In truth, the best hope for the west is to be found in the global south, which is going through a massive spread and growth of the Christian faith, most of which is based on the growth of first the evangelical then after that, the Catholic faith. This all came about thanks to the missionarie efforts of missionaries from the west. What will be seen and to an extent, what is happening now is that the global south is now sending missionaries to re-Christianize the west.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 11, 2006 9:09 AM

In a war between Islam and Christendom and her allies it should be understood that true Christians, who are no part of the world and do not take up arms against their brothers, will be observers or victims, only.

Posted by: voirdire at November 11, 2006 9:59 AM

Mr. Selbourne may be correctly indicating the basis of the West’s weakness in the face of the Islamic onslaught, but it still puzzles me. I am continually astounded by the actions of governments and public officials with regard to Islam – can’t they try to study up on the subject? For instance, even after bloody terrorists attacks in London and further attempts at slaughter in the name of Islam these politicians never get a clue as evidenced by the reaction to the acquittal of a man brought to trail just for saying Islam is "wicked, vicious faith" (should be obvious from reading the Koran & hadiths) and claiming Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole" (which, even if exaggerated is just an opinion with some basis). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6137722.stm

There seems to be a selective incuriosity with respect to Islam just as there once was WRT to Stalinism. Is this simply the power of wishful thinking? I am reminded of an ancient Greek adage:

Against a man's stupidity even the gods are helpless.

Posted by: FM at November 11, 2006 10:26 AM

This article gets my vote for Understatement of the Year. The West constantly shoots itself in the foot by bailing out Islam from every problem then asks why isn't Islam dead yet. When it comes to Islam the West is its own worst enemy.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 11, 2006 11:37 AM

That was a good article from The Spectator indeed.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 11, 2006 11:47 AM

bigcatgirl13106 I agree with you totally. And let the mushy liberal left that has no backbone scream as much as they want. We need to rechristianize the West and spread out beyond into the world. I have even nonChristian friends who agree with this --why? Because they know that Chrisitans create free democratic states -like the early pilgrims did in the US (sorry they were NOT deists as some liberals love to claim yep they were those pesky bible believing blood bought type evangelicals. And as an Eastern Orthodox christian I APPLAUD them. You go lads!)

Many brave men and women have died in the wars against tyranny and wickedness, fighting those like the Nazis and now the Islamofascists who would deny us our basic freedoms. Please remember the all them today: brave men and women and from the other Allied countries who bravely and even eagerly fought in against scum like the Nazis .

God Bless America
God bless all the Democracies out there.

Please take time today to remember the allied troops of the past who gave their life to protect our freedoms. God bless them all.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 11, 2006 12:30 PM

http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/13031/let-the-people-of-england-speak.thtml

Posted by: EnglishBlondie at November 11, 2006 12:40 PM

FM said:

"ancient Greek adage:

Against a man's stupidity even the gods are helpless."

But as person of Greek background myself I like the American adage: "where there is a will there is a way!"

I think slowly but with great effort people like us will drive back the stupidity that wants to hand over America, Canada and the rest of the West to the Islamofascist hatemongers.

We just have to keep preaching the truth. One thing I learned from Robert Spencer is to spread the truth around as much as possible. My cousin just purchased several books from Amazon.com (like Spencer's Polictally incorrect guide to Islam) so she can mail free copies to politicians in key positions. I like that idea! And Im thinking of doing it too here in Canada.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 11, 2006 12:41 PM

PS I read the report on jihadwatch that Ottawa recently struck down a request by a muslim murderer who wanted to lower his life sentence because gosh dawrn it was an honor killing and she cheated on him thereby insulting him. The Spreme Court of Canada turned it down. HEY BUDDY IF YOUR SPOUSE CHEATS ON HER THAN DIVORCE HER YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL HER YOU SCUM.

Anwyay I love my country. I know Canada is filled with liberals but we have alot of conservatives too and Im willing to die fighting against the Islamisation of this country.
To my fellow Canadians out there: REMEMBER VIMY.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 11, 2006 12:46 PM

I meant "cheats on you"

---
here is the link re: canada
http://tinyurl.com/ymczcf

(Thanks to Josephine who posted it here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014002.php#comments )

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 11, 2006 12:50 PM

Islam spreaded throughout the Middle East and North Africa during Muhammad's time and the decades after his death. It spreaded through jihad, motivated by Qur'anic verses like Surah 9:5.

Christianity spreaded throughout the Roman Empire during the first four centuries. They were persecuted to the extent that the catacombs are testimonies of what they had to endure.

One spreaded through the Sword. The other spreaded because the sword was on them.

al-mahdi.atspace.com

Posted by: yaqub at November 11, 2006 12:53 PM

Western leaders simply refuse to acknowledge that the jihadis are but one facet of a global movement. The jihadi are not a few nuts, it was built up by muslim governments over years through lavish spending on propaganda, arms, and logistics. To dismantle it would require equally lavish spending on opposing propaganda, as well as arms and logistics for opposing groups that would disarm the jihadis, because the jihadis are surely not going to disband voluntarily. But why would muslim governments want to disband these groups when they are a very effective way of projecting muslim power?
Sure, token freezing of some bank accounts or the occasional "just" missing of one of their leaders is necessary to get plausible deniability in the eyes of the west as these groups are actively making war on the west. But you can't deny that as far as furthering muslim interests they have been a splendid success. Just a couple of examples.

1. US elections. Few people are more hated in the Muslim world then Rumsfeld and the rest of the republicans. Send a bunch of jihadis to Iraq to atack US troops and foster civil war - and now you have the much more muslim-friendly dems in both house of Congress.
2. The Musharraf plan for economic development - train a whole lot of muslim militants, and then charge the west exorbitant amounts of money for "preventing" them from attacking the west.

Essentially, the muslim countries pulled something off that even the Soviet Union couldn't, training a worldwide network of violent subversives which it can plausibly (well plausibly enough for the western leaders with the lobotomies) deny connections to, by contrast violent communist subversives were always understood to be a proxy for the Soviet Union.

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at November 11, 2006 1:03 PM

The spread of Islam can only be halted if we, the West, come to our senses. One way to do this is to stop bashing ourselves and begin to understand what we, Judeo-Christian based free societies, have brought to the global table. Freedom (west 1 - Islam 0). Education (west 2 - Islam 0) Rule of law (west 3 - Islam 0). Innovation/Nobel Prizes (west 4 - Islam 0). Disaster relief to Muslim nations (West 5 - Islam 0). Human rights (West 6 - Islam 0) and on and on. Islam offers nothing of value to the human condition yet we dance around its horrors because we don't want to offend. Guess what, I am offended and so should we all be. Its time we embraced what our culture has given to the world and time to call a spade a spade. Islam, at least in practice, is as evil as communism and naziism. The truth shall set us free

Posted by: gordo at November 11, 2006 1:22 PM

But it is through this site that I have learnt a lot, unlearning wrong doctored untruths and fine tuned my perception.

Evil is evil, why look for extenuating circumstances and in the process knock oneself down - "its over-benign liberalism, the lost moral status of the Christian faith"? Whatever be they, I am sure cannot be irredeemably galling as the diabolical cult islam.

If my house is burgled the burglar is the culprit and deserves to be punished. Yes, certain devils would turn and accuse me "you should not have built such a house/ it was not adequately fortified/ the burglar had a very unhappy childhood/ the burglar's god ordained him to break into any house he covets, to reserve a special seat in heaven.....

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 11, 2006 1:40 PM

"Islam's strengths have grown in the last decades."

I don't really believe this. Islam is the simple brute-force method of organizing society. In and of itself, its strengths are quite limited.

The oppression that necessarily follows from their totalitarian brute-force system would have never fostered the creativity that is behind, for example, cars, and airplanes and nuclear bombs and cell phones and PCs. Etc. etc. etc. The remnants of the cultures it consumes (Persia, Babylon, Egypt) might have enough force of history behind them to produce *some* inventions that officially come under Islam's sign, for a short while, but they aren't things *of* Islam in any meaningful sense.

What is making Islam powerful today is the cultural decline of the West, especially in Europe, combined with the West's being quite open with its inventions, combined with the West's invention of uses for oil and means of extracting it, without coincident mesaures to control the oil.

In other words, if you tie back your limbs, knock yourself on the head with a big rock (the equivalent of what leftist ideology does to people), and give away what you yourself created through your values and your work (what we've been doing with our openess with our technology, and particularly Britain's historic carelessness with its laws pertaining to natural resource rights in former colonies), even the human equivalent of a termite colony can get the better of you.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 11, 2006 2:06 PM

There are two themes that seem to emerge in threads on JW/DW. One is the apparent inability or unwillingness of our political leadership to read the Koran, and understand its logical outworking. The next is the understanding that western civilization grew from the Judeo-Christian worldview.

I believe the latter to be related to the former.

There has been an ongoing effort to expunge Christian (specifically Christian, not 'religious') thought and tradition from western public life for decades. In political and academic circles, the idea has become entrenched that only a secular, relativistic worldview can be the basis of a representative democracy, and that any effective religious opposition to this idea constitutes an attempt to establish a hidebound, parochial theocracy.

Clearly this is patent nonsense, but the Islamist issue, rather than spark a sensible reexamination of the root ideologies that shaped western civilization, has aroused even more anti-Christian rhetoric. There is even the increased use of the word "progressive" as it relates to the stance of left-leaning political leadership, and terms like "Jesusland" for those who oppose it.

Many of our political and academic leaders have thought themselves into a corner. If there was a widespread admission that Islamic doctrine is, in and of itself, problematic and incompatible with western societies, it would, by implication, constitute an admission that some cultures are more desirable than others; not because of prejudice, racism or hatred, but based solely on their artistic, scientific and moral merits. This is the very debate our leaders are unwilling or unable to enter.

The problem with all this, as is becoming glaringly apparent, is that postmodern relativism is not a viable ideological defense against Islam. With no shared or dominant worldview, a representative democracy as we know it cannot continue in the face of this onslaught. The west had better figure out what, exactly it does believe, and soon.

Posted by: Clive at November 11, 2006 2:14 PM

"it still puzzles me..."

It's not puzzling, once you know why; it's only aggravating and aggrieving.

The pieces of the puzzle, in roughly chronological order:

1) The development of pathologically excessive self-criticism in the West (beginning in earnest in the late 18th century, and increasing exponentially throughout the 19th and 20th centuries)

2) The ideological and institutional changes caused by World War II and its aftermath

a) the horror of the Holocaust
b) the dismantling of Western Colonialism

3) The growth of a sociopolitically dominant PC Multiculturalism by the 1960s (increasing exponentially with the passing decades until now).

With #1-3 in mind, all a group needs to be to be irrationally protected as is Islam, is the following:

a) non-Western

and

b) predominately non-white.

Along with (a) and (b), it helps if that group is

c) classified as a religion with a long history --

and, of course, (c) is, in turn, reflexively bolstered by the privileges conferred by (a) and (b).

Posted by: remote_control at November 11, 2006 2:49 PM

"With no shared or dominant worldview, a representative democracy as we know it cannot continue in the face of this onslaught. The west had better figure out what, exactly it does believe, and soon."

This is true.

The strange thing is that Judeo-Christian beliefs, by virture of their understanding of reason, are actually capable of expressing certain core values that appeal universally to honest non-religious people of goodwill.

Beliefs about the value of life and about natural law, and beliefs about the preciousness of the right for individuals to choose (and how this overall checks evil more than enables it), and beliefs about the rightness man's using his own creative potential (within certain constraints), are all closely related to the Judeo-Christian philosopies about Logos, but are things that can be appreciated even by people who don't subscribe to the full theology.

The US Constitution was heavily influenced by the ideas of Jefferson, despite the fact that he was not a Christian proper, and he was able to tie together these ideas in a way that at once reflected their Judeo-Christian heritage, and that neverthless made them accessible to people not of those religious traditions, noting thier connections to "life, prosperity, and pursuit of happiness".

Basically, what I'm saying is that we *had* a heritage of those Judeo-Christian principles, which was neverthless accessible to people of other religious or non-religious persuasions. In in the US at least, I think we actually still have them to a significant extent.

I think we need to stress this, point out that it still exists in things we take for granted, at least as much as we need to reintroduce the content itself.

As far as why it is in decline, this is a very complicated issue. I'd bet Islamofascists would like to say that it is in decline because it is not absolutist - because we don't force our children to maintain the tradition on pain of death, or similar.

But that isn't the case so far as my readings on Western civ indicate: that sort of force would have merely cut the Western civ off before it emerged as something great, far greater than a submission- and force-based system like Islam could ever hope to become; it wouldn't have helped preserve it at all. I think it really has a lot more to do with the changing economic and political and social conditions post-Enlightenment, and the fact that the new dynamics (especially market dynamics) both created new and difficult-to-solve problems for the general populace, and threatened the old "social status"/aristocratic order.

America, having, relatively, a very paltry social status order, had a lot less elite opposition to the freer, more egalitarian, constantly changing, constantly competitive sort of systems that emerged post-enlightenment, and was therefore able to deal with the problems of the newer system with, generally, a great deal less and obstructionaism from old status groups (old-money pushing of Socialism, for example).

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 11, 2006 4:02 PM

I don't really believe that 'The Age of Enlightenment' in the late 18th century was any kind of beginning to these current troubles. Following its progress we witness the end of the Ottoman empire and an explosive growth of wealth and freedom to the common man and woman in most developed areas.

I think many Western leaders actually do understand the threat to our civilization but can't wrap their minds around how that threat must be met.

When 'slammis say they'll win because they "love death more than (we) you love life", we must take them at their word. This (and the last several conflicts the U.S. has been in) war has been fought as an 'action', a politically-correct and thoroughly half-assed version of what our forefathers recognized as battle.

War is fought to impose the will of the victor on the enemy. It must be brutal and unforgiving. We don't need a holocaust of Muslims, but we do need to beat them back to whatever territories we will allow them and bloody their noses to never again attempt what they're currently attempting.

And voirdire: "In a war between Islam and Christendom and her allies it should be understood that true Christians, who are no part of the world and do not take up arms against their brothers, will be observers or victims, only."

Are you saying that a warrior cannot be a 'true' Christian?

Posted by: turn at November 11, 2006 4:11 PM

"I don't really believe that 'The Age of Enlightenment' in the late 18th century was any kind of beginning to these current troubles. Following its progress we witness the end of the Ottoman empire and an explosive growth of wealth and freedom to the common man and woman in most developed areas."

I trace the popularity of Communism to reaction against the most successful social system birthed by the Age of Enlightnement (the market system and democracy, especially as exemplified by Britain). Communism itself is also of Enlightenment origin, but owes more to Hegel (German philosophy) and Rousseau (French philosophy), and to it the British system, as it had developed by the late 1700s, was more foil than forefather.

Communism and its various spin-offs--leftist PC brainmelt propoganda--are our prime weaknesses, in my opinion. That's how the Enlightenment gets involved. Indirectly. I'm actually quite a fan of at least certain strands of the Enlightenment, especially as instaniciated in Britain, and even more in its spin-offs like the US and Australia.

Specifically what I meant to touch on in the above post is the fact that the systems of the Enlightenment threatened old social status groups (cf. Weber), by introducing a way in which creative, hard-working people could show them up.

The early systems of the Age of Enlightenment also--being imperfect as is all life, and being filled with kinks as is the case with most new systems--created some serious problems, such as abuses of poor people: 16 hour factory workdays for men, women and children, for example (things we've since managed to solve without changing the basic system).

These trends created a demand for an ideology that appeared to be a fix for people concerned with one or both of these issues, and as such a fix is how Communism and Socialism sold themselves. Despite the fact that any serious analysis of them reveals them to be authoritarian horror of horrors. (Just count up the millions killed by Communism and by National *Socialism*.)

"War is fought to impose the will of the victor on the enemy. It must be brutal and unforgiving. We don't need a holocaust of Muslims, but we do need to beat them back to whatever territories we will allow them and bloody their noses to never again attempt what they're currently attempting."

This should go without saying.

Sadly, it apparently doesn't, and Holocaust analogies abount with any consideration of the fact that we are going to have to fight and kill people who are trying to destroy us, and who have the courtesy, at least on occasion, to say so.

Outside of the fact that it is a tool by leftist ideologues, I don't AT ALL understand the comparisons between the situation we face today with Islam, and the Holocaust. That isn't comparing apples and oranges, that is comparing pencils and hamsters, that is night and day.

One, war with people explicitly intent on killing and converting us to a global totalitarianism--and who have already hit our military and econopic centers! Two, rounding up people whose biggest crime is honest shopkeeping, and murdering them in millions. To any sane person, there is no comparison.

To say there is a comparison is to say that those who fought against the Nazis were themselves as bad as the Nazis. That's the standard cheap trick of ultra-pacifism--now apparently systematically used by suicidal ideologues on the Left as well--but it isn't an intellectually serious position.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 11, 2006 5:56 PM

When it comes to Islam the West is its own worst enemy.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 11, 2006 11:37 AM

Ehat is even more shocking is that after mass-massacar of thousalds, many do not even consider Islam the enemy. The UMMA is the "friend" of some (like Bush dynasty). To read about how tohroughly Wrst is corrupt/compromised, read 'Sleeping with the enemy' by Robert Baer: http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/dp/1400050219

The pooint is that while the symptoms are there, the disease rather acute.

Posted by: Alert at November 11, 2006 6:43 PM

Tis the self righteous and greedy excesses of the Christian Right, the "Culture War" so declared and beloved by the likes of Pat Buchanan, the Family Research Council, Pat Robertson et al that are responsible for the fact that so called "liberals" and "leftists" have allied themselves with the likes of the Muslims.

You see they don't know jack squat about Islam, and neither do most Americans and Westerners (not all have the knowledge of Jihad Watchers), even Bill Oreilly and Limpballs hurl out the word Islamophobe as a negative epithet.

What they do know, and know all too well, is the rigid, self righteous and intolerant rantings and political positions of the "evangelicals" ( Christian Right),,and thus they perceive that attacks on Islam are just more of the bigotted and intolerant, self righteous attacks of the Christian Right , as they thump their Bible, vent their spleen and demonize everyone who isn't like them..be they gay or Mexican or atheist.

Forcing people to declare a belief in their god (as in our pledge of allegiance) is no different than the Muslims discriminating against non muslims in their lands.

The Right Wing radicals have shit in our collective messkit, and make it worse by demanding that everyone submit to their "values".

And thus Islam will win.

Posted by: Nariz at November 11, 2006 7:54 PM

I invite everyone to log onto Liberty Forum

Almost the entire complement of posters are "right wingers", many, many Catholics and other Christians, extremely homophobic, anti abortion, but also the epitomy of dhimmitude.. boy do they sympathize with the Muslims. If all you read were their posts on gays and abortion you would think that they were members of Ted Haggards New Life Church (LOL).

Oh and a few Europeans, mostly Brits of the America hating variety, they of course are full fledged dhimmi's believing that muslims are the victims of American policy and favoritism to Israel.., which in their mind is the cause of Islamic terrorism, which they perceive as a reaction to American and Israeli policy.

Paradoxically, these same people (the Americans) who wail about the "poor Arabs" being demonized by and picked on by the Joos, are also stridently and adamantly anti immigration, anti Mexican and racist.

They are, essentially, indistinguishable from most Jihad Watchers (man oh man do they hate gays, feminists, pro choicers, leftists and liberals), they share the same values, have the same demons and rants and differ only as regards choosing sides of the Israel Arab conflict. They are of course "antiZionist" which makes them by default
pro Arab which means that they are by default Islamophiles.. and the many Muslims on that forum, use that to propigate their ideology and gain sympathy from the boobs.

Posted by: Nariz at November 11, 2006 8:15 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/11/europe/EU_GEN_Turkey_Ecevit_Funeral.php

Posted by: Borg at November 11, 2006 8:45 PM

The War of the Worlds. No where is it written that evil can't dominate on this earth. The West, imperfect as it is, is in a life and death struggle with Islam. My sense is that the West will ulitmately beat Islam down but not after many losses. It will be a close call.

At the end of the day the West will win because in suffering through great loss and destruction its people will understand, as they have before, that they are free and equal not enslaved and devalued by a belief system that destroys, rather than lifts up, the human spirit. And that is worth sacrificing for.

Free people honor life, the enslaved can't and their leaders don't. Being free means having choice. The strength of the human spirit is shown most mightily by how we treat each other by choice.

So, in the West, because we can, we live under the rule of law, we educate, we innovate, we improve lives, we heal, we pursue ideas, we argue, we dissent, we vote, and we give. And we give some more.

Islamic society does none of these things. Its a closed world based on rigid rules and strange beliefs. Is it God's will to kill those that deny Islam? Where is the love in Islam?

While Muslims were slaughtering Muslims and trying to slaughter us a great tsunami hit much of the Muslim world several years ago. Millions died and millions more were devastated. The first on the scene to help was the U.S. military. The American government gave $500 million. The American people, in 10's, 20's, and 50's, gave another $500 million. Much of that was from Christian organizations. The Muslim world, collectively, gave less than $50 million and that was given after great criticism.

Its going to be a close call but I am betting on the team that values each and every human life.

Posted by: gordo at November 11, 2006 8:49 PM

Nariz l dont know what you are spewing out, but any person who is informed from the right are not on the muslim side! people on the "Christian right" love life, and cherish life, yes we might not be for abortions, as an "innocent life" deserves someone to speak for them! islmaofacist have no respect for any life especially non-muslims and those muslims not pure enough. and that is a big difference from Christian,Jewish people on the "right" and yes Hindus, etc. to the islamofacists.. that is anyone being a "pious muslim". Pious muslim equals one who will kill all non-muslims. when have you seen any Christian demonations going out beheading some person for not acting like or accepting Jesus? would you rather live next to a "pious Catholic" or pious Muslim? your choice!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 11, 2006 9:12 PM

Miss Zena,

Good for you for standing up for life, for all life. I'm glad to be in the trenches with you.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 11, 2006 11:14 PM

OT Argghhhh Alert

from the WALL STREET JOURNAL Editorial Page

FIVE BEST

Sense of Ummah
These books are essential to understanding Islam.

BY KAREN ELLIOTT HOUSE
Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:00 a.m. EST

1. "Islam" by Vartan Gregorian (Brookings, 2003)
2. "Muhammad" by Karen Armstrong (HarperCollins, 1992)
3. "What Went Wrong? by Bernard Lewis (Oxford, 2002
4. "The Koran Interpreted" translated by A.J. Arberry (Macmillan, 1955)
5. "Wahhabi Islam" by Natana J. Delong-Bas (Oxford, 2004).
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/fivebest/?id=110009231

Posted by: Malinois at November 11, 2006 11:20 PM

Nariz -

You are so full of hate and mischief. Your exhaustive efforts to undermine Christians on JW, and your bracketed lies are annoying and ineffective; and only serve to distract from what's really important.

Some of your observations may have some merit, but no one can hear you because your hatred is so OUT THERE, and it's eclipsed by anything of value you are trying to convey.

And if hating Christians is THAT important to you, then may I suggest you find a forum that embraces your brand of toxic, distorted views, because you are the one who is dangerous here. Not the majority of Christians.

Posted by: champ at November 11, 2006 11:51 PM

I mentioned the islamization of the west with my father. He agreed that it will come. But he assured me it won't be an issue for me, in my lifetime.

Thank heavens I have no kids. And this is the reason why. Not specifically because of islam, but because I did not trust that the world would be a safe, pleasant place for westerners in the future. As a teenager, I started to have my doubts about the continued viability of the western world. Those fears have been realized in the form of islam.

So, I can sleep well at night, knowing that I won't be around when we become an islamic society. And I can sleep well knowing that I did not create any kids to face that. And I can also sleep well knowing that I sounded the alarm well in advance.

It pains me to see the threat so clearly, and yet know that those with the power, fail to see, or refuse to see. It pains me to know that we could have carried on as a civilization for at least another 1000 years or 2000 years, had we just wanted to. Thinking of what could have been of our society, had we not been converted to islam and thus destroyed, makes me melancholy.

Islam will not last forever of course. Eventually it will die out, but it might take another 1000-2000 years. What will archeologists say of us then when they find a bit of 21st century pottery in the ground, a coke can, a printer cable, a cell phone dial pad? Perhaps that we were the most advanced and promising of ancient civilizations, until islam conquered us. What they won't know is why islam conquered us. For there will be no record of any war. Just a quick evolution from Christian to muslim as the music died. It will be a mere blip in the archeological record.

Posted by: August22 at November 11, 2006 11:59 PM

"..we are going to have to fight and kill people who are trying to destroy us, and who have the courtesy, at least on occasion, to say so".

Brilliant mrsmomomoto! Agree with all your points. That is the only honesty coming from the ranters' camp.

Gordo, at least, the next time disasters strike them, I hope Christians, Jews and Hindus would give nothing at all, save lots of hand wringing and lip sympathy in the form of "inshaallahwallawallaallauakabar" and leave it at that. We are JUSTIFIED in doing so as it is all Infidel Aid, Infidel Doctors and we don't want to upset kafirhating god..do we? (Not sure about India which is khanisthan)

Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 12, 2006 12:48 AM

gordo - well said.

August 22 - Islam feels the onslaught. A cornered animal can be the most dangerous. If we can get intellectual, spiritual and political leaders to understand what's at stake, along with the body of people in the free world - we will damage Islam severely in our lifetime - if not completely delegitimize it in the free world.

All we have to do is help all kinds of people with varying perspectives understand what's at stake. :-) Simple, right?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 12, 2006 10:23 AM

Turn

Can you imagine a higher cause than to fight in defense of the Son of God? Yet, Jesus told his disciples to return their swords to their place. In Corinthians, Paul said that though we walk in the flesh, we don't wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. The Bible is absolutely clear when it says, "return evil for evil to no one." In the past, God directed ancient Israel to use warefare to take possession of their inheritance from Him. However, today, true disciples of Jesus Christ are "no part of the world." This matter will be resolved, have no doubt. But, not by Christians fighting others, or one another.

Posted by: voirdire at November 12, 2006 12:30 PM

voirdire -

I agree (in part) with what you said. I'm a Christian, and Jesus does say that we are to 'love our enemies/neighbors'; but He's speaking to "individuals" in this passage, not to governmental officials.

REMEMBER....

The Bible ALSO states that kings can make war with other kings; and under our current governing laws, the President of the United States is supported through our laws, and obligated under oath to protect this country -- which may and DOES include war.

I do agree that as a sole individual in Christ we are to love our enemies, and our neighbors, and not go out and bloody the enemy. But if need be, I support my president in protecting this country, and -- if need be -- I would protect my own family should someone break the law and threaten my family. I am supported under the law to do that as well.

Posted by: champ at November 12, 2006 9:40 PM

champ -

I hope you realize that I would not presume to tell you or anyone else what to do regarding taking up arms against your fellow man. I do know this though, that Paul wrote to fellow Christians in Rome reinforcing the counsel Jesus had given. Paul urged them to “be in subjection to the superior authorities,” the political rulers, “for there is no authority except by God.” Not that God establishes secular governments, but they rule with his permission; they “stand placed in their relative positions by God,” because God foresaw and foretold the order in which they would come to power. The “superior authorities” therefore constitute the “arrangement of God” for the present time, until God’s own Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ becomes the only government ruling the earth.

Paul did not tell them, though, to be in absolute subjection with no regard for God, God’s Word and their Christian conscience. They knew that Jesus had worshiped only his Father, that Jesus had refused to let the people make him king and that he had told Peter to put away his sword. They conscientiously adhered to their Master’s lead. The book On the Road to Civilization—A World History (by Heckel and Sigman, pages 237, 238) reports: “Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. The Christians . . . felt it a violation of their faith to enter military service. They would not hold political office. They would not worship the emperor.” Nothing has changed. A king is an individual. How difficult it might be for a king to be a Christian, no?

Posted by: voirdire at November 12, 2006 10:46 PM

voirdire --

Ok -- may I please ask you two 'test' questions? If a man broke into your home and raped and murdered your wife in your presence, would you stand there and do nothing?

Secondly, imagine that you were President Roosevelt in 1940. Would you have sent military aid to the British to stop the Nazis?

Posted by: champ at November 12, 2006 11:08 PM

voirdire --

You mentioned the story of Jesus rebuking Peter for using his sword to cut off the ear of the Roman soldier as a platform for non-violence under ALL circumstances.

But this is a complete misuse of this passage, because Jesus made sure his disciples had swords for protection before leaving home. In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus instructed his disciples to sell their own cloak if they needed to in order that they would HAVE a sword. Indicating that He thought a sword (for protection) was more important than a jacket!

Jesus consistently rebuked using the sword to advance His kingdom, but He never rebuked using the sword for "defensive purposes".

Funny -- Islam uses the sword to advance their so-called kingdom -- which is contrary to Christianity.

Posted by: champ at November 13, 2006 2:03 AM

champ-

Your questions are legitimate. 1. I would fight with the intruder to disarm him. If, during the struggle, I took his life, I would be blood-guilty before God. 2. I could not be President because my conscience would not allow me to hold a political office. I would be neutral with regard to the carnal warfare. I would pray that the medical supplies arrived.

Jesus’ words at Luke 22:36, “Let the one having no sword sell his outer garment and buy one,” did not indicate that his disciples would need a sword to protect themselves. Rather, he desired to have a sword available among his followers on that night in order to demonstrate clearly that, though they would come into circumstances that could easily provoke armed resistance, he did not intend to resort to the sword but would give himself up voluntarily in harmony with God’s will. When Peter did react and try to put up armed resistance, Jesus ordered him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. Certainly, Peter’s sword and the other one at hand would have availed little against such a large group of armed men, and by trying to use them, they would undoubtedly have ‘perished by the sword.’ Such attempted delivery of Jesus would have failed, being completely contrary to God’s purpose. Later that day Jesus could plainly state to Pilate: “If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is,my kingdom is not from this source.”

Now I have a question. How would you account to God for killing another brother Christian during a war between two “Christian” countries?

Posted by: voirdire at November 13, 2006 10:07 AM

voirdire --

Are you Amish? Nothing wrong with being Amish, but it would explain some of your positions on anything violent.

In your above post, you are connecting two separate biblical passages that occured at different times. In Luke 22: 35-38, Jesus was making sure that His disciples were prepared for their journey; but then He gave a stern rebuke to Peter during His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane -- both of which involved the use of swords.

In Luke, Jesus is speaking on practical terms to His disciples; checking to see if they have some of their basic needs in order before setting out on their next journey, which included a sword. Jesus was highlighting the importance of having enough money, a bag (which probably included basic essentials), and a sword. He even went on to say that if you do NOT have a sword, then sell your jacket, highlighting the importance of self defense.

[BTW -- The original Greek means "small sword", not the kind of sword we typically think of which is larger.]

You have to consider the context of this passage. Jesus is not addressing spiritual matters in Luke as much as He is talking about basic "physical" needs. Althought He did remind His disciples that even they are lacking in physical needs, that God would provide for those too (which IS spiritual).

Anyway.....

My point -- is that Jesus saw it necessary for them to carry a small sword for protection before they left on their journey -- He wasn't talking about the Garden of Gethsemane in this particular passage. That rebuke to Peter came later.

And Jesus rebuked Peter for one reason, and one reason only -- so He WOULD go to the cross, because it was Christs' purpose and destiny to shed His blood on the cross to redeem us from our sins.

Jesus didn't want Peter protecting HIM -- but He didn't say that you can not protect YOURSELF.

Again, Jesus was always against using the sword to promote the gospel, but He was not against using the sword for defensive means.

And to answer your last question. Well, if I'm engaged in a battle, and one of the opposing soldiers is a Christian, then God would not hold me accountable because I am doing what the law allows during "war time", and that's to kill the enemy. It is not murder to kill someone during war time.

Guess we see these passages a little differently. God Bless!

Posted by: champ at November 13, 2006 3:27 PM

champ you are a champ. Thanks for being here.

Nariz you are so full of the foul stench of bigotry and pure hatred I bet if I pour water on you'll start screaming: "Im melting Im melting!! oh my beautiful wickedness Im melting!!".

FACT: ALL the religious killing done now is by islamic fascists.
FACT: gay groups and other far left groups would not be welcome by muslim majority countries but they willfully join in supporting islamofascists because they hate the judeo-christian west.
FACT: if the muslims ever did take over the west the gays and liberal atheists would be the first ones to have their heads chopped off. Christians and jews are allowed to be economic slaves and pay the jidzya tax.

Nariz we are NOT some right wing fringe group of people we ARE the west. The vast majority of people especially in America are willing to give people a fair shake but once they get to see what Islam is all about they will turn against it.

Oh and pulllllllleeeeeeeease dont give me that crap about Christians hating gays. Do Christians in America call for the beheading of gays? No they just dont want you in their churches or claiming their marriage rites for yourselves you idiot.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 13, 2006 5:12 PM

Only muslims instead of verbally or through LEGALLY channeled efforts threaten DEATH if you dont convert OR if you leave their faith or if you embarrass their faith. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc dont do that. Those systems are spritual-mystical faiths. Islam is political at its core as a matter of principle. Read Robert Spencer's The Truth about Muhammed.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 13, 2006 5:18 PM

FIGHTBACK it was a type of canadian 'alamo'. In Europe where Canadians fought in WWI it solidified us as a seperate nation from Britain also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vimy_Ridge

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 16, 2006 2:05 PM

It is the defining battle of Canada in the canadian psyche. We fought we died we conquered and grew, 'over there' as the old song goes.

In those days Canada and USA where very close in view and in traditional moral values and beliefs. its only now that canada has liberals up the wazoo that we have whiners among us complaining about America. I love to confront these whiners in class and stand up for America against them.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 16, 2006 2:10 PM