| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Here, from Pajamas Media, is my response to John Derbyshire's brightly written review of my book Religion of Peace?.
John Derbyshire seems to think that since, in his view, Islam and Christianity are equally preposterous, they are equally likely to incite violence: “Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.”Huh? “And so”? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they’re of equal moral value? Come now. I myself find National Socialism no more preposterous than Shakerism – does that mean that National Socialism is no more or less likely to make us better or worse than Shakerism? Does Derbyshire really want to get behind the idea that if something doesn’t ring true to him, it is therefore benign, or at least no more or less benign than some other farrago? I don’t think he does, even as he calls the whole exercise “infantile,” since he also says that he finds my “brief against Islam” to be “persuasive.”
Derbyshire’s review, while marvelously written and delightful to read, is full of inconsistencies. I don’t see how he could possibly find what I reveal about Islam to be “persuasive” if at the same time he thinks that Islamic and Christian doctrine are equally likely to inspire their adherents to commit acts of brutality, since the contrary assertion, as he himself notes, is a major point of my book. He also wonders whether “an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist…” I would welcome such a rebuttal, by the way, unless it were characterized by the torrents of abuse and sly deceptions and diversions that usually come to me from Islamic spokesmen in America, but the point is that while Derbyshire says he is persuaded, he evidently still suspects that I am just engaging in some kind of rhetorical sleight of hand.
And that is by no means the only inconsistency, alas, that mars his elegantly written and thoroughly entertaining review. Derbyshire asserts that “it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology…as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.” Yet what is the nature of that staggering idiocy? The fact that “there are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter.” Yet why would that be a problem, if Islam were like Christianity – absurd but ultimately harmless at its core? Obviously the problem with allowing tens of millions of Muslims into the West has to do with “the letter of Islamic theology,” which Derbyshire dismissed as irrelevant just before complaining about the admission of so many adherents of what he sees as a wacky but unthreatening creed.Derbyshire asks if it is “actually that important” to take on the “‘equivalence’ school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism.” A few weeks ago I was on a TV show on France 24, where I explained that jihadists recruited among peaceful Muslims by referring to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and presenting themselves as the exponents of true or pure Islam. One of the other guests on the show then responded by asserting that there were passages of the Bible that were equally violent as anything in the Qur’an, and anyway, what about the Crusades? This kind of howling irrelevancy is extraordinarily common; even conservatives such as Ralph Peters, Arnaud de Borchgrave and Dinesh D’Souza have made similar statements on the way to claiming that it was misguided, futile, and somehow in poor taste to investigate the ways in which Islamic texts are used to incite violence. We are supposed to believe, as Christiane Amanpour’s recent CNN series would also have us believe, that all religious traditions have their nutcases, and all of them are marginal, discredited by the majority, and ultimately insignificant. But this – and I’m sure Mr. Derbyshire can appreciate this distinction – is a dogma, not an established fact. And if it is false (and it is), it may be blinding us in numerous ways to the nature and the magnitude of the problem we face, as well as to the steps we need to take to protect ourselves. This cuts both ways: if Christian theocrats are really the threat Chris Hedges, Barry Lynn, and Kevin Phillips think they are, it only plays into the sinister hands of the Bushitler to focus attention on the adherents of the Religion of Peace. This may seem irredeemably nutso to John Derbyshire, but Hedges’ book was a bestseller: considerable numbers of people out there are taking the Christian theocracy scare very, very seriously. So my book is an examination of both threats and both traditions, an examination that has clear, important, and numerous policy implications.
Derbyshire manifests no greater comprehension when denigrating my assertion that Christianity provided the philosophical framework within which modern science could grow and develop, and adduces a few miracle stories from the Bible as proof-texts to the contrary. He dismisses as “Catholic apologetics” without examination the entire extended discussion in my book of the view of God in Catholic scholastic philosophy as good and consistent, versus the Islamic view of Allah as absolute will, unrestricted by any requirement of consistency. The scholastic philosophers believed in miracles too, while managing to create a foundation for scientific investigation by positing this consistency. While I always admire the verve of his writing, I believe Derbyshire has given this point short shrift. “And even if it were true that the church midwifed science,” he says, “is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?” The quip is nice; the thought, shallow. Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)
But I digress. The ringing peroration of Derbyshire’s review is his declaration that while “Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says ‘Judeo-Christian,’ but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.” (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that “a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.?”
One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn’t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s. Were the Sixties, when immigration controls were effectively ended and globalization gained immense momentum, a time of some great Christian revival? In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.
Then Derbyshire takes me to task for not offering any policy suggestions in this book, although he acknowledges that “possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself.” That is indeed the case, and perhaps I should have repeated myself, since the recommendations I have made in several books are no closer to being implemented now than they were when I wrote them. I am not asking Mr. Derbyshire to invest in my older books, as I do not wish to tax his patience unduly with an issue that he has previously described as “stupefyingly dull” (although of course to me my earlier books are jam-packed with boffo, riveting stuff, but never mind), so I’ll summarize them here: they include restrictions on Muslim immigration; a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources and free the U.S. from foreign policy dependence upon Saudi Arabia; an adjustment of our international alliances so as to make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan contingent upon their actively limiting the teaching of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism within their borders; the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values; and more.
I have said these things and more plainly in Onward Muslim Soldiers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth About Muhammad. I am not afraid, as Derbyshire posits, of being “cast out from the sphere of ‘acceptable’ commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and ‘hate groups’—a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.” For he is indeed correct that the “hate” label is readily affixed today to anyone who states truths that others find inconvenient for the public to know, and for those on both the Left and the Right (and yes, there are many on the Right) who allow themselves to be manipulated in this way I have nothing but contempt.
As for Derbyshire’s own prescriptions (offered if what I say is true, which he really isn’t sure about), some have a good deal to recommend them, and as he says, there is nothing inherently “immoral or improper” about them. (Others are pure foolishness: bribing Muslims to leave will only drain the treasury: once you start paying for something, you’ve established the need for a supply – almost certainly some would take the money, leave, and come back to take the money again.) They are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force. Muslims are here in the West, and the hard political reality is that there will only be more of them, and hence more jihadists and Islamic supremacists, in the coming years. We should continue to strive to bring the implications of our disastrous immigration policies and other manifestations of willful ignorance and foolishness to public notice, but we will not be able to rely on law and force alone to get us out of this fix. Thus one last bastion of hope that the Judeo-Christian West does have is that the heart and mind are not immutable. We will have to wage ideological battle on behalf of our threatened civilizational values – a battle for which we are well equipped, as I argue in Religion of Peace?, but which virtually no one is fighting. The truth will out, even against a relentless totalitarianism that appears inexorable. But only if we have the courage to defend it.
That truth, of course, is not coterminous with the desiccated and vacuous Christianity that prevails in so many places today. Derbyshire gets off some of his most engaging shots by playing up that hollow shell as the real thing: “If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?” – that is, the befuddled Dutch bishop who recommends that Christians in the Netherlands, not hitherto known for speaking Arabic, begin to refer to God as “Allah” to please and pacify their Muslim neighbors. Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question. In my book, as Derbyshire notes, I call for an alliance with atheists, among others, but for his part I am not sure whether Hitchens would identify me as part of the problem or part of the solution. And there’s the problem: we know we’re under attack, but we have to figure out who or what the enemy is in order to be able to fight properly. Is it religious people? Religion itself? Islamic jihad? Christian theocracy? Determining the answer is the purpose of my book.
But John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught: “If—to put faces on the abstractions—Roger Cardinal Mahoney [sic] and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?” On Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?
“Christianity,” Derbyshire concludes, “got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.” Perhaps. But those slaves ultimately captured the empire that enslaved them, and transformed it.
Posted by Robert at August 23, 2007 3:04 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Does John Derbyshire really know the difference between Mohammmed on Al-Buraq ascending the heavens and God conferring extraordinary graces on the female offspring of Joachim and Anne before he drew his inferences?
Posted by: John C![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 23, 2007 3:28 PM
lagniappe
Main Entry: la·gniappe
Pronunciation: ‘lan-”yap
Function: noun
Etymology: American French, from American Spanish la ńapa the lagniappe, from la + ńapa, yapa, from Quechua yapa something added
: a small gift given a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase; broadly : something given or obtained gratuitously or by way of good measure
at August 23, 2007 3:32 PM
Robert, you truly are an admirable gentleman for your too gracious evaluation of JD's nonsense.
Or am I the only one left who believes that logic and "consistency" are essential elements of "elegant" writing?
Please forgive the quibble ... but is there really such a thing a beautifully written nonsense?
JD's logical errors are so fundmental to his review, the article can only be named for the garbage it is.
And, once again, our purported intellectuals, writers for our purported intellectual periodicals, simply demonstrate how depressing this war against mohammed-worship and jihad is going to be, until a lot of people get over themselves.
Posted by: Moonzoo at August 23, 2007 3:36 PM
He shoots, he scores!
Posted by: Elric66 at August 23, 2007 3:41 PM
As Hugh once pointed out, a serious belief in the teachings of Jesus and an extreme practice of the teachings of Jesus may bring one to the point of St. Francis or Dorothy Day. What will the serious and extreme teachings of the Quaran and the emulation of Muhammad bring one to? Can anyone see Muhammad giving the Sermon on the Mount or "turning the other cheek" when standing their ground with someone like Muhammad?
Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2007 3:41 PM
Jesus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
muhammad:
(9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;
(9:28) O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.;
(4:101) And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.;
(9:123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).;
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at August 23, 2007 3:46 PM
I can't help wondering if Derbyshire doesn't know the difference between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth and actually meant to refer to the latter. But it would be difficult to prove.
As I said in comments on another blog, Derbyshire needs to watch that everlasting sneer. You know what your old mother used to say: "One day your face is going to get stuck like that, and _then_ won't you be sorry?"
Posted by: Lydia at August 23, 2007 3:50 PM
Does this "John Derbyshire" get paid for his works? it is sad to say that probably he does get paid to fill some pages. His point of all religions being equally bad is very common fodder among the liberal elites, and even some Conservative thinkers. This is true laziness on Mr.Derbshire's part that he writes his tripe without doing his homework. send him to the comic strip!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 23, 2007 3:50 PM
The Greek and Roman slaves who chose Christianity did so willingly, even to the point of martyrdom.
Islamic slaves are converted by the sword, born into Islam and unable to leave, or convert through a one-way door, never to be seen again.
And then there are the Infidel slaves who refused to convert.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 23, 2007 3:51 PM
I WANT YOU
for the Jihad Awareness Project.
We are in the middle of the tenth day of posting this request at Jihad Watch, and we are up to 55 volunteers in 31 states.
WE STILL ARE SEEKING CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY FROM THE FOLLOWING 19:
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the House of Representatives.
If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.
And visit www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.
Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.
Right before each of us mails the book, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.
One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about this. And I'll soon contact Regnery, Robert Spencer's publisher, to ask their advice and to see if we can coordinate with them in some way.
at August 23, 2007 3:52 PM
In my mind I see Mohammed embarked on his Mirage mounted on a steed with a sphinx's head, a horse's body, a lion's tail--an Arabian Nights story. On the other hand, I see Israel Personified in the humble person of Mary, idealized and perfected.
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 3:56 PM
“Why are we watching infidels prosper in this world and not stopping them?” Sheik Abu Abdullah, a young-looking man sporting a black turban and a neat black beard, asked a silent crowd of 50 people gathered at the al-Faruq mosque in Kfar Aqab last night. The audience, all men, most middle-class professionals, sat in silence as a battery of ceiling fans sliced through the humid night air.
Typical Muslim reaction. All that oil money and they cant prosper so their reaction is to make life miserable for people that made something out of their lives.
Posted by: Elric66 at August 23, 2007 3:58 PM
“And even if it were true that the church midwifed science,” he says, “is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?”Alchemy is an impediment to understanding chemistry. Astrology is an impediment to understanding, not just astronomy, but all of science. Just because a school of thought led to something great does not mean it has enduring value; it must continually justify itself. And mere opposition to something flawed is not justification; just because the creed of the jihadists belongs on the trashheap of history does not mean that anything opposed to it may not also have deep flaws.
Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)"Brave New World" is not only fiction, but its fictional society is the product of many moral choices in addition to science. The morality which sees it proper to create a society with a small ruling elite engineered by intelligence is nowhere implicit in science.
And I notice you're begging the question "What moral sense should determine our bounds?" You can say "not Islam" (and I'll heartily agree), but that doesn't resolve the question.
considerable numbers of people out there are taking the Christian theocracy scare very, very seriously.
Folks on anti-jihad websites like to talk about the left as having a death wish for Western society. What so many Christians don't realize is that the West is powered by Enlightenment values rather than faith, and they can just as easily undermine their own foundations and send themselves back to the Middle Ages.
at August 23, 2007 4:06 PM
"What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?"
Robert,
A former Bush administration official (Rumsfeld, I believe) said "you go to war with the army you have". Most of the people on your list are long dead. What we have are the Roger Mahonys. That is our ragtag army in 2007. It's not clear that any of them have the stomach for this fight. They are too vested in PC and "let's all get along". Charlemagne, Charles Martel and many more are no longer with us. We have to fight this battle without them.
When Bush addressed Congress after 9/11, I thought he and Tony Blair would be our leaders. They soon proved incapable of overcoming political correctness and diplomatic inertia.
Posted by: PMK at August 23, 2007 4:14 PM
Did I forget to mention Al-Buraq's wings? I suppose it's implied. But then again, I dont see the Woman of Revelation's male child ascending into heaven on a winged mount.
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 4:15 PM
It all started when (for instance) radical feminists began to blur the line between a brutal rapist and some guy who has a cheesecake picture in his locker.
The 'equivalency' game will end in heaps and heaps of corpses(ours).
Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 23, 2007 4:18 PM
I enjoyed reading Robert Spencer's response to John Derbyshire's review. Well done, Mr. Spencer!
Posted by: Josephine at August 23, 2007 4:19 PM
Robert,
Excellent rebuttal. It was extremely inspiring to read such an affable exegesis on your remonstration.
Cheers,
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at August 23, 2007 4:22 PM
P.S. -
My wife bought me one of those fancy-schmancy thesauruses so that my writing wouldn't be so, "Folksy." *Grin*
Cheers,
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at August 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Let't have Reason, yes, but alloyed with the fruits of Faith animated by Love. Many of us have a tendency toward one-dimentional excess.
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 4:29 PM
--I meant one-dimenSional excess.
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 4:31 PM
Critical comments not welcome on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/amanpour.answers/index.html
Posted by: Elric66 at August 23, 2007 4:32 PM
"the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values; and more."
........I like these ideas.....100%.........call em what they are....
...and Ban Muslim Immigration.
at August 23, 2007 4:37 PM
Elric66,
I agree. Unless you are in awestruck deference to Queen Amanpour, fully buying into her religious moral equivalence nonsense, you have no chance of getting a post through.
I gave it the old college try though.
It's interesting to see today with CNN, as with other liberal sites like Rachel's Tavern, that liberals really have no interest in allowing alternate viewpoints or respectful debate and attempt to stifle free speech at every turn.
On a side note, I watched the first two episodes and in no way saw a validation of a religious moral equivalence between Judaism and Islam. I have to wonder what show everyone else was watching?
Posted by: awake at August 23, 2007 4:44 PM
“Why are we watching infidels prosper in this world and not stopping them?” Sheik Abu Abdullah, a young-looking man sporting a black turban and a neat black beard, asked a silent crowd of 50 people gathered at the al-Faruq mosque in Kfar Aqab last night
posted by Elric66
Where is the link for the video? I'd like to be able to forwarded it to those who need a little light of truth shone in their faces.
Posted by: senor doeboy at August 23, 2007 4:45 PM
I tried abiut 10 comments and nothing went through. Nothing hateful just critical. well one comment was "I guess I have to kiss ass to get a comment through". That too didnt go through. :-)
Just goes to prove liberals hate debate. Racheltavern proved it yesterday and CNN did again today. Rachel can come here and comment all she wants. You hear that Rachel? :-)
at August 23, 2007 4:48 PM
Elric66 can you provide the link to the quote from above. I really would love to send it to a few friends.
“Why are we watching infidels prosper in this world and not stopping them?” Sheik Abu Abdullah, a young-looking man sporting a black turban and a neat black beard, asked a silent crowd of 50 people gathered at the al-Faruq mosque in Kfar Aqab last night
posted by Elric66
at August 23, 2007 4:56 PM
EP wrote:
Alchemy is an impediment to understanding chemistry. Astrology is an impediment to understanding, not just astronomy, but all of science.
Alchemy was a spiritual science not materials engineering. Read some damn history of Alchemy for once. And where are the hordes of astrologers that have impeded the nerds of science? they only exist in the minds of feverish nerds that are terrified of dumpy women who read the daily horoscope.
"Folks on anti-jihad websites like to talk about the left as having a death wish for Western society. What so many Christians don't realize is that the West is powered by Enlightenment values rather than faith, and they can just as easily undermine their own foundations and send themselves back to the Middle Ages.
The left does have a death wish for the west and everything it stands for. They embrace Islamists and even outright terrorist supporters and label even moderate Cbristians as Nazis and Taliban.
Leftists see nothing wrong with honor killings, the implementation of the shariah, murdering of non-Muslims by Muslims.
But if a Christian says abortion is wrong call out the police and hide the leftists with slight constitutions.
As far as the west becoming a Christian state, it only exists in the deluded minds of leftists who don't have a clue. Europe is basically a collection of atheist welfare states, those secularist dopes are the ones welcoming in Muslims by the tens of thousands and helping them implement shariah.
If anything it will be the leftists who usher in theocratic Europe that takes its orders from Mecca.
Posted by: waltc at August 23, 2007 5:17 PM
Can you imagine someone confronting Muhammad and the teachings of the Quran and being moved by Muhammad and the Quaran as the writer of this hymn was by the presence of Jesus....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4357921463168655508
at August 23, 2007 5:22 PM
Engineer-Poet,
If theocratic Christians are marginal, and there is no consensus (nor likely emerging) among Christians for theocracy (apart from legitimate engagement with the world), how does that compare with the large and growing numbers of Muslims seeking a restored Caliphate, imposition of Sharia, and Muslim supremacy achieved by whatever means, even bin Laden's?
Enlightenment values or not, we have to hang together, not separately. There are so many fronts of this existential struggle, resistance requires everyone of us.
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 5:24 PM
Disease vector control requires identification of the sources and methodology of how the disease spreads. Mohamedism started with Mohammed in what is now the Arabian peninsula, which may not have been initially too dangerous, but then it spread through swift infections to large populations of predominantly Christian nations of the Middle East and North Africa. What Spencer identified correctly in his book “Religion of Peace?” is the un-peaceful nature of this spreading vector, subjugation with much death and suffering to large populations of people who were minding their own affairs until the Caliphs’ armies of Islam attacked them with jihad war. Once conquered, if not killed and sold off into slavery, the survivors were then infected to carry on the jihad wars into as yet un-infected areas, from Spain to India. With jet travel, health risks have increased exponentially.
Derbyshire understands, it seems, that this disease has now invaded the West, especially western Europe, but he still denies that such a disease spread is due to deadly pathogens it carries, as if all disease vectors carry similar pathogens. Where Spencer excels is to dispel this erroneous assumption, that both are Abrahamically benign, so Christianity is no better or worse than Islam. But where Christ’s religious posterity infects mildly, perhaps even benignly or not at all in its efforts to save souls, its more pathologically virulent neighbor Islam infects deeply to conquer the world for Allah, and often proves fatal. This is as true today as it was 1400 years ago, which proves the efficacy of this infection. Good disease control requires not only to identify the source of this spreading vector, but how to stop it, either through quarantine or antidotes until it ceases to infect. The antidote is for those not yet infected to inoculate themselves with a strong dose of knowledge about the nature and atmospherics of the disease, or quarantine it to its source. Derbyshire got the quarantine part right, but Spencer then digs deeper into immunology. Either way, both are needed to control this massively spreading disease before it kills more peaceful people around the world.
Multiculturalists, and religious apologists, still opposed to or misunderstanding the nature of this pathology, are ignoring early warning signs of infection. Religious disease vectors are not all equally benign. While some religions prove beneficial to human life, even uplifting in their daily lives, others prove debilitating, even fatal. Political Sharia Islam is not benign, unlike other private faiths, and its jihad often proves fatal.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 23, 2007 5:35 PM
For my taste finding the Bible just as preposterous as the Quran, or more concretely the immaculate conception just as preposterous as Mohammeds riding to Jerusalem is like comparing Shakespeare with the Hadiths and saying they're both telly-tales.
Mr. Derbyshire should study some ancient mythology, a bit of symbolic a.s.o. bevor he starts speaking publicly such a nonsense.
The so called immaculate conception ist to be lead so far back as the birth of Gilgamesh. There were many Gods and Halfgods in the ancient mythologies born out of an immaculate conception, with a heavenly parent: Gilgamesh, Herkules, Alexander the Great, etc. There is a large scale of symbolical meanings in this immaculate conception, much more than a simple biological absurdity, as he might understand it.
On the other hand is Mohammeds flying to Jerusalem a very plump construction of greedy, simple minded people of later times, in order to justify their "right claim" on Jerusalem.
Main parts of the islamic mythology are apparently of later origine than the muslims claim them to be and you really don't have any proof that those stories should be as old as Mohammeds time. Just take the sure 5:57;58 and think a little about it: when did the jews and christians started to mock about moslems calling to prayer. I don't know any other religious practices to be mocked at as much as the muezzins calling and the muslims praying the way they do.
Posted by: Kybeline at August 23, 2007 5:35 PM
Quite clearly, I believe, Derbyshire was trying to refer to the miraculous event of the "Virgin Birth," but erroneously called it the "Immaculate Conception." A common mistake among those illiterate on Christian theology. Immaculate Conception being the conception of Mary without original sin. Was this the unbelievable event Derbyshire spoke of??? If so, he was openly proclaiming his acceptance for the theological tenet of Original sin.
This ignorance sort of reminds me of people who mention the book of "Revelations." Of course, there is no book in the Bible. (The last book of the N.T. is The Revelation of Jesus Christ.)
Anyway, Robert great response. Excellent book too, I just finished!
Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at August 23, 2007 6:15 PM
@Engineer-Poet
There is an additional threat there. Once the church/state barrier is gone or even weakened, Islamists can use the opening to take the reins of government in the name of their religion. The Founding Fathers were painfully aware of the dangers of sectarian government even when everyone was some variety of Christian. Re-introducing sectarianism with Islam in the mix is at least ten times as dangerous. Locking Islam away from the levers of power after mixing civil and religious law means establishing one religion as official: there's your theocracy, by the back door.
Folks on anti-jihad websites like to talk about the left as having a death wish for Western society. What so many Christians don't realize is that the West is powered by Enlightenment values rather than faith, and they can just as easily undermine their own foundations and send themselves back to the Middle Ages.
I agree that Enlightement drives many of the policies of the government. But even that is tempered (or has been in the past) with faith values (I am using your words, I would use Christian values). If what you propose were true why hasn't this happen in the last 200 years of our countries life. I agree it could happen today or in the near future because of the lack of influence the Christians have in society. That is were the real battle is today. On top of that is the threat from outside by Islam and it's Sharia law.
The church/state barrier is under attack but by those that wish to remove any thought, value or control (I speak in terms of the positive) that Christian values have influenced this country. The founding fathers limited the roll of the government to allow the free expression of faith to have a positive influence on society and the government. They had seen how the government had miss used it that is why they limited its power, but they never wish to have it removed for public discourse or influence.
I don't think demoting Islam as a religion and outlawing it is a threat to the first amendment rather it is a way of protecting it from an enemy that would nullify it given the chance. They IMO are actively at it today through legal means and they are pushing their agenda by using the system just under the threshold of illegal.
Mark 3:25-27
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
at August 23, 2007 6:49 PM
Robert said
(Others are pure foolishness: bribing Muslims to leave will only drain the treasury: once you start paying for something, you’ve established the need for a supply – almost certainly some would take the money, leave, and come back to take the money again.)
This was a surprise to me. I wouldn't term it "bribery", I'd call it "relocation expenses". To prevent someone from coming back and taking it again, firstly we shouldn't allow them back in, and secondly, any dispersal of money should be contingent upon submitting biometric data (fingerprint, retina scan, earlobe scan, etc.), which would be useful in itself after the process was complete.
If this idea is foolishness, then what is the alternative? Of course many Arab nations forcibly and violently deported Jews with no remuneration; would we have the constitution to do the same to them? It would be far more foolish (and expensive) in my opinion to allow the current status quo to continue. It would be far, FAR more foolish to rely on winning the "hearts and minds" of the Muslims already here, and hoping for an Islamic Reformation.
I hope that Robert expands on this topic at some point.
Posted by: special_guest at August 23, 2007 7:24 PM
I finally read Derbyshire's writeup - and I couldn't believe that someone would write such things without knowing too much about what he is writing about (eg: islamic history, the koran/hadiths/surrahs, their stated goals, etc). He took as gospel one person's idea of Catholicism which to me doesn't base a conclusion of anything on. I don't judge a whole group of people on one person's opinion.
But, some of his conclusions I actually... agree with. We should have closed our borders to muslims, if we were smart. And because we didn't, because we behaved as Christians, we are now in a bit of a pickle (to say the very least!).
Overall, his writeup hurt my head. He should have taken on his chosen task with a little more caution if he doesn't know his history and/or is unable to put one and one together after looking at the overall picture. I think he wanted to dislike the book and he proved it to himself that he didn't like it.
Posted by: R_not at August 23, 2007 7:28 PM
Folks, don't let David Mathews, a wolf in sheep's clothing, get away with lies about Robert Spencer:
On the comments threads under Robert Spencer's article over at Pajamas Media, a sociopath commenting as "David Mathews" -- I think he's the felonious phony "Rev" Jim Sutter -- is savaging Robert Spencer as the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, talking as if Spencer agreed with the KKK, asserting that Spencer intends for huge numbers of Muslims to die, and saying all sorts of other lies in a glib manner full of pseudo-facts that may succeed in persuading the innocent who happen by the site.
I'm convinced that Mathews is deliberately and consciously lying about Spencer in order to discredit him with anyone happening by the Pajamas Media site. Mathews, I believe, has a hidden motive: either he is a paid shill for CAIR or Saudi Arabia or the like; or as a sociopath, he gets pleasure out of a manipulative game.
Posted by: traeh at August 23, 2007 7:33 PM
Robert said
the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values;
Gee, thanks Robert, for making my hopes come true.
I think it would be expensive to allow Muslims to come here, and then set up a bureacracy to watch over them. We'd need to train a whole new generation of Arab-speaking law enforcement personnel. It would be expensive, and also be prone to failure, with predictable results. Also, relying on Islam to transform itself into a tolerant religion of peace requires more optimism than I can summon up without a crack-pipe.
Posted by: special_guest at August 23, 2007 7:40 PM
traeh: what a great project ... ty for your efforts! Spencer's books really need as much circulation as possible.
Peaceful Muslims: Perhaps one person out of a hundred understands or knows the distinction between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth. It is sort of like people using the word "penultimate" to mean the really, really ultimate, or using the word "enormity" to mean really really enormous, or using the phrase "beg the question" to mean really really begging to ask a particular question.
So widespread is the lack of curiosity, and of ignorance. And for the most part, it's not a big deal; such is life and humanity.
But when a Derbyshire does not understand the distinction between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth, as surely he does not, it is disturbing. Derbyshire is among the best we can do for public discourse?
One of the rare pleasures in life is this site, and Spencer's books, because of the rare integrity and simple erudition they reflect, among other qualities, in a mess of phony drivel faced by any sentient human each day.
Don't get me wrong. Phony drivel has been and always be a major part of the human condition.
What the West needs now, though, are intellectual warriors. That is why Spencer and Fitzgerald are inspiring, and just plain fun to read.
Posted by: Moonzoo at August 23, 2007 8:02 PM
Kybeline,
Peaceful is correct; the Immaculate Conception doesn't refer to virgin birth or virginal conception.
Parthenogenesis or virgin birth has parellels in ancient mythology, yes; and a yearning for a demigod hero resonated with the Ancients (and still does--mahdism, messianism--today).
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 8:30 PM
Engineer-Poet,
Once the church/state barrier is gone or even weakened, Islamists can use the opening to take the reins of government in the name of their religion.
You assume that Islam will be considered a religion in perpetuity. Just because the mob calls itself a legitimate Italian businessman's club doesn't mean the rest of us believe that, either.
As for your point about "Enlightenment" values, while I share your concern, that concern is mitigated by two factors:
1. A lot of what Christianity preaches actually dovetails quite nicely with "Enlightenment values", at least as taught in the ethics of Kant, for example. If you consider "60's values" as completely aligned with "Enlightenment values", you might have some issues with Kant. While I am not eager to have Christianity installed as state religion (check out my username for proof),
2. The threat from Islam is a threat to both faith AND reason, which was the essential point Pope Benedict made in his speech about Paleologos. The Muslim world excels in nothing, save fanaticism, so in any rational prioritization of threats, it has to rank at the top.
I find the whole "moral equivalence" argument between the two brands of "theocracy" to be, ironically, a failure of self-proclaimed empiricists to be sufficiently empirical.
As a real "empiricist", I find the threat of a Muslim theocracy about a thousand times more threatening than that of a Christian theocracy.
That's even taking into account my estimated probability of each actually coming to pass, to account for the very lame argument that Muslims are a small population in America while Christians are a large population. A 1% chance of a Muslim theocracy is worse than a 99% chance of a Christian theocracy. Islam is just that bad.
Posted by: venividivici at August 23, 2007 9:10 PM
I find the whole "moral equivalence" argument between the two brands of "theocracy" to be, ironically, a failure of self-proclaimed empiricists to be sufficiently empirical.
VVV: Nice.
at August 23, 2007 9:25 PM
I tried to submit a comment to the Pajamas media site in response to the troll "Dave Matthews", (who also hit traeh's site the other day) but its in limbo somewhere and since the last comment accepted was back around 6pm, and since I bothered to type the darn thing (into a Word document, having become savvy about these "lost post" things by now), I reckon I'll post it here, absent all the relevant context:
Dave Mathews: "Christians have an obligation to struggle against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence ... even when these are exhibited by fellow Christians."
To Dave Matthews:
Don't Christians then likewise have an obligation to struggle against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence when these things are exhibited by Muslims as well?
It's actually interesting that you add "EVEN when these are exhibited by fellow Christians”.
Because that is an admission that Christians are in fact obligated to struggle against these things EVEN when they are NOT exhibited by fellow Christians”.
Because that is what your post implies – that Christians do indeed have an obligation to struggle against against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence.
Do you deny that Muslims worldwide are showing daily evidence of hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence?
Do you actually read jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch every day? Because if you did you would come to the inescapable conclusion that Muslims are everyday – all over the planet actually – committing acts of hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence, which well exceed in number and sheer horror any similar acts being perpetrated by any other religion.
And you yourself have admitted that a Christian is obligated to struggle against those things.
So what’s your beef with Robert Spencer and his readers actually struggling against that hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence even though it happens to be being perpetrated by Muslims rather than Christians?
It's fascinating that you dismiss every poster here trying to address the hate, bigotry and violence committed by Muslims every day - their struggle against that - as bigotry, while at the same time conceiving this high moral ground for yourself to struggle against what YOU perceive as hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence committed by Christians in opposing that.
The only difference is that you think you are taking the high moral ground because you are attacking your own rather than “the other”. You have no problem mustering insane bigotry and vitriole against your own and you somehow think that that doesn’t reflect hatred and bigotry because its directed at your own rather than “the other”. You think that gives you the moral high ground.
You’re wrong. Hatred is hatred. Anger is anger. You’re no better than any other poster here. You just think you are better because you’re attacking your own rather than the “other”.
That’s stupid. Sometimes one’s own side is right. Sometimes the other side is right. It requires reason and moral aptitude to tell the difference. You display neither. That makes you the consummate “useful idiot” for championing evil.
We Americans were wrong when we had slaves and we rectified it (that civil war you like to mention as evidence of “Christian violence” without noting what it was fought for). Muslims are wrong NOW for wanting Sharia law to replace liberal democracy.
If this were the 19th century, no doubt many JW posters might well be abolitionists. But that’s history. So RIGHT NOW, Robert Spencer and his readers are focused on confronting what is RIGHT NOW “hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence” being perpetrated by Muslims on a frightening world-wide scale.
And as you yourself have admitted, it is indeed a Christian’s duty to confront precisely that.
I don't accept your implicit racist assumption (apparent from your vitriole) that only "white Christian Americans" can be bad and truly evil while those "beautiful" (your words) Muslim people can only be good but that's because I'm not a racist, which frankly, I think you are.
There is only evil. It has no color. Or rather it comes in all colors. And Christians are obligated to fight it.
Posted by: Caroline at August 23, 2007 9:55 PM
Caroline, nice response. This guy seems quite frantic, judging by his storm of comments on PJmedia. I'd guess that there is some serious internal evasion going on. Happy Bunny World just reported a 7.4 earthquake!
Posted by: Brett_McS at August 23, 2007 10:35 PM
moonzoo, i concur. The fact that Derbyshire does not know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth makes me question his whole understanding of Christianity. It gives the impression that he has only a cursory knowledge of Christian theology, and has not bothered to read or research beyond the surface. I know many self-proclaimed "enlightened" atheist friends, who dismiss religion - and specifically Christianity - as utter rubbish. They make the same mistakes he did. In most cases, when you probe them more deeply, they almost always have a superficial understanding of Christianity, or what they think Christianity is.
Btw, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but does Derbyshire think atheists invented rationality, philosophy, and science?? Someone needs to tell him that atheists didn't come on the scene en masse until the 18th century! (uh, quite a new blip on the radar..) Civilization as we know it, specifically Western thought, was built by men of faith (mostly Christians and Jews) over the past couple of millennia. We should not deny our heritage to conform to an atheist-revisionist history (as is rampant in Europe, and even in America).
Again, just another reason why we need Robert Spencer here!
Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at August 23, 2007 10:43 PM
Brett_McS - I agree. He indeed comes across as quite frantic - hysterical even.
I love the earthquake analogy. The world is literally shifting under the feet of those desperately clinging to their 'modern liberal' (not to be confused with 'classic liberal') ideology.
A fascinating thing to observe, somewhat akin to the impulse to rubber-neck on an accident on the highway.
at August 23, 2007 10:56 PM
Peaceful_Muslims?-
Actually the last canonical book of the New Testament is entitled: "The Revelation of St. John" (also called "The Apocalypse", or "The Book of Revelations"). St. Cyril, as well as Dionysus, the Bishop of Alexandria, and quite a few other early Church thinkers felt that it was not legitimate and should not be included in the synoptic Bible, but it eventually made the cut.
The first line of it is: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him [St. John] to show to his servants...", which may be what you are thinking of.
And "rationality" (Logic, Philosophy, etc.) was invented by the pre-Socratics and Socratic Greeks, not the Jews of Christians.
The Greeks created the terms, defined their meanings, and codified their use. ("Logos" is a Greek concept.)
Judeo-Christian thinkers (Spinoza, Aquinas, etc.) based their scholasticism on Plato, Socrates, and most of all Aristotle, the father of rationality.
Although the Hindus also had a parallel, earlier branch of reasoning in their philosophical Yogas (The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, etc.), it's influence in the West -and world in general- has been minimal.
The thinking world didn't begin with the Hebrews and Christians.
Let's hope it doesn't end with the Muslims.
(The film-maker John Huston, a Catholic, once won a huge bet with a guy who thought he knew what "The Immaculate Conception" meant... also mistaking it for "The Virgin Birth".)
at August 23, 2007 11:40 PM
I concur with Traeh. I believe David Mathews is indeed the "rev" Jim Sutter.
Posted by: awake at August 23, 2007 11:50 PM
Moslems already here, especially after listening to their imams harangues at the mosque, think themselves an invading army for jihad. Derbyshire, who has prejudices against Christianity half understands it; Spencer who holds no such prejudices fully understands it. I hope our intelligence and legal people understand it more like Spencer, since they are our first line of defense against this invasion. Politicians probably see it more or less without real understanding, but this is where jihad has found its chink in the armor, by appealing to our whimpy politicians. To fight this Moslem jihad against us, we need the full power of understanding without prejudices what Islam is all about, and the ways it is trying to insinuate its sharia into our legal system. We cannot let them get to even first base. Who cares about the immaculate conception? Treat Sharia jihad like a disease vector, and act accordingly to squelch it before it really spreads, and then we have a chance. Otherwise, our squabbles here and there, book reviews or otherwise, serve no purpose. Better Islamic jihad is faced with a united front, and despair. Make them back down now, or else there's a war on our hands they will not believe.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 24, 2007 12:01 AM
Has anyone else seen the comments from the troll-idiots Zane and David Matthews?
What a load of nonsense. Look at this crap:
"zane :
Infantile, petulant reply Mr Spencer, the truth is as a catholic apologist you have an agenda. Derbyshire wins..HANDS DOWN!"
"David Mathews [TypeKey Profile Page]:
Robert KKK Spencer and his Bigots Brigade ... what a miserable group of hate-filled bigots!
Would Robert Spencer care to argue with Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins says some terrible things about Christianity in his book and lectures. Richard Dawkins also says some really terrible things about the Bible and the various denominations that make up Christianity.
Does Robert Spencer deny that Christians are responsible for a horrendous amount of bloodshed in Europe, the New World and globally throughout the era of colonialism (which happened to end in the global wars of the 20th century)?
Does Robert Spencer deny that there are American bombs & bullets which are killing Iraqi civilians right now?
Does Robert Spencer deny that American Christians (and Jews and atheists) invented the nuclear bomb, and that these weapons were used to kill massive number of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
****
Fundamentalist Christians are a considerably greater threat to the United States than the Muslims. If you people continue your warmongering I imagine that you people might discover your own religious freedoms restricted.
I am certain that it is just as easy to put bloodthirsty Christian bigots in internment camps as it was to put American citizens of Japanese descent into these camps.
If you people keep spreading your lies and threats of violence against millions of American citizens, I am certain that you will discover that the United States of America is not a Christian fundamentalist any longer.
Do you people really want to put this idea to the test?
The sword of bigoty and religious prejudice cuts both ways."
Posted by: Jonas Salk at August 24, 2007 12:30 AM
special_guest
The suggestions you made above re: Robert's proposal to classify Muslim groups as political rather than religious organizations is good, but for that to happen, Islam itself needs to be recognized as a geopolitical ideological cult, rather than as a religion. It's hard to rationalize categorizing organizations like CAIR or MPAC as political organizations without recognizing Islam itself to be political. Should one try that, these organizations can credibly point out that they are in fact religious organizations, and that what the government is interpreting as political activity is in fact genuine Islamic religious activity sanctioned by the Quran.
Robert wrote a good article, but on this point, methinks he's putting the chariot before the horses.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 24, 2007 12:35 AM
From troll: Fundamentalist Christians are a considerably greater threat to the United States than the Muslims. If you people continue your warmongering I imagine that you people might discover your own religious freedoms restricted.
The solution is simple: Round up imams teaching political islamic jihad, and close down their mosques. Christianity has nothing to do with this. If moslems want to practice personal faith, fine, but they politicize it, shut it down, deport them. Begone troll, we know what needs doing. And we can do it here, and over there, boundaries no problem.
at August 24, 2007 12:47 AM
Great debate between two very sharp people. Interesting point about the change in immigration laws happening at the time of the decline of Christianity in the US.
Posted by: pez at August 24, 2007 1:16 AM
Yes, I thought it was great debate too, though -- sorry to be predictable on this -- I thought Spencer got much the better of it. I wonder if Derbyshire will now respond to Spencer. I also thought Spencer's last couple of lines in that piece were kind of brilliant. And I liked hearing the shorthand explanation he used for the difference between Christian and Islamic theology, vis-a-vis science: for Christian theology, God is consistent, whereas in Islamic theology, God is pure will. The former outlook is amenable to science, the latter not, because pure will obeys no laws: Allah obeys nothing but himself. He is absolute potentate, not subject to any laws. The cosmos lacks any strong form of independence from Allah. So for Islam, just as Allah is not subject to any law, so the cosmos is not lawful. It responds only or primarily to Allah's arbitrary will and fiat. But how, without lawfulness, can one birth a science?
Spencer's reference to pure will vs. consistency really boils down the distinction to its essence.
Spencer elsewhere has of course acknowledged the Greco-Roman contribution to our civilization, but I'd like to see him clarify the relative contributions of that heritage compared with the Judeo-Christian one. Maybe no one is clear about that though, since their intertwining goes back to before the beginnings of Christianity.
My understanding of the distinction between what Athens gave us and what Jerusalem gave us is that in certain respects, the Judeo-Christian culture was both more individualistic and more communitarian than the Greco-Roman culture. Ortega y Gasset described the difference by saying that the Greeks, with their intellectual activity and questioning and skepticism, carved out a sort of hole in the plenum of experience, a kind of empty space that didn't impinge on human instinctive responses so directly, leaving human beings psychologically more free than they had been before. Thought does not force one to act. Instinct, on the other hand, and the voices of the gods as well, do compel action, at least in the absence of a capacity for thinking.
Christianity came along and put, into the empty hole the Greeks carved out, something more than a freedom and emptiness born of skepticism. Christinity inserted into that necessary void a positive form of freedom, an ethos based on love. Since love, properly so called, comes from the innermost core of a person, it cannot be compelled. Hence Christianity is profoundly rooted in freedom, and rooted in a profound freedom.
Julian Jaynes put it this way: he said that Christianity was the first religion for conscious human beings. Jaynes held that at some point historically speaking not long prior to the Christian era, the "bicameral mind" broke down and human beings became conscious for the first time. Prior to that, he claims, they had been moved hither and yon, as though in a dream, by the voices of gods, and were in a state that, if I recall correctly, Jaynes analogized to a kind of schizophrenia. That was connected with a different relation between the right and left lobes of the brain, Jaynes hypothesized. Then that connection between right and left hemispheres broke down, and human beings suddenly stopped living in thrall to inner voices and gods, and became conscious and able to think, hence free. For Jaynes, Christianity was in some measure a response to that situation. My hobby horse Rudolf Steiner said that Christ was the divine I AM, the God of the Jews. The Jews themselves had known God through a divine name that meant something like I AM. Christ was the descent into human beings of spiritual individuality, the Logos, and the culmination of eons of evolutionary change, though not of the purely Darwinian kind. It was beyond the tired dichotomy between creationism and evolution. It was evolution as a spiritual, not just a material, process. The way Coleridge understood evolution. But enough off-topic...
Posted by: traeh at August 24, 2007 3:12 AM
traeh: The fact that "for Christian theology, God is consistent" is (as it relates to Christianity) "the Greco-Roman contribution to our civilization".
It was the influence of Classical Greek rationality that resulted in this cornerstone of Christian theology. A Christian will not explicitly admit it, but, in effect, God is constrained by The Good. The concept of an independent Good is pure Ancient Greek.
Posted by: Brett_McS at August 24, 2007 3:53 AM
"lagniappe
Main Entry: la·gniappe
Pronunciation: ‘lan-”yap
Function: noun
Etymology: American French, from American Spanish la ńapa the lagniappe, from la + ńapa, yapa, from Quechua yapa something added
: a small gift given a customer by a merchant at the time of a purchase; broadly : something given or obtained gratuitously or by way of good measure"
How cool is that - when I give a customer a "small gift" I normally call it a "un regalito" - and now I find that there is another phrase "la ńapa".
You can learn the most surprising things at JihadWatch ...
Posted by: drk at August 24, 2007 5:03 AM
While the acts of brutality from Islam are done explicitly, the acts of brutality from Christianity(now that the crusades are over) are done implicitly, through the slow process of politics and our courts. (Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!)
Especially after watching CNN's programs the last 3 nights, our nation should be even more concerned with, not just the potential death from Islam radicals, but the death of our nation from Christian radical fundamentalists.
You owe it to yourself to watch all 6 hours of these programs and see for yourself the disease of the mind when it comes to religion of all forms and the destruction it seeks for its own self-aggrandized rapture.
NO RELIGION OR PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS PEACE LOVING WHO'S RELIGION TALKS ABOUT THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE THROUGH ARMAGEDDON OR BEING "SAVED" IF YOU JUST BELIEVE IN SOME NON-EXISTENT DEITY.
It doesn't seek peace; it seeks its own dogma through indoctrination, control, manipulation and if given the chance here in the U.S., force, into adherence of "god's laws".
This is sick behavior. This is a disease of the mind.
It is true in our evolution as a species that religion once played its part to help evolve communities toward certain understandings for which we instinctively knew already but laid no words down.
But now religion is used only as a weapon by those who would seek to turn this democracy into a theocracy.
God is imaginary
Prayer is superstitious
Religion poisons everything
Posted by: scooternyc at August 24, 2007 6:56 AM
I have been enjoying this exchange tremendously. It's rare that I enjoy points from both sides of the debate.
I trust Robert Spencer will not object if I, in my own small manner, make a few comments. Forgive me if I grumble a bit, but I find it best to mention that which I do not agree with, as opposed to the majority that I do agree with:
>>Huh? “And so”? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they’re of equal moral value?
These were my thoughts when reading it. In fact, this is also the position of Sam Harris who keeps pointing out 'we are never going to have problems with Jain suicide bombers'.
>>This cuts both ways: if Christian theocrats are really the threat Chris Hedges, Barry Lynn, and Kevin Phillips think they are, it only plays into the sinister hands of the Bushitler to focus attention on the adherents of the Religion of Peace
Here I would quibble with Mr. Spencer's choice of counterargument. Let's say that there is a nascent totalitarian movement within American Christianity, just for the sake of the argument. Now if we see a mushroom cloud over a major American city, what kind of political forces do Hedges, Phillips, and Lynn think that we will see empowered? What kind of political leaders will rise?
I keep harping on this point to my fellow atheist worrywarts - if there is a Christian Theocracy plot (again, I'm just saying this for the sake of the argument) it becomes vitally important _not_ to let catastrophic terror strike the West, because that would only empower the aforesaid plot.
The expressions on their faces when you mention this are amazing.
BTW, Sam Harris tearing Chris Hedges apart:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/
>>The quip is nice; the thought, shallow. Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)
After agreeing with a fair bit of Mr. Spencer's writings, I have to take exception to this. Now, one can argue - as Lee Harris does - that for science to get started, it needed to make the a priori assumption that the Universe was an orderly place, which cannot be proved in advance - and that the only way to get that is a kind of mystical supposition, a la Catholicism. Now, that is a heavily debatable point, but even if it is true, today we have tons of evidence that the Universe is an orderly place, and have no more need for mystical claptrap.
This brings me to the second point, about 'science unbounded by any moral sense'. With respect, this is balderdash. Science cannot operate without morality. Science is, by its very nature, moral. In order to be able to work, a scientist must have dedication, he must have total honesty, and he must have justice in order to appreciate those who demonstrate these virutes themselves. And he must have integrity, as well as the deep pride in doing the best one can, as well as the humility in accepting that which he cannot and thus not make any unfounded speculations. These are all cardinal virtues.
Now, I know what you are thinking: the atomic bomb. But nuclear weapons were developed at the behest, not of scientists, but of _governments_. The awful threat of atomic war is the result of what happens if scientists allow others - who may well claim 'faith' as their authority - to proscribe what is and is not moral for them.
There is zero evidence that science dehumanises the scientist. I have met some of the finest minds on this planet, and I can tell you, they are some of the finest human biengs too.
Vis a viz Derbyshire's comments on the nature of christianity, I am afraid that it is still somethin that bothers me. I do not see how fighting against Islam tooth and nail is compatible with 'turning the other cheek' and 'loving the enemy'. I do not love Islam - I hate it. I wish to see it wiped from existence - and I am absolutely convinced that it is moral to do so.
>>They are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force.
True in part. Whenever human beings renounce the use of reason, force is all that is left. Which is why _all_ faith-based systems have used force.
I am unsure what exactly 'the Transcendent' means. Does this mean belief in the supernatural? But then how does one explain the legions of passionate, dedicated atheists who are willing to fight and die for their values.
I am an atheist and I have a tremendous _confidence_ - not belief - in our species, because of what members of our species are capable of, and what they have routinely demonstrated. We have risen from the swamp and the cave to become creatures capable of seeing the very dawn of the Universe and its end. And that is the root of my hatred of Islam - and of all systems of servilty. Man deserves better than crawling on his belly before some tyrant, whether one on earth, or one invisible in the sky.
Tortured, in the cellars of the Thought Police, Winston Smith speaks of 'some principle that you will never defeat'. He does not believe in God, and the only name that he can give that principle is 'the Spirit of Man'.
We don't _need_ religion to understand that.
>>Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?
A very fair point. I enjoyed that. I don't know about John Paul II, mind you, since he was the one apologising for the Crusades and 'trying to build bridges with Islam'. As Sam Harris has said, there are bridges and there are gangplanks...
The trouble is that Christianity's record of being on the right side of things in this fight - during the Cartoon riots, during the Rushdie affair - is not encouraging. And it was not encouraging against the great totalitarian movements of the twentieth century. That is what worries me.
>>Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question.
Actually, he would. He has said of the troops fighting in Iraq 'they could all be snake handling congregationists for all I care'.
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at August 24, 2007 7:15 AM
And I will add, Christianity is more deceptive in its madrassah.
Posted by: scooternyc at August 24, 2007 7:16 AM
scooternyc wrote:
"While the acts of brutality from Islam are done explicitly, the acts of brutality from Christianity(now that the crusades are over) are done implicitly, through the slow process of politics and our courts. (Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!)"
"Especially after watching CNN's programs the last 3 nights, our nation should be even more concerned with, not just the potential death from Islam radicals, but the death of our nation from Christian radical fundamentalists."
My goodness.
The Crusades were defensive in nature. A direct response to years of violent Islamic expansion. Your loose use of the word "brutality", attributing to both what you call the explicit acts of the Islamists and the implicit acts of the Christians respectively, is misplaced. The difference in the degree of the "brutality" could not be any more obvious.
I did watch the entire CNN special and came away laughing at what Amanpour tried to put forth as a moral equivalency amongst the three faiths discussed. I saw interviews with young Christian girls. I saw interviews with conservative Christians expressing their beliefs and some with the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. I also saw the political movement against gay marriage. In contrast, the night before I saw wave after wave of violence and death in the Islamic world.
Moral equivalency?...I guess some people will truly believe anything.
The "brutality" of the Christians is an organized peaceful political movement. People who express their beliefs and vote for people who share their ideals through the democratic process that is in place in the US. Your fears of the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US are irrational.
In your words, we should be MORE concerned with the Christian fundamentalists. You speak of a "potential" threat from the Islamists but proceed forward with the death of the entire nation to Christian fundamentalism not as potential, but rather a forgone conclusion unless it is halted. Preposterous.
The atheistic point of view has it's merits, but that position if often taken to a fault. The major flaw is that the atheists tend to ignore the immediate imminent threat posed by Islam, as you just did, but yet somehow expect a reasonable solution is for 85% of the world's population to abandon faith altogether.
My, my, that is quite a lofty goal.
Let's compare gay marriage being prohibited in the US, as it currently is, to gay marriage being prohibited under Islamic Sharia law. Do you think the degree of "brutality" is similar, or do you maintain that it will actually be worse under a Christian theocracy?
Rarely, if ever, have I encountered someone who's need to read Robert's new book is more dire than your own.
at August 24, 2007 9:02 AM
Sorry, Fanusi. Christianity was not encrouaging against the totalitarian movements of the 20th century? You never heard of the Confessing movement in the German churches? The general abhorrence in which Christians held Communism (after all, Marx declared Christianity an opiate). The Reformed churches never got along with the totalist claims of either kings or party presidia.
And, you prick the Christian conscience in the eighteenth century and get Wilberforce's crusade to end slavery in Britain and dominions; you prick the Islamic conscience in the same time, and you get Mulay Isamail's declaration that he cannot tamper with the place God assigned for unbelievers.
Also, we Christians do have a tradition of thinking that speaks of the "just war". Christ's admonition to abstain from personal cengeance does not de-canonize David's example as a warrior. It's just that we see war as the absolute last resort, not the great religious duty of the pious man.
Finally, as a Christian, I find the doctrine of the immaculate conception (the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin) to be the drivellings of a deluded, 19th century Italian Prince. In Scripture itself, Mary confesses herself to be in need of a savior along with the rest of us sinners (Luke 2, in the Magnificat). Also, the one in whom all Israel is represented in a single person is Jesus, not Mary (it is written, "Out of Egypt I called my son"--Mt. 2, quoting Hosea--not "my daughter").
Posted by: Kepha at August 24, 2007 9:04 AM
Scooternyc, if I didn't know better, I might think that Mr. Spencer pays people like you to come on here and make silly posts just to prove his points. Crack open a history book. The West is becoming less Christian and more secular over time (which is generally a good thing in my view.) These Christian fundamentalist leaders, of which you seem to be so terrified, do not command militias or terrorist cells. They are really only successful in limited parts of the US and Canada, and even then, the only things they are really accomplishing is to con 'donations' from the pensions of the elderly, which they then use to build lavish swimming pools and air conditioned dog houses, and to furthermore convince these same people to vote for Pat Buchanan, thereby subtracting votes from whomever may be the Republican front runner in a particular presidential election year. These shouldn't really be seen as paramount issues of national or global concern to any sane person, especially when compared to things like global warming, oil dependence, or Islamic expansionism and militancy.
Posted by: Abu Allah at August 24, 2007 9:11 AM
Posted by: John C at August 23, 2007 8:30 PM
There's no difference, John.
It is the same symbolical origin and the same wish to testify the "special origine" of Jesus.
You can take some other examples to it (and please don't send me to google for all the examples)
In the ancient sumerian, babylonian, greek etc. mythologies you will find the complex of being born out of a seed, getting again into the earth (sacrifice of Jesus) and get born again.
You also find the birth of Athene, the Birth of the first People, Birth out of miraculous egg a.s.o. Would you want to start and argue with those other mythologies, that human beings won't get born out of eggs? Or would you start studying the symbolic meanings in those myths?
I am just saying, that this kind of aproach to a literary or mythological text is very naiv, dilettantic - and cannot give any revelance about the real value either of the islam or of christian mythology
Posted by: Kybeline at August 24, 2007 9:13 AM
traeh: I enjoyed your post, timed at 3:12AM.
Have you read Sailing From Byzantium by Colin Wells? In its own way, SFB is as useful as Robert Spencer's books in understanding why we are where we are. It is also a delightful book to read. It is not a polemical work whatsoever, but its history (besides being fascinating and so well written) is very instructive (or am I being redundant? ... lol).
I think Wells' book would be of particular interest to anyone who visits JW.
Posted by: Moonzoo at August 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Thorough, well-argued and impeccably polite. It is responses such as this that makes Robert Spencer apply to godless Brits such as me.
Posted by: Aveyard at August 24, 2007 10:02 AM
What a sharp contrast in these writings!
The tools of John Derbyshires' trade appear limited to words.
The tools of Robert's trade include both words and ideas.
Well done, Robert.
Posted by: LoneRanger at August 24, 2007 10:08 AM
Looking at discussion above, I think that I should say something to those who think that America is uniquely threatened by radical Christians. Look at this! http://www.ianpaisley.org/toc.asp?loc=politics This man is the First Minister of Northern Ireland. That means that he is the most powerful man in one of the four states of the U.K. That is more powerful than the Governor of Texas. What do you all think of his views?
I have heard that four abortion doctors have been killed by the terrorist group, the Army of God. That is terrible. In Britain, thirteen prostitutes were killed by a radical Christian - Paul Sutcliffe.
No-one expects that Britain is going to become a Christian theocracy. No-one should expect that America will do neither. We are not really any more threatened that you are, and we do not talk about this "threat" ever. Islam is a much bigger threat than Christianity.
Posted by: Aveyard at August 24, 2007 10:09 AM
Moslems are a sleezy lot, they lie. Under oath? To what, Allah? which means what? Look at Islamic history and their unholy texts. I vote for Spencer's analysis to tell the truth. Christianity is not the problem. Islam is the problem, had been for 1400 years, and is once more spreading like disease. Christianity is not its main opposition, nor should it be used to combat this plague. The correct approach is to identify the carriers of this unholy mission of totalitarian world domination, hiding under the guise of 'religiion' and stop them. Our freedoms demand no less.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 24, 2007 10:11 AM
scooternyc,
I have the same disgust for millenarian apocalyptic notions, but that is a rather small and peculiarly "American" part of Christianity; and not the core of it, not in numbers or doctrine.
Christians waiting for Armageddon to cleanse the world engage in a rather passive excercise. They are a disengaged subculture [IMO--I'm not trying to antagonize anyone] that lacks the imperative to dominate all and everything driving Islam. Most of all, they lack the political entities, institutions, and machinery--not to mention the collective WILL and shear numbers--that make Dar al-Islam the greatest, most immediate and existential threat to our nation and globe.
That God is distinct from, and beyond creation doesn't necessarily make Him imaginary, just hard to define by unaided huma n reason alone--not even considering how knowable He is as a Person.
Scooter, ignoring the smug, exclusive certitude of their own right standing in God's eyes of some Christians (a characteristic of many Muslims also), let's focus on the REAL threat [manifested in death fatwas, ultimatums, and declarations of war] (to our freedoms, well-being, our very lives) of ISLAM.
at August 24, 2007 11:40 AM
Brett,
God is Himself the Good--He is consistently true to Himself.
Posted by: John C at August 24, 2007 12:14 PM
>>Sorry, Fanusi. Christianity was not encrouaging against the totalitarian movements of the 20th century? You never heard of the Confessing movement in the German churches?
Actually, no, I haven't. However, I have heard of a few things like this:
>>Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant
And so on. I know that Hitler was blessed by the Vatican, as well as enjoying large scale support from the protestant churches. Other fascist regimes enjoyed similar support.
When it comes to Communism, Russian Christianity essentially laid the groundwork for Stalin and his horrors, by hammering faith and servitude into the peasants for centuries. Not to mention Stalin making up with the Russian Orthodox church and the Vatican later on (read Animal Farm).
So you can call that 'aiding' or 'spectacularly failing to resist'. Either way the track record stinks.
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at August 24, 2007 12:34 PM
>>And, you prick the Christian conscience in the eighteenth century and get Wilberforce's crusade to end slavery in Britain and dominions;
Which, by the way, was opposed just as intensely by other Christians and those other Christians cited chapter and verse of the Bible to back themselves up. Slavery _is_ sanctioned in the Bible.
I'll just throw Christopher Hitchens's bet out here: Can you think of a single moral action performed or a single wise thing said by a believer that could not have been done or said by a nonbeliever?
Conversely, can you imagine an atrocity committed or nonsense believed that specifically requires religious faith and is impossible to unbelievers?
at August 24, 2007 12:43 PM
Kybeline,
It doesn't matter to me here what mythic pagan roots the Christian narrative has. Mythic thought is an engaging subject; yes, but my focus is not on that or on the believability of dogmas, so much.
I try to clarify what we mean by "immaculate conception" in the interest of mutual understanding and respect--useful to our common stand against the jihad imperative of Islam.
As Peaceful, Kepha, and others know, "immaculate conception" is an entirely different matter from that of "virgin birth." "Immaculate conception" doesn't refer to Christ's conception or to biology at all.
Posted by: John C at August 24, 2007 12:45 PM
Caroline: Excellent writing. FYI, "Dave Mathews" has been banned from quite a few sites that I visit regularly. He's a very active troll. (FWIW, I think I qualify as a "classical liberal", which of late has been pretty close to "Goldwater Republican". I'm too young to have voted for Barry, but IMHO we should have had him as POTUS.)
Quoth Im.mad.as.HELL!:
If what you propose were true why hasn't this happen in the last 200 years of our countries life.The people who would do it didn't have the influence to stack the Supreme Court before. The SC is one vote away from allowing overt sectarian bias in government. This is one of their explicit goals.
The church/state barrier is under attack but by those that wish to remove any thought, value or control (I speak in terms of the positive) that Christian values have influenced this country.Now you're repeating theocrat talking points, and using the same "tu quoque" attacks as the Islamists. Ending sectarian prayer at public school events or removing Biblical displays and pictures of Jesus from court houses are not an attack on either Christianity or separation. They only prevent government from endorsing one religion (or one sect of one religion) over others. You will find NO CASE where prayer in a church or home, or a creche on private property, has ever been successfully challenged under the First Amendment.
I don't think demoting Islam as a religion and outlawing it is a threat to the first amendment rather it is a way of protecting it from an enemy that would nullify it given the chance.If we let Christians perform sectarian meddling in politics, we make impossible to forbid Islamists from doing the same. Christianity does just fine with separation, while Islam cannot abide it. Lowering that barrier ultimately serves the Islamists.
Quoth venividivici:
The threat from Islam is a threat to both faith AND reasonFundamentalism of any kind is a threat to reason, and heightening the barriers between unreason and government authority is one sure way to reduce the chances of any kind of theocracy.
I'm all for recognizing Islam in general as a political movement, with all that implies. But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to accept e.g. fundamentalist Christian censorship of biology teaching (which they already do de facto and are attempting to do de jure) as the price of fighting the Islamists, and I will not cede any ground on that front for the sake of another.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet at August 24, 2007 12:58 PM
Conversely, can you imagine an atrocity committed or nonsense believed that specifically requires religious faith and is impossible to unbelievers? - Fanusi Khiyal
SLAVERY, total submission.
We who are free may be religious or unreligious in how we reject slavery. Slaves are not free to reject their condition.
Those who submit to religious authority must obey as 'slaves' of Allah, or other gods of the Sharia.
Free human beings cannot tolerate the atrocity of human slavery, where any human being is owned by another. We reject total submission to slavery, which a 'slave of Allah' is not free to do by his religious faith.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 24, 2007 1:01 PM
Quoth John C:
If theocratic Christians are marginal, and there is no consensus (nor likely emerging) among Christians for theocracy (apart from legitimate engagement with the world)It doesn't matter. By the time it got to the point where a lack of consensus stopped their progress, a huge amount of damage would have been done.
how does that compare with the large and growing numbers of Muslims seeking a restored Caliphate, imposition of Sharia, and Muslim supremacy achieved by whatever means, even bin Laden's?They are two different things. The Islamic program is far worse, but it is alien; the Christian theocratic program co-opts far more people and has greater potential to effect harmful change at the level of the law.
Enlightenment values or not, we have to hang together, not separately. There are so many fronts of this existential struggle, resistance requires everyone of us.Agreed. This is why I'd like Robert to do two things:
at August 24, 2007 1:05 PM
Quoth waltc:
Alchemy was a spiritual science not materials engineering."Spiritual science" is an oxymoron, and you utterly missed the point: alchemy midwifed chemistry, but that does not mean it merits respect today.
And where are the hordes of astrologers that have impeded the nerds of science?They're out there in voting booths, electing politicians who know as little of science as they do and direct budgets accordingly.
But if a Christian says abortion is wrong call out the police and hide the leftists with slight constitutions.They do not merely call it wrong, they call for it to be banned by the power of the state (and pass numerous laws to that effect). This is taking an article of faith (that an organism with no identifiable mental function or other high-level human traits is a human being) and demanding that it be obeyed by all. Why can't they agree to disagree and follow their own path? Isn't this demand for state imposition of religious dogma upon non-believers exactly the thing we condemn Islamists for?
As far as the west becoming a Christian state, it only exists in the deluded minds of leftists who don't have a clue.You don't see the attack on reproductive rights (including the denial of OTC sales of Plan B), the attack on science teaching (including but not limited to evolution), and other "social" things as I do. Christians who believe these things are wrong are free to differ,
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)