The message of Jose Ramos-Horta encapsulates the superiority of a civilization, and a spiritual energy that can overcome that of the Islamic rage for revenge, if the West only has the courage to recapture and defend it.
This will be a considerable preoccupation of my next book, tentatively entitled Why Christianity Is A Religion of Peace -- And Islam Isn't (coming next summer from Regnery Publishing), which will confront and refute the multiculturalist assumption that all religions and cultures are equal, explore Judeo-Christian civilization as the focus of the global jihad attack, and explain why it is so eminently worth defending -- by Christians and non-Christians alike.
This doesn't mean that it is likely that Osama will heed this message and lay down his arms. Nor does he mean that non-Muslims shouldn't defend themselves against the jihadists. But it does bespeak a civilization of mercy and magnanimity, which is greater than that of the civilization of hatred and barbarism, and should be defended as such.
"Timor PM sends Xmas message to bin Laden," from AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
DILI - East Timor Prime Minister Jose Ramos-Horta said Tuesday he hoped Osama bin Laden had tuned in from his mountain hideout to hear his Christmas message of peace directed at the feared terrorist leader.Ramos-Horta’s message to the elusive September 11 mastermind was broadcast on the BBC.
“It occurred to me that a man who is one of the most feared and detested on earth by some and admired by others, might tune into the BBC and hear my message,” he said....
“I have no illusions that my message will achieve any change, but I thought that here I had a chance that Osama bin Laden would listen and maybe, just maybe, my message would touch his conscience,” he said in explanation of his choice of recipient....
“On this occasion when we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, my words, words of peace, are sent to my brother somewhere in the mountains, in the caves, of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Osama bin Laden. Yes, I consider you to be a brother,” he said.
Ramos-Horta said he failed to understand why bin Laden directed his resentment over the harm done to Muslims against innocent civilians.
“I come from a small country, East Timor, that was invaded by the largest Muslim country in the world.
“I lost brothers and sisters, yet I do not hate one single Muslim, I do not hate one single Indonesian. That’s the only difference between you and me, my brother Osama bin Laden,” he said.
“I beg you to re-think and extend your love, your solidarity, your friendship, the same ones you feel about Palestinians, extend to the rest of the world, extend to Europeans, to Christians. You will then win them over that way, more than through hatred and violence. I thank you, may God Almighty and Merciful bless us all.”
The Nobel Peace laureate said he hoped his words got through.
“I can only hope and pray that Osama bin Laden heard my message and accepted it in a spirit of peace,” he said.
“I have no illusions that my message will achieve any change, but I thought that here I had a chance that Osama bin Laden would listen and maybe, just maybe, my message would touch his conscience,”
Nope
Osama does not have a conscience cause Islam has no Conscience . and i think this person , though kind hearted as he may be is also wrong about OBL and the Jihadi's fighting for Palestine out of LOVE. wrong again. It is out of the love for War, Jihad and domination of all life. the Palestinian People mean Squat. Only the will to dominate them completely under Islam and deny them any real Freedoms or civil liberties is what the true cause of Jihad is. That and the disgusting indulgences of Islam Paradise.
Fat chance!
The Judeo-Christian civilization is eminently superior to anything else on earth. It is worth defending. I only hope that our political leaders will agree with that too.
I am not so forgiving. I despise Muhammad and his evil teaching. The same Muhammad who now resides in the 5th circle of hell according to Dante's Inferno.
Individual Muslims can be OK provided they don't buy into Muhammad's teachings. But it's a struggle because no other religion is inspired by such an evil man.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity."
"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
Winston Churchill (from "The River War")
Mr. Churchill may be dead but his words still speak to us over 100 years after the book "The River War" was written (in 1899). A true lion of the British empire who was correct about the Nazis and appears correct about Islam.
Jesus Christ = mercy forgiveness plus he healed and performed miracles. He killed no one
Muhammad = bloody conquest of the non Muslim plus this so called prophet delivered no prophecies and performed no healing and no miracles. Muhammad murdered many
That is my perspective as a Jew and I'm not a Jew for Jesus either, He is not my messiah
All a rational person must do is compare the life and example of Muhammad to the life and example of Jesus Christ. Compare Muhammad to Buddha and other religious figures
Robert:
I'm extremely sceptical. Isn't this whole business of "turn the other cheek" -- THE PROBLEM? sorry, but I don't buy into pacifism.
How can you simultaneously claim Christianity is pacifist (more so than Islam), then turn around and announce that, therefore, Christianity must be "defended." Unless, of course, you mean by "defense" a "war of words." Is that it? (You know, if Israel had adopted a similar approach, they wouldn't have lasted beyond 1948).
Perhaps your book will explain this conundrum. (anyway, bah-humbug for pacifists...I can't help but think of James Loney of the Christian Peacemakers going off to Iraq whenever I think of Christian "peacemakers" -- lousy hypocrites!)
... my next book, tentatively entitled Why Christianity Is A Religion of Peace -- And Islam Isn't (coming next summer from Regnery Publishing), which will confront and refute the multiculturalist assumption that all religions and cultures are equal...
The gloves are coming off.
Has anybody written a definitive history of Multiculturalism? I would think not, given that virtually everybody on campus is a Leftist.
The reason why Spencer can write such a book is that he's not working on campus; the reason he doesn't live on campus is so that he can think freely and be able to write such a book.
Is the Christian permitted to use violence in self-defense? Many people say that Jesus was a pacifist, and so Christians should support a non-violent response to terrorist attacks. Is this right? Should we turn the other cheek to bin Laden?
Those who feel that Christians should refrain from retaliation point to Jesus' words, "Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"(Matthew 5:39). While it might seem that Jesus is calling for pacifism at first glance, a simple analysis of the words used reveals that this is not the case. Note the specification of right cheek. Why would He need to make such a specification? In fact, it doesn't really make much sense, because if someone were to hit you on your right cheek, it means they either hit you from behind or they caught you with a left hook. Most people, however, are right-handed, and have not had boxing lessons. Therefore, in the majority of cases, you are going to get slapped on your left cheek.
Actually, the phrase used in this passage is a Jewish idiom which refers to a slap with the back of your hand; in other words, an insult. If someone insults you, you should not insult them back. People who use this verse further fail to mention that this is a situation involving individuals and does not apply to governmental affairs. The government is not a personality and has no thoughts or actions of its own. It exists to see that justice is done.
Critics of pacifism note that the principal problem with pacifism is that it misidentifies the morality of the individual as justification for (or morality of) the behavior of the state.
In fact, in this very sermon Jesus made the distinction between individuals and governments when He said:
"Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny." (Mat. 5:25-26)
Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God has commanded the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4).
People who claim that Jesus was a pacifist are ignoring more than half the Bible.
I don't buy this pacifism thing either.
Our forefathers didn't have that problem. They called the enemy names like 'Japs' and 'Huns' and went for the kill.
And Oriana Fallaci said something like 'As I have a right to love so do I have a right to hate those who want to take that away from me...'
Could it be that the traitors in the MSM and our wimpish polit-props are better Christians than earlier generations?
Hardly. Pacifism on their part is no more than cowardice and willful ignorance. I hate to say this, but we better learn how to hate.
Can we? I wonder.
I don't think there are many among us who hate one single moslem. But knowing what we know (and we do know that THEY suck the hatred with the mothers milk) we better learn something about it soon, just until the defense mechanism kicks in.
Also, throughout history, Christian theology has put forth the idea of "just war" composed of the following:
1) Just cause:
All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.
2) Just intention:
The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war.
3) Last resort:
The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.
4) Formal declaration:
The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias.
5) Limited objectives:
The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective.
6) Proportionate means:
Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate.
7) Noncombatant immunity:
Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks.
Perfect? Perhaps not but pretty good. A war against terrorism would rightly be classified as a just war. No pacifism required.
"The Nobel Peace laureate said he hoped his words got through "
Finally a Nobel Peace laureate we can be proud of. I wonder if Mr. Ramos-Horta feels the need to take a shower when he sees the other winners include the likes of Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
Strictly speaking and closely adhering to "just war" theory, one might consider the war against terror as more of a policing action rather than an actual formal war. In any event, there need be no turning of the other cheek. Terrorists, whether governmental agents or not, should be dealt with appropriately.
I'd save my noble sentiments, were they to exist, for people more human than Mohammedans.
Well, to tell the truth , islam is where christianity was - in the 1500 A.D. christianity wasn't any paragon of virtue at the time either. Look at the treatment of women - the torture and the buring at the stakes. And the slaughtering and forced converstion and the rapes in the New World. As don't forget the inquisiton - with the dread executioners and the black head coverings. Spain during the Lenten Processions is a left over of that time.
It's wonderful that a victim of Islamic aggression is not willing to attribute it to all Muslims and that his heart is filled with love. Hate only destroys the person who emanates it.
However, is this man willing to defend others? It's wonderful to turn the other cheek, but that is a prerogative of the individual when dealing with other individuals. I have given a state the responsibility for defending my home against invaders. George Bush never had the right to turn the other cheek after Americans were killed. It was his duty to respond.
The man who loves all Muslims would do well to remember another axiom (sorry, I don't have the exact source):
All that is necessary for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.
The usual quote goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (attributed to Edmund Burke, 1729-1797). However, as one website notes, there are about a thousand variations on this quotation. I checked a paper version (actual text) of "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" third Edition; checked the listings for Edmund Burke -- the quote doesn't appear. so, who knows, as to authenticity?
I think when pacifism becomes an appeasement of evil, there's a problem.
Also, I've read things which run contrary to the statement: "Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law." As I recall, there's something about if you're thinking about going to court (becuase someone's stolen your cloak), then give the thief a jacket (?)...or words to that effect. (not a direct quote there).
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
It is true that atrocities and oppression occurred in the past in the name of Christianity. But it was due to individuals and groups giving evidence to one of the Bible's teachings: man is inherently sinful, corrupt and selfish. Compare the admonitions of the Bible to those of the Koran, and you see that those horrible acts done by "Christians" were in flagrant violation of Christ's teachings.
On the other hand, Muslims are simply following the commands and example of old Mo and his hangers-on when they behead, torture, cut off body parts, stone, believe themselves to be superior to the kafir, riot, take slaves, abuse children, steal, and lie.
My 2 cents, of course, but I don't think much of this.
"Proving the point that Western civilization is superior to that of Islam"--OK, but who's in need of that message? Perhaps the moonbats, but their hearts are as hardened as those of their Muslim fellow travelers.
As for the Muslims themselves, they perceive it as nothing but weakness. The Israeli experience for the last ten years or so has been the carrying out of various actions and behaviors toward the enemy that are pragmatically insane, like opening the borders on Islamic holidays, just in order to prove the point of Israel's humanity in comparison to the "Palestinians". Did it work? No. The "Palestinians" used those respites to work their usual evil, and the anti-Zionist Western Left was not the least impressed by Israel's gestures of goodwill, Israel being, in their eyes, a colonialist state by nature, always guilty.
We ought to stop proving points except for the one, single, vital point called, "Don't tread on me". Having the moral high ground while being inside the physical low ground isn't noble, it's stupid.
Another few points with respect to the "just war" doctrine. You know, if I were a radical Islamist, I couldn't be happier with my enemies choosing a "just war" doctrine. Notice how completely one-sided such a doctrine is (as I laugh). Yeah, Ok, I, as an Islamist could NEVER wage a war. Hey, that's terrific!
i could easily aruge that I've got a Just Cause, I've got a Just Intention, i'm in a defensive mode, Osama's given his declaration, it's of the "last resort" vareity, and proportionate means are used (oh, and, about that business with respect to not killing "civilians", well, remember, only a government can declare a "war" thus, we are exempt!!) Yeah, how perfect is that?
I suspect that if the Allied Forces of WWII were to be governed by a similar doctrine, we'd all be goose-stepping right about now.
J.S., my mentioning of the "just war" doctrine was simply to dispel the myth that all Christians are pacifists and that any Judeo-Christian civilization is bound to the erroneous belief of "turning the other cheek" as a means of dealing with terrorism.
I myself never proposed using a "just war" doctrine against terrorists. What I would like to do would probably be deleted from this blog if I were to post it. (kidding, sort of)
I'm glad to hear that you're also opposed to going against terrorists by sending in the police. (I think the way the doctrine is formulated, it invalidates the U.S. military from going into places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.) It's breathtaking to think that terrorists could launch a nuclear attack, and the proponents of a "just war" doctrine would say that morally, the West cannot use its military to go after the perpetrators! (i think the "just war" doctrine needs to be updated.)
"Well, to tell the truth , islam is where christianity was - in the 1500 A.D. christianity wasn't any paragon of virtue at the time either. Look at the treatment of women - the torture and the buring at the stakes. And the slaughtering and forced converstion and the rapes in the New World. As don't forget the inquisiton - with the dread executioners and the black head coverings. Spain during the Lenten Processions is a left over of that time."
Posted by: allat
I only wish that were true but it is much worse then that. The Chrisitians of the 1500s were yes barbaric by todays standards but were superior to Muslims of the 1500s. The reason is structural. Chrisitanity does not have the restrictions that prevent advancement like Islam does.
Let me give you a couple of examples from the 1500s to illustrate this point.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
John Napier (1550-1617)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Can you name any muslims who did work equal to any of these men in the sciences during the 1500s? Muslims may have been just as well read as the Europeans but they lacked the fertile enviornment that 1500s Europe had. Yes it was violent. Yes the Christian church (Catholic and others) made a fool of themselves. In the end it failed becuase the majority of Chrisitian Europeans wanted to advance. They knew their own religion did not prevent this kind of inquiry despite what the Pope at the time wanted. Heck most people realized the leadership of the church was wrong and they knew the real reason was power not faith.
Even the Europeans of the late 1400s were better because in Italy at the heart of Catholic power this was the case and people like Girolamo Savonarola found out the hard way.
Western Civilization rest on 4 pillars:
(1) Scientific Method of Logic (Technology and Problem Solving)
(2) Enlightenment and Free Will (Individuals)
(3) Judeo-Christian Theology (Moral Backbone)
(4) Capitalism (Economic Power)
All of these were developed from the ancient Greeks all the way to the present. The 1500s were important years for each one. Yes there was violance but there was hope. You cannot say that for Islam then or now.
Islamic Civilization rest on one pillar
(1) Islamic Theology
That is not a good foundation for anything but trouble....
There is no real:
Scientific Method and Logic (Technology and Problem Solving)
Enlightenment and Free Will (Individuals)
Capitalism (Economic Power) (not as I a western man would understand it)
Well, to tell the truth , islam is where christianity was - in the 1500 A.D. christianity wasn't any paragon of virtue at the time either.
Allat,
Is that supposed to be an excuse? Guess what, five centuries have passed. How can so superior a faith as Islam not have evolved in all that time? Why do those who originated and spread the religion of peace still engage in tribal warfare? Does the fact that some Christians were illiterate and violent five hundred years ago make Islam's current intolerance acceptable? Are you putting Muslims on the same timeline as all of the infidels? You may not hear yourself, but you're saying there's nothing superior about Islam, so why should anyone join it?
“It occurred to me that a man who is one of the most feared and detested on earth by some and admired by others, might tune into the BBC and hear my message,” he said....
Judging by the non-stop leftist, anti-Americanism on BBC, it's not such a stretch to think it's OBL's favorite channel.
"But it does bespeak a civilization of mercy and magnanimity, which is greater than that of the civilization of hatred and barbarism, and should be defended as such".-Robert
The truth is that any failure to follow the teachings of Jesus result in deception and violence, following the teachings of Islam often result in deception and violence. Hitler (e.g.) would have been a good Muslim and was a bad "Christian". In fact, Hitler hated Christianity and thought (along with Himmler) that Islam was suited to Nazi ideology.
I want to share a short story I had with a young Muslim lady and her friend this Christmas.
About two month ago a young lady, university graduate, approached me and asked me to help her to find the father of her friend she's living together.
Her friend, a model, mother is Asian father is European, had lost contact with her father for over 12 years.
I had nothing, only the name and country of her father, so I googled and after hours of search, contacting city halls etc., I got an address. We were not sure if that would work but gave it a try and sent a letter I translated before.
Then exactly on Christmas day, I got the young lady, a Muslim, an interview in my friends company. She got the job. When she left the office with her friend and 2 minutes later her mobile phone rang and the father of her friend called. They were all in tears.
Shortly afterwards they called to tell me and wept for joy, that made me weeping too.
Everyone felt the spirit of Christmas and God, the Muslim Lady, her friend and myself.
I believe if we let the holy spirit deal with all our issues, we will be in love and peace with everyone. We don't have to love the spirit of Islam though.
In truth, the real world's fastest growing religion is NOT Islam, but the Christian faith. The global south leads in the growth of new Christian believers. It is because of the hope offered by the good news is why there is this growth.
Also the high regards given to women because of how Jesus treated women, starting with his mother.
As I said before, it was the appearance of a certain woman, Mary of Guadalupe, Mexico, which brought about the conversion to Christian faith, which was in the millions of native Mexicans.
although Jesus did teach to love one's enemies...but how would a Jew love a nazi? Bible in one hand and a sword in the other seems to be what is needed in order to survive...
Robert:
A title suggestion for your new book.
"The Golden Rule" - and Islam
Nice story, Arnie. But I would still want that Muslim girl's luggage searched at every airport and train station she goes through.
"The usual quote goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (attributed to Edmund Burke, 1729-1797). However, as one website notes, there are about a thousand variations on this quotation. I checked a paper version (actual text) of "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" third Edition; checked the listings for Edmund Burke -- the quote doesn't appear. so, who knows, as to authenticity"?
Posted by J.S.
I recall it being said by Einstein, a Jew:) my Favourite and I feel honoured to make this confession !
Taylor and sheik yer'mami,
Totally agree with what you have written. Someone made an interesting remark about politically correct cliched "turningtheothercheek" saying:
" But Jesus Christ does not exhort us to surrender our entire bodies to be pummelled and bloodied either "