We have expressed our differences with Clifford May before, and once again in his latest article, Mr. May succeeds in rousing our collective ire. Lawrence Auster takes on this article at the View from the Right, with thanks to Andrew Bostom.
Dear Cliff,Your article makes good and welcome points about the actual extremism of today’s Islam, and even about the roots of Islamic violence in the Prophet himself, but I’m surprised at some of the things you say along the way. For example, you argue that the IRA (a leftist, pro-Communist, terrorist organization!) was motivated by Christian belief! This is just ridiculous.
And then you include Timothy McVeigh in your list of Christian extremists. There was nothing Christian about McVeigh, except perhaps by heritage. He was angry at the U.S. government for its acts in Waco, Texas, and conceived a desire to strike back at what he saw as a tyrannical government. He was a sick nihilist. He didn’t represent Christianity in any way whatsoever. I don’t think he said anything indicating that he felt he represented Christianity. As far as I'm aware, he never said anything about his motivations at all, but remained stoically silent from the time of his arrest until his execution.
And John Brown, another of your Christian extremists, did call himself a Christian, but he was not taken by any mainstream people as a representative of Christianity, he was seen as a violent fanatic, though some in the North did say they “understood” (though they didn’t condone) his actions at Harper’s Ferry.
Fortunately, after starting out with these false equivalencies between a supposed Christian extremism and Muslim extremism, you then turn around and show (though you don’t explicitly say so) that there is no equivalence at all, since the Muslim extremism is not extreme within the terms of Islam, but is a normative and dominant voice of Islam. So there’s a complete disjunction between your “equivalence” argument, and the facts you actually adduce about Islam.
And that’s not the end of the confusion. After giving a lot of evidence showing that there is no effectively existing moderate Islam that speaks for Islam, you then call for this non-existent moderate Islam to take the leadership of Islam and banish the extremists! This does not strike me as a serious argument.
So, why tout an equivalence between Christianity and Islam, a false idea that only confuses the issue? Why go searching for Christian and Jewish extremism, when the problem is Islam? And why point out the normative violence in Islam and the normative support for extremism in Islam, and then act as though this normative violence and extremism can be cured by promoting “moderation”?.
The whole point is that Islam is not a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion. In fact, Islam is not a religion in the usual sense of the word at all. It is, from its inception, along with being a religion, a world-conquering totalitarian movement...
Years ago I lived in what was called a Cliff May house. I dont know if there is any connection, but the C.M. houses were pieces of crap as houses go. Similarly Mr. Mays article is a piece of crap as well. Telling the truth except for the most important parts is the hallmark of a good liar.(I have said that before). May mixes up truth with fantasy (I call it that because I dont know if he is lying or just stupid). Mr Auster addresses that competently. May's article sounds suspiciously like something Kingky Toleration would write. Maybe they are the same person. Has anyone ever seen Kingky and Cliff in the same room at the same time? I thought not...isn't that just a little too coincidental??
Didn't Giaour just post something here dis-agreeing with Auster? Where did it go? He said something about the Bible creating communism, or something like that...oh well, maybe it will turn up somewhere else...
Mr. Spender, Duh-Swami:
Speaking as the resident Bible-thumper, I feel I have to wiegh in on this one. Mr. Spencer is correct to say that Christianity disapproves of terror, and would have a pretty hard time making a martyr of a suicide bomber. But there's more to the story.
While theological motives seem to have been far from Timothy McVeigh's mind and the IRA can hardly be called "Christian" (except sociologically--some of the Protestant paras, though, are something else), one can legitimately speak of "Christian" terrorists. I would see John Brown of Harper's Ferry fame as a case in point.
The Christian religion nowhere says that Christians are perfect and sinless in themselves. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ represented us in his righteousness, paid the penalty for our sins, and conquered sin and death for us in his resurrection. Christ and his righteousness are offered to us sinners in preaching; and we are saved because we trust Christ and his righteousness, not because our good deeds outweigh the bad. Our good deeds are nothing but the way we express gratitude for a salvation already given in Christ. Here endeth the sermon.
John Brown, more or less my brother Calvinist, believed there was a great evil in the land, and that he was the man to fix it. He saw this as a special burden laid on him by a combination of the providential outworking of history and the direct call of the Holy Spirit (a bit of Quaker-ish doctrine creeping in). My guess is that there are a number of abortion clinic bombers and shooters of abortionists who run on similar dreams [as for me, I'm of the mind that we argue, persuade, and build up our strength to vote out bad laws and politicians; but we don't shoot]. Now, maybe John Brown was forgiven his excesses; maybe those excesses prove that he was only a deluded hypocrite. But that judgment is ultimately God's to make.
As for the Northern Irish troubles, I will freely admit they had a theological origin brought about by different readings of the Scriptures--New as well as Old Testament. During the Reformation, most of the native Irish remained loyal to the Roman see, while the English and Scots went Protestant (of different kinds). The plantation of a mostly Scottish Protestant settler population in Northern Ireland (where they augmented the small number of native Irish Protestants) was a classis "settler" and "native" confrontation. If the Irish Catholics call the "curse of Cromwell" on people, the Irish Protestants shudder at the memory of 1642, when Catholic priests urged their flocks to fall on the Protestants, during which time over 40,000 men, women and children were slaughtered. Catholic priests held that this was a good way to rid the land of an heretical scourge; Protestant ministers (including the very godly Samuel Rutherford, who was an early theorist of limited government as well) saw this is as proof that Chalres I had broken faith with his people and God, and hence the lesser magistrates of Scotland and England were justified in deposing him.
Of course Mr. Spencer would be right to point out that the New Testament nowhere commands a "jihad of the sword" (or crusade). Yet Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant theologians alike have read the Scriptures to note that there are times when the use of arms is permissible (think of the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings!); in the 16th and 17th century, as the possibility of unlimited power in the hands of monarchs arose, both Jesuit and Reformed ("Calvinist"--Calvin, great as he was, was only one of many) also worked out a theory of justified resistance to tyranny. My guess is that people like John Brown in the antebellum USA and some of the Orangemen might see themselves as heirs of that tradition.
To be honest, I respect the "monarchomach" ("Monarch-striker") theory myself, and see it among the historical roots of the American founding, among other things. The same tradition of thought is reflected in the _Wilhelmus_, which was once the national anthem of the Netherlands, written by Philippus Marnix van St. Aldegonde. In a slightly gentler form, Martin Luther King's resistance to segregation also echoed that tradition in political theology.
Yet it is probably also safe to say that Jesuit and Calvinist, Covarruvias and Suarez, DuPlessis-Mornay and Rutherford, would all say that when the political compact is broken and strife arises, it is one of the necessary evils that arise in a fallen and sinful world, NOT something esepcially delightsome to God.
The command in Acts that we must obey God rather than men is bound in the same book with the command in Jeremiah to work and pray for the peace of the city in which we live, even if it's Babylon itself.
Multicultural Kepha
The crux, which needs to be engraved on cards to be handed to all of the blather-meisters using this same "pseudo-equivalency" tactic:
"Why go searching for Christian or Jewish extremism when Islam is the problem?"
It would sure (or should I say SURA) save a lot of time.
Mr. May is one more Self-Suicide of the West type.
(I wish they would just bump themselves off like the spiritual lemmings they are, and save the rest of us the time wasted in moving them out of the way of progressing Civilization. But, like most self-loathing idealists/nihilists, they want to take everyone else with them... for misery company.)
P.S.-
A flaw I note in most of May's columns is that he is always analyzing-analyzing-analyzing, but never seems to reach a recommendation.
(With a doctor like that, you'd be dead before he finished writing the prescription.)
Kepha...Thanks for putting my name alongside Spensers, undeserved, but thanks anyway.
What ever happened to 'thou shalt not kill', 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' and 'love your enemies'. Do we love them before we kill them, or after?
Christian history is full of abuses. The Catholic Church before the reformation had a number of decadent Popes, such as Rodrigo Borgia, Alexander the sixth, who was spiritually and morally bankrupt by most anyones standards.
The Catholic Church murdered and plundered many. Their torture dungeons always had room for one more heretic or enemy of the Church. The worst thing that could happen to a person in those days was to be put 'under the permanent protection of the Church', that meant you got to live in a dungeon and be tortured every remaining day of your life. Others have indulged themselves similarly, as you point out.
I have no problem with Christ, but have lots of problems with un-enlightened or semi-enlightened Christians. I am not a Christian, partly because I refuse to participate with people who have agendas, and want to use God, Christ and Christianity as an excuse to foster their own materialistic ends. When these people have any power at all, they will abuse it.
I object to the constant comparisons between Islam and Christianity, as I see this as a distracting ruse, especially from muslims and their apologists. This is not a war of religions, that is blue smoke and mirrors.
Most of us understand that Islam is not a religion. It has religious components but is actually a political entity, bent on forcing itself on the world and taking over. Muslim spokespersons repeat that like a mantra. And they act on it.
" Your religion is every bit as murderous as my religion", has no value in my opinion, except to give the inept some ammunition to shoot, and something to say. Dhimmitude is non discriminatory, it includes everyone but muslims, thats if you live through the process.
Thats whats happening today, and we non muslims have to deal with it.
As you say, 'there is more to the story' and you are correct, lots more, in fact, so much more, it's mind boggling, causing confusion in many. There is profit in confusion...muslims understand that and capitalize on it at every opportunity. The clever really are clever, thats why their tricks work...information and generous applications of truth is the cure for trickery.
Thank you for your post. It was interesting and informative...have a good evening, or night, depending on where you are...swami
We know how Christianity works.....claiming to be one doesn't mean that you are. If you blow up a building then you cetainly are not.
duh_swami:
As for your comments on moral equivalence, I think we're on absolutely the same wavelength. Christianity is not the religion which tells its people that they may feel superior to others, but that they are beggars telling other beggars where to find bread. Pride, after all, is one of the great sins; humility, on the other hand, is a great virtue.
I will not go so far as to say that Islam is not a religion. Someone's ultimate concern is his religion, and Islam is the ultimate concern of a large number of people. Various "non-religious" viewpoints are thus, in fact, "religious" too. The Scripture warns us of certain people "whose god is their belly", and I've seen plenty of people make cults of money, power, beauty, knowledge, you name it.
I admit that I believe that there are such things as truth and falsehood in religion, just as there are truth and falsehood in everything else. It just so happens that one of the things that I take for truth is that "God desireth not the death of the sinner..etc." (such verses are there in the prophets and Paul). Now, who was that guy who popped in months ago and called Paul the purveyor of a "blood cult?" I sure wish he'd explain, since I haven't heard from him in a long time.
But God forbid that there should be a number of people calling themselves "Christian" who see that their calling is to hasten to Hell as many lost people as they can rather than try to turn them around by preaching and ethical example (including the love thine enemies part and thou shalt not kill). You are correct on what the Holy Spirit, speaking in Scripture expects as Christian "normalcy" when you raise those issues. Now, what Christians do and say as they struggle along in a world which, their Book tells them, is radically "abnormal" is a different thing.
These are reasons why I strongly object to the moral equivalence that many raise. Religions differ in doctrine, ethics, casuistry, cult, and much else; and I pray that God would open the eyes of our officials, academics, and media folk that such is the case. I pray as well, though, that they also would awaken to the appalling bloodlust of the late, unlamented 20th century, the epitome of "secularism", and ask themselves if that singularly violent era might not have been the way it was partly because we told God (who became incarnate in Jesus Christ) to take a hike, and He obliged us.
Perhaps the issue animating a good many people who post here is that from what we can see of the Islamic world, the foundational texts call for actual warfare on the rest of us, which can end with only our deaths, conversions, or subjugation into second-class status. Here, I suppose I'm on your wavelength, too.
Perhaps where I stand is that the "fundaments" on which differing "fundamentalists" stand are as different as granite and quicksand.
It's time for a bit of clarification. For most of his life Timothy McVeigh considered himself an agnostic. He only took Catholic services at the end to hedge his bets.
As for the Irish, they were killing each other ever since they were Druids. Different migrations would fight the people who came before them, with the Milesians ultimatly coming out on top. Then there were the wars between the tribal kings, the provincal kings, and the High Kings. The Catholic vs Protestant was just another excuse the Irish used to kill each other.
duh_swami:
your idea of Catholic history is straight out of bad Jack Chick comics. To straighten you out would require a course in European history, which I could offer you, but which you would probably refuse. All I can tell you is that you would have done a lot better not to speak of things you have no idea at all of.
Paolo,
I'm not sure whether you read Duh-swami's post correctly.
He is quite on the ball.
The Mohammedans are rather cunning when it comes to propaganda and religious-historical equivalence.
The debates on TV (here in OZ just like in Europe) are often won by Muslims since our moderators are completely clueless and unaware, both of history and religion. I suppose for most of us religion is not an issue, but for them it is everything. Most of us haven't even begun to come to grips with what we are dealing with.
Big Sleep:
"Why go searching for Christian or Jewish extremism when Islam is the problem?"
That's the crux of the biscuit!
Everything else is deflection and obfuscation. Christianity and Judaism doesn't threaten anyone. Islam does...
Duh-swami,
"To straighten you out would require a course in European history, which I could offer you, but which you would probably refuse."
And I think you would do quite right to refuse.
If you feel you need to improve your knowledge of the subject then there is a vast number of excellent sources of education in European history, at least as eminent and celebrated as Paolo, but a great deal more modest and relaxed about their worth.
thomas h.: it is not a question of being modest or relaxed, but of having to do something to break down stereotypes comparable to the worst Jim Crow kind. duh_swami lives in a world of Inquisition torturers and Borgia popes that belongs in the intellectual dustbin of the universe, and he does not know it. Reading one or two books would do no good. Serious education is required.
Paolo,
I concede Duh_swami is quite wrong believing the standard falsehoods about the European history and especially about the Catholic church. But after centuries of War on Christianity waged by the western “progressive forces” these lies once limited to the Left became unquestioned articles of faith across the whole political and cultural spectrum of our society. Very few of the people educated in our public schools or colleges ever question the actual validity of the “facts” they have been fed with.
Duh_swami hasn’t been lucky to stumble over something that would provide him with a jolt necessary to make him try to revise his information. Nevertheless, judging from his often quite keen observations I am sure that he is not the type which barricades himself behind an ideology, dogma or superstitions. I think he would seek truth once he has the suspicion his picture of European history may be wrong.
It could indeed be true that, as you said, “Reading one or two books would do no good. Serious education is required.”
But then please excuse me if I shall, once again, point out that your supercilious tone and sneering style is hardly conductive for him to seek it with you.
Paolo surely must have something to say about this `christian`:
`The Nanavati Commission, which has since 2000 been probing riot cases, said there was credible evidence against Jagdish Tytler, minister for the welfare of expatriate Indians, in organising the riots.`
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050808/wl_sthasia_afp/indiasikhriotsreport_050808123120