Spencer in Pajamas

You might want to re-write the headline ;-)

"Witless Luddism..."
-- from Robert's comment above

"Witless Luddism" as you call it, is something exhibited by many intelligent people of a not-quite-with-it, thank god, mental formation. Fortunately, those same people usually manage to have at least one, usually youngish, member of their nuclear-fallout extended families who know how to navigate the shoals of technological gadgetry and thereby avoid shipwreck.

I had no problems getting to the site - here's the article. Actually, I did find the arguments it made compelling - particularly the one about whether Christianity or Secularism is a better instrument with which to confront Islam. I'm also glad that Derbyshire did a better job of explaining how separation would be implemented, and how Japan, without an iota of Christianity, does a pretty fine job of insulating itself from Jihad.

I do look forward to your rejoiner.

God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.
--Derbyshire

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

"If what he has told us is true—and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is—then the West should proscribe Islam, and the sooner the better. We should not allow Muslims into our countries, other than for necessary diplomatic or scholarly purposes. We should revoke the visas and permits of resident aliens who are Muslims, and ensure their departure. We should offer to purchase the citizenship of Muslim citizens, and bribe them to leave. Those who will not leave should be carefully watched by the police, and subjected to social disabilities—they should not, for example, be admitted to the armed forces, or allowed to proselytize in prisons. (Take a religion addled with violence and infused with a hatred of our society, and teach it in prisons to the most violent and antisocial of our people? Have we gone stark raving mad?) Mosques and madrassahs should be closed, or at the least punitively taxed. "

Guy has a workable plan.

how Japan, without an iota of Christianity
Posted by: Infidel Pride

Japan without an iota of Christianity was Japan on the verge of WWII with its cult of Emperor Worship. Japan has been humanized (and I would say Christianized) by its alliance with America and the West.

A world without an iota of Christianity would be a savage wasteland.

You might want to re-write the headline ;-)

Posted by: Infidel Pride

What??? Are you crazy??? Spencer in Jammies...WooHoo!!! ;)

Ynkedoodl2

Japan isn't Christian even now - what WWII did was to destroy their appetite for conquest, not Christianize them. And a lot of pre-Christian civilizations did exist in Greece, Persia (Zoroastrian), China, Vedic India, and even South East Asia and the East Indies. In fact, China never got touched by Christianity (Hong Kong and Macao don't count), and had they never gone Communist, they'd have done just fine with Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism.

This is not to say that the world would have been better off without Christianity, but your contention that it would be a savage wasteland isn't borne out by pre-Christian history of several lands.

Well, I just received a notice from Amazon they have finally shipped me my copy so I should receive it soon.

And as for this article - this guy is a total ignoramous. He hasn't a clue as to what Christianity teaches, he gets it from someone else who obviously has an agenda which means his opinion is not worthy of a second though and he hasn't a clue as to any of islam's history - past and present. This guy is clueless. And I doubt if he read Mr. Spencer's book if he hasn't done any other reading either.

I went through Catholic school too - and remembering, 'Christ is God', is what??!! "...the religious component of that education consisted largely of memorizing arguments with which to confound atheists, agnostics, and Protestants." How does what I memorized confound anyone?! Especially Protestants who basically are told the same things. They just don't have the same viewpoints on Mary, statues, etc. (they think we Catholics worship statues and think Mary is a God which is stupid, but that is what they think)

I stopped reading the article about 1/3 of the way through and will finish it up tonight. I think that it must be very hard to be a muslim appeaser - you have to chose to be so ignorant, to be so unread and then to have to defend them all the time. And hatred takes a lot out of a person - to hate everyone who doesn't agree with you - it must be a hard way to go.

I think the title is cute, although now I can't get the "Bananas in Pajamas" theme song out of my head.

Would someone please tell me what "po-faced" means?

I'll read that article now.

R_not -- Some Protestants are better-informed about Catholicism. ; )

"Spencer in Pajamas"....I was hoping for a different picture.

Josephine, that is good to hear!

Mr. Derbyshire assumes a lot about Robert Spencer's motivations, for example: "What drives Spencer is..."

I would have preferred it if Mr. Derbyshire had been less personal in his review.

He seems not to have fully grasped the purpose of Robert Spencer's book, perhaps because he is not religious and automatically discounts all such discussions.

Still, he makes some interesting points of his own in the second half of the article.

I'm looking forward to reading Robert Spencer's article.

from the review:

"Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are."

It's statements like this that make it very easy to dismiss Derbyshire as a fool. He prides himself on being so rational, yet he refuses to see or overlooks the obvious: the secular left in America largely wants to accommodate islamicism, while a majority of conservative Christians, I'm quite sure, want to confront it.

And then there's this: "If, as the subtitle of his book declares, Christianity is a religion of peace, while Islam is irredeemably militant, what on earth does Spencer think is likely to be the outcome of a conflict between the two?"

I'm no Christian scholar, but didn't the Church reconcile Christ's message of loving one's enemies with the need for self-preservation (defending oneself against those who want to harm you) many hundreds, if not over a thousand, years ago?

R_not -- I learned a bit about Catholicism years ago and attended a couple of Catholic churches a few times. The services were lovely.

I'm a Protestant and could never convert but I respect Catholics and the Catholic Church. (I have cousins who are Catholic.)

Well, I read the article and posted a comment, which is being "held for review." So, I'll wait and see if it gets posted.

I disliked Derbyshire's lofty, superior tone.

Uh Huh - Looking very forward to Mr. Spencer's rejoinder.

Woo-Hoo, there's my comment!

And profitsbeard has one, too!

Mr. Derbyshire,

Ahem.......

THIS Western reader DOES have a clue about what to do with that "Q" and that apostrophe: I believe the "Q" is one of those guttural consonants which is a characteristic feature of Semitic languages and the apostrophe represents a glottal stop. Thus the word "Qur'an" contains two speech sounds which do not normally occur in English ( although the glottal stop does occur in some English dialects such as Cockney.)
Please do not talk down to your readers.

I must agree with Mr. Derbyshire's analysis of the immigration disaster. Even after 9-11, our President "Jorge Buuush," the best president Mexico ever had, keeps the sewer pipes at the border wide open, while Europe is being replaced in situ by Musulmen.
Bush is a Quisling wholly in the employ of Mexico. The European leadership are all fools and traitors. I fear that we are rushing headlong toward a cataclysm such as the world has never seen. The rioting, car burning Mus....... uh, I mean "youths" in France are the outriders of our doom.

All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking. To people who eschew such thinking—people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science—...

This statement is very narrow and gives away this writer's limited knowledge and jingoistic simplification of the subject. I don't think those that saw the risen Lord were thinking magically! He reduces the arguments down to straw men. He does half heartedly say the Robert is correct but out of boredom because it is a religious subject questions the seriousness of the subject. His use of the term "globalization" is a redefinition of the word imperialism. This is the statement and POV of a socialist or communist. He is saying that it is our fault after all.

A reply by "Cantormania" at the Pajamas Media site said it correctly;
"Monotheism is able to "midwife" science because it removes all miracles to the one Rulemaker who, by definition, is the only one who can break the rules. Whereas mystical and polytheistic religions allow for human 'magical thinking' to influence space & time & matter, and so are inherently resistant to science, monotheism is compatible with science because it sees the miraculous as interventions in the mundane creation we humans inhabit, rather than as intrinsic parts of it."
The only thing I would clarify is that Christianity is monotheistic were as Islam is not even though it claims to be.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seems right to a man, But in the end it leads to death.

الأمثال 14:12
ثمة طريقة التي يبدو حق الرجل ، لكن في النهاية يؤدي الى الوفاه.

Josephine-- "Po-faced" means "serious", sometimes with the implication of dryness and self-conscious gravity. It is the opposite of "tongue-in-cheek".

In the Comments, Spencer is decidedly winning!

Funky Child -- Thank you. Is this an American saying?

By the way, my fellow Jihad Watchers, I am eagerly anticipating getting my hands on Robert's new book. They did not have it yet about a week ago at the Border's up in Nashua (NH) but I'll try again later this week.
Let me also STRONGLY recommend to you THE SUICIDE OF REASON by Lee Harris, which I have just finished.

For those who haven't read Derb's piece, I reproduce his best paragraph here:

"If what he has told us is true—and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is—then the West should proscribe Islam, and the sooner the better. We should not allow Muslims into our countries, other than for necessary diplomatic or scholarly purposes. We should revoke the visas and permits of resident aliens who are Muslims, and ensure their departure. We should offer to purchase the citizenship of Muslim citizens, and bribe them to leave. Those who will not leave should be carefully watched by the police, and subjected to social disabilities—they should not, for example, be admitted to the armed forces, or allowed to proselytize in prisons. (Take a religion addled with violence and infused with a hatred of our society, and teach it in prisons to the most violent and antisocial of our people? Have we gone stark raving mad?) Mosques and madrassahs should be closed, or at the least punitively taxed."

I am confident that Robert Spencer will slice and dice Derb in his response, however, Derb has arrived at the only logical solution, which, I might add, makes my friends roll their eyes at me when I say the same thing. Islam is not a religion, it is a bandit code. It should not be afforded any of the protections that are accorded actual religions in this country. If we can ban snake handling in the Appalachains, we can ban the advocacy of killing "infidels" by murderous suicidal invaders.

I hope that Mr. Spencer deals seriously with this proscrition suggestion in his response. If Mr.Spencer is right in his analysis of Islam, and I believe that he is, this is te only solution.

Po-faced? Buster Keaton.

Derbyshire and his like require a different (though very valid) book:

Philosophy of Peace: Why Rational Secularism Is and Islam Isn't.

(perhaps by Robert Spencer? ;) )

Robert's book speaks to those who respect Christianity. As a irreligious rational secularist this doesn't speak to him. That's the basis of his reaction.

Of course some Christian pundit (who's also uninformed about the ROP) can decry Philosophy of Peace in a parallel review with the mocking title: "Secularism Good, Islam Bad"!

Muslims behave destructively BECAUSE of Mohammed's teachings. Christians do so IN SPITE OF what Christ taught.

I believe the "Q" is one of those guttural consonants which is a characteristic feature of Semitic languages and the apostrophe represents a glottal stop.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left

Patriot,

The "Q" represents a "glottal stop" which is exactly like the Qoof in Hebrew. It is pronounced deep in the throat, something between a "K" and a "G". Think of a camel burping.

The apostrophe takes the place of an extra "alif." One could also spell the Qur'an as

Quraan.

There is a vowel with the "r" and a second alif follows to make it a long "a" sound.

Derbyshire's verbose book review sounds like a long peevish complaint. He wants a prescriptive solution to the Islamic jihad problems rather than let us, the readers, assess the situation for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. This is where Spencer shows his scholarship, that he lets us form our own conclusions, as apposed to being told fascistically what to think. Derbyshire's proclaimed secularist 'pagan' self assurance is made possible only because he was born into the freedoms our civilization, built by Christians, allows him in the West. Had he been born instead into an Islamic 'civilization' he would not have been so self assured, nor free to practice his secularist religion at all. This review is a spurious secular 'evangelism' more than a serious critique of Spencer's book. Pajamas on, back to sleep.

Two great minds. I didn’t take John Derbyshire’s review as negative. His analysis mostly expanded the book’s arguments to include action items which Robert Spencer would get skewered for hinting at.

Robert Spencer is most valuable as a polite teacher of the facts. John Derbyshire adds value by being willing to propose provocative things like the relocation of Muslims.

I see the review as the second part of a one-two punch. Looking forward to the interaction.

Robert, just in case you didn't know, this is from May 10, 2007:

The Corner

A cordial but concerned reader: "Derb—Are you staking a claim as NRO's house Islamophile?"

Already did, five years ago. Although in fact the claim is un-stakeable, since plenty of NR writers—most, I think, and quite possibly all—are well-disposed, or at least not bitterly ill-disposed, towards Islam, the religion, whatever they think about the current pathologies of the Middle East, or the likelihood of big Muslim communities assimilating into Western Civ.

[snip]

So far as the founder is concerned, until I read Karen Armstrong's book, most of what I knew came from Gibbon (favorable), H.G. Wells (unfavorable), and Hilaire Belloc (weird—he thought Islam was a Roman Catholic heresy). How many full-length biographies of Mohammed have YOU read?

In re Ms. Armstrong herself, having read two of her books all through I am ready to sign affidavits to the effect that at the time of writing the latter of those books (1991) she was definitely not either (a) nuts, or (b) an antisemite. You simply can't conceal things like that for 500 pages. She might, of course, have been wrong, or careless, or afflicted with a falls-well-short-of-lunacy bee in the bonnet.

He actually thinks he knows something about islam because he's read Karen Armstrong and Hilaire Belloc. Derb, you should try reading the Sira itself, written by on of Mo's biggest fans, Ibn Ishaq.

Latest Message to United States citizen jihad watchers:

We are in the middle of the eighth day of posting this request at Jihad Watch, and we are up to 51 volunteers in 27 states.

I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message.
If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the House of Representatives.

If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before each of us mails the book, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.

Derbyshire has offered up a powerful critique.

We're all eagerly awaiting Robert's reply.

If anyone else has trouble getting the Pajamas Media player to work, try this instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxoRzbH12fw

I watched Minitor's interview, and noticed a common theme with a few of Robert's interviews: generally, they tend to focus more on his views on current events than on the actual contents of his books themselves. Having said that, I think Minitor may have grown from the time he stated here on JW itself that there are other non-Islamic terror organizations like the LTTE to be concerned about, which too engage in suicide bombings.

Hugh,

Do you actually have to share space at the New English Review with Derbyshire?

He gives atheists a bad name.

Oh, this is going to be _good_!

With the exception of some ludicrous points such as Christ's teachings being just as likely as Muhammad's to incite violence, I tend to find myself agreeing with alot of the man's points. Or at least with one that Christianity hurled us into the Dark Ages until it was broken by the Enlightenment (not before it had saddled us with some of its mutant offspring, such as - yup - Islam).

Anyway, I am very much looking forward to this debate between Robert Spencer and John Derbyshire.

Actually, scratch that - I've just gotten to the bit about the poison of globalization. But there are some individual points I should like to see addressed.

Actually, _double_ scratch that. I continued reading and found that the man does make alot of the points that have concerned me for a considerable time. Especially the following:

>>Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction.

Actually, Allahpundit has a pretty fascinating discussion going on @ hotair, where he, without criticizing Spencer (since he hasn't so far gotten to the book), does agree with Derbyshire about Christianity containing the seeds of its own destruction.

Something tells me Robert hasn't addressed that aspect in the book.

By his example, John Deryshire shows why secularists are actually less likely to prevail in the fight for civilization than the Christians. Bored by the subject of religion, and dismissive of it as so much "belief in magic," he shows that he is blissfully unaware of, or at least, steadfastly unconcerned about the real and daily growing existential threat to our world that resides in a reawakening and expanding Islamic ideology. He is confident that his sheltered and prosperous western world will go on indefinitely with no special effort being necesssary on his part. He apparently believes that the forward march of science and logic will be all that is needed to neutralize all this irritating religious magic everywhere, including within the primitive Islamic world. Islamic ideology is just so many flies to swat at the secularist picnic.

Most Christians are also unaware and unconcerned about Islam as an existential threat. Their weak stance is based on two things: simple ignorance of true Islamic ideology (due in no small part to deliberate Islamic deception), and false projection of Christian values--the Golden Rule, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc.--onto Islam and onto Mohammed. Not knowing any better, they assume that Mohammed must be another Jesus-like "Prince of Peace" figure.

Robert's books are aimed at educating both the policy makers and the man on the street--particularly, but not exclusively, in the West and in the Christian community--about the true doctrines of Islam and the true life of the "prophet" (pirate!) Mohammed, using a familiar frame of reference--commonly understood Christian church doctrines and widely known Christian teachings. By this comparison, he aims to stop that habit of false projection, which is indeed, dangerously self-destructive--something Derbyshire lamented, but for the wrong reasons. Once the Christian community at large wakes up to the truth, they will stand fast in a way that the self-indulgent secularists never could. On the other hand, the secularists, as they demonstrate to us daily, will capitulate because they do not want their blissful comfort disturbed, just as John Derbyshire demonstrates by his carping analysis.

From his statements in this article, it appears that John Derbyshire was willfully ignorant (out of anti-religious boredom) about Islamic ideology before he read Robert's latest book. Now, having read the book, he clearly and logically deduces the required policy implications should the book turn out to be exactly true. Yet, he still thinks it's all "no biggy." He feels no motivation to research any further, to confirm for himself anything that Robert wrote, or to take any action of his own to influence policy in a useful direction. Back to sleep, secular knight, protector of no-one and nothing.

IP wrote:
"Something tells me Robert hasn't addressed that aspect in the book."

I am not finished with it yet, so I can not state with certainty, but I am prone to agree with you.

Unfortunately I agree because I don't believe that to be true at all. That sounds like tu quoque to me, the "we asked for it and it's our fault" syndrome.

>>e is confident that his sheltered and prosperous western world will go on indefinitely with no special effort being necesssary on his part>Bored by the subject of religion, and dismissive of it as so much "belief in magic," he shows that he is blissfully unaware of, or at least, steadfastly unconcerned about the real and daily growing existential threat to our world that resides in a reawakening and expanding Islamic ideology.

The secular, Agnostic and Atheist would not be my choise to defend our freedoms. Unless Communism is what your willing to settle for.

Christ asked us to love our Enemys. I do not recall him telling us to invite them over for Dinner and Drinks.

Dear "John" seems to be oblivous to the current state of Europe and the Demoncratic Party in America. Neither of which seem to have the Stomach to do anything to confront "peaceful Islam???) Except hope that by going back to bed and hope the problem goes away by morning.

>>The secular, Agnostic and Atheist would not be my choise to defend our freedoms. Unless Communism is what your willing to settle for.

The problem with John Derbyshire reviewing Spencer's book is that Derbyshire is Godless; hence he just don't get it and never will until the blade of a Jihadist is sniping at his neck.

Derb gave an excellent review. He basically agrees that today’s problem is Islam. He notes at one point: "If what he has told us is true—and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is ..."

Of course, he doesn’t care for Christianity and thinks you over-bill it. He believes progress was achieved by giving Christianity a lesser role. He has a good point about the love-thy-enemy and "turn the other cheek" tradition in Christianity. It is clearly worrisome if practiced too vigorously. And he cleverly points out that it has been adopted by the secular left as a core disposition. This is why we find the left far less likely to face the threat as the Christian right, who give this cheek-turning stuff mere lip-service.

OK, he liked only half the book ... the half that says we should worry about Islam. But that’s the half most people don’t get. He’s on board. A better book for the Derbs of the world is Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim.” But he’s got the main point now.

You can't beat something with nothing. Islam has something: a sufficiently comprehensive and self-affirming ethos. Atheism (including Buddhism) has nothing, and therefore is unable to withstand Islam's advance, even with the rhetorical vigor of a Hitchens. Witness Europe. Russia and China are buying off Islam as good dhimmis, selling them arms with which to frustrate the US. The world's most Christian nation, however, is doing the most to stem the tide, and we're half asleep. Wait till we awake, and are finally filled with a terrible resolve.

Only Christianity has the sufficient verility, stamina, and triumphalistic worldview not only to withstand Islam but to roll it back. Those who believe that Christianity has "the seeds of its own destruction" within it, whether such belief is derived from Gibbon or Nietzsche or whomever, or their own ignorance, they profoundly misunderstand Christ's teachings and are obviously biblically ignorant, and if they are familiar with Scripture they are hermeneutically challenged.

For instance, turning the other cheek is between me and you, not between your nation and my nation. The Babary Pirates learned this lesson, though their heirs have forgotten it (but will learn it). When Jesus told his followers to buy swords He was contradicting Roman "sword control" laws in Palestine. St. Paul said that magistrates do not bear the sword in vain, but to punish evil: i.e., he was endorsing law-enforcement officers stabbing and chopping up lawbreakers. So although Quaker pietism and rapture-intoxicated dispensationalism have the seeds of their own destruction stuck in their gullets, the actual historic Christian faith does not.

Christianity does indeed have the backbone not only to survive in this world but to triumph, which it has been doing and will continue to do. Protestantism is in need of reformation just as the Roman Catholic Church was in the 16th Century. Perhaps the current Muslim threat was designed by Providence to draw all of Christ's people tighter together, and something more glorious than we contemplate might emerge from the current threat. For one thing, perhaps the effete leadership of mainstream protestantism will finally be exposed as a fraud and left in the wake.

As for The Acts of the Apostles being the source of Marxist dogma Fanusi, are you referring to the sharing of goods among the first converts in Jerusalem? You have forgotten that one of St. Paul's missions among the gentiles was, as he returned to the churches that he founded, was taking up collections for the church in Jerusalem that had impoverished herself with her proto-Marxist folly. Not only so, but the Church never taught "from each according" etc. in the ante-Nicene era or after - until Marx came along and drugged certain theologians into accepting this mantra as Christ's own. So you need never repeat this nonsense. And you may rest assured that the winning side is Christ's if you are seeking refuge.

Derb just needs secular rationality contrasted against Islam regarding the *incentives* each provides its followers. A philosophy's incentives largely define the shape of a society that follows it.

Incentives regarding treating others:

Islam incentivizes people to stand with other muslims, but hate (and kill) non-muslims, in order to avoid hell and win paradise in the afterlife.

Christianity incentivizes people to love and identify with others period, to "stand in their shoes" and so relate harmoniously, both for the afterlife and also as a value unto itself.

Rational Secularism incentivizes people to be decent to others as a value unto itself, which is found in the heart of a rational person.

(All by my interpretation - these statements aren't strict or all-including.)

Just one of the three is a natural war ideology.

If a Derbyshire would please study the contrast of #1 and #3, union of the Secular and the Christian for Jihad resistance would be easily built.

John Derbyshire's review was entertaining, but I think he misses the point. The theology -- or what Mr. Berbyshire calls the "Magical thinking" -- of a religion is what this is all about. Magical thinking can impart harmless or harmful, good or bad, imulses to its believers. ?

The Aztecs had magical thinking. They believed that the sun wouldn't rise in the morning unless their Gods were appeased with the blood of innumerable human sacrifices. The results, of course, was that hundreds of thousands of people had their hearts ripped out to satisfy the blood lust of the Gods.

It might be be Aztecophobia to say so, but I'd say that the Aztec religion imparted some very bad, and even destructive, impulses to to its followers.

The question is, which religion, Christianity or Islam, imparts the more civialized and peaceful impulses to its believers.

To answer that, one need only examine the "magical thinking of each. That's all that Mr. Spencer is doing -- examing the theology of each. If one concludes after such an examination that there's some equivancy between the two, one would have to be incredibly dense.

There might be some equivalancy between Islam and the Aztecs -- both requiring blood sacrifice to appease their Gods -- but Christianity stands above both in its humanistic and civilizing moral values.

The botom line is, which society would Mr. Derbyshire prefer to live in -- one driven by Christian impulses or one driven by Islamic impulses?

No magical thinking to make that choice -- just common sense and a healthy moral view of what's right and wrong, just and unjust.

Stendec - I think your overall analysis was quite good.

You say: "From his statements in this article, it appears that John Derbyshire was willfully ignorant (out of anti-religious boredom) about Islamic ideology before he read Robert's latest book. Now, having read the book, he clearly and logically deduces the required policy implications should the book turn out to be exactly true. Yet, he still thinks it's all "no biggy." He feels no motivation to research any further, to confirm for himself anything that Robert wrote, or to take any action of his own to influence policy in a useful direction.

I was with you until you said his conclusion was that it was "no biggy". It seems to me his actual conclusion is, even if Spencer is correct (something he appears to acknowledge) and even if his prescriptions for solving the problem are correct (and I appreciate that he goes out of his way to make clear that there is nothing MORALLY WRONG with such prescriptions) - his conclusion is that NO ONE WOULD BE WILLING TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THOSE RATIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM.

There I disagree with him and I think he is throwing in the towel too readily. If Tasty Beverage's characterization of Derbyshire's earlier position as an "Islamophile" is correct, and if it was merely a matter of reading Spencer's book (I'm sorry - I haven't read it yet) which caused such an about-face in his position to the extent that he is willing to propose such radical policy to deal with what is in fact reality and he is willing to make a moral case for it (and again - I appreciate him doing this, being the public figure he is, even as he grants that Spencer is under no obligation to do this) - then there is indeed hope - the very hope which he appears to dismiss.

His own review shows the power of KNOWLEDGE about Islam to cause a rather abrupt about-face in people's willingness to entertain what are actually quite humane solutions to the problem - the same solutions that have been proposed by numerous posters here countless times, as well as by Hugh and Auster - solutions that only appear extreme and hateful to people who still naively think that Islam is a ROP. Because sane people, once they have "GOT IT" will weigh the alternatives and the potential actions that will minimize the inevitable violence and long term suffering for humanity, if Islam triumphs and they will see nothing morally wrong with Derbyshire's proposals.

So I see hope in this review, even though Derbyshire himself apparently can't see that if it could happen to him (this shift in awareness and seeing the need for such policy changes), there is no cause to dismiss it happening to enough other people, provided they are educated about Islam and no longer buying the taqiyyah.

If Spencer's book did this for Derbyshire, I am all the more enthusiastic about getting this book in the hands of all our senators and congressman, as Traeh is trying to do with his project (and from there - hopefully into the hands of prominent journalists as well.)

Many people have been pointing out that the collapse of Christianity in Europe is leaving a void that is filled by Islam, but the fall of Europe is being caused by a number of factors, the first is the deliberate destruction on any form of nationalistic pride by the EU, second is the fact that the EU is in fact a communist dictatorship in the making which will soon be fact once the stitch up constition is in place. Another factor is pure demographics, another factor is the Lefts use of immigrants to keep in power.

I do not think a devout Christian is the best person to lead us at this point, we need someone who really thinks that the time for disproportionate war is now, sadly that sort of person will never get in so it will be a long war, we will only wake up when it really is too late.

And WestwardHo has got it spot on in my book.

Infidel Pride, remarking on Derbyfield's showing " how Japan, without an iota of Christianity, does a pretty fine job of insulating itself from Jihad."

Derbyfield should not be too sure this happy state of affairs will continue. When I visited the Mosque Open Day in my hometown, one of the hijab-wearing women with whom I had a brief conversation was a JAPANESE CONVERT.

One of my fact books (date, 2001) says that Japan has 152,000 Muslims; a small population, yes, but the rate of increase was given at 6 %. Quote: "Muslims have increased through legal AND ILLEGAL immigration of BANGLADESHIS IRANIANS, PAKISTANIS and others. SOME JAPANESE HAVE ALSO BECOME MUSLIMS - LARGELY THROUGH MARRIAGE."

In other words: Japan has been importing cheap labour from at least three countries that at this moment are seething with radical Islam. And native Japanese women do not appear to be immune to being suckered by daawa or seduced by plausible Muslim romancers who tell them 'you can't marry me unless you convert, just say that Shahada and we can be together!'

Watch this space.

Derbyshire says, "A sensibly exclusionist, separationist policy like Japan’s is therefore not available to us, because of our principles—those principles Spencer tells us are rooted in Christian thinking, those principles that send our author into such raptures of cultural superiority."

Well, I'm not exactly a model Christian and no expert in church doctrine but I reckon I've sort of "absorbed" a thing or two about Christianity through an education in Catholic school, including Catholic university.

And it seems to me that the concept of "love your neighbor" could include concepts like the Hippocratic oath - "First, Do no harm".

Openly importing Muslims when you have a pretty good idea that it's going to lead to horrendous violence on both sides in the long run - with neighbor pitted against neighbor ala Lebanon - seems to me to do a great deal of foreseeable harm to the social "body". So - first, do no harm. Stop the further Muslim immigration to start with.

There is also something called "tough love", which means that one is obligated to be an adult and to use reason and to not allow people who are hostile to society to run amok. There is also in this concept the implication that one is not obligated to buy into pleasant fictions merely in order to help someone's self-esteem along. An excess of self-esteem tends to create little monsters. So I see no problem in being truthful to Muslims about Islam and their behaviors inspired by islam and basically saying - sorry. You may not join the adults downstairs to run amok creating havoc. You're going to have to go to your room (meaning - you're not welcome here. Go sit in the corner and reflect until you're ready to be a civilized human being). Which again means - no Muslim immigration, and all the rest of Derbyshire's prescriptions until by some miracle, Islam reforms itself.

But the idea of personal responsibility is also a Christian principle. Which means, we are not going to tolerate your attempts to avoid responsibility and pin your sociopathy on the rest of civilized society. We're closing your mosques (boo hoo), we're deporting some of you, etc etc.

How is any of that at fundamental odds with even a very loose interpretation of Christian "love"?

To me it's all the very meaning of what it means to really "love" someone - not only the hostile party, by saying NO! but also to really "love" one's neighbor - the more passive neighbor who I would want to keep from being exposed to tyranny and violence.

I agree with John Derbyshire on this one point: That Christianity is not the only reason by which Western Civilization came into being. It played a role which was on the whole positive (with some negative moments). However Winston Churchill did point out one of the flaws of Christianity in relation to Islam...

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. 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 proselytising 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 civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

You do see the part: "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

The trouble is many leftist are anti-science also:

E.O Wilson states...(Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 06-01-1995)

"By science in common parlance is meant natural science, which gathers knowledge of the world as an organized, systematic enterprise and attempts to condense it into testable laws and principles by a wide- ranging and shifting set of methods. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from pseudoscience are, first, repeatability: the same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by independent investigation, and the interpretation given it confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. And second, economy: scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form that is simplest, most easily recalled, and most esthetically pleasing--the combination called elegance--while yielding the largest amount of information with the least amount of effort. Third, mensuration: if something can be properly measured, using universally accepted scales, generalizations about it will be rendered less ambiguous. And fourth and finally, heuristic: the best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new directions, whose content confirms or modifies the parent formulation."

...

"Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology. Within the academy, it seems to me that postmodernism and the divisive forms of multiculturalism are substantially a revolt of the proletariat, wherein second-rate scholarship is parlayed into tenured professorships and book contracts--not by quality, not by originality, but by claims of entitlement of race, gender, and moralistic ideologies. But as I will show in a moment, some of it runs deeper, to turn the minds of even a few otherwise respected scientists."

Sounds familiar (Karen Armstrong comes to mind)? You see Mr. Spencer is making a rational judgment based on logic, facts and yes using the scientific method. The argument presented in this book is Christianity is not Islam. Islam is not only more violent (by light years) today then Christianity but its problems are based on core teachings of the faith.

I come from a Christian background but today I am a deist. Yes all organized religions have things that seem wacky to me (Noah being 600 years old when a super flood covers the earth or talking burning bushes, etc.) BUT that does not mean they are equal. The core teachings of Christianity have inspired many of the greatest scientist and thinkers of western civilization even if they too viewed the idea that a man can live for 600 years (and many more after that) as wacky. Christianity even as philosophy and not a religion is a major pillar of western civilization. To deny that is to deny facts even for this deist.

Noah building a boat at 600 years old is what I call “wacky” but things like 9.29 in Quran are not "wacky" but instead dangerous on a personal level.

What I discovered about Islam that I found most disconcerting, beyond its fatalism, its absolute predestination, its lack of a universal perspective, and its absolutely sovereign, totally arbitrary Oriental Despot-God, is its extreme fideism and anti-rationalism. I find the total package, wrapped in its Arabian Nights folklore, to be completely alien to my own worldview, and to everything comforting and familiar.

I also profess that the Judeo-Christian tradition (Christianity being as much a development of Judaism as a departure from it, UNLIKE the superimposition of Islam) served as patron, guardian, and transmitter of Western philosophy and science; in fact, the very medium from which they emerged and thrived.

I also assert that the Medieval- and Renaissance-era Church was as much a foster mother to science and invention, however much an obstacle as well. Consider the synthesis of Classical philosophy and Christian theology (e.g. Aquinas' Summa); the keen (albeit self-serving) interest in sciences, especially--yes,even--astronomy; the furthering of Classical learning, and the organization of universities and branches of knowledge as we have them; the preservation of Classical languages and the instrumentality of Latin as a living medium of communication; the retention of codified Roman law and the impetus for the development of modern civil law; and finally, the unifying and civilizing effects of the Church on society and government.

I don't buy the premise that Christianity plunged the West into the Dark Ages--collapse of central authority and of commerce did that--but believe the Church ushered in the High Middle Ages and beyond. And while Theology is no longer "Queen of the Sciences," she yielded to secular Science on its own terms.

Lastly, I have to say I also doubt Mr. Derbyshire knows the difference between the Virgin Birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception of Mary (the latter is her natural human conception endowed with God's gift of prevenient grace--freedom from Original Sin and its effects--accomplished through the infinite merits of her Divine Son. I mention this because I think it's symptomatic of this reviewer's indifference to religion.

My understanding is that Japanese women are not having enough babies to replace the people who are dying and that, at some point, there won't be enough native Japanese to protect Japan and keep it Japanese.

If Japan is permitting increasing immigration to boost its working-age, tax-paying population (because there are too many aging Japanese and not enough young folks), and if those immigrants include Muslims who have many children, it won't matter whether the Japanese are Christian or not. It will be all about the demographics.

From the article: "Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?"

Actually, I'd rather have Robert Spencer than either one of them.

But we could do this tit for tat all day. I'll see your Ali Sina vs Jimmy Carter and raise you a Noam Chomsky vs Ergun Caner. More important is the overall leanings of secularists vs Christians regarding Islam. On a larger scale, whom do you think is more likely to allow, even promote, "creeping sharia" (self-censorship, speech codes, hate crimes, Muslim family courts, footbaths in public restrooms, Islamic lessons in public schools, etc.) -- the American Association of University Professors or the National Association of Evangelicals? Who do you suspect would be more likely to vote for a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the West --Daily Kos contributors or Concerned Women for America members? Or when the time comes for "fighting against jihadism," would you rather have the military forces of the US (mostly Christian, disproportionately Evangelicals) or the (far more secular) armed forces of Europe at your disposal?

Now given that I'd rather my children not have to live as dhimmis, I welcome all volunteers to the fight against Islamic conquest. I don't care if their reasons are different from mine. We can debate those afterward like civilized people. I just wish I saw more secularists willing to take a stand against tolerating intolerance. Unfortunately, they seem to be only slightly less elusive than moderate Muslims.

As I said, what was most unsettling to discover about Islam is its extreme fideism--any other frame of reference is damnable unbelief--and its sterile, unyielding anti-rationalism. It's a closed system with an inescapable interior logic, an intellectual Black Hole. Forever collapsing in on itself in an excelerating rush toward an ever-purer expression of itself, it drags everything in its sway to annihilation. Anti-reason versus reason, anti-truth versus truth.

In the Universe we know, truth is to be sought for its own sake; that is liberation and fulfillment. In the Orwellian Universe of Islam, war IS peace, freedom IS slavery, and ignorance IS strength.

I see Derbyshire's arguments are "nibbling around the edges" and having no real grasp of the core of Robert's book. Mr. Derbyshire is your typical European who has allowed his anti-Christian views to so absorb him that he can't see the forest for the trees. It's all rather disconcerting, given the fact that Mr. Derbyshire would make no common cause with Islam's sympathizers and collaborators. He just doesn't see that people who think like him - secular and anti-Islam - are a distinct minority. I look forward to Robert's rebuttal.

Matthews is one twisted mind,,well he has mental constipation! I never liked him before but I did not know he was that ignorant! Trying to use Christianity to attack God's and people intelligents and consciousness, god he is so smart isn't he? I know lots of people just like him! Robert has never Never done what he accuses him of! I cannot wait to get this book now!

Ynkdoodl2 wrote:

"The 'Q' represents a 'glottal stop' which is exactly like the Qoof in Hebrew. It is pronounced deep in the throat, something between a 'K' and a 'G.' Think of a camel burping.

The apostrophe takes the place of an extra 'alif.' One could also spell the Qur'an as Quraan.

There is a vowel with the 'r' and a second alif follows to make it a long 'a' sound."

A camel Burping? I seem to recall that the vile creatures like to SPIT, but burping, too.......NASTY.
And thank you, Ynkdoodl2, for that clarification. It seems that I was skunked by the transliteration: an example of the glottal stop in Cockney English is the word "bottle" pronounced "bo'le" where the apostrophe represents the stop ( this is a common "spelling" in some of the discussions I have seen of this interesting phenomenon. )
Hmmm...... it seems that instead of the common "Koran" a better transliteration into English would be "koo-raaan."
My point, though made in clumsy fashion, is that we are not afraid of learning a few new words, no matter how oddly transliterated or pronounced. Indeed, before reading Robert's books, I knew the word JIHAD, but now I know DHIMMI, JIZYA, NASKH, and TAQIYYA.
God help us all.

Josephine wrote: "It will be all about the demographics."

*Sigh* I fear you are entirely correct. The birth rates in the West, in Europe especially, are so far below replacement levels that they are demographically IMPLODING. Japan ( although technically not part of the West ) is also in bad shape and the USA is barely holding its own.
Meanwhile the ultra violent Mahometan thug cultists use their women as breeding machines. All they have to do is bide their time.

If any of our fellow Jihad Watchers not yet read Mark Steyn's AMERICA ALONE, Puh-leeez do so!

>>Atheism (including Buddhism) has nothing, and therefore is unable to withstand Islam's advance, even with the rhetorical vigor of a Hitchens.

Caroline,

I gleaned John Derbyshire's "no biggy" attitude from the unserious tone of his review. He says Robert is "obsessively interested in the minutiae of religious doctrine" and asks "Does religion in fact explain anything about history?" He apparently thinks that religious belief is a minor factor, compared to other societal factors, in the march of history. So while he finds Robert's writings factual, and logically convincing, he is asking us "so what?" He seems to think of the talented and hightly knowledgeable RobertSpencer as a kind of "Side-Show Bob."

Fanusi Khayal,

Yes, I agree John Derbyshire understands that there is a threat from Islam. But he seems to be unaware of its scope, its nearness, and its destructive finality. He comes across to me as one of those who believe that it is only a "small minority of religious extremists" who are making trouble right now. Over the course of history, this turmoil will all be naturally tamped down by larger societal forces, such as globalism.

I hope you are right. But I am skeptical.

Fanusi, there was this thing called the Reformation that preceded the Enlightenment. I am not arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc, I am suggesting cause and effect.

Ironically, as the Muslim hoardes appropriated the learning of subjected cultures to varying degrees, some of their scholars like Averoes became enamored of Greek philosophy found among the ruins, and translated these works into Arabic and copied and preserved the Greek texts as well. As the Crusades' battle lines went back and forth for centuries, Europeans became acquainted with and appreciative of Aristotle et al too, which led to interest in Greek texts generally.

The most potent of these is of course the Greek New testament, which was rediscovered by Christian scholars and theologians after some years of neglect and over-dependence upon the Latin Vulgate. Using the few newly discovered sources of the GNT, it was edited and "re-released" by Erasmus c. 1500 during the tail end of the Greek infatuation fad. This was the famous so-called Textus Receptus.

So it was not the Enlightenment that dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages, it was primarily the Greek philosophers' influence on the RCC that put a little intellectual gas in her tank (leading to such things as the development of the dogma of transubstantiation according to some), and more importantly, to the rediscovery of the Greek NT and its translation into various vulgar languages that sparked the Protestant Reformation, which was primarily concerned with countering these pre-Christian influences upon the RCC. Then came the Enlightenment.

Reason? Which side thought (with its Western apologists) that it had a lock on Reason curing the Cold War? More importantly, if you're looking for conscripts to resist Islam, look among history's winners: who won the Cold War?

Actually, Allahpundit has a pretty fascinating discussion going on @ hotair, where he, without criticizing Spencer (since he hasn't so far gotten to the book), does agree with Derbyshire about Christianity containing the seeds of its own destruction.

Something tells me Robert hasn't addressed that aspect in the book.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2007 3:25 PM

IP, I've been probably the only "atheist" on the side of Christianity in that thread. I'm seriously considering giving up that term, because I don't think I fit in with other atheists. Maybe Moralist? Secular Conservative?

I don't know...all I know is I'm fighting with Christians and Jews against Jihadists and Sharia. Period.

Fanusi Khayal,

I don't think the believers here mean it the way you think...I think, based on the time I've spent here, that they are refering to the "typical" atheists out front right now, like Democrat leaders, anti-war or other "activist" types (NOT anti-war, but activists), Hollywood celebrities, people like that.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

What I despise most about people like John Derbyshire is their windy bourgeois-background egotism. The teachings of Jesus (if taken seriously and not used for imperialistic-exploitation-rationalizations purposes) are teachings of peace of justice, of love as sacrifice. The teachings of Muhammad are predatory and mandate violence against unbelievers (the "peaceful verses" of the Quran have been abrogated by the later chronological verses which mandate violence against unbelievers, as in the verses that permit wine drinking and those that ban alcohol). If you want a good laugh have Muhammad give the Sermon on the Mount, and have Jesus recite the last orders of Muhammad on the matter of Jihad.

>>Miss_Anthrope,

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. I'll give you that, if the visible face of "atheism" is like that, no wonder the preconceptions exist. And people like _this_ idiot aren't helping:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1540,Bill-Maher-Making-New-Documentary-Movie-Religulous,Larry-King-Live-Bill-Maher

You can find my comments in the thread at the bottom.

But my point stands. There is no philosophy or idea attached to 'atheism'. It simply means not believing in God. And those of us who hold true to the Enlightenment realise that it is full well capable of fighting.

The problem in the West isn't that reason has failed us. The problem is that we have utterly abandoned reason. Where, exactly, is reason present in our modern discourse? Becaue it sure as hell isn't found in the cultural relativists of the new left. Cultural relativism lies on another philosophical base - _epistemelogical relativism_, and that means postmodernism. Postmodernism is the complete rejection of reason.

>>Reason? Which side thought (with its Western apologists) that it had a lock on Reason curing the Cold War?>He comes across to me as one of those who believe that it is only a "small minority of religious extremists" who are making trouble right now.

Fanusi khiyal

I know you are completely convinced that Christianity is a load of drivel without a rational leg to stand on.

Nevertheless: I think you should hear out some intelligent modern Christians, first. Read Dorothy L Sayers, 'The Mind of the Maker'. Then try G K Chesterton: The Everlasting Man, and Orthodoxy. The Everlasting Man, by the way, is worth it just for a rattling good chapter about the war between Rome and Carthage, entitled, "The War of the Gods and the Demons" - it throws an interesting sidelight on our current predicament.

Then read David Bentley Hart, "The Beauty of the Infinite". It will probably annoy you tremendously - but I warn you, the guy knows his philosophy, both modern and pre-modern, as well as his theology. And although he never says a word about Islam, a great deal of what he says has enabled me to understand precisely how Islam-on-the-ground grows straight out of its metaphysical/ theological assumptions.

Don't forget the Jews, either: read Abraham Heschel, 'God in Search of Man'.

Now: when you can understand the difference between Israel and Saudi Arabia; between a mosque and Notre Dame (or a medieval guild hall); between the counterpoint of J S Bach, and the muezzin's wail or the whirling dervishes - then you will understand the difference between a Biblically-energised civilisation, and Muslim barbarity.

It is quite unfair to John Derbyshire to call him an atheist, either of the latterly fashionable "mad-dog" variety, or the older, more genteel kinds.

He does believe in God, though in a mysterian kind of way. The below link to an article on his religious beliefs clarifies quite a bit.

http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/2006/Texts/FaithFAQ.htm

>>dumbledoresarmy

Fanusi: "We let the left assume the mantle of reason with no protests."

No protests?! You have obviously not read any of the anti-Communist literature of the era. The left is irrational and authors from Hayek to Buckley spent oceans of ink demonstrating it at the time. Have you never read the proto-anti-Communist Frederick Bastiat?

"Of course the Enlightenment was enabled by [the Reformation]. But that is not the same thing as saying that the thinkers of the Reformation - Calvin springs to mind - would have supported reason."

Your concession on the Reformation is welcome. It evinces a retreat from hastily-occupied ground, but your counterattack on Calvin is a desperate hindershot rather than a surgical strike. You're flailing about here, Fanusi. Having read quite a bit of Calvin I can assure you that he was a champion of reason - in its place. Richard Hooker, the ffamous Anglican post-Reformation theologian even developed the three pillars of Anglican theology and practice, Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If a practice or idea is not repugnant to Scripture, does not offend reason, and is not wholly at odds with tradition, then it is allowable. This approach seems to have failed the past few Archbishops of Caterbury I will admit, but it works for men of good will.

Faith is not a synonym for reason, but neither is it an antinym. They are not necessarily antipathetic. Calvin's first book, Dancing in the Dark, was not aimed at Rome but at the Anabaptists and the dangers inherent in their irrational enthusiasm, and he was as critical of them from a scriptural perspective as from an intellectual one. And in his famous Institutes there is nothing to be found at odds with reason unless one has convinced himself that faith in God and His revelation to mankind are inherently unreasonable. For a good introduction to Calvin you should pick up Karl Barth's biography of him, the exact title of which escapes me.

Your errors lay in an unwarranted Kantian compartmentalization of faith and reason. You exercize faith everytime you step into an elevator. Does that make elevator rides unreasonable?

Furthermore, in your subsequent post, the one in which you get nasty and start insulting specific Christian beliefs and credit the Law of Moses as the spawn of Sharia reveal that you are an unreasonable man. The prohibition against "graven iamges" did not prevent the Israelites from adorning their tabernacle and temple with images of angelic beings and animals.

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any instruction to kill infidels indiscriminately. To the contrary, the "stranger" was to be treated with hospitality and justice. The only prohibition to him was a place at the Passover table. How could anyone REASONably equate the Mosaic Law with Sharia given these and many other stark difference?

Then you retract having credited the Reformation with Enlightenment progress and deny that Christendom ever produced a civilization, proving that you are not only ignorant but willfully so and unworthy of further attention.

Fanusi & Dumbledoresarmy,

I think you both have excellent points, but it would be nice to see less 'pointed' remarks to each other. :)

Those who fight for freedom have been non-religious and Christians (and others of course)...we've had plenty of both over the centuries fighting back Islam or other totalitarian regimes.

I think we're quick to come to the defense of 'our' group, primarily from years of hearing these comments and knowing they were meant to be negative.

But that's much less likely from JW posters, as I know we either recognize or do over time.

I'm also trying to be patient at JW, since I know most here don't mean harm but are in the 'academic' mode of debate...unless it's a well-known troll, of course!

I know I'm stating the obvious, but wanted to state it anyway.

My thought on both your arguments, besides the comment on your great points, is this:

I think it's too difficult to completely separate something (religion) that has been intertwined in the human conscience for so long.

So, was that a good 'Mediator' (Can't we get along?) and 'Lawyer' (I see BOTH sides!) response or what?

Miss_Anthrope,

I agree: Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive.

If one looks at the three big players in this unfolding drama--Christianity, atheism (or, more generally, in-your-face secularism, with a distinct leftist orientation), and Islam--it is apparent that the last two are obsessively intent on discrediting and ultimately destroying the first. In contrast, the only one of the group that tolerates the existence of the other two, is the first. That is the "weakness" that Derbyshire concludes with in his review of Robert's book.

The brilliance of the modern Islamic assault on civilization is its ability to capitalize on this situation and so triangulate against the Christians and their Western heritage.

The key to breaking this suicidal death grapple is to properly educate our nation, and all free men, that Islam is not really a religion at all. It carries the trappings of religion only as a deception so it can slip in under the Christian ecumenical radar. It carries the trappings of religion only so that religiously dismissive atheist/secularists can likewise ignore it as just another sad source of human superstition--a mere curiosity no better or worse than any other--that will eventually succomb to the force of reason (which. again, they claim special and exclusive ownership of).

The purpose of Robert's latest book is to show conclusively why the religion Christianity (or, by extension, Buddhism or Hinduism or etc.) should not be lumped into the same category as Islam. That reflexive and unthinking association, not Christian tolerance, is really the fundamental and suicidal intellectual mistake that imperils us. Derbyshire spends too much time condemning Robert for being an apologist for Christianity. Defending Christianity is not the main point of the book--accurately describing Islam is.

Miss-anthrope - thanks for the reminder.

I hope I don't come across too harshly at times. My Dad always used to say -'don't be so DOGMATIC!' when I was about 15.

Actually, one of my younger brothers is a classic old-fashioned redhot card-carrying rationalist Atheist - so I have heard all khiyal's arguments before. The difference between a Christian family and a Muslim one is that the Christian family is willing to keep on loving, regardless, the family member who has 'left the faith'. Whereas Muslims, here and now, kill 'apostates'.

Stendec - VERY good point. The entity that is Islam has ALWAYS had a truly uncanny (I would say, demonic) capacity both for fostering division and discord among those who might otherwise unite against it; and for perceiving and seizing upon any pre-existing division and exacerbating it and profiting from it. I don't know how conscious this is. Perhaps it's merely Islam's 'default' mode of operations: curse; lie; distract; confuse; divide; devour.

In the past Islam profited from division between East and West (e.g. the alliance that didn't happen, between Western Christendom and the Eastern mongol world, as yet unconverted to Islam - see the failed embassy of Rabban Sawma, that Robert mentions in 'PIG to Islam and the Crusades' pp. 149-51 and 160). The Persians vs. the Byzantines. Western vs Eastern Christendom, a division perhaps still unconsciously driving some of Russia's current actions. The British dragging their feet on helping the Greeks shake off the Ottoman yoke (a while ago Hugh posted John Quincy Adams' scathing critique of that act of cruel betrayal). Dhimmi Christians attacked dhimmi Jews instead of uniting against their common oppressor.

The Muslim propagandists are constantly working to divide America from Israel; they are using certain dhimmified Christians to try to divide the church into 'true faith' (anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian) and 'heretics' (ANY sort of Christian who supports Israel's right to exist). I would bet good money that they are doing their best, in their dealings with Russia or China, to increase the latter's fear and suspicion of each other and of the USA and Europe - to exacerbate pre-existing rifts, so as to prevent a grand Anti-Jihad alliance of all non-Muslim societies.

And, of course: to divide America from Europe. To set Hispanic against Anglo against Afro against Native American, to set Anglo North America against the Latino South - I am sure they are delighted to see those fissures, those pressure-points; I am sure there are propagandists working at it right now, push, push, pushing.

Above all, as Stendec points out so clearly: Islam is capitalising on (perhaps deliberately, sneakily exacerbating?) the intellectual/ spiritual tension within Western civilisation (secularism vs Christianity, 'Athens' and 'Jerusalem').

Bottom line is: modern Christians, here and now, support Freedom of Religion (which includes freedom to apostasise) and Freedom of Speech. Islam attacks and destroys both - as Robert's books show very clearly.

Western and Eastern Christians, Western Atheist, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, whatever: we must all hang together - or we will all hang separately.