muslim world
2. A civil war within the West
3. Expulsion of muslims from the West.
4. Separation of Christendom from dar al islam, followed by an exchange of Muslims populations here, for Christians in Muslim countries.
The first is unlikely to work unless it takes the form of total war. This leads to unimaginable mega-death scenarios, for that is what it takes to change cultural attitudes of a nation. With Islam it will require much worse.
The second is again going to be bloody beyond imagination, besides being totally arbitrary.
The third option is not politically possible. In Bosnia and Kosovo, we made it clear that ethnic cleansing was not going to be tolerated, even though that was the only choice the Serbs had to save their cultural heritage. In effect, we ourselves closed that option for us.
That leaves the fourth option. It is the least expensive in all terms - mortality rates as well economic. This option though not nice and difficult to implement, is till the least expensive and bloody of all.
One must bear in mind that in the event of a really bloody civil war in Europe or America, the victors will exact a heavy price. In effect, if Europeans win, muslims will be expelled anyway. In retaliation, Christians in muslim countries will be slaughtered and the survivors expelled.
Two birds with one stone. We save ourselves as well as save the remnants of Eastern Christianity- Arab Christians, Christians in Pakistan. Another plus, is that exchanges of populations, have happened quite often in recent history when cultures are unable un-able to coexist, and are recognised as legal.
In the meantime, as a first step, we have to name the enemy. Then make the practice of islam and its rituals as difficult as possible. Public calls to prayer to be banned, as it invades the public sphere and is also offensive to others.
Immigration to the West has occurred as the West has been friendly to islamic ritual as part of the multi-cultural ethos. We can make the West as muslim un-friendly as possible and hopefully reverse the tide of muslim immigration.
Difficult options all round and we have no one to blame but ourselves, but better we do so now, or else the price may be so high, that even we in the West will not be able to pay the piper.
A quarantine of the islamic world, as we did with the Warsaw pact, will soon bring down Islam. In fact, in the last 100 years, islam was on its way to extinction. It has been saved from that fate by the West, firstly by the West's exploitation of oil, and second, by allowing muslims into the West. Both of these, have given islam a new lease of life - if you like, the West has supplied the oxygen and life support to an ideology that was on its last legs.
Population exchange is the best way to neuter islam. Islam will not survive without being able to expand and be a parasite on the civilised world. If mulsims wish to overbreed, let them do so in their own lands and at their own expense.
DP111 (Displaced Person?)
Bravo. And a goal I have as well.
I would call it a "prisoner exchange", except that the only "prisoners" are those non-Muslims trapped in the growing fanatical zones under extremist Islamic rule (Indonesia is getting more occluded as many of their imams go to the crazier suras for support and as a way to Koranically bamboozle their naive congregations toward jihad).
The hardcore Muslim infil-traitors into the Infidel world are resting on the easy pillows of social services, p.c. self-gelding and ignorant liberal church members buying their 'we're just like you' flim-flam.
As the Muslim extremists grow more strident, let's hope those in the Infidel world can trade their own Fifth Column of Koranic fanatics for the opposed brothers and sisters now suffering Dhimmitude worldwide.
Good note DP111!
Islam has murdered at least 400 MILLION human beings over the past 14 centuries. It has maimed and tortured many times that figure over the same period. This is evil unparalleled in human history and every imam on the planet is fully aware of it and zealously plotting more of the same. They may yet prove successful in doing so. And what is islam anyway but a bottomless pit of murder and mayhem?
If Islam's disciples are "christianophobic" so what? Christians are ordered NOT to kill by the 10 Commandments. But they retain the right to defend themselves. But defense in Islam doesn't really exist. It's war, killing, human sacrifice, and more killing and more war.
Christians have the right
I've written this before over these long months: the Islamic ummah is suicidal. Islam is dying and in its deaqth-thoes, it wants to destroy all around it. I see this as inevitable: that millions of Moslems will die because they are now provoking and will constantly provoke the wrath of the civilized world; they are at war with every nation on Earth, and at war not in the hope of winning, because they cannot, and they know that to be true, the obvious evidence being too clear to ignore even for Moslems, but at war with the world because they are dying.
Islam is comprised of people. I don't care much if grown men go down in a fight to the finish. I admire the bravery of men who stand up for themselves, even if they know they're doomed. It does them honor, for what it's worth, to let them go down bravely. But for the majority of cowards who are the Moslem masses of men, I have nothing but contempt. It is the women and children of Islam who will pay the greater price, though, the men being the ones who'll run away and hide. To go to war against Islam is to kill millions of women and children. If we wait until conditions are so impossible to live with that the West fights back with all its resources and will, the Islamic world will indeed get its wish: the total annihilation of the Islamic world. That is intolerable. No reasonalbe man could stand by to allow that to happen, Moslems or not. No child chooses islam, and no woman in Islam has any choice but to live in a cave of illusion until she is forcibly removed. The men can hang, but women and children are generally non-combatants in my world. This isn't simply an abstract argument over the internet. This is about real people who will live or die because of choices you and I make today.
Moslem men want to die, and Moslem women and children go along with it because they live in total darkness, knowing nothing else.
If there were such a thing as a prisoner exchange, all we'd be doing is sending one group to death in exchange for saving another. this concentration camp scenario is too ugly to consider. We can, as people sitting at key-boards, attempt to save as many as possible of all kinds, Moslem and Christian, Buddhist and Animist and everyone else.
Whatever our differences outside the questions of the threat of Islam, and they are myriad, we are united on the question of Islam: we must prevent it from killing millions of innocents, theirs as well as ours. That's not a monopoly of any religious faction, but a Human moral imperative. The point of a struggle such as ours is to do good, not simply to act in prudence on our own behalf. But, if it must be simple prudence, if we do decide to boycott the Islamic world, what will we do when we find out clearly that indeed they cannot feed themselves for more tahn three weeks? what are we going to do when the bodies start piling up around the world, when they liquify, when the plagues come? We won't be able to bury the bodies fast enough to prevent a world-wide contamination. Look at even one cholera epidemic and imagine it as pandemic. but that's only if we don't care enough to try to mend this fault before it comes to extermination. We must agree to save those we can.
Islam is suicidal. There's no way we can save all of the Moslems in the world. Our best hope is to provoke those who are crazy already so they in turn provoke and early rather than a late response. We have to act as we are, not relying on the authority of others to save the Islmaic populations for us and for them. We can do small things such as working on behalf of politicians we think are sensitive to the issue. We can educate our fellows. We can enrage Moslem men at every opportunity so they show themselves as they truely are, and in turn so they will lose more sympathy for their "religion of peace." We can do a great deal as individuals at keyboards. Look at even one man did, at what William Walker did, and you will know that you have more power than you have ever in your live dreamed possible. You can save millions of people from slavery, ignorance, and even from death. If you don't do that, then why would you want to live? I'd be suicidal.
Let's do what we can for a real purpose that we can measure is terms of lives saved rather than worry about the pope and the ACLU. We have real work to do. We've got so many talented and intelligent people here that if we work together there's little chance of us not succeeding.
Let the Catholic Church do whatever it will do. We are free men and women who have a task given to us for the greater glory of Human history, but particularly for every child,for every woman, for every man who lives through the implosion of Islam as we see it today. We are blessed to have this chance to do right.
sonofwalker,
thank you for your thoughts,
ideas and inspiration.
my prayer is that
the Free will be
the light of humanity.
While reading Hugh's 20 Theses, I had an image flash through my mind of a hooded figure printing out this thread and nailing it to the door of St. Peter's Basilica.
I don´t agre with the Lejolo´s opinion, since the Vatican I Concilium all the opinions about political things an other things aren´t faith matters and opinable, and this is an opinion of this archbishop that I don´t agree like the kissing of the Pope in the Koran, although this last is very christian, when yur enemy hurt you in the check, present the other. Greetings
"Anything said by a Vatacan official has the blessings of the Holy father."
Says who???
I suppose anything said by a local politician has the blessing of the President? I suppose anything said by a police officer has the blessing of the Police Chief? Is the Pope some sort of super-filter, that every spoken word mystically passes through his mind first?
To the person who wrote:
"For the Pope
(whose membership I departed from at the age of 13, once I discovered that throughout history people have believed all number of absurdities with demonic faith and murderous design, from Aztec heart-rippers to Holy Inquisition thumb-screwers)"
What did this comment have to do with the article?
'Nuff said, I hope.