Jihad Watch: Should one ally with those with whom one disagrees?

May 19, 2006

Should one ally with those with whom one disagrees?

Paul Weyrich once told me that I should never hesitate to ally with someone with whom I had disagreements on some issues. Allies are hard to come by in any case, and agreement on one issue didn't require agreement on all issues. There are some with whom one should never ally, but they are few. I think it's good advice.

This is important today, as I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad. This will require working with people with whom one disagrees. This has come up because Lawrence Auster, a conservative writer, has been attacking me on a more or less regular basis lately for defending Hirsi Ali and other sins -- including the contention that I'm a "neoconservative." So I write this not to convince Auster of anything, but to try to clarify these issues for people of good will who may read this.

It isn't important if Auster thinks what I am doing is conservative or neoconservative or liberal or yellow or blue. The jihad targets conservatives and liberals and neocons alike. But he is attempting to portray me as actually opposing the West, and playing into the hands of the jihadists. He says, referring to me and people like me:

He sees himself as a defender of a besieged Judeo-Christian civilization which he hopes to save and restore. These feelings and allegiances make him a conservative; certainly they make him one in his own eyes. But what does this civilization to which Spencer the conservative is devoted consist of? It consists of a “vision of human dignity,” of “principles of the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience, and the other principles that are derived ultimately from Judaism and Christianity.” These are all liberal principles, as Spencer himself makes clear when he says of them, not that they are Jewish and Christian, but that they are derived from Judaism and Christianity. Liberalism is, of course, the secularized offshoot of Christianity. And it is to this liberal ideal that Spencer has given his heart...

The opposition that he sets up here is absurd. Because I speak of values derived from Judaism and Christianity, therefore I somehow oppose or don't value Judeo-Christian civilization itself? The equality of dignity of all people and the freedom of conscience are affirmed by the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as principles derived from the nature of man as created in God's image. These aren't Christian principles, but liberal ones and somehow ultimately anti-Christian ones? I know that strong statements of the freedom of conscience can be found as far back as St. Augustine -- another notorious neo-con, no doubt. And the equality of dignity of all people is as old as Genesis' statement about men and women being created in the image of God. If Auster thinks that defending them is somehow "neoconservative" and "liberal" and opposed to an authentic defense of Judeo-Christian civilization, I would submit that he has a narrow, pinched, idiosyncratic and ahistorical view of that civilization.

His thesis is based on his false statement that I have "often spoken, not in terms of defending the West from Islam, but of defending 'secular values' from Islam." In fact, to support his statements he refers (and can refer) only to one article, in which I used "secularism" to mean "non-establishment." I acknowledged that was imprecise (because "secular values" can be taken to mean the relativist materialism of modern culture, which I do not endorse) when he attacked me on it at the time, and have not repeated it. In contrast, I have referred countless times, as anyone who reads this site can attest, to the need to defend "the West."

But Auster doesn't seem to have much interest in factual accuracy, but rather exhibits a taste for ad hominem smears. Not only does he sling the mud at Hirsi Ali and me, but at Jihad Watch Board member Ibn Warraq. He scores "Ibn Warraq’s aggressive, wise-guy atheism" and says he told Andrew Bostom: “You’ve got to tell Warraq that if he wants the support of conservatives, he can’t go around mocking God and attacking Christianity. His subject is Islam, he should stick to that and not attack religion in general.” He adds: "I said this to him several times, with utmost seriousness. I said Christians can work with secularists, if there is mutual tolerance. The message never got through."

Oh really? I called Andy Bostom myself about this. It's true that Ibn Warraq is an atheist, and that he attacked Christianity in Why I Am Not A Muslim in a way that I thought was gratuitous -- although even there he compares Jesus favorably to Muhammad, as I do in Islam Unveiled and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). And I wouldn't characterize even the material in Why I Am Not A Muslim as an "aggressive, wise-guy" attack. It's a reasoned discussion of historical criticism -- I disagree with it, but that doesn't make it shrill or hysterical. Anyone who knows Ibn Warraq personally knows that he just isn't the "aggressive, wise-guy" type, but is courteous, cultured, erudite, witty, measured, and scholarly.

Anyway, since Why I Am Not A Muslim I have never seen Ibn Warraq speak or write about Christianity; I called to ask Andy if he had, since Auster had ostensibly spoken with him about it. No, Andy said; Why I Am Not A Muslim was written over ten years ago, and Ibn Warraq doesn't speak about Christianity now, and in fact he speaks -- and is well-received by -- Evangelical audiences. (More liberals, no doubt.) What's more, Andy told me that he explained all this to Auster -- but there is no trace of that in Auster's smear of Ibn Warraq.

Anyway, the heart of Auster's pique at me is that he believes that by defending Hirsi Ali, an atheist liberal, I am allying with someone who would destroy what I am ostensibly defending. He calls her "an enemy of our civilization."

I don't believe Hirsi Ali is an "enemy of our civilization." She holds to some positions with which I disagree, but the key difference between her and the Islamic jihadists is that I am confident Hirsi Ali will never try to murder me. We can work out our differences in peace in the public sphere, in rational discourse and debate. It may be that she and I will be in the position of Murray Rothbard and William F. Buckley; Rothbard told Buckley, according to Auster, that although they were allies against Communism, they would be on opposite sides after Communism was defeated. That may be, but at this point I am only concerned with defeating the jihad -- and if that future break with Hirsi Ali or someone else does happen, it will happen within the political arena, and not play out with guns and bombs.

It may be that I will be on opposite sides with many of my present allies if Islamic jihad is defeated and we all survive to work out our disagreements after that. But Auster is picking unnecessary fights with me and with so many other anti-jihadists instead of fighting the mujahedin. In setting himself up as the Grand Inquisitor of the West and its defense, he is actually weakening that defense -- chucking soldiers out of the foxholes instead of letting them fight, at a time when we need every warrior we can get.

I have indeed often spoken about the values that the jihadists threaten today without always hammering home that they are Judeo-Christian -- not because I don't know and value that fact, but because they have now become near-universal outside the Islamic world, and we have a chance to build an international Resistance on their basis. I have often said that we need a broad coalition of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and more -- everyone threatened by the jihad -- in order to defeat the jihad. I stand by that statement, because as far as I can tell, no single one of those groups is strong enough to defeat the jihad by itself. And likewise not strong enough to defeat the jihad by itself is the tiny and ever-dwindling number of those whose views are acceptable to a dyspeptic misanthrope like Lawrence Auster.

Posted by Robert at May 19, 2006 6:18 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

bravo Robert....maybe he should read..JUDGE NOT ,that ye be not judged.mat 7:1..as the old testament teachs GOD choses his warriors from among all men.you are an American hero. Please for our sakes fight on!

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 19, 2006 9:08 PM

This is important today, as I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad. This will require working with people with whom one disagrees.

Hugh,

We all know that unity is hard to build so, those with common intent, even with other disagreements, should unite!

That is my two-cents........

Posted by: Alert

at May 19, 2006 9:10 PM

We should seek friends where we can find them. As long as their views are not immoral, illegal, or deceptive, we should welcome them with open arms. It is only a conceited child(in mentality)who expects others to agree with him or her in virtually every respect. Sand bars will be washed away in a storm or hurricane, but a continent will endure.

Posted by: Worry

at May 19, 2006 9:29 PM

So... he says "Liberalism is, of course, the secularized offshoot of Christianity." Then, is a right-leaning Christian against Christianity, whether he knows it or not?

Now, Auster is a conservative, and apparently all in favor of Judeo-Christian values. What does the above paragraph say about him?

... Actually, rather than waiting for Auster to spontaneously combust while pondering the contradiction he has set up, it appears that, if one takes "liberalism" to be the "secularized offshoot of Christianity," secularism is where his objections lie.

That makes Auster no more helpful than, say, Pat Buchanan.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Shinoliite

at May 19, 2006 9:32 PM

Pat Buchanan.......oh man....dont get me started..lol

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 19, 2006 9:35 PM

A nit-picker.

A mice-milker. He is trying to put you in a box. To label; & categorize you like a museum piece, Mr. Spencer.

Is he important enough to warrant such a response? I doubt it.

JW/DW are becoming more important. More people take notice all the time. Many who used to scoff at it are now serious readers and BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND! T
hat is already a great achievement.

The fact that 5 years after 9/11 the US-administration, most governments in the EU, the MSM nearly everywhere in the world have done nothing but appease the Mohammedans, deflect away and obfuscate the issues relating to Islam, that and the infiltration of the western world by Mohammedans, that needs to come out in the open, and measures need to be taken to reverse this trend.

For this, we should indeed ally with whoever sees at least this far.

The 'silent majority', (if there is such a thing) once informed about what Islam is really all about, will be horrified and back us. That I don't doubt.

But we have to get there first.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at May 19, 2006 9:40 PM

The problem is multifaceted. There are groups within the wider Christian movement that might prefer the triumph of Islam to the triumph of secularism. Some years ago I read about a US Evangelical apologetics group that traveled to Turkey to participate with Islamists in a conference on the subject of creationism. The Islamists were very happy to receive the aid of this group and after the fact the US group proudly reported to its constituents about the "good work" it had been doing combating secularism and atheism in Turkey. It is possible that they have contributed to the resurgence of Islam in Turkey. Very short-sighted.

And there are people in the US on the Left who regard the US religious right to be a greater menace than the Islamists, since they imagine that the christian religious right might actually gain political control in the US and impose something resemblng sharia while they cannot conceive of Islamists doing that. Again, it seems very short-sighted.

I think that until the threat of resurgent traditional Islam is more widely and clearly recognized on both Left and Right, this kind of cross-purposedness will continue. That is an example of the great value of what Mssrs Spencer and Fitzgerald are doing here.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 19, 2006 9:52 PM

You know, maybe these Auster and Esmay characters have blogs and have it in for you but you would never know it from the jihadwatch recent referrers link. It suggests to me that maybe their readership is, er, shall we say, somewhat limited.

Posted by: AnneCrockett

at May 19, 2006 9:56 PM

"I have called repeatedly for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others to unite against the global jihad."

Yes Robert! so true. Jihad, Da'wa and Dihimmitude are a threat to global cultures other then Islam.

I have written many times to this effect on my few posts to this site.

My words are not as well crafted as many of the gifted writers on this site, but my agreement with their message is the same. We are all in this together and all of us will suffer if sharia flattens the world.

To my fellow American we must put aside our differences with Europe, it is in our common interest to help the Europeans save themselves.

Faced with evil of sharia and Islamic conquest we have no choice if we are to survive.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 19, 2006 10:05 PM

We must work together it's true. However, that does not mean that we will discontinue expressing our opinions and vehemently fighting against those battling us, whether Moslem or otherwise.

Mr. Spencer, what about people like these: http://www.godhatesamerica.com and http://www.godhatesfags.com?

I am sure these folks are receptive to our message here. They doubtless don't like Islam. But do you expect me to work with Chrisitianists like them? They call for my death. I call for their incarceration. Would you work with such folks? And while we are discussing it, I'd like to know just how these people differ from the Talibs. Allies?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at May 19, 2006 10:15 PM

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether there may be a problem in gaining the support of Protestant religious conservatives (I'll call them "Evangelicals" for short). This is a not insubstantial proportion of the population (it is, of course, in recent decades a significant portion of the "base" of the Republical party).

The Evangelical political movement has had a rather limited set of agendas. These have focussed around respect for the religious heritage of America and the promotion of what I will call "public righteousness". The principal "pr" concerns have been the restriction of abortion and the avoidance of civil approval of homosexuality. The recent emphasis on protection of marriage is an example of the latter.

The worrisome thing is that this is quite parallel to aspects the Islamist agenda. I am tempted to wonder whether to some extent this may underlie the President's public approbation of Islam as a "great and good religion."

Given that Evangelicals feel increasingly threatened by the secularization of the public sphere in America, I wonder whether it may be that many of them will feel that they "don't have a dog in this fight." That would be unfortunate, since Dhimmi status would be worse than the marginalization that they would experience in a thoroughly secularized US.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 19, 2006 10:18 PM

Kafir,

Why are you sure they're receptive to our message here? Many such groups admire Islam for its alleged strength on moral issues.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 19, 2006 10:18 PM

Dhimmis of the world:

Actually, your analysis is way off the mark. In fact, Protestant Evangelicals have been among the most vocal and energetic foes of the Islamic jihad at a time when other Christian leaders and groups are still playing self-deceiving and self-defeating "dialogue" games.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 19, 2006 10:23 PM

Paul Weyrich's theory is right at very basic psychological level. To be unwilling to politically ally yourself with a person is to put someone beyond the possibility of social discourse and love. We should always be willing to love others.

On the other hand, political maturity means realizing that our permanent ally of years has ceased to make sense and we have to cut ourselves loose and go find other allies. I have experienced this recently. I used to be a leftist Democrat, but I now have many doubts. I no longer see the struggles of leftists as productive. I remain an anti-religious social liberal and an environmentalist, but other than that I have no use for the Democrat Party or the left. I changed my registration today to Republican. The Democratic stance on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill is just too much for me. The Democratic Senators could not even vote to make English our national language. (The mediocre George W also opposes English as a national language.) This unwillingness to defend American culture mirrors the European politics that have brought to Europe the peril of Islamic immigration.

In becoming Republican, I have accepted that I am allying myself somewhat with Pat Robertson and his followers. That is ok. There has always been an unresolved tension between people like me and Pat Robertson's followers, and I hope that there always be. If people like me are to continue our fight with people like Pat Robertson, we have to defeat a totalitarian cult that would eliminate both of us. I have come to the point where I actually enjoy arguing the Bible with Christians. And this is the key, the Christians are willing to argue back with logic, often faulty logic, but still they attempt logic and not violence. Under Muslim sharia, I would probably be brutally killed for similar activities, but the Christians rejoice that I know their holy book so well. At this point in history, the large bulk of Christians are also willing to treat their enemies with love and not to demonize them. There are, of course, counter-examples: Jerry Falwell circulating propaganda that President Clinton committed murder comes to mind. Still, the exceptions are relatively few. I enjoy reading the National Review in good conscience.

Posted by: Pediomelum

at May 19, 2006 10:24 PM

as a christian who reads the the bible from cover to cover.....and answers only to GOD....i can honesly say most of us are just normal people,who have no secret agendas....we are not green and we dont want to rule the world.the one we are promised is better.you may have this one.lol

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 19, 2006 10:27 PM

sorry...one more point...pat robertson does not speak for all christians...another myth...maybe just a nice tip...if people knew as much about REAL christians.....as they do about islam.the myths would stop.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 19, 2006 10:32 PM

Also, I would like to add that as a devout Catholic and conservative, I support Robert's work both on Jihadwatch and his many books.

This an open site whose which has many participants of deep conservative and Christian values, but it is open to reach all who realize the Islamic threat.

Robert's work in my estimation, has deep inspiration in Judeo-Christian belief, yet his appeal, one that I believe in, reaches for common cause for the worlds cultural survival.

We can keep our cherished beliefs and still join with others to fight the Jihad.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 19, 2006 10:34 PM

bravo El Cid

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 19, 2006 10:40 PM

OT to Kafir Nonbeliever,

"Christianists"-- I like that. Thank you for separating practicing (and more lax) Christians from the nuts out there who claim to be Christians, but are nothing more or less than haters.

I don't know if the word is of your own coinage, but I like it, and I'll remember it!

Now, if someone, ANYONE, can come up with something to call those of us men and women who can no longer be called "feminists" (largely due to Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi" crap, and the bad reputation of a feminist movement that has skidded way off the road) I would certainly be grateful! I'd kinda like to have a place to hang my hat, and it's not with the NOW crowd.

Posted by: Abscedere

at May 19, 2006 10:46 PM

The enemy within is also of utmost importance.
Churchill wrote about them in despair in the early thirties something like " it is not the enemy without that cause most concern. it is the enemy within. They are not those who live in modest cottages earning modest wages, but the academics and thinkers who whilst contibuting to our culture take away from our country's will to defend itself"

Things have gotten much worse since.

A new religion has emerged in western civiliasation. It's deity is MAN. or to be more precise Homo Liberalus.

Homo liberalus is the result of two thousand years of moral evolution. Its early disciples are the ninteenth and twentieth philosophers such as nietzche , marx or Sigmund Freud . more like fighting monks than passive philosophers they helped bring about the downfall of Judeo Christianity, which for better or worse had saved mankind during all those years from total self evisceration and moral corruption.
The New disciples reside not in the monastries and churches of christendom but in the ivory towers of academia. from here they have preached a conformism in the acceptance of man made philosophies and moralities as the new gospel.
Those who draw still their morals from religious faith are mere throwbacks to the age of neanderthals.
Those who do not worship at the altar of the new liberalism are the cause of all evil in the world.
We are in their eyes, "proto" liberals wno have not yet embraced their wisdom.

By making Man hinself our new deity, we have enabled the invasion of islam as never before in history. we have also paralysed our will to defend ourselves.
And we have forgotten that all the invasions of islam from Charlemagen to the gates of Vienna were successfully countered because of a firm bedrock of religious faith.

Posted by: chevalier de st george

at May 19, 2006 10:49 PM

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the information; I'm glad to hear it. But I'm not saying that there are no Evangelicals who understand the threat --- I am one such myself, though one of no consequence.

My concern is that faced with the option of A) Dhimmi status under a sharia that would accomplish many of the "public righteousness" objectives (legitimate objectives, and ones that I find reasonable) that the Evangelical political movement has been pursuing for decades or B) increasing marginalization in an increasingly secularized polity that disrespects all religion and publicly approves and even subsidizes things that Evangelicals regard as deeply wrong, it may be difficult to get a broad consensus among the Evangelical movement that Islam is all that worse than secularization. To adopt a biblical metaphor, Evangelicals may find themselves faced with the choice of living in Babylon or in a polity that resembles, in the severity of its civil sanctions, the Old Testament Israelitish theocracy. I think that many of them may prefer the theocracy.

I think that sharia would be a lot worse that secularization (and it does seem to me that these are the alternatives, for I do not foresee Christianity reasserting its historic cultural influence in the US in my lifetime), but I wonder whether it will look that way to the majority of the Evangelical movement.

I hope I'm wrong and will rejoice if events prove me to be mistaken about this.

Thanks for your work. I think that you are making a difference.

Sincerely yours,

Sam Conner

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 19, 2006 10:55 PM

"...I am confident Hirsi Ali will never try to murder me."

The same can be said about Baptists, Catholics, Hindus ,Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Confucianists, Jews, and even Scientologists and on and on and on .... I don't know of a single religion that has murder and mayhem as it's central theme for keeping people in line.

If Mr. Auster's house is ever on fire he better make sure that the firefighter is a good Christian Republican. We don't want no Catholics or Jews rescuing Protestants.

Posted by: Pelayo

at May 19, 2006 11:04 PM

I should have written: "a single religion other than Mohammedanism."

Posted by: Pelayo

at May 19, 2006 11:07 PM

chevalier de st george, I agree very much, religious faith has saved the West in the past. For many a deep religious faith will help.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 19, 2006 11:09 PM

"There are two categories of people in the world, those who constantly divide the people of the world into two classes, and those who do not."

Robert Benchley wrote that. I'm with him, I'm definitely on his side. Yes, I agree with Robert Benchley 100%, and I do so 100% of the time. Oops, sorry, I just realized I can't be with him, can't be on his team. You see, if I choose his side (even if in some sense both deeper and higher I am with him, which makes it hard not to be with him even in a shallower and lower sense) then I'd be placing myself in the category of those who do what he does, dividing the people of the world into two classes. And I'm in the category of people who don't want to be on the dividing side of that divide. So I'm not with him, after all, or have decided to think that I think that I can't be, but on the other hand one wants so much to be on Robert Benchley's team. Who wouldn't want to be on a team captained by someone who titled one of his books "David Copperfield, or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea"?

Roundheads or Cavaliers, Guelfs or Ghibellines, La Montagne ou La Gironde, Bolsheviki ili Mensheviki, los Blancos o los Colorados, Little-Enders or Big-Enders, clerics or anti-clericals, Tories or Whigs, Brobdignagians or Lilliputians, conservatives or liberals, Shakespeareans or Oxfordians, formal or free versifiers, Keats or Shelley, Browning or Tennyson, Dickens or Thackeray, Marie Boroff or Max Beloff, Jean Seznec ou Jean Starobinski, Alexandre Kojeve or Alexandre Koyre, Dos Equis or Kirin, burgundy or bordeaux, beggars or choosers, le cru ou le cuit, Eve or Lilith, Mars or Venus, Scylla or Charybdis, Devil or the Deep Blue Sea, David Copperfield or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, All or Nothing At All.

Decisions, decisions.

Before making those decisions, a break is called for. Nights in the great outdoors. Plain living and high thinking. A la belle etoile. Lungs full of fresh air. The sound of crickets at night. The chirm of birds in the morning. So it's Tenting Tonight on the Old Camp Ground. But with whom? Pitch a lean-to with the one or possibly two Little-Tenters who completely agree with you, and whom you can stand, even though the Jihadists might come down in the night like a wolf on the fold? Or, instead, help pitch a much larger tent, and share its ample space, its mosquito netting, its sturdy poles, with a dozen or more Big-Tenters? Just now, it might make all kinds of sense, beginning with the common kind, to camp out with those Big-Tenters.

Posted by: Hugh

at May 19, 2006 11:11 PM

I have read sentiments similar to Auster's on Paul Belien's Brussels Journal. (At least I think that's where Belien is camping.)

As a (fading) Democrat I would like to make common cause with people like Belien (Auster seems too far out for hope) but Belien too seems to want to roll back the clock to 1788 so that we can bow and scrape before Louis XVI in a pre-enlightenment bliss. Whether he wants allies or he wants to be right (no pun) I am not sure.

As I have grown older, I have found that aggravating as it may be, it is wisest to take one's allies where one finds them -- or else they may be lost entirely, and with them the battle.

Posted by: Raw Data

at May 19, 2006 11:15 PM

We can keep our cherished beliefs and still join with others to fight the Jihad.
Posted by: El Cid at May 19, 2006 10:34 PM

I heartily agree El Cid I am a scientist with my own relationship to the more esoteric aspects of existence, but through Robert Spencers tireless work I have come to appreciate the important role that people from all backgrounds can play in combating the global jihad and dawa.

I would also like to add El Cid that you sell your self short when diminishing your written contribution to this site (see your first post). It always makes me happy when I see your handle at the bottom of a post and I have yet to see a post that isn’t thoughtful or accurate.

In addition I would like to say that through discourse with fellow JWers I have had my eyes opened to a number of different view points and opinions. A few years ago I maybe would have cringed at the thought of agreeing with those of a more religious persuasion, but now I find myself enjoying their scriptural input to the threads. (storagemanager and others keep it up).

We are involved in a fight to the death and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder if we are to overcome this beast.

Posted by: km

at May 19, 2006 11:18 PM

Islam soured any fondness I used to have for any religion.

I've noticed that muslims love to attack christianity when confronted with the truth about their religion.

Honestly though - how can one hold that the supposed respect for human dignity that is inherent in 'judeo-christianity' has any validity when it is derived from their god?

To debunk the morality of 'judeo-christinaity', muslims need only debunk the god behind it.

Thankfully, humans are endowed with inalienable rights - rights not given to them by any god or ideology or dogma - rights they posses for simply being born.

Muslims cannot argue against the inherent rights of man to be free, to live, and to seek happiness. And it is these rights which they fear the most - not some muddled concept like 'judeo-christianity'.

In fact, they very much see that our judeo-christian society has decayed almost completely, and to them that means we are weak.

Of course it is false - the west is not weak. If a small country like Isreal can defeat several arab armies simultaniously, we are definitely not weak.

We just have to reaffirm our values, stand for them, and not compromise with, or appease, those who threaten our freedom.

Posted by: Todd

at May 19, 2006 11:21 PM

For non Americans out there, please disregard the following:

Raw Data, I too was a Democrat. I am a registered Republican now, but hardly agree with my current party either. On fiscal issues, I am staunchly Rep, so I became a Rep. However, I would like to see the Dems move to where they need to be, but I doubt they will. This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Neither party really delivers at this point.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM

Muslims cannot argue against the inherent rights of man to be free, to live, and to seek happiness....

Posted by: Todd at May 19, 2006 11:21 PM

I am not to sure about that Todd they seem to be doing a pretty good job at the moment.

Posted by: km

at May 19, 2006 11:26 PM

I'm willing to make common cause with religious people to defeat the jihad.

Not because I believe in god -- but because I believe in freedom of conscience.

Posted by: Hyman Roth

at May 19, 2006 11:26 PM

thank you Km, I am grateful that through this site and many others I can stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow brothers at arms.

If we unite we will all survive, and maybe a silver-lining to all this will be a greater understanding of one's self.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 19, 2006 11:30 PM

This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM

I am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months.

The war is comming and it will be here soon, to be flanking a potential adversary the way we are with men and equipment already in place is something that shouldnt be overlooked. We just need to be patient. I like you want to get this thing over and done with.

The world needs to take its medicine now before the disease gets worse. What will be an injustice to the world is if GW Bush turns out to be nothing more than a corporate stooge who led the US into Iraq for nothing more than financial kick backs to his Haliburton buddies.

Time will tell.

Posted by: km

at May 19, 2006 11:35 PM

To continue my gloomy line of thinking, if one were to poll a large sample of Evangelicals today and ask them what they think the greatest threat facing the American people today is, without prompting them, I think that you would get answers like this:

* the deterioration of morality
* the collapse of the institution of marriage
* the exclusion of God from public discourse and from the schools

and to a lesser extent:

* the overextension of our shrinking military
* deteriorating federal finances
* "terrorism"

I'm glad to know that there are Evangelical leaders in the fight against the global jihad, but from where I sit in the Evangelical "echo chamber", it doesn't appear to me that the jihad is high on the list of concerns of most leaders, though it underlies some of them. Perhaps that will change.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 19, 2006 11:41 PM

Well said km...
I am not sure how it will all unfold but our strategic position is much better than say 1996,1986,1976.

Posted by: tgusa

at May 19, 2006 11:43 PM

Dhimmisoftheworld

I assume you mean 'is not high on the list of concerns'.

Posted by: km

at May 19, 2006 11:43 PM

A very fine thread indeed. I've been thinking that our problem is mainly in identifying our enemies. It seems that whenever I engage a more liberal person in a discussion about the war on terrorism they immediatly launch into a diatribe about all the ills of the administration, all the mistakes it's made (both real and imagined) and the standard liberal talking points and I at one point interrupt and say "O.K. I agree. The Bush administration is as f?@ed up as a foolball bat." After the smelling salts I continue: "Do you think our disagreements matter to a terrorist?"
The point being that we Americans need to pull together...to put our differences aside to fight the common enemy. Lest he kill us while we quibble.

Yes, I'll admit that our nation has made a few mistakes. (many, many, many mistakes) But having admitting this I certianly don't propose we offer our heads to atone.

I believe that we as Americans have lost the awareness of what a real war is. Few would debate that ending the Nazi regeme was a good thing. And yet we fire-bombed Dresden. Because war is a dirty, inhuman activity. But we did it, and so many other things because the cause was just. And sadly, the end justified the means. Americans should realize that self-preservation is a just cause.

Posted by: jamsler

at May 19, 2006 11:51 PM

tgusa

Absolutely, we are in a strategic position that is to be envied. We have subdued Afghanistan, something the USSR was unable to do and no matter how you look at Iraq and how tragic the deaths are that occur in the current campaign. The simple fact of the matter is that in terms of a war the casualties we are sustaining there are minimal.

However like I said earlier if the current administration fails to follow through on the campaign that has been started it will be a bigger tragedy than the appeasement of Hitler when he marched into the Sudetanland.

However I am of the opinion that should the US fail to act, Israel will. This will force the US into the ensuing conflict. But with that caveat in mind I think a conflict initiated by the Israelis will be much worse for world than one initiated by the US.

Posted by: km

at May 19, 2006 11:55 PM

jamsler...
we fire-bombed Dresden...
We are not quite there yet.
Keep spreading the word!!!
Soooon...

Posted by: tgusa

at May 19, 2006 11:55 PM

Km, yes time will tell, I think that the next year will be critical.

I feel that the pressure worldwide is building and a clash is coming soon.

God help us, and we will really need allies when it does happen.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 19, 2006 11:56 PM

Hi km,

Yes, I goofed; thanks.

I think that the jihad is **not** high on the list of their concerns.

I think that one can gauge what the leadership (by "leadership" I mean the public voices that dominate Evangelical discourse, the Dobsons, Colsons, the leaders of the largest churches that have large media ministries) of the Evangelical movement considers to be most important by what they spend their time talking about. And it appears to me that for the great majority of these people, their public "air" time is devoted to two things: mobilizing Evangelicals for evangelistic ministry and mobilizing them to reassert Christian influence in the culture. Both very good things from my perspective.

Recently a bunch of prominent Evangelical leaders got together to issue a statement on global warming, urging that that this be taken more seriously before its consequences are too severe. That too is great.

Will similar coalitions of promiment leaders emerge to call the US government to understand the religious motivations and justifications of our terrorist opponents, or to reconfigure our economy to be less reliant on petroleum, or to stop propping up basket case Islamic economies? Individuals have done so, but I am aware of no emerging consensus that this is a matter of highest concern. When that does happen, if it happens, I will concede that the Evangelical movement is waking up to the threat.

But at present, the jihad is not prominent in their concerns.

That is how it appears to me.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 19, 2006 11:59 PM

The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false. Christ preached individual enlightenment. Modern liberals are Marxists, pure and simple. They subscribe to the herd mentality, and are ruled by fear.

Posted by: robert108

at May 20, 2006 12:03 AM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite...
Circa 1975...
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,946527,00.html

Posted by: tgusa

at May 20, 2006 12:04 AM

"I used to be a leftist Democrat, but I now have many doubts. I no longer see the struggles of leftists as productive. I remain an anti-religious social liberal and an environmentalist, but other than that I have no use for the Democrat Party or the left. I changed my registration today to Republican." Quoted above..

Pediome;

I can relate in many ways. I find myself in the Christians camp, and think we should be good keepers of the earth. I refuse to join a "party", but would vote for those who share a common ideal.

In finding others who share in seeing the threat Islam issues, all should be welcome to assist in the fight.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1

at May 20, 2006 12:06 AM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite .

I think

* the deterioration of morality
* the collapse of the institution of marriage
* the exclusion of God from public discourse and from the schools
* the overextension of our shrinking military
* deteriorating federal finances
* "terrorism"

I would also add

* immigration
* corruption both personal and institutional
* weakness of the worlds financial system and the consumer 's indebtedness.

are all important to me. They all contribute to the weakness of our civilization to the Islamic assault,

But top on my list is the Jihad, both soft (Da'wa) and hard (terrorism). It is the most important thing right now.

The coming conflict maybe so server that it will ether shake us out of our complacency to survival or destroy the future of our grandchildren.

Time will tell.

Posted by: El Cid

at May 20, 2006 12:15 AM

an old country saying...the pot is on boil...and will boil over soon...even if i put my bible aside and use logic i see that...but i have a book that has been right on so far-about everything that has happened.good night.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 20, 2006 12:20 AM

km... You seem to be up on the latest.... Ever heard of Able Danger?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=ableDanger

Posted by: tgusa

at May 20, 2006 12:25 AM

A final thought before I call it a night.

It appears to me that there is a strand of apocalypticism in a substantial portion the Evangelical movement that regards with a measure of equanimity the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. Since 1948 and the establishment (or re-establishment) of Israel, there has been a great deal of Evangelical speculation in print and pulpit that the end of this age and the return of Christ may be near. The "Left Behind" book and movie series is a reflection of this. Its popularity may be a measure of the breadth of this opinion within the Evangelical movement.

Not all Evangelicals embrace this view and there are many, particularly in the more Reformed/presbyterian wing of the movement, who vigorously reject it. But it is nonetheless a pretty widespread view.

The point I wish to make is that this view has "policy implications." If you expect to be "raptured" before the final calamity, you may be less concerned with opposing the calamity and more concerned with evangelizing as many people as possible before it happens. If you think that these events presage the return of Christ (in agreement, curiously, with Shiites such as Mr. Ahmedinejad), you may welcome rather than fear them.

I point this out not to criticize christian brothers and sisters who hold these opinions about the meaning of current world events, but to note another reason why it may be difficult to arouse many Evangelicals to concern about and vigorous activity against the jihad.

I hope that I am completely mistaken.

It's late and I must to bed.

I wish all of you well.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 20, 2006 12:25 AM

Lawrence Auster says

"Leaving aside quibbles..."

...which is precisely what he doesn't do. I find the contents of his writing on Spencer and Hirsi Ali to be poorly-researched, ill-conceived, and pointless.

Nevertheless, we should not waste too much time on him. As Churchill said (to the effect that) 'If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks, you'll never reach your destination.'

Posted by: Archimedes

at May 20, 2006 12:26 AM

But top on my list is the Jihad, both soft (Da'wa) and hard (terrorism). It is the most important thing right now.

El Cid

All too true check out the parallel between todays current events and Nazi Germany I got this link from LGF. Well worth watching.

http://www.archive.org/details/TheNazisStrike

Posted by: km

at May 20, 2006 12:27 AM

I'm with you 90% Robert. The problem with your equation is the one element you failed to mention, the multicultural-Left. They are NOT ostensible or even prospective allies in this war for civilization.

The agenda of the multiculturalists is the antithesis of our own, premised on that one outstanding issue, cultural relativism. It is nothing short of a crippling impediment to an honest exposition of Islamic intolerance in our societal discvourse and perhaps our greatest obstacle to a successful defense of the West.

Posted by: Cornelius

at May 20, 2006 12:28 AM

Hugh,

it seems that you overlooked a couple in your list, blondes or brunettes and cowboys or indians.

Posted by: Dan

at May 20, 2006 12:45 AM

tgusa,

I am aware of Able Danger and I am disgusted by the whole affair. I first heard about on the Savage nation. I try not to think about it too much and just hope those we have elected will do the right thing when push comes to shove. And as far as I am concerned the pushing has already started,

Dhimmisoftheworld.

You have a good night.

Archimedes.

You can always rely on Churchill to keep you moving in the right direction. I am sure Robert doesnt take such attacks too personally. Good to see a post from you by the way I havent seen that many from you recently.

Posted by: km

at May 20, 2006 12:54 AM

Dan aka moron...
That would be "on your list".
Blondes,Brunettes,Cowboys and Indians

Posted by: tgusa

at May 20, 2006 12:59 AM

Mr. Spencer, Hugh, Rebecca,

Anybody but intolerant religious fanatics bent on dominating the world with their cramped, self-righteous vision of the "divine" is my ally in this battle.

I'll take anyone who fights against the jihadists (who fit the first category, along with some rare cranks in every 'faith', whether "Christian Identity" nutjobs or Aum Shinriki murderers) and I will watch their backs loyally in the global foxhole that Islamic Imperialism has driven us all into.

Only fools argue about immaterial irrelevancies when a horde of homicidal maniacs is bearing down on your position.

They can examine the heads of pins later, once the war is won.

The dancing angels will wait.

Keep your wit and powder dry.

It's the jihad, stupid!

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 20, 2006 1:20 AM

A single dog can not kill a bear, but a pack of dogs can wear the bear down and kill it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Europe has to face the problem of tens of millions of mos spread across Europe just as America has to face the problem of tens of millions of illegals in America.

If Europe and America do not address the fifth column armies within their borders, it will be virtually impossible to unite and defeat islam except by use of nuclear weapons.

-----------------
Read the following. It is interesting.

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
-----------------

America can defeat islam by use of nuclear weapons and survive a nuclear war, but not as the America that we know today.

World wide war is coming with islam, will the world be ready??? Will the war be nuclear???

It is better to live in a diminished world free than to live in a whole and properous world as a slave under islam.

God bless America and the free nations of the world and give us your strength and might to win this war.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

Posted by: Texican

at May 20, 2006 1:28 AM

The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false
Absolutely on the Button Robert!
The loose held moralities of secularist thinking can never replace the deep held faith in morality instilled by religion.
Man has not yet evolved to a state when such transformations can be made.
A devout christian priest is offered money by islamists to promote islamism- does he accept the bribe?
A wordly secular journalist is made the same offer- how does his conscience react to it?

Posted by: chevalier de st george

at May 20, 2006 1:34 AM

Chevalier de St George-

A supposed 'Christian' like Bill Clinton or Al Gore is made a big offer to slander the West for petrodollars given by Islamicists who want them to do a "speech" (in Dubai or Riyad). What do they do? (We know the answer already. The checks are in the bank.)

While an agnostic like myself would tell them where to shove each dollar, one by one.

Because they're coming after me long before they're coming for ANY "Person of the Book".

It ain't the "faith" of the person, but the character.

All devout Muslims have "faith" coming out the wazoo.

And I'll take my dogs, who are faithful but know nothing of "gods", over these sanctimonious theocratic beasts who are so monotheistic they'll kill you.

Religions come and go, but good hearts prevail.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at May 20, 2006 2:54 AM

The question was "Should one ally with those with whom one disagrees?"

And that, of course, depends on what the nature of the disagreement is about. Reading the majority of comments here only confirms the truism of "the blind leading the blind." Mr. Spencer should know better.

Mr. Auster is correct. Mr. Spencer is wrong. I appeal not to anyone's human and therefore frail intellect but instead to a higher Authority. What fellowship hath light with darkness?

Ms. Hirsi Ali is a devout atheist and an abortionist and so is the Evil One. I suppose Mr. Spencer would afford place to him as well.

Posted by: Julia

at May 20, 2006 2:55 AM

This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM
I am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months. Posted by: km

Reading Kafir's entire message, I get the impression that "This party" means the Democrats, the "war that we didn't need to go" was Kosovo, and now won't take us to war against Iran - is again the Democrats. On the last, I don't see either party rooting for war, probably gun shy after the Iraq WMD fiasco.

That's the problem. If one believes that WMD was the reason to take out Saddam, as this administration continously advertized, then the pro-Saddam crowd is right. But if one believes that the reason to take out Saddam was his increasing support for Islamic forces, be it Hamas, or appeal to Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia against US troop presence, or even his potential ties to al Qaeda, then none of the pretexts would have been needed.

I agree with Kafir, and am somewhat surprised that he tends to lean more GOP than Dem, but that's a view most Libertarians would take. I do wish that beyond opposing Gay marriage, the GOP wouldn't take strident anti-Gay stands, like anti-civil-union.

While he is at liberty to advocate athiesm as an alternative to Islam (and religion worldwide), I, despite being practically an agnostic, don't see any precedent of a country with a strong athiestic tradition, holding its own against Islam (or for that matter, any religion). This does not imply that it's impossible; it's just that in the absense of any precedent, it's just not a conclusion one can safely arrive at. Even Communism, which was strictly enforced in the Soviet Union and China, failed to suppress religion, and following the break-up of the USSR, one sees a return to religion in most of the Soviet republics.

The example of the Muslim dominated republics is instructive. First of all, Azerbaijan - Shia but Turkic, leans towards Ankara, while in Tajikistan, Sunni but Farsi, Radio Teheran is their inspiration (how's that for a scary thought?) Then in Uzbegistan, any public display of Islam - including beards - is suppressed, and in Turkmenistan, President Niyazov has been running his own personality cult, a la Kemal Ataturk. Kyrghizstan, the most liberal of these countries, recently overthrew its regime, and it would be interesting to see whether they become more Islamized. Only in Kazakhstan, where Muslims are narrowly a minority (a plurality only if one splits the Russian orthodox and Protestant), does it look like a secular tradition can prevail, since one has competing Kazakh and Russian interests.

The way I tend to see it, atheism (and even more so agnosticism, even though I am mainly a Hindu agnostic) is equivalent to what in Physics would be considered an unstable equilibrium. A stable equilibrium would be a nation/culture that possesses and is fiercely protective of its religious heritage - be it Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhist,... heritage: such a nation not only can, but historically has successfully kept Islam out of its culture - be it the French of Charles Martel's era, the Poles at Vienna, the Rajputs against India's Muslim sultans, while former secular communist regimes, like South Yemen, Iraq, became more Islamic as soon as an authoritarian secular regime came down. In fact, if Kemal Ataturk, in addition to replacing Arabic with Roman for Turkey's script, had replaced Islam with Christianity, instead of his own cult, we wouldn't be witnessing the morbid specter of Turkey slowly reverting to Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at May 20, 2006 3:17 AM

This party took us to war when we didn't need to go, and now won't take us to war when we need to go (Iran)! It is making me furious. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 19, 2006 11:25 PM
I am not so sure Kafir, I still believe that the territorial advantage we have gained in ME with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan will stand us in good stead in the comming months. Posted by: km

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at May 20, 2006 3:17 AM

Tgura, what was that all about?

Hugh was simply throwing out some famous and historical clashes, like the Yankees and the Red Sox, Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. If you thought my attempt at a witticism didn't cut it, fine, but if you're ready to toss of an insult for an irrelevancy.........

Posted by: Dan

at May 20, 2006 3:29 AM

The problem with the Christian disapproval of secularism is that it is framed as though the comparison were between two entities of the same order: but they are not even as different as apples and oranges: it's more like Christianity is apples and secularism is the fruit section of the supermarket, or the supermarket itself, or the entire infrastructure of transportation, building construction, plumbing, employment, union rules, and laws surrounding the apples being offered for selection.

I.e., secularism has evolved as the overarching sociopolitical structure in which freedom of religion (among all the other freedoms) finds its security. There are unavoidable prices to pay for this freedom and security: the social and political landscape perforce becomes -- as much as possible -- free from specific religious regulations, and therefore religious people (of whatever stripe) find themselves discomfitted by the relative absence of religiousity in the larger body politic. With all the secularization that occurs, and it is an evolving, increasing process (America in 2006 is far more secular than it was in 1956, in turn far more secular than it was in 1856, etc.), there is yet an amorphous "civil religion" between the lines, behind the spirit of many of our civil laws, directly or indirectly derived from our Judaeo-Christian heritage (as well as from more diffuse religiousity emanating out of classical Rome and Greece -- Cicero, who influenced our Founding Fathers, was not a Christian, but was hardly an atheist).

The bottom line: secularism as an overarching paradigm is here to stay, and here to continue evolving. Christians have been taught a difficult lesson over the past 300 years (accelerating with each passing generation): they had to dismantle their theocracy, one brick at a time. This is a lesson that can lead them back to the original humility that made them great and superior to Muslims. In a secular system based on human rights as is the modern West, Christians remain free, respected, secure and equal in rights -- a constant cultural reservoir maintaining a belief-system always open to invite the atheists and agnostics around them to come on in and consider the Gospel.

(I do have caveats about that "respected" part: the cavalier and insouciant ridicule of Christianity by popular secular culture is not a pretty pill to swallow, I imagine, but that's unfortunately part of the excesses that can accompany an overall context of freedoms.)

Posted by: Television

at May 20, 2006 4:12 AM

Hugh said

Or, instead, help pitch a much larger tent, and share its ample space, its mosquito netting, its sturdy poles, with a dozen or more Big-Tenters? Just now, it might make all kinds of sense, beginning with the common kind, to camp out with those Big-Tenters.

Now there's an idealism that I haven't heard for several decades. Imagine that, sharing a tent with people that you might disagree with on some or another subject. Imagine accepting the validity of an opinion with which one wholeheartedly disagrees. What was that antiquated phrase, "Quot homines tot sententiae"?

Are there any Big-Tenter manufacturers left? I thought they either converted to Single-Tenters or closed up shop years ago.

Personally, I'll be tenting with the SO and two mini-special_guests at jihadless Lake Tahoe. Hope all you JW/DW posters can save the world without me, for a week anyways.

Posted by: special_guest

at May 20, 2006 4:16 AM

“The problem is multifaceted. There are groups within the wider Christian movement that might prefer the triumph of Islam to the triumph of secularism.”

Thank you, D-e. I would also include other religious groups, not only Christian.
Many times on this site I have pointed out that our fight against Islam from any religious position is doomed. To me it is like someone with only one eye is making a joke about someone who has only one arm.
There is also a problem for a Christian to criticize someone who is not, but also a man of faith. Most religious people instinctively feel that there is a line and beyond that line there is a hidden danger to the ones faith.
There is a lot in common between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is why we see representative of all three religions meeting and discussing different topics of faith. Rabbis are the only Israeli citizens invited to Muslim countries. Priests of different Christian denominations are going back and forth to meet their Muslim colleges. Muslims do view Jews and Christians differently from Buddhists, Hindus and others the like.
All that makes our fight with Islam far more difficult. It does not matter what some of us call Islam (cult, political movement and so on), IT IS A RELIGION!

I am an Atheist, but I will not criticize Islam from that position. We all entitled to our own views. It is just too often that the people on this site get even abusive, though the object of such abuse is also anti-Islamic.
If we want to pull in the same direction, we have to abandon things like “my religion is better then yours”, quotations from The Bible with implications that it is the only word of truth and call Islam a cult and Allah a moon god.
And for my Jewish friends – Israel has an historical and moral right to exist. It does not need anything more to justify her existence. Come to me with that and I give you all support I can.

I have relatives and friends, who are Christians of different denominations, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims – none and I intend to keep it this way. Yet, I strongly oppose anyone who calls for indiscriminate killing of Muslims. In the same time watching a documentary about Beslan, I could not feel anything but contempt for the men, crying about their lost children.

Mr. Spencer,
Some of your short strokes like “Babelish…” tell us even more about what kind of intellectual capacity you posses. Thank you, sir.

An enemy of my enemy – is my friend, but not all of my friends I would take to a fight.

Posted by: pong

at May 20, 2006 5:26 AM

dhimmisoftheworld wrote:The "Left Behind" book and movie series is a reflection of this.....i wish that book had never been written or t.v.pasters who want to sell you books about how to pray for money....makes christians look foolish or crazy...but that is greed...and greed has nothing to do with GOD.the danger in the left behind book is that now people look to europe for some kind of slick anti-christ.when islam is the enemy and has been all along.thank you...two cents from the christian nutjob.

Posted by: storagemanager

at May 20, 2006 7:48 AM

Politics --- not partisan politics, but real politics--- has complexity. It has economic theory, various historical ideologies, culture, ethnicity & race, social theory, religion & morality, approaches on how to govern, behavioral theory, environmentalism, you name it.

Politics is not so much a specific set of beliefs, but an amalgamation of several subsets of beliefs packaged into an intellectual or electoral presentation.

So, with all these complex belief systems running around, everybody is able to disagree with everybody all the time. Except with one belief system: Islam. That one is monolithic, remorseless, unforgiving, fearless, and above all relentless.

While so many writers like Auster fiddle, civilization burns. That’s hardly conservative as I understand the ideology. Idiot.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at May 20, 2006 9:37 AM

This is a fine speech, Robert. I just hope you remain a tolerant, secular gentleman after the Jihad is defeated ... if it ever is. I notice that the Greek Orthodox Chruch isn't to0 keen on the pagan revival in Greece:

http://tinyurl.com/nexlc

Long live Zeus of the might thunderbolt and Athena of the grey eyes!

Posted by: Benjamin

at May 20, 2006 10:53 AM

I think that this thread has illustrated that there is an enormous diversity of opinion even among people who mostly "see together" with regard to the fact that traditional Islam is a menace. People hailing from different philosophical or religious perspectives have different senses of what a "good" society would look like, and for that reason different grounds for being alarmed by the resurgence of Islam. And some participants have mutually incompatible senses of what a "good" society would look like and so regard each other with a measure of suspicion or even hostility.

Thus, a post above rejects alliance with Hirsi Ali because her social liberalism includes a permissive attitude toward abortion, which many forum participants (myself included) consider to be indistinguishable from murder, a grievous evil. Another post expresses (what appears to me to be) unwillingness to stand with opponents of Islam who have their own, though different, vision of a theocratic society, and for understandable reasons. A few posts back suggests that anti-Islam cannot be soundly grounded in any religious position --- that approach devolves to an argument about whose revelation is more authoritative and whose vision of theocracy preferable, longstanding disagreements which are unlikely to be resolved in our lifetimes. Even closer is a post that expresses hope that after the jihad is defeated (if that is to be), that the christians will not take the place of the Islamists.

The different points of view have different reasons for fearing and opposing Islamic resurgence.

* libertarians don't want theocracy of any flavor, and so don't want Islam

* Christians from the Eastern churches have experienced or witnessed Dhimmitude and don't want more of that.

* Jews, whether religious or secular, may face extermination if Islam triumphs

* North American Evangelicals, for whom a prime agenda is fulfillment of the Evangelistic Mandate of Jesus (the "great commission" of Matthew 28), may feel secure in their own persons and churches for the forseeable future, but the progress of Islam threatens to shut down the mission enterprise and to destroy Evangelical communions already established in regions immediately threatened by the growth of Islam.

Doubtless there are other points of view; I haven't mentioned a stereotypical Western Catholic position as I'm not sure what that would be.

Can these disparate perspectives work together? Robert and Hugh are appealing for that.

Robert and Hugh have been thinking and writing strategically for years, aiming to raise general awareness of the threat of Islam resurgent. Perhaps it is time to begin particularizing the arguments to individual subgroups: "Why Evangelicals should take the Islamist threat seriously", "Why Islam is the greatest threat to the multicultural Left" and so on. Each of these topics merits a book-length treatment. Are there experts out there who understand these constituencies well and who also appreciate the threat and who would be willing to do this?

A final question, which I think Robert and Hugh consider best left off the table in view of the present emergency, but which is clearly in plain sight in much of the preceding, is "can we agree on what a 'post-Jihad' world ought to be?" An early post suggested the rubric "freedom of conscience." I suspect that this question will not go away. And perhaps it is worth keeping in sight and grappling with, in a spirit of patience and humility.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

at May 20, 2006 12:23 PM

e pluribus unum

Posted by: Hyman Roth

at May 20, 2006 9:52 PM

The assertion that modern liberalism is a secular version of Christianity is ridiculously false. Christ preached individual enlightenment. Modern liberals are Marxists, pure and simple. They subscribe to the herd mentality, and are ruled by fear. Posted by: robert108

Pure unadulterated bullmanure Robert, spoken by an ignoramus out of pure brainwash and propaganda.
And even if true, we should be wooing Marxists, as the anti Jihad needs every soldier and ally it can muster.

My personal history. I voted for Nixon against JFK, considered JFK a commie and my last vote cast was in '64 for Goldwater, despite that I poured all of my disposable income into the campaign of Ronald Reagan, only to discover I had been betrayed and misled, as Republicans and conservatives have been misled and betrayed today. I no longer vote, (not even third party) as there is no one who has my trust or confidence.
And today I consider myself a liberal, even somewhat (not totally) leftist, but still and anti Marxist, in fact the Socialist International heralds some of the big names of "conservativism" and capitalism, like Tony Blair, Dubya's partner in crime.

But talking of Marxism. The Phrase "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" was coined by Louis le Blanc, not Marx, and it is a paraphrase of Jesus. And No I am not a communist, too damn selfish and cynical about humanity to be one.

Communism in the Bible

Matt 19:21: 'Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.'

Acts 2:44-45

All the believers together had everything in common; they sold their possessions and their goods, and distributed among all in accordance with each one's need

Acts 4:32-35
The Believers Share Their Possessions

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira

And by the way Cornelus not all of the Left is muticulturalist, however bear in mind that political correctness and multicultural acceptance has been to the advantage of Jews and preceding European immigrants. Eastern Europeans, Jews, Irish, Italians, Swedes, etc have all benefitted from multiculturalism,
I guess you never heard of the Know Nothings or the Nativist movements of the 19th and early 20th Century.

It was Multiculturalism that enabled at least some of my great grandparents to enter and assimiliate they were German Jews.

Sadly De Chevalier, Cornelius and Robert108 are so eat up with their own ape of Islam ideations of self righteous purity, that they and those like them will eventually result in the victory of Islam, simply because their rigid self righteous and intransigent attitudes turn off any and all erstwhile allies.. in fact I am an ally that really does get down in the mud fighting Jihad and Dhimmi's, and De Chevalier, Cornelius and Robert108 turn me off.

Go ahead pretend you are a Knights Templar, remember what happened to them at the Horns of Hattin and on Friday 13, October 1307.

Posted by: Nariz

at May 21, 2006 12:43 AM

I do not know if this will be read. Why do we have so many names ? 'Liberals', and 'Leftists'. I can be anything, but it should be practical, pragmatic, and ,of course, human. I assume by 'leftists' we mean communists. Well, one only has to see that this system has failed utterly. If God wanted all men to be equal, there would be perfect births all around. No stillborn babies. (Commies, please substitute 'Nature' in place of 'God'. Even you cannot deny Mother Nature). So, we are down to individualism. I know that to respect creations, and creation can be anything from a poem to the mighty pyramids or a medical system, anything that works, is basic common sense. THAT is what we all need. Just a dose of basic common sense. I need not be a Christian to appreciate the tranquillity in St. John's Church near my home. I can just go there and sit in the quiet. And it makes me feel good. The good Father sometimes invites me for tea, and we often have discussions. And I need not worship Ra, the Sun God. But I can look in wonder and marvel at the creation of His followers, the mighty pyramids. And I might detest being fat, but I can respect the Sumo fighter for being what he is, a follower of an ancient system that creates fighters. I think abortion is murder, but I know if pregnancy endangers the mother's life, I will not think so. I do not like gays, for I think that they are violating the very fundamentals of Nature. But, that does not mean that I go around shooting gays. I know that Nature does not make all alike, maybe the gays have something that is not part of the general make up of us humans. So I bear with them. And I request them to bear with me. I do not know what label or category I fall under. I personally like to think it as an ordinary human being.

Posted by: arjun.sevak

at May 21, 2006 5:31 AM

As someone who reads Auster daily and has linked to his articles and posts here on a number of occasions, I have to say that I was mightily disappointed to see him attack Mr Spencer as he did. It especially struck me as absurd for him to call Spencer a neocon given Spencer's position all along that we cannot possibly democratize the Muslim world. I'm afraid that Spencer's characterization of Auster as a "misanthrope" has some validity. Other words that come to mind are crotchety and curmudeonly. Whether or not Auster recognizes Spencer or Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq as allies in his own fight, however, I will continue to think of Auster as one of strongest anti-jihadist voices out there. Only when I link to his stuff in the future, there will be just a tiny bit of personal distaste in my mouth.

Posted by: Caroline

at May 21, 2006 9:55 AM

Nariz formerly known as Giaour

Has not, Mr Spencer asked you on more than one occasion to take your lame anti-Christian “moral equivalent” arguments else where?

Is it your “high moral standards” that keep you coming back, or lack thereof?

As much as you like to pretend, we Christians are not “self righteous”, we are saved by Grace through faith, so that NO MAN can boost.

Me giving of my things to others is not “self-righteous”, it is unselfishness, the complete opposite of what you suggest.

Here is an example of what a “self-righteous” Christians sings

Who is this King of Glory that persues me with his love
And haunts me with each hearing of His softly spoken words
My conscience, a reminder of forgiveness that I need
Who is this King of Glory who offers it to me

Posted by: Bar

at May 21, 2006 1:08 PM

I find it interesting that several days after attacking Mr Spencer as a neocon and a liberal, Auster has this post elucidating several of the key themes which comprise his view of liberalism:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005696.html

"Modern liberalism is based on the assumption that “we” are invulnerable, that nothing that we do for the Other can ever cause any existential threat to ourselves. Therefore we can just keep giving and accommodating and celebrating and diversifying and nonjudgmentalizing and tolerating and including and surrendering forever.

Now, where does the idea, that there will always be enough, come from? It comes from the same liberal assumption that gives rise to the idea that the Other’s inferiority is our fault.

Liberalism says that all people are naturally equal. If some other group is not actually equal to us or assimilable with to our society, it must be because of some artificial thing that is being done to it by us, namely discrimination. The greater and the more intractable the differences between us and the Other, the greater the liberal guilt (or, in the case of the liberal elites, the greater the guilt the elites seek to load on other whites and white society generally—but either way guilt is the issue). So we are obligated to do everything for the Other (or, if we are liberal elites, we make other whites do everything for the Other).

But just as our guilt can never be assuaged, our superiority can never be ended. The quasi-religious liberal belief in equality leads to the quasi-religious liberal belief in our own guilt. But in order for us to remain guilty, we must be so far above the Other that we are in effect untouchable and invulnerable. Without the belief in our superiority and invulnerability, we could not maintain the belief in our own guilt. Thus we assume that we can always keep giving away our goods to the Other and trashing our own society for the sake of the Other, and that this can go on forever."

One of the things I admire most about Auster is his efforts to get at the psychological issues that underly the west's suicide. He is extremely insightful on this score as well as being utterly and completely non-PC in his exploration of them, taking on every taboo subject.

But I have never seen Spencer endorse any of the bolded ideas above - quite the opposite in fact. In fact he has made it abundantly clear in post after post that the threat is real (we are NOT invulnerable), that we have everything to lose, that we CAN lose, that the global jihad is NOT OUR FAULT (i.e. no appeal to the usual liberal "root causes"), that we need to end the jizya (stop giving) and on and on. As to the neocon charge, again,it seems to me that one of the essences of neoconservatism is the idea that all peoples in the world are the same and basically desire the same things that we do, which leads to the neocon foreign policy idea that we can impose liberal democracy on the Muslim world, an idea which Spencer has spent years trying to disabuse us of.

So I really don't understand the charges he is making. If Spencer is standing up for liberal ideas then they appear to be what we normally think of us "classical liberal" ideas, which are central to the the west's identity and not the kind of "modern liberal" ideas that I think Auster is quite right in addressing as lying at the core of the west's suicide. I have seen him go after others as well in this way (Michelle Malkin on immigration e.g.). If his intention is to force people to hone their analyses and their language, then fine, but it strikes me that he could go about it all in a much less confrontational way by pointing out similarities first and then working into the differences that he sees as critical. Because if he does nothing but alienate potential allies it will only be more difficult to get his voice heard and I do think that would be a real shame.

Posted by: Caroline

at May 21, 2006 2:34 PM

Why do we have so many names ? 'Liberals', and 'Leftists'.

Arjun

This took me a while to figure out, but 'Liberal' in the US means someone to the left-of-center, and is the equivalent of Social Democrats in Europe, Socialists (not Communists) in India or other Left leaning non-Communist parties one may see elsewhere. In the US, Conservatives are those who are individualistic on business issues (taxes, government regulation, property rights, et al) and some personal issues, such as support for gun ownership rights, school choice, and tend to be pro-religious on social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, euthanesia... Liberals tend to be opposite these issues, while on social issues, they tend to be more individualistic. If you were interpreting the term "Liberal" as one who is, well, tolerant, supports individual rights across the board, opposes government or societal pressures over individuals, the term that applies here in the US is "Libertarian". Here, the Libertarian views are usually far to the right of Conservatives, but depending on whether one puts more value on economic or social liberty, one is likely to see such people support either Republicans or Democrats - I suspect the GOP has the edge when it comes to their support.

As for Communists, calling any American, even a Left wing wacko like Chomsky a Communist is likely to get one accused of McCarthyism. Usually, the term used to describe such people is Leftists. Unlike certain politicians in Calcutta, they don't swear by Marx or Trotsky, but looking at the contents of their statements, one wouldn't know the difference. Also, the Green Party, which one would think of as environmentalist, is a de facto Communist Party - one of thier leading goals is to take the top 100 corporations in the US and make them public interest collectives.

Hope this clears things up.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at May 21, 2006 6:04 PM

Infidel Pride,
Thanks, friend.

Posted by: arjun.sevak

at May 22, 2006 3:00 AM

I just came upon Robert Spencer's week-old reply to my recent criticisms of him over his extravagant support for Hirsi Ali and for what I call his neoconservatism. While I don’t have time to reply in detail, I am struck by one thing. After quoting some of my criticisms of him and Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq, Spencer characterizes my statements as “ad hominem smears. Not only does he sling the mud at Hirsi Ali and me, but at Jihad Watch Board member Ibn Warraq.” Then he refers again to “Auster’s smear of Ibn Warraq.” He concludes his article by describing me as a “dyspeptic misanthrope.” The commenters here at Jihad Watch all seem to agree with him. I have nary a defender in the bunch. One says I am as bad as Patrick Buchanan.

I invite Spencer's readers to read my writings about Spencer and the others, several of which are linked at the link below, and compare them to the personal tone Spencer used about me, and then ask themselves who is smearing whom. I acknowledge that I used strong denunciatory language about Ali, since I have described her as an enemy of our civilization; if Spencer wants to call that a smear, that is his right. I don’t know what I said that could be called a smear of himself or Warraq. And, by the way, despite my criticisms of Spencer, I praise him and quote him approvingly from time to time, which he never does to me. Yet he and his readers, who would expel me, accuse me of expelling people. So, again, who is being narrow-minded here?

Also, Spencer conveniently does not mention the objective basis for my saying that Ali is an enemy of our civilization: the fact that Ali has advocated the outlawing of Christian and conservative political parties in Europe, that she regards serious conservatives and immigration restrictionists as the equivalent of Nazis, and that she along with Warraq signed a manifesto against “theocracy,” i.e. against Christianity as much as against Islam. Except for her stand against Islam (she focuses mainly on the inequality of women under Islam), Ali seems a typical modern leftist. Since when do conservatives not regard leftism as a threat to civilization?

Links to several of my articles on Spencer and Ali can be found here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005745.html

Posted by: Lawrence Auster

at May 27, 2006 1:52 PM

I stand by every word, Larry.

In fact, since then I have read more of your views. Your idea that upholding the equality of rights and dignity of all people leads inevitably to relativism and unrestricted immigration is not logically supportable. The equality of rights and dignity of all people is a Jewish and Christian idea based on Genesis, and was upheld by the West long before the days of relativism and the immigration free-for-all.

Your characterization of my work is deeply unfair and inaccurate, ignoring and denying the many, many times I have spoken in this way (to take just one ready example):

"All this indicates that 'Islamophobia' is virtually useless as an analytical tool. To adopt it would be to allow oneself to submit to the most virulent form of theological equivalence, and to affirm, against all the evidence, that every religious tradition is equally capable of inspiring violence. It would be to deny the very sensible observation of the eminent atheist (and, late in life, theist, but not Christian) philosopher Antony Flew (thanks to Daniel): 'Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.' To recognize this is not base theological one-upmanship, but a step toward the recovery of realism in the analysis of Islamic jihad, and of a sense that in Western civilization there is something worth defending."

That's from here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005950.php

You have identified me with "neoconservatives," which you clearly see as more of a threat to Western civilization than the mujahedin. Compared to that, I'd rather be called a dyspeptic misanthrope.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 2:01 PM

By the way, you misrepresented both Ibn Warraq's work and your exchange with Bostom about it.

That's a smear.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 2:03 PM

On further thought, I would have to say that Spencer's article, as well as many of the comments that have been posted here in support of it, prove my point about Spencer's fundamental liberalism. Spencer and his commenters regard me, a traditionalist conservative, as someone to be shunned, while they welcome and champion Ali, a secularist leftist enemy of Christianity and conservatism.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster

at May 27, 2006 2:13 PM

I don't dislike you because you're a traditionalist conservative. And I have never "shunned you" or denounced you on the website; meanwhile your denunciations of me continue to increase in number and shrillness. I dislike you because you excommunicate anyone who isn't a traditionalist conservative from the ranks of the defenders of Western civilization. In so doing, you further weaken what you profess to love and defend.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 2:21 PM

Mr. Spencer's confusions are flagrantly on display. He says right out that he dislikes me, then he signs his note, "Cordially." I ask Mr. Spencer that if he is to be so uncivil as to say publicly that he dislikes me, that he would not also pretend that he is being cordial toward me.

On the substance, while I would not use Mr. Spencer's word "excommunicate," what he is accusing me of is indeed what I think is necessary and what much of my writing is devoted to. A core concern of mine is that much of what is called conservatism today is a form of liberalism. If conservatism means anything, it means devotion to a concrete society and people; today's "conservatism" is all about abstract universal ideas and America's mission to carry them to the whole world, by exporting democracy to the Third-World, and by importing unassimilable Third-World peoples into America. (And many conservatives who oppose illegal immigraton have absolutely no problem with the legal mass Third-World immigration that is de-Westernizing the West before our eyes.) The key to understanding this modern conservatism or neoconservatism is that it seems to be conservative, because it speaks fondly of America and Western civilization, but its substance is largely liberal. The result is that many self-described conservatives today think they're engaged in a grand war to defend America and the West, when in fact they subscribe to liberal beliefs that spell the doom of America and the West.

For those readers of Jihad Watch who are interested in thinking, and not merely in siding with Mr. Spencer against that awful Auster person, here are two articles where I develop this view:

Immigration and multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000637.html

Is the Pope a neocon?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003116.html

Posted by: Lawrence Auster

at May 27, 2006 2:47 PM

Larry,

Your repeated insistence that I have no "devotion to a concrete society and people" is unwarranted by any fair-minded look at my writings. It is also unfair, unnecessary, and divisive.

Nor have you responded to the evidence I presented that you misrepresented not only me, but Ibn Warraq and Andy Bostom.

You have attacked me repeatedly and unfairly, and then huff self-righteously about my "shunning" you.

You do as you wish, but don't expect me to respect you after you do it. Yes, I do dislike you -- although I doubt my dislike of you could possibly reach the intensity of your dislike of me. But I subscribe to a religion that enjoins kindness toward those whom one dislikes. I am but an imperfect follower of that religion, but I nevertheless will do my best and sign off again:

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at May 27, 2006 2:59 PM

Mr. Spencer misunderstands. I was explaining the general principles of my criticism of modern conservatism. I was not thinking about him when I wrote that, but trying to explain my underlying ideas. Also, as shocking as this may be to him, Mr. Spencer is not mentioned once in the two articles of mine that I linked.

Also, I want to clarify that my criticisms of this liberal modern conservatism is not personal. It's not about drawing lines against people, its about drawing lines against ideas. In my view a genuine conservatism or traditionalism will only be possible when people come to recognize the false forms of conservatism and reject them. This is a major theme of my writing. To get angry at me for making this argument would be like getting angry at a conservative for criticizing Democrats.

As for Mr. Spencer's simultaneous denial that he's personally attacking me, and his gratuitous re-affirmation that he dislikes me and disrespect me, well, I will leave the reader to make up his own mind about the state of Mr. Spencer's mind. I also ask that readers compare the language I've used about Mr. Spencer, with the language he's used about me.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster

at May 27, 2006 3:31 PM

Larry,

Keep it up, and you're going to take First Prize for Disingenuousness away from the Islamic apologists.

Sure, you don't mention me in the two articles linked. But you do, in the most grossly inaccurate and unfair ways, at these places:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005689.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005670.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005658.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005640.html

http: