Here is Derbyshire's response to my response to his review of my book Religion of Peace?.
And here, also from Pajamas, is my final response. Hearty thanks to John Derbyshire for this exchange, which I have enjoyed immensely. I hope he has also.
John Derbyshire wishes I had read his review of my book Religion of Peace? “more carefully,” since he now contends that he did not say – as I had characterized him as saying — that “Christianity and Islam are ‘equally likely to incite violence.’”I ask Mr. Derbyshire’s indulgence if I mistook his statement in his review that “God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ” as meaning that God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ. It was on that that I based my own summary of what I took to be his view: that Christianity and Islam are “equally likely to incite violence.” Looking at his words again, I still think it’s reasonable to conclude that that’s what they mean.
But no matter. If he doesn’t mean that, so much the better. He now says, “persons wishing to commit violence will find justification in any text they pick up—the New Testament, the Koran, Science and Health, or the Harry Potter saga. Charles Manson, if memory serves, got his inspiration from a Beatles song about a fairground attraction.” This is obviously true, but Charles Manson is in the bughouse for excellent reasons, and if Derbyshire is now saying that any text – any text at all – is no more or less likely to incite violence than any other, this would manifest a nihilism so corrosive as to strip all words, and everything altogether, of any meaning. It is certainly true that someone who is thoroughly deranged and depraved could understand “Do you don’t you want me to love you/I’m comin’ down fast but I’m miles above you” (from the Beatles song in question) or even “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” as containing some kind of coded command to destroy other human beings, but clearly the words don’t mean that, and that is why we do not see and have never seen large-scale, international movements of terrorists justifying their actions by invoking Beatles songs, or Harry Potter, or Science and Health, or…the Bible.The Qur’an, however, is quite another matter. It has given rise to a global movement of terrorists who frequently and copiously quote its teachings to justify their actions (in ways the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and all the rest of history’s Christian bogeymen never dreamed of doing with the Bible). Unless words mean absolutely nothing, “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (9:5) and “fight…the People of the Book…until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29) and “fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah” (2:193) and all the rest (and there are many more) do contain more incitement to violence than a pop song about a playground slide, and thus more violence is committed in the name of the Qur’an than in the name of Helter Skelter.
And to be sure, Mr. Derbyshire is cautiously “inclined to think that Islam offers more and better justifications for militancy than does Christianity.” That, of course, is my entire point in the book, since that very point is routinely controverted in the mainstream media. It is controverted to an extent that I thought it necessary to consider it in a book-length treatment, and to try in the process to give people who enjoy the benefits of living in the Judeo-Christian West a sense that they have a culture and a civilization that they should be proud of, and begin to defend more forthrightly and unapologetically.
This is not a matter of religious belief or proselytizing. I don’t proselytize in the book, which is about the value of Judeo-Christian civilization; accordingly, Mr. Derbyshire’s continued insistence that “irreligious people see all religions as equally preposterous” seems to me to be a bit off the point in this discussion. I am not arguing in this book that Christianity is less preposterous than Islam, and there is nothing I wrote in it that could not have been written by an informed atheist, or Jew, or Buddhist. The fact that Mr. Derbyshire considers Christianity preposterous is noted; it may, however, have blinded him to the ways in which he benefits from the civilizational advances it fostered, as well as to the ways in which the propagandistic “equivalence” arguments that are so prevalent nowadays sap the will of Westerners to defend what we are told every day is a rotten, worthless thing.
Thus I appreciate Derbyshire’s quip that “perhaps the book’s subtitle should be: ‘Why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn’t, and how I wish it were the other way round!,’” but I must reject the sentiment. The whole point of my book is that Judeo-Christian civilization stands for values that are more humane and life-affirming than those of Islamic Sharia. In place of supremacism, conformism, fear, and a culture of violence and revenge, there is the possibility of genuine virtue, born in genuine freedom, and an affirmation of the dignity of the human person that does not – pace Derbyshire’s earlier contention – lead with any inevitably to relativism and the loss of the will to defend one’s own. We can only regain that will by recovering a sense of the value of who we are, of what we have done, and of what we have made. That is why I wrote this book, and why I am as glad as he is that Mr. Derbyshire and I share some views of what must be done to extricate us from this present fix. With all his immense talent and insight, I look forward to fighting alongside him for the survival of our embattled common civilization.
Step right up, step right up - Who wants to place a bet? I'm currently offering two to one in favour of Mr. Spencer. :-)
Dear John Derbyshire, Pleeeeze show me those passages in the New Testament that can be used to incite violence. When I win a Powerball jackpot, I'll bet you $1,000,000 that you cannot.
"...I would not exclude the possibility that in some other state of the world, things might be the other way round. I see religious faith as an intensifier, a dispersive factor on the behavior bell curve, making good people better and bad people worse."
And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's as$ when it hopped.
So let me get this straight. What he is saying all religion has the potential to create "trouble-makers", so to be safe we should be suspicious of all people of faith equally. This despite the fact that he acknowledges that CURRENTLY islam has the lion share? What kind of crap argument is that?!
Duh. That all goes without saying. I just can't stomach the nihilism (relativism) contained in the words of Derbyshire. The discussion we should be having is which is a greater threat, 7th century Arabian Islam or 21st century Western nihilism?
Since the jihad is being waged in the West from within, my money is on nihilism.
Spencer's second response to Derbyshire is superb. Derbyshire can be brilliant, but on these particular issues, he leaves the impression that he either does not understand the basic issues at stake, or else is so uninterested in those issues that he becomes a little careless in expounding his position.
"I look forward to fighting alongside him for the survival of our embattled common civilization. By Robert
Robert, I don't think we can count on the likes of Mr Derbyshire to do any serious fighting.
It is surprising that Derbyshire would put himself in the position of seeming to agree with an extreme form of the deconstruction approach, according to which a text is only whatever anyone sees in it, and has no objective core whatsoever, no tendencies even, no probabilities of interpretation.
But I don't really think Derbyshire would agree with the extreme form of deconstructionism according to which texts mean only what anyone decides they mean. I think Derbyshire hasn't thought much about and doesn't care much about these particular questions, with the result that at one moment he'll utter what sounds like an extreme deconstructionism, and the next moment he'll acknowledge some objective reality to the meanings of words. Of course, the contradiction in his position might be only apparent; maybe he has left things unsaid that would clear up the apparent contradiction. Or maybe the contradiction is more than apparent, and results from inexperience with, and disinterest in, questions about the social fruits of different religious belief systems.
I don't know how John Derbyshire got a reputation as a thinker, but he would seem to be coasting these days. “irreligious people see all religions as equally preposterous” is an example of the logical fallacy of composition. Not something a real thinker would normally fall into.
Derbyshire's 'wit' may be provocative to some, but his ignorance on the topic of Christianity is unmistakable. As this is the case (widespread ignorance concerning Christianity) throughout much of the western democracies, we can see clearly why the west is in such deep trouble nowadays...
Just to add my own two cents to the discussion, I would say that even if the Qur'an, or any other religious tract, espoused violence and a host of other anti-social disorders, that doesn't mean that anyone has to follow it.
The thing that never ceases to amaze me, is not how bad the Qur'an is, but how gullible so many people are.
Game, set and match to Spencer. It was merely light duty for Robert to adequately obliterate Derbyshire's critique, that is, if John could actually be bothered to apply himself in such mundane topics, in his lonely opinion.
It is so refreshing to see two people debate issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks and anger.
I agree with Awake's assessment, "Game, set and match to Spencer;" but what a thoroughly enjoyable volley!
It is clear that John Derbyshire is out of his depth when making pronouncements about Christianity and Judaism. His knowledge and understanding of the Bible and the various critical tools for hermeneutics is unimpressive, to say the least. Most atheists I have known do not have a very deep knowledge base of Christianity or the Bible. They know enough to support their case, and often the little they know supports their case when in the company of those equally out of their depth on the subject. I would respect Mr. Derbyshire more if he would stop the bluster and show a sincere interest in the truth, not justifying his "faith." Atheism is, in fact, a faith also.
The moral-equivalency argument is just a way to stiff-arm one's opponent in order to not be troubled with the substance of their position.
Dear John Derbyshire,
Islam is more prone to violence because Muslims regard its Founder, Prophet Mohammed as the perfect man and role model.
While this is the same for all religions in that the Founder serves as role model, it is unfortunate that Prophet Mohammed was also a medieval ruler and nearly all 7th century rulers were, well, thugs.
Mohammed killed his critics and waged wars against his enemies - those who refused to acknowledged his prophethood. His actions and words serve as a template for Islamic law and Muslim personal behavior. Good and bad is defined as what he allowed to be done and what he disallowed.
You can see this by examining the empirical evidence. Compare the reactions of Muslims with infidels when confronted with similar situations.
Comparing Islam with Christianity, you will notice that Christianity's first holy war - the unjustifably maligned Crusade - came 1000 years after Christ. Islam's first holy war, called jihad, was waged at the begining by its Founder.
Christian Armenians were brutally treated by Muslim Turks. Yet I do not see Armenian refugees excite the emotions of 2.5 billion Christians. There are no major church leaders calling for holy war against Turkey.
The Armenian refugees setttled and found jobs and even prospered. Compare this to the fate of the Palestinain refugees whose problems cannot be solved. Also compare them to the Buddhist Tibetan refugees who fled China's brutal occupation of Tibet. I have not heard any calls of holy war from any Buddhist leader.
Also compare the behavior of Muslims regarding the Danish cartoons with Christian behavior over the Da Vinci Code and Buddhist reaction to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha.
Derbyshire is dead right. I was halfway through reading "The Cat In The Hat" when I was inspired to trash the house.
Seriously, Derbyshire is a sophist satisfied with his comfy gig. He is, as are many of his ilk, totally oblivious to the threat posed by Islam. Having lived under the umbrella of Western civilization for so long, he cannot comprehend the notion that his world could be brought down by a bunch of chanting, ranting lunatics.
As near as I can tell, his reasoning runs like this: There is no way Islam can defeat the West. If there is no way Islam can defeat the West opposing Islam is a waste of effort. All we have to do is ignore it and it will go away.
I'll bet he doesn't apply this reasoning to rodents in wainscoting.
Another excellent article by Robert Spencer!
There are many good points here in the comments section, as well.
It's too bad Mr. Derbyshire seems unable to look objectively at world religions. Many non-religious people have studied world religions. One would think that not having a religious bias would make one better able to analyze the foundations of various religions and the behaviour of their adherents.
On one hand, I wish someone else (meaning someone who was interested in and capable of the analysis required) had reviewed Robert Spencer's new book for PJM but, on the other hand, Mr. Spencer's rebuttals have been instructive.
So far, the comments to Mr. Derbyshire's second article have been interesting, too. I'll have to look at the comments attached to Mr. Spencer's second article at the PJM site.
Derbyshire is glib and droll, they way they turn them out of the public schools in Britain. He's Hitchensian in his clever contrarianism. But like Hitchens, he's a sloganeer, a phrase-turner, and not a serious thinker. What might sound good or get a chuckle ends up, on closer examination, not meaning much of anything. His prose is a pose: an exercise in too-cool-for-school skepticism that will challenge even the most patently obvious fact if to do so puts his in a more exclusive camp.
Thus, he can't simply assess the claim that Islamic texts are incitements to violence and Christian texts are not. He has to regale us with his own discovery that all religions are absurd. Fine. Stipulate that and return to the question. But he won't, because to return squarely to the question is to admit that someone else got it right, and Derbyshire can't do that because the one inviolable axiom of his universe is this: only Derbyshire REALLY gets it right. Only he is that smart.
Again, he's like Hitchens in this regard.
The irony is that both these atheist schoolboys fancy themselves so much like the guy they say doesn't exist. You see, Derbyshire DOES believe in God, and his initials are JD. (Hitchens, too, but the initials are different.)
I have read Mr Derbyshires writings for a while now, and I have followed this debate, as it were and if I may throw my 2 Lincolns in, I feel Mr D is just too far into his "apologetic" mindset to really see the problems. When he states in his response to Robert that he has no intention of studying Islam or even reading the Koran, that right there invalidates any comment or critique of religions as a whole he has made up to this point. It reminds me of my second wife who, after Rush Limbaugh went on the air, went off on a vile tangent about the esteemed Mr Limbaugh, calling him a bigot, religious zealot and other names ending with "phobe". When asked how she came to this opinion her reply was, "Well, thats what I heard!". I asked if she had heard it from the lips of Mr L and she said, "I would never listen to him because he is hateful!" at which point I tried to point out that it was intellectually dishonest for her to form an opinion without actually hearing from the horses mouth, she just yelled that she would never listen to hate and that the opinions formed were valid as they were from her friends whom she trusted and who had listened to Mr L. If Mr Derbyshire does not want to bother to learn from the source and takes his clues from "other sources" then I, for one will not accept his viewpoints, no matter how learned he seems. If you compare Mr Spencer to Mr Derbyshire on a purly intellectual level there is no comparison. Thank you, Robert for all you do and for your tireless dedication to the enlightenment of us all.
"Apostates of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"
Robert-
Derbytrotter is plopping a lot of horse poop as he runs around the track on this one. Go easy on him as he trots.
To not draw a clear distinction between the very real differences in the mandates of Jesus in the Gospels (particularly re violence and hypocrisy) and Muhammad and Islam is to horse poop. Nature must take its course as Derbytrotter clarifies things.
I'm not sure that I agree with the general view on this debate. While I agree with Robert Spencer's views overall, I think that John Derbyshire's review has some merit.
Some of the critiques of Derbyshire's review posted above are accurate in the sense that they point out that he is not a Christian and lacks a Christo-centered view of history. Well, it's true, and he admits it in his review!
The main issue I see is that Derbyshire wrote a review for non-Christians by a non-Christian, and some don't seem to like it. Also, many don't like his lack of a 'next steps' recommendation, though his "proscribe Islam" line does come close.
I was a bit disappointed By Spencer's reply to Derbyshire, though again - on it's own merits - I agree with it. Here's what I wrote to Derbyshire:
----------------------
"I read Robert Spencer's reply to your review, and can say that he definitely talked past you.
"You said that he spent too much time defeating the moral equivalence arguments between Islam and Christianity, and he replied not only that it was important (it is, and you hadn't said otherwise, you had just disputed the time spent) but that you had accepted equivalence.
"You said that as an unbeliever you found the Christian apologetics to be a weak basis for an argument, and Spencer disputed this. But of course you would! So how can he?
"You did contrast the peaceful statements of Jesus against the violent statements and actions of Mohammad to justify your view that Christianity is at a disadvantage in any conflict with Islam (and thus refuting, in my mind, the moral equivalence charge Spencer makes against you), and he replies with a long list of Christian leaders - most of whom were political, not religious, people who are today reviled by the multiculturalists for their acts of violence. That is hardly a refutation of your contrast or your conclusion.
"Finally, Spencer points to the Christian absorption of the Roman Empire (and he could have added, the barbarians who invaded that empire) as proof of peaceful Christian resiliency, but in fact none were Islamic. In the last millennium and a half, there has never been a Christian nation that peacefully survived occupation by the forces of Islam. In fact, once could argue that, historically, most Christian violence could be traced to cultural adaptations forced by the desire to resist Islamic attack."
--------------------------
On second thought, Greece did survive an extended occupation, but I am not sure how peacefully.
My point in this post is this: we are not going to win this if we fall out amongst ourselves. Despite their healthy differences on tactics and exposition, I count Spencer and Derbyshire to be on the same side.
Now I have to order Robert Spencer's books!
Tom Davis-
Apparently you are overcome by the winds of Derbytrotter. I am not a sectarian religious believer, but there is no question that the teachings of Jesus are vastly different than those of Muhammad and Islam. That's the point. That's the only point. Do you disagree with that? Please don't get windy as Derbytrotter if you answer this. Just stick to the differences between the teachings of Jesus and those of Islam. No need for Derbytrotter windy pretensions. Thank you.
The teachings, and life, of Jesus are vastly different - and better - than Muhammad. No disagreement.
But Derbyshire's writings are not pretensions. Despite what I see as his mis-evaluations, Robert Spencer did not treat them as such. And they are now flawless, either. I just think that Spencer's initial response did not directly confront Derbyshire's review.
The teachings, and life, of Jesus are vastly different - and better - than Muhammad. No disagreement.
But Derbyshire's writings are not pretensions. Despite what I see as his mis-evaluations, Robert Spencer did not treat them as such. And they are now flawless, either. I just think that Spencer's initial response did not directly confront Derbyshire's review.
Oops, haven't got the hand of posting yet...
But Derbyshire's writings are not pretensions. Despite what I see as his mis-evaluations, Robert Spencer did not treat them as such. And Derbyshire's writings are not flawless, either. I just think that Spencer's initial response did not directly confront Derbyshire's review.
I'm coming in late here, but wanted to say thanks to Robert for addressing Derbyshire's review. Clearly, Robert has made a much stronger case than Derbyshire.
Derbyshire at times shows hints of grasping the Islam problem, but at other times shows an intellectual laziness, coupled with implausible excuse-making about why he really does not need to read the Koran, etc. If he is not willing to read the core Islamic text, which contains Islam's central propositions, then he has not even taken the minimum first step in making an informed opinion on the issue at hand. He does not go so far as to think he can form an opinion of Robert's book without reading it. (Of course, for all I know, he maybe only read a few parts of the book).
Derb wrote:
"I did not say the things he says I said. I do not think that Christianity and Islam are “equally likely to incite violence.” How could I have any opinion on the matter when, as I admitted, I have not read the Koran? What I actually think is that persons wishing to commit violence will find justification in any text they pick up—the New Testament, the Koran, Science and Health, or the Harry Potter saga. Charles Manson, if memory serves, got his inspiration from a Beatles song about a fairground attraction."
More logical inconsistencies and wild, empirically unsupported claims. Derb asks rhetorically how could he have an opinion on the matter when he hasn't read the Koran...and then he proceeds to give his opinion that the contents of the Koran are basically inert, interpreted in a violent way by those prepared to use it for that purpose. How can Derb form that judgment without having read the Koran? His claim about the Harry Potter saga and Beatles song inspiring lethal violence does imply that he is making an equivalency argument. He may not actually believe that argument, but the claim is essentially that any randomly-picked piece of text can inspire lethal violence. That's absurd of course, but that is what he said and he has said nothing else to disabuse us of interpeting him as saying that. When he is throwing around claims like this, willy-nilly, his overall thesis does come out quite disorganized, unprincipled, inconsistent, seemingly thrown together ad hoc. He seems not to have gone through his overall thesis to check the logical consistency of claims, nor whether he is saying precisely what he is thinking. This may be due to several factors, but probably the major one is that he--by his own admission--doesn't know very much about the subject at hand.
Derb wrote:
"The present state of Islam can be sufficiently divined by reading the newspapers; the deep meaning of Islam’s core doctrines, and their implications, can be extracted only by relentless study such has been undertaken by Spencer, and by all those Islamic clerics who no doubt would like to hotly dispute his conclusions, in some forum I do not wish to be present at."
The above is another example of how Derb is moving to the conclusion without having considered the evidence. I have not read the Islamic texts to anywhere near the extent that Robert has, nor do I intend to (because it is not my field). However, having read the Koran, tafsirs, the Sira, portions of the Hadith which are of significant concern, and some of the important parts of Islamic law and history, I have gotten the main points, the gist, of Islam. One need not be an imam, or an Islamic scholar, engaged in "relentless study." Derb has set up a straw man, and is making excuses as to why he shouldn't have to bother doing any homework--and I do sense that for Derb such an assignment would viewed as an onerous chore.
Derb is incorrect that the present state of Islam can be sufficiently grasped just by reading the newspapers. Of course, that's a key piece of the puzzle. However, the view that we are often presented with in those newspapers is that the jihadists and sharia enthusiasts (who are seldom named in those terms!) are a tiny minority of extremists who have perverted Islam for their own ends. Derb doesn't realize that that view is at best naive and at worst tragically misleading because he hasn't read the core Islamic texts, which show the basis for the present state of Islam. The Islamic texts express certain ideas, lay down certain rules and instructions, which Muslims tend to believe and follow. Why is it so difficult for Derb to grasp that people might actually adopt beliefs and follow instructions that they've been taught to follow since early childhood, and which are reinforced and supported by the culture? The dictates of the Koran and Sunnah are implemented socially, legally, and politically; it is not difficult to trace the memes back to the texts.