Czech Cardinal: "Today, when the fighting is done with spiritual weapons which Europe lacks while Muslims are perfectly armed, the fall of Europe is looming"

In ancient Rome, as the empire crumbled around, speeches were made in the Senate imploring Roman women to once again start having babies...to end the empire's growing dependence on "mercenaries" (i.e., immigrants). Other speeches implored other civilization-saving devices, such as control over the borders.

In the end, these speeches amounted to nothing but the last desperate and futile gasps of a dying civilization. Cardinal Vlk is a voice in the wilderness, destined to be ignored. Europe's destiny is already written.

Frankly, I think it's more like taking "love yer enemies" and "turn the other cheek" way too far, not to mention considering the whole planet as "your neighbour" to be loved as "thyself".

The reason, I think, that Europe managed to beat Muslim butt in the past was simply because they didn't have this PC/MC crap, itself quasi-religious and taking from the tenets above. They didn't worry about their enemies' "rights". They didn't worry about "offending" their enemy. And they weren't afraid to "demonize". They could speak the truth about how horrid Islam and Muslims are. And they weren't afraid to defend themselves. And above all, they weren't afraid to hate what is despicable.

Now we're all supposed to be wimpy little doormats, taking blow after blow on the chin from rude, ungrateful Muslims who have been ALLOWED to move into the West, and we're not supposed to say ANYTHING about it, never mind fight back.

The blessed Cardinal of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is indeed quite correct. We in the West primarily have ourselves to blame.

The West will not hold firm with the likes of pseudo-pagan atheistic secularists who reject the transcendent and eternal, are incapable of formulating an integrated coherent worldview of normatively binding absolutes, and can only prattle on with defective quasi-bankrupt ideas and jargon about liberty and freedom.

Nor will it hold firm with ignorant, milquetoast Christians who think religion is Bambi on Sunday mornings, that Islam is the only religion with a comprehensive worldview, and that do little more than make nonsensical charges against Islam of supremacism as they remain unable to recognize or cope with the undeniable existence and vibrancy of Christian supremacism.

In other words, don't expect much from the Jihad Watch crowd!

The West will hold firm with the full restoration of a bold and self-confident traditionalist Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, a West that lives and breathes the truth of Catholicism and knows that the Rosary is an indispensible sacramental to call upon God's grace with, just as those who built Western Civilization and emerged victorious at Tours, Lepanto, and Vienna knew. No atheists or fluffer-nutter Christians in those foxholes.

The nutty JW agenda of demonizing Islam at all costs will probably do little to nothing, not to mention be grossly unjust, in certain respects, to Muslims. Only when we realize the true nature of true religion and just how similar, in certain key respects, our religious heritage is to Islam will we be fully equipped with the armor that Christ has promised us.

Hi all:
Well the situation is nuanced and the good cardinal knows that despair is a sin. First, the Moslems spiritual weapons aren't that great- better than the insipid secualarism that Europeans seem to want- but definately inferior to Christanity.

Second, Benedict is working against the clock to revitalize Europe's Christian heritage. He'll succeed but not in the way he or anyone else envisages

Third, we really don't hear of the 'time bomb' within Islam in Europe- notably the secret converts from Islam. If there's one group that really needs our support it's them. That also means relentless explausion of the islamists who'll kill the converts should their identity be known

Fourth, the European elites will have a rude shock from the ordinary Europeans who still care about their legacyy and will react in a very ugly manner

It's not so inevitable.

xavier

XAVIER: "It's not so inevitable."

I beg to differ. In spite of the best efforts of the elite, the average European woman may someday be clued in to the barbaric and misogynist essence of Islam, but that doesn't in any way mean she'll change her lifestyle aspirations and start having children. Pat Buchanan may be a Hitler-admiring, right-wing extremist, but he's right about one thing: demography is destiny. America's future is Hispanic, Europe's future is Islamic.

Cornelius,
I have never seen anything that proves that Pat Buchanan is an embracing supporter of Nazi ideology. If that's what you're claiming, how about showing the solid proof that establishes that? And if he's an 'extremist', then that's only an indictment of where mainstream American thinking has gone, not of him.

Here's a clue for you and all others who think the only purpose in life and enjoyable avocation to have is to bash everyone and everything Islamic: it's not what you're against that counts, it's what you're for.

So, Cornelius, what are you for? And how is whatever that may be so well saddled and equipped to persuade European women to have more babies?

The cardinal is speaking the truth... We ourselves made things be so desparate. Really, the Muslims 'may not have so great spiritual weapons' but we, in the present situation, are almost totally weaponless. Think of it a little bit carefully and you will discern it easily: what alternative we have to show to Muslims... our so foolish atheisms and consummerisms? Where is our mystical tradition? Our saints? Where are the means that we have to deal with humanity's existential questioning and thirst?

Those so 'popular' Dawkins like nonsense what alternative has to offer to Muslims (or to anyone)? A meaningless life? And... if life is so meaningless, a bullshit of a miserable biologic duration of some decades damned to be swallowed by a nothing so... why they, themselves, have such an agony to preach about their mental garbages? If life is meaningles so... why does it matter if some totalitarian regime would take the control? In such a case why should it matter? Our childrens' life? Huh, better they may be dead in such a case. An inherently meaningless life is not worth living, after all...

Dendrite:

Well put. But not to fear. The treasures and weapons are there. They just have to be dusted off.

If you're suggesting contradiction on my part, JM, that is certainly not the case.

For one thing, let me first tell you that the Church of Crhist is undestructible.It is the Light, it is the Way , the Truth and the Life.
I say this, because you sometimes seem to have forgotten.

Then, back in time, lets say X century or so, a quiet monastery up in the north of Spain - San Pedro de Cardegna for more info, where i retreat every year- was attacked all of a sudden and all its monks were killed , throats cut.This is Islam.
I say this, beacuse many people sometimes like all therest to forget.

Then, on the spot where these monks were killed blood would come out of the cloister floor every year, being so called the martirs cloister.And the last time this blood appeared was coincident with the same year the moors were expelled from our country.
I say this, beacuse sometimes too many people need to put their fingers in the scars.

Then, again back in those middle age times, the peasants would labour their lands with a bow and an arrow.
I say this because sometimes many people forget this is the situation today in the holy land.If not, ask the jews who live there.

And to this sufi here named fairuzfan: christians dont do much beacuse they dont want .They are free to sin.But they are free.When the time comes that they no longer are free, they will fight.

No, Angelo, I'm not a sufi. Learn some basic facts. And it's not about being 'free'. It's about the truth.

For one thing, let me first tell you that the Church of Christ is undestructible. It is the Light, it is the Way , the Truth and the Life.
I say this, because you sometimes seem to have forgotten.

Then, back in time, lets say X century or so, a quiet monastery up in the north of Spain - San Pedro de Cardegna for more info, where i retreat every year- was attacked all of a sudden and all its monks were killed , throats cut. This is Islam.
I say this, beacuse many people sometimes like all the rest to forget.

Then, on the spot where these monks were killed blood would come out of the cloister floor every year, being so called the martyrs cloister. And the last time this blood appeared was coincident with the same year the moors were expelled from our country.
I say this, beacuse sometimes too many people need to put their fingers in the scars.

Then, again back in those middle age times, the peasants would labour their lands with a bow and an arrow.
I say this because sometimes many people forget this is the situation today in the holy land. If not, ask the Jews who live there.

And to this Sufi here named fairuzfan: Christians dont do much beacuse they dont want .They are free to sin. But they are free. When the time comes that they no longer are free, they will fight.

To Fairuzfan:

I read your posts and find you to be reasoned and thoughtful but not always cogent and coherent. Do you believe in the moral relativism of all or certain religions and cultures? There is a plurality of us here who are not catholic, muslim or fundmentalist whatevers. We search for the incidents of mormon bicycle bombers, catholic school girl underwear explosives or baptist sharia pastors who order stonings. Surely a great wordsmith like yourself can define in laymen terms what exactly your philosophical underpinnings are. I suppose what I am asking is which societal morays have had a more positive impact on the world, judeo-christian or islamic? Thank you.

Hi Rico, thank you for some nice words and civility.

I am not a relativist in religious or cultural matters. I am a committed, objective-oriented, absolutist Catholic, and hold that to be the truth. I hold all other religions and belief systems to have truth to the extent they coincide with Catholic faith and morals, and to be in error to the extent that they do not do so.

Believing that something is not the fullness of truth, and has errors and deficiencies, such as Islam, does not mean that it - or any other religion or belief system - is to be subjected to spin, selectivity, distortion, or any manner of deceit, not to mention emotionally driven tirades, defamations, insults, vulgarities, and threats of violence. That does not mean that genuinely, responsibly-identified problematic beliefs and behaviors cannot be properly identified and discussed.

As a Catholic, I believe that Catholic Christianity has had the most positive impact on the world, more so than Islam or anything else.

Incidentally, or perhaps not so incidentally, I reject the notion of a 'Judeo-Christian' tradition, and believe a careful, discerning review of the nature of both Catholic Christianity and Judaism bears that out. On the Jewish side, I can recommend Rabbi Jacob Neusner's "Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition".

Hope that is of some help.

Angelo I do know that Christ's church is undestructible. My fear is not about church. Church will survive. Church's essential nature is eternal, no doubt. But I fear that there might be a lot of human suffering and it is better to do everything possible to avoid it by awakening to some mistakes of our own, firsthandedly.

By insisting of reclaiming our Christian identity in the West I do not mean being frantic, zealot Catholics, Orthodoxs, Protestants etc. I do mean having an identity whith which we can confront the challenge. And I think that we have to collaborate with Budhists, Hindus, Jainists, Zoroastrians, Jews and whoever others who do have a peaceful, respectful to coexistence, non supremacist life approach. As Christ has said, whoever is not against us is with us. This should be our life stand.

We do not have anything against Muslims, as human beings, as well. We are not racists. Far from us being racists. We just are against a violent, supremacist, totalitarian ideology claiming God blessedness... that's to say a quite dangerous thing for all humanity. We are against a Hasan Sabbah and his assasins like cult which unfortunately has began flooding even our neighbourhoods. And we need having an adamantly strong identity to confront it. There lies the issue.

"They also have a religious one - to bring the spiritual values of faith in God to the pagan environment of Europe, to its atheistic style of life."

Your Honor, I object. This is a red herring, of sorts. There is nothing spiritual in Islam. Nothing is sacred in Islam, not even the things Muhammedans will kill for. The things Muhammedans kill for are all just excuses to kill.

I'll fight back to back with an atheist, if we are fighting for the same cause. Atheists are welcome in my home--Muhammedans aren't.

This attempt to cast atheists in a worse mode than Muhammedans is shrill, panicky BS. Worse, it's an entreaty to Christians to stop thinking for themselves, and let religion stand in place of that thought.

Pray to God, by all means--while you make ready for the Muhammedan siege.

BTW: I'm an Episcopalian.

For one thing, let me first tell you that the Church of Christ is undestructible. It is the Light, it is the Way , the Truth and the Life.
I say this, because you sometimes seem to have forgotten.

Then, back in time, lets say X century or so, a quiet monastery up in the north of Spain - San Pedro de Cardegna for more info, where i retreat every year- was attacked all of a sudden and all its monks were killed , throats cut. This is Islam.
I say this, beacuse many people sometimes like all the rest to forget.

Then, on the spot where these monks were killed blood would come out of the cloister floor every year, being so called the martyrs cloister. And the last time this blood appeared was coincident with the same year the moors were expelled from our country.
I say this, beacuse sometimes too many people need to put their fingers in the scars.

Then, again back in those middle age times, the peasants would labour their lands with a bow and an arrow.
I say this because sometimes many people forget this is the situation today in the holy land. If not, ask the Jews who live there.

And to this Sufi here named fairuzfan: Christians dont do much beacuse they dont want .They are free to sin. But they are free. When the time comes that they no longer are free, they will fight.

Dear Fairuzfan:

On this impassioned day of posting and responding allow me to thank you for your kind response. Now that I know a little about where you are coming from it will be easier to see where you are going.

Robert, I think it's very unfortunate that you resort to Christian propaganda and thus may put off some of the people who are most committed to the separation of church/mosque and state.

It's true that a lot of atheists replaced the void left by the dogma of Christianity with the dogma of socialist multiculturalism and environmentalism - but they will easily convert once they are fully shown what happens to those living in Muslim countries who share their basic beliefs and publicly declare them.

Dendrite wrote:
[quote]
Those so 'popular' Dawkins like nonsense what alternative has to offer to Muslims (or to anyone)? A meaningless life? And... if life is so meaningless, a bullshit of a miserable biologic duration of some decades damned to be swallowed by a nothing so... why they, themselves, have such an agony to preach about their mental garbages? If life is meaningles so... why does it matter if some totalitarian regime would take the control? In such a case why should it matter? Our childrens' life? Huh, better they may be dead in such a case. An inherently meaningless life is not worth living, after all...
[/quote]

We do have to offer many more things than those ideologies which advocate being satisfied with not understanding nature. The most important thing is progress. Even though I am a Dawkins-type of atheist, I think that as long as there is progress life has meaning (without hiding one's head in the sand about the cruelty of nature supposedly created by God - seems more like the work of the Devil to me, if anything). There is 0 evidence for a God that intervenes in people's lives.

As we speak, good people who don't buy the Christian dogma that we "shouldn't play God" are working to undo aging (and fulfilling Jesus' promise of eternal life) (Aubrey de Grey has a plan to cure aging), to build intelligent machines that they can perform routine jobs instead of human, to build robotic limbs and implants for the disabled, to genetically modify food so that one day no one will have to suffer from hunger. Are Christians doing those things? Most aren't. Ironically, it is the godless scientists who are working on fulfilling the best ideals of Christianity and every non-muslim sane human being.

God may not exist now, but if we work towards making this world a better place, He may exist in the future. He will be Humanity itself (check out Frank Tipler's book "The Science of Immortality" - btw, he says he's a former Atheist-turned-Christian, just so you know I'm not directing you to any Dawkins "garbage";)

Rico,

Thanks for the response. And I need to attend to fine tuning my tone as well, alas.

Nykos has accused Robert of Christian propagandizing. The truth is we have all used propaganda to make a point at some time in our lives. If the use of "Propaganda" to educate the great unwashed masses about the dangers of islam automatically makes one a Judeao-Christian Propagate, then so be it. The important thing to remember is that propaganda is not always the truth but when truth is "propaganda", it is still the truth. SHEW!

FAIRFUZAN: "I have never seen anything that proves that Pat Buchanan is an embracing supporter of Nazi ideology. If that's what you're claiming, how about showing the solid proof that establishes that?"

RESPONSE: I never claimed he was "an embracing supporter of Nazi ideology." But the following article penned by him is ample proof that he consciously and deliberately attempts to mitigate and justify Hitler's aggression against Germany's neighbors.

http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

SPIRIT WOLF: "And you can't just go around telling women to "have more babies". Not all of us are mommy material."

RESPONSE: I make no moral judgment towards any woman who decides not to procreate. This is a private matter.

But I DO make a sociological judgment when a civilization's birth-rate declines beyond replacement point: That civilization is destined for extinction. It's simple math.

Cornelius,

I can mitigate or justify somebody's behavior - however right or wrong my efforts there may be in and of itself - without being an admirer of the person.

While it's good to hear you are not claiming Buchanan support for Nazi ideology, I believe the Hitler-admirer claim remains unsubstantiated, unless you have something else that backs that up.

The likes of Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Pat Bucannan fill a neccessary niche created by our confusing times. Unfortunately their underlying Neo-Nazi ties put them on the fringe. There was a time when I would have never listened to these guys for even a moment. Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and Dhimmitude will one day I fear cause us to "Choose Sides" for the sake of survival. That does not mean I want to validate them. However they may prove useful idiots or allies considering the odds.

Fairfuzan,

You're splitting hairs. Buchanan is an apologist for Nazi aggression...this is clear from the article. Whether or not that makes him admirer of Hitler is semantics.

Wellington,

I hear you, bro. The Center-Right is home...I'll have no trek with the Buchanans or Ron Pauls of the world, any more than I would with a Liberal-Lefty.

Wellington,

The claim that Buchanan is an 'apologist' for Hitler would seem to imply that he is a supporter of Hitler and Nazism. I have failed to see the proof of that and stand by that position, however, wrong-headed Buchanan's theories regarding the origins of World War II may be.

If you're asking if I would state my disagreement with somebody who makes an unjustifiable criticism of Marxism or Nazism, my answer would be yes. With all the things tht are wrong with those two belief sets, how exactly does that justify somebody, anybody, making a criticism that is untrue?

I interpret 'bashing' to mean, generally speaking, wholesale gratuitous and indiscrimate criticism and hostility. Yes, bashing, understood as that, is always wrong. Criticisms can always be proper, precise, finely honed, and accurate. There is no basis for bashing.

Betrand Russell is not going to be my guru on Islam, as he is not my guru on most anything else.

As I have stated on a few occasions here, I believe there are significant deficiencies regarding the nature and tone of the discussion here regarding this subject matter, points that have basically stood unrefuted. If I'm that wrong, refuting me should be easy. But it doesn't seem to happen.

If you insist that selectivity, spin, distortion, and deceit are your rightful domain to combat what you've come to consider evil, then, yes, you are involved in serious wrongdoing, possibly even a bigot, depending upon the particulars.

Being wrong is always, in some sense I suppose, a possibility. That comes, I suppose, with the terrain of the human condition. I look at a subject carefully, methodically, and in comprehensive detail, and make the best judgments and conclusions I can. I trust my understanding is sound. Possibly it's not. Or even if it is, there's always accompanying prudential judgments to be made along with the understanding, and that could always be off. Certain not my strongest suit. But shame on me for being wrong, for not being perfect, is how I interpret this? No, I don't think so.

My views have relied on careful examination of information, including input from Islamic jurists and academics. They are one source that I use. I assume they are not lying, just like I assume you're not lying, until it is proven otherwise. And, yes, I have looked at the normative Islamic source material to compare to ensure what's being claimed is at least plausible. I'll stand by my conclusions until something compelling causes me to change them.

Numerous examples of evil inherent in Islam - depends upon what you mean by numerous. Yes, I will actually say, I have seen some examples of evil, that I would say are inherent in Islam as I understand it, presented here. I've also seen any number of other examples where either 1) somebody's behavior is presented where it has not been established that it's inherent in Islam or 2) what's being claimed as an evil is something that I would not accept as being evil.

To take one example, no, I do not accept Jihad Watch's apparently dubious presentations of Umdat al Salik as supposedly providing a justification for parents killing their children, when the material in question only appears to exempt them from qisas, the retributive dimension of punishment, and apparently does not establish a right to do away with your offspring or give the parents carte blanche exemption from all forms of punishment.

Being accurate is necessary but not sufficient. Not if you're involved in spin, selectivity and distortion. I can present a factually accurate description of the Normandy WWII invasion that makes the Allies look like unprincipled, barbaric aggressors. Accurate? Yes. Responsibly composed and balance? No.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not impressed when Yusuf Qaradawi is trotted out to cite his terrible view that attacks against Israeli civilians are justified, but that somehow he's nowhere in sight when the discussion turns to music or the conduct of American Muslims in the U.S. military. Or that somehow I just never seem to pick up at JW that Qaradawi has condemned Al Qaida's "mad declaration of war upon the world".

And if I recall correctly, you were the one, Wellington, who had no clue as to who the Mother Theresas of Islam were. You consider that to be a strong knowledge base about a religion?

Beyond the issue of Islam and how it is to be assessed, is the procedural basis upon which this takes place. Do you seriously want to defend this, Wellington? Insults, vulgarity, even threats of violence. If you've decided that Islam is evil, then does that mean law-abiding American Muslims are to be subject to expulsions, segregation, deportation, being maced or pepper sprayed, thrown out of an airplane, introduced to the end of a swinging baseball bat? I've read all those things, and more, here in the comment section.

In short, yes, I'll stand by what I'm saying here.

Cornelius,

I'll conclude from your last post that there is nothing to support Buchanan being a Hitler admirer.

If we're now talking about the idea that Buchanan is a supporter of the Nazi Germany attack upon Poland and other countries, that would at the least be highly debatable and I would personally think rather dubious, depending upon what moral framework he has been working within when he has written about the origins of WWII.

The absurd premise that WWII could have been avoided had the city of Danzig been transferred to Germany is a blatant manifestation of Buchanan's sympathetic (hence, apologetic) view of Hitler. It essentially negates the entire existence of Hitler's previously enunciated, expansionist, Ostland agenda (Lebensraum).

Case closed.

"the Moslems spiritual weapons aren't that great- better than the insipid secualarism that Europeans seem to want- but definately inferior to Christanity" - xavier, above

Au contraire: the slimiest subculture of Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner is superior to Islam. It never fails to shock -- though one shouldn't be surprised any longer at the depths of obtuseness among so many in the West -- when Westerners even within the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement find "elements" of good value in Islam.

P.S.: I don't doubt for a second that "fairuzfan" agrees with xavier, if he does not go much beyond him; though if he does, he would not be contradicting his alleged Catholic catechism, which also praises the spirituality of Islam -- not, of course, without a caveat or two.

Nykos you mentioned 'progress'... Progress? What for? How many years you have, left for your immersing to your meaningless atheistic void (given that such a void exists)... Well... you may say that you have such a deep humanity, considering the coming generations. Ethics, in a void of inherent meaning world? What a contradiction.

You will confront Muslim ideology with ideas about plastic, laboratory immortalities of eternally living narcisist zombie 'ego's? If so, do not forget to take with you R2, D2 too, for their help...

And... the cruel nature? Who are you then? This 'I' which speaks... is it outside of nature? If not... if it is part of nature, why we should rely on it? Normally all it conceives should be evil, as an offspring of an evil thing. Mere logic my friend. Or you belive that this 'I' is something above nature, something transandental? If so... hey... are you a believer? :-)))

i still don't see how being christian will save me from the islamic invasion. lol.

God Bless the Cardinal for speaking what NEEDED to be said.

The Cardinal is simply speaking truth to power.

don't confuse the so-called "athiest elites" with true athiests. the elites have an agenda and they will stop at nothing to aqcuire that agenda. they crave power and money more than anything. that is their religion. i think true athiests also have their own agenda and that is to admonish religion altogether. as for me, i prefer to be a free thinker. i learn. i study. personally i think if the west was made up of pagans, they will be able to fight against the islamic onslaught just fine. in fact, the pagans created civilization WAY before christianity or islam or judaism even came into the picture. and they defended their civilizations just fine. they had their city/states, their laws, their culture. pagans, as far as i can see, outshines religion in so many ways...sigh. but, alas, the world goes on...and on..

Before I make this comment I want the reader to know I am an atheist of Hindu/Indian heritage. Theologically, I find it difficult to counter Islam which says we are at the mercy of a God who is commanding us to live a certain way, and that we are not allowed to question any commandment, law, or order give to us by this God regardless of our personal beliefs on it, or however immoral we may feel it to be.

Most non-Muslims really value morality above religious doctrine (admit it, you do). Proof of this is that the majority of Jewish law is completely ignored by modern Jews because of how immoral and unethical many laws in the Old Testament are such as Exodus 21:15 which says anyone who hits their dad should be put to death, or Leviticus 20:10 which says all adulterers should be stoned to death. Same problem with the Hindus who cannot always rely on the Vedas as 100% ethical. Christians too have this issue because they do not follow every Old Testament or even New Testament law. If they did, anyone who worked on Sunday would be stoned to death as ordered, and we would have no women preachers since Paul clearly states that women are to be silent in church.

The fact is, Muslims walk the walk (as evil and unjust as their some of their actions may be, their religious actions are often scripturally justified) - the rest of the self described religious world just talk. As an atheist I believe morality is innate and a product of intellect so I have not this issue. But to the Christian or Jew or Hindu who faults the Muslim, how do you counter the argument of "God told me to and He determines morality" ?

Betrand Russell is not going to be my guru on Islam, as he is not my guru on most anything else.

I prefer St. John of Damascus and Hilaire Belloc myself.

Dear RJ:

Do you believe ethics are "INATE" or do you believe that without morality ethics would be impossible? If so, do you believe that there are intangibles upon which morality is built? Help me Fairuzfan & Wellington before I blow a fuse over the depth of what has transpired here today.

"Proof of this is that the majority of Jewish law is completely ignored by modern Jews because of how immoral and unethical many laws in the Old Testament are such as Exodus 21:15 which says anyone who hits their dad should be put to death, or Leviticus 20:10 which says all adulterers should be stoned to death."

have these laws from god been abrogated somewhere? if so, where? if they haven't been abrogated, then why are they not practicing it today? it is the law of god, right?

lol religion is fascinating.

Wellington:

Agreed; Islam bad, Free thought good.
But the question I have been asking in philosophy classes and in general for years is a simple one. Can ethics exist without morality? Is morality the cornerstone upon which ethics are built? Muslims claim to have morality but they are the most unethical group I have ever seen. I think it impossible that such a universal axiom as morality is relative. I hope Robert has finally gone to bed by the way.

Angelo:
'Why are we not bombing their countries with penthouses and playboys?'

:-)))))))))

Joe:
'i still don't see how being christian will save me from the islamic invasion'...

There has to be a so critical situtation, as the one we are now, for your thinking to ask such a question my friend... When you will have the answer, you will be in an armed ghetto maybe... being in sleepless guard against approaching jihadists around, in some Mad Max like 'post apocalyptic' environment... that's to say a little bit late... :-)

Thanks Wellington.

Sorry for the delay. You answered with complete cogency. I was hoping through our discourse to encourage either an eppihany in RJ or a least a reasoned response. I have had this ethics/morality debate with one too many ultra liberal/agnostic professors where they claim the two concepts are similar but unrelated. I have also debated a couple of muslim acquaintances who refuse to recognize certain acts as imoral but claim to be ethical people. I'm just puzzled thats all.

FredMk_1

"Without the slightest intention of being sarcastic I defer to your bible scholarship. However I think this one was amended by a later ruling somewhere in the gospels directing the law should stand but "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone""

thats from the new testament. the jews consider the new testament a heresy...

Dendrite

"There has to be a so critical situtation, as the one we are now, for your thinking to ask such a question my friend... When you will have the answer, you will be in an armed ghetto maybe... being in sleepless guard against approaching jihadists around, in some Mad Max like 'post apocalyptic' environment... that's to say a little bit late... :-) "

does that mean, by me converting to christianity, i can stave off the islamic onslaight? lmao. or if everybody converts to christianity, somehow, we will be able to stop islamization? how? pray them to death? i don't see the christians doing any more than anybody else to stop this problem. christians are WAY too PC/MC to actually do anything as far as i have seen.

no, i don't think converting to christianity will solve anything.

Joe the things you write show how much confused is the Westerner in our days. You are not mistaken in thinking so... especially in the case you are a young man. When I speak of Christianity I do not speak of being a member of an insitutionalized creed necessarily. I do speak about having the sanity which the Christian worldview offers as a cultural identity. I did not mean that you should take the rosary and began fasting from now on :-)

The thing the cardinal did mean is deeply meaningful. It has a vast meaning. It is not so simplistic.

No, do not convert... but be aware that the so 'self evident' freedom you feel to say 'I do not convert' owes its existence in that New Testament's worldview has been the most decisive nourishment source of the very roots our free and open societies. Independently of the fact's being accepted or ignored nowadays.

If the debate needs it, it could go , and probably will have to go, as far as to show and explain why crhistians "can kill".But i dont see why it should be explained at all, when it is there for everyone to see that christians kill....have killed and will have to kill.

Or else go read the Bhagavad Gita, if what you want is the pass to kill by some other religion.

Let me just remind you here, that it is perfectly possible for a human being to be already condemened and his soul already in hell, while still living on earth.

No, no... wait, be not so furious to go there Angelo. We, in Christianity, we do not like killings etc. It is not our way. We do hate bloody solutions, anyway, even if it is inevitable sometimes because of our human weaknesses. If it was that we enjoy them we would be like the ones we criticize. Use of force may be an inevitable solution, when every possible way is blocked. And even then not because of our beliefs but because of our human weakness (that we have humbly to accept... pretending saintliness is a hypocrisy, of course). It is a case that we do not kill in fact... it is a case where the aggresor commits suicide, somehow. Even a victory in the battlefield is not a reason to rejoice but to mourn as Lao Tzu says (let me too give a simile from Far East's wisdom :-)

But, unfortunately, usually things get there, to violent solutions... they become inevitable because of our prior shortcomings as to our relying to God. Waiting on God makes someone alert and discerning. Waiting on someone's self is narcissism and narcissism cultivates blindness. The Godly alertness is the thing we lost in West and so we permitted all those so difficult present situations to prevail. Now we will have maybe even to immerse in bloodsheds. We have to pay as it seems our idiocy of our blasphemy against our so sane archparadigm: Jesus Christ.

But we have a long way yet, despite all the portents... We have to come out and speak bravely the reasons we differ... the reasons that we can not accept Islam. And we have to speak humanely, in a Christian way, without violence (in words and deeds). We have to challenge the agressors in the field of reason. Having faith that they too are human beings and that there is hope. And... if everything fails, then and only then we have to shield ourselves. Then the adversaries' dying by clashing on our shield will be something that they should consider.

But challenging them in such an approach needs regaining our lost spiritual weapons as the cardinal puts forth...

That crazy priest Vlk is full of it. Western civilization is much bigger than just Christianity. People don’t usually need established religions to teach them ethics. Secular humanism, resting on the Western scientific and philosophical tradition, contains values much more conducive to social harmony than Catholicism. And it has the strategic advantage of not relying on a slew of imaginary creatures, as opposed to both Mohammedanism and Christianity. The scientific spirit is ultimately as corrosive to Mohammedanism is it has been to Christianity.

Angelo's remarks about Christians killing and having to kill reminds me of the "Thou shalt not kill" debate. The kill used in the original Hebrew text was for malace murder and not the type of killing done by someone defending self or family. This is a distinction worth mentioning.

The holy trinity is composed of The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, this last one being the one behind the science and progress and all kinds of actions aimed in the right direction.There is not action devoid of intention, no neutral ground.