The price you pay, Spencer, for these pithy and eye-catching titles. Excellent book, by the way, and FAR, FAR more balanced and generous than any review I've yet read has given it credit for. I think 90% of the reviewers base their review entirely on the title, or on Spencer's (real or fictitious) reputation. I may write a review of my own on Amazon eventually.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 31, 2007 3:45 PM

I the think "The Derb" is upset because in your posts, you keep referring to yourself in the third person as in: Google Video removes Spencer's video.

LOL. Nyet, The Derb is typical of those who have rejected religion, with their tendency to hold all organized religions with scorn, in a sort of theological relativity. I see this a lot with Muslim apostates - they have been so traumatized by their experience with Islam, that they shun all forms of organized religon as evil.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at October 31, 2007 3:47 PM

Mister Ghost:

I only refer to myself in the third person in headlines because I don't want to assume that everyone who comes to the site will immediately know who "I" or "me" is.

Maybe that's nuts, I don't know.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 31, 2007 3:50 PM

I'm curious as to why you still haven't finished the article promised Robert. With your intellect and knowledge, should be nothing for you to whip something up in a day. I also can't understand anyone's fascination with Islam, except maybe Muslims. From the time I was young and had wealthy Muslim friends, I knew and felt it was an evil religion and they were going to hell upon death. I was more intrigued with their culture than their religion. Buddhism would be a more worthy study because at least it promotes peace. Islam to me is the same as Satanism, as Mohammed was a devil in disguise.

Posted by: Bonniea at October 31, 2007 4:16 PM

I really do not consider Derbyshire an interlocutor worth attending to. He strikes me as an intellectual and spiritual wastrel who specialises in redundancy and argument for the sake of it.

Apropos a possible renaissance or flowering of a decent version of Islam....a pipedream. Islam is inherently fascist, the acme of collective group think, the perfect embodiment of what Hitler once insisted on passionately at Nuremberg....that it is incumbent on the individual to abandon himself wholly to the overwhelming need or desire to obey. To submit, surrender and sacrifice your individuality to a higher authority. This is the meaning of the word Islam and it is not surprising that Hitler admired it so much....it's cruelty. Freedom of conscience and equality can never be part of this agenda. Reform is an impossibility, especially given the belief in the Koran as the immutable word of God and Mohammed as the perfect man.

Posted by: johndoe at October 31, 2007 4:21 PM

Derbyshire is a intellectual fraud. He and other pagans don't get that Islam would kill them in a heart beat. In Islamic society there is no tolerance for people like him, Rosie O'donnell or your hedonistic leftists that populate our colleges and support Islam.

Posted by: waltc at October 31, 2007 4:29 PM

1) You do come across as something of an apologist for Christianity. You tend to make excuses for Christianity's less savory moments (most notably for the Crusades). That said, most of Christianity's less savory moments are centuries past, while Islam's less savory moments -- well, they just keep getting less and less savory every day. I can name any number of atrocious things Christians have down throughout their history, but the number of strictly Christian atrocities since, say, 1900 is quite limited. Strictly Islamic atrocities -- horrible acts committed explicitly in the name of Islam --occur daily all over the world in 2007 AD.

2) You say you respect Islam and then wish upon it all sorts of things which by your own scholarship you've shown to be thoroughly un-Islamic, like equality for those with other beliefs and decent treatment of women. This confuses me, and I don't wonder that it confuses Derbyshire.

Posted by: Karl Pov at October 31, 2007 4:31 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I wanted to share with you some of my opinions regarding your presentation and overall appeal when it comes to addressing the points you raise here at Jihad Watch and other venues.

First, I want to let you know that I am an avid reader of the site. I support what you are doing here: to be frank and honest with respect to Islamic supremacism. It needs to be done. And with your education, you are the one to do it.

Here is where I run into problems with your beliefs regarding Christianity. I take it that, as a Christian, you believe that 2000 years ago a wandering mystic/preacher named Jesus was the incarnation of the God of Abraham. That he was executed, and in doing so supposedly resolved all of us from the sins of the first Man and Woman to ever live. That he will, again, visit us as a spirit and bring about the end of the world, saving those who are believers in his story.

Well, to be perfectly frank, to anyone not raised in a Christian country these beliefs are nonsense. They are supported by nothing more than "Faith", or to be more accurate, "willful suspension of reason and critical thinking in favor of incredulity."

So, when you, rightfully, criticize the beliefs of Muslims, who too have their set of nonsensical beliefs, it may come across as hypocritical. Why should we expect them to critically analyze what their Imams say whenever we fail to critically analyze our own beliefs.

Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris et al., are perfectly entitled to criticize Christianity in the same way they view Islam. But, I think you misinterpret them if you think they don't understand the greater threat of Islam when compared to modern day Christianity. However, in their books, they focus on the truth of the claims, and find them equally lacking in substance.

In fact, during the American Atheist International--I think its called--conference a couple of weeks ago, Sam Harris specifically addressed the fact that atheists should focus their attention on the greater threat and that not all religions are equally dangerous.

In any case, you have my respect. Where we disagree is of little consequence considering the bigger picture. I would love to see you in a debate with Sam Harris if you ever have the opportunity. Interestingly enough, I think you would find that you both are in agreement more than you assume.

Respectfully,

James McDonald

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at October 31, 2007 4:37 PM

Dear James McDonald,

With respect, none of that is relevant. I do not criticize Islamic doctrines as nonsensical. The truth or falsehood of Islam is not what I write about. I criticize Islamic doctrines insofar as they contradict otherwise univerally accepted notions of human rights.

If someone believes that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and gave him a book from Paradise, that is no concern of mine except insofar as the book tells believers to subjugate me and destroy my society. If a version of Islam were constructed that did not contain this supremacist impulse, and were accepted by the great aggregate of Muslims, I would have nothing further to say publicly about Islam.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 31, 2007 4:42 PM

If all that is "anti-Muslim," as some have said it is, so be it.

I would say that it is. But whose fault is that? "Islamophobes" or the Qur'an and 1400 years of Islamic history

Posted by: Elric66 at October 31, 2007 4:43 PM

Robert,

Your point is noted. However, I do think it is something important to address under the circumstances. What you are asking people to do is reconsider their beliefs about Islam, or to forfeit the beliefs entirely. If you don't ask them to do so, then what do you expect to change?

In order for Islam to reform it will require either reinterpretation of scripture, omission of certain scripture, or the denial of the scripture as a whole. None of these goals can be accomplished, in my opinion, without encouraging people to reconsider whether or not the offending scriptures are True in the sense that they are the word of Allah. How else do you expect them to change? I am asking curiously not spitefully.

Thanks,

James

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at October 31, 2007 4:49 PM

James,

Certainly they need to reconsider the notion of Qur'anic dictation -- as Suleiman Bashear tried to argue before his students cast him out of the classroom window.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 31, 2007 4:53 PM

v4ri4bl3,

Because believing Jesus died and rose again is no threat to anyone. What Mohammed taught does threaten every non Muslim. Thats the difference.

Posted by: Elric66 at October 31, 2007 4:53 PM

Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "To be great is to be misunderstood."

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 31, 2007 4:57 PM

Elric66,

That wasn't my point. I totally agree that in most cases the approach of Jesus is actually a good idea. Asceticism is a great tactic in many circumstances. For example, Martin Luther King's use of it during the civil rights era.

However, if you decide not to stop someone who is about to murder a child in cold blood on grounds that Jesus taught non-violence, I would consider that an immoral act. Would you not?

The impact of Christianity and what it means for today's society was not my point. My point is merely that, if we expect Muslims to be more critical about their beliefs in order to promote reform, we too have to be equally critical with all our beliefs. In my opinion, this means eliminating religious superstition or anything we can identify as unsubstantiated.

As I said, thats merely my opinion, and I would like to avoid a mob of ad hominem. I realize I'm not talking to an audience that is likely to agree with me. =)

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at October 31, 2007 5:02 PM

"His zeal for his own religion, and scorn for other people's, is the kind of thinking that, in my opinion, gets us nowhere we should want to be; but it's a point of view, and I respect Robert's scholarship".-Derby

Derby is no a perceptive guy and he thinks he's more important than he really is. The passion here not coming from religion, John.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2007 5:03 PM

Maybe we should have a site called Buddhawatch? Is there anyone up for that? Is there anyone that feels threatened about threats from those radical Buddhists lately?

Anyone concerned? HELL0!

Whoops; I don't want to be labeled with Buddhaphobia?

And please don't make any cartoons about them Buddhists, or try to flush any Buddhas' down toilets.

Oh and for gods sakes don't put the crucifix in bottle of urine and call it art.

My gosh can you see the fatwas flying now!~!!

Posted by: Mackie at October 31, 2007 5:11 PM

I take it that, as a Christian, you believe that 2000 years ago a wandering mystic/preacher named Jesus was the incarnation of the God of Abraham. That he was executed, and in doing so supposedly resolved all of us from the sins of the first Man and Woman to ever live...Well, to be perfectly frank, to anyone not raised in a Christian country these beliefs are nonsense. They are supported by nothing more than "Faith", or to be more accurate, "willful suspension of reason and critical thinking in favor of incredulity."
--posted by mcdonald

I was raised as a Jew; trained as a Hebraist.

I turned to Christ as my savior because the Old Testament correctly prophecies the coming of the Messiah in Jesus.

The more I read the Old Testament (and I read it often to keep my Hebrew at a high polish), the more amazing and accurate appear the prophecies about Jesus. Just the other day, I read my church class PSALM 2. Mindboggling!

"Kiss the Son" it instructs us.

Of course, in the JPS translation (Jewish Publication Society) it says this passage is ambiguous and means something like "give homage to the king."

Baloney! "Nashku Bar" means "kiss the son." It was written 2,000 years before that son appeared.

Christianity is mystical, inexplicable.

But if you would study the Bible you would see that there is nothing nonsensical about recognizing prophecy.

I would also encourage you to read the book "The Mysterious Shroud" by Ian Wilson.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 31, 2007 5:33 PM

Robert,

As I said in an earlier post, in order to accomplish the nefarious, insidious ends you outline--universal equality under the [natural and civil] law, freedom of conscience, etc., and all that--it is imperative that we zealous relio-political partisans [who are we kidding--everyone KNOWS who we are] unite, stay on-message, maintain our distinct [stereotypical] identity, and work from within the system until we are strong and numerous enough to TAKE OVER, bring down this rotten PC structure, destroy the Infamous Entity, and achieve our glorious, inevitable [theocratic] Global Triumph. Deus vult, Dudes!

(And hasta la vista, CAIR and left-wing paranoids--in your wildest projections!)

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 5:41 PM

Long Live The CounterJihad!

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 5:43 PM

Robert,
Even though your arguments are stated clearly and rationally, and do not rely on spiritual or supernatural appeal, they will send some "progressives" into a tizzy of fear and accusations of zealotry. The religiously atheistic can't stand for scripture to be quoted, even as an academic exercise to expose the philosophical differences between Christianity and Islam. For them, quotes of scripture for any purpose appear like crosses to a vampire. They reject reason yet want to wear reason as badge of honor.

It's an irony that a group which takes pride in clear thinking intellectualism is unable to read two books and see the glaring philosophical differences between them. These should be the first folks to be persuaded by evidence, yet amazingly, even with evidence all around them, some still aren't convinced.

Besides the original link to Abraham, the only commonality that I can see between Islam and Christianity is the belief in a supreme being. The really important things in this life that flow from the two religions: self image, how one treats their friends, neighbors, loved ones, and the social contract that make a civil society possible, could not be more different.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 31, 2007 5:49 PM

Erratum--read "religio-political"

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 5:50 PM

v4ri4bl3

My concern about islam is its politics, or how it defines and treats us, the kafir. Jihad, the jizya, slavery and other disgusting attributes such as arab imperialism that are made sacred in the islamic foundational texts are a serious hindrance in the evolution of the consciousness of humanity. Islam is a political ideology of dual ethics and master/slave relationship cloaked in a primitive religion.

Posted by: the poetess at October 31, 2007 5:52 PM

Why Allah cannot be the God of the Bible:

http://www.truthwatch.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83

Conclusion:

"That Allah cannot be the God of the Bible is evident in the Quran and in other Muslim religious writings. Islam is simply a Seventh Century pagan Arabian religion that adopted an existing tribal moon god as the one true god and was forced on the Arab people by a self-proclaimed prophet. Its spread has not relied on the force of its arguments or proof of its truth. Rather, its expansion depended on military force and subjugation. The Jihad sanctifies murder and warlike violence. Muhammad himself led 27 Jihads."

Posted by: champ at October 31, 2007 6:05 PM

I was raised as a Jew; trained as a Hebraist.

I turned to Christ as my savior because the Old Testament correctly prophecies the coming of the Messiah in Jesus.

Posted by Ynkedoodl2

Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah are the most blessed of all people on earth.

Posted by: Bonniea at October 31, 2007 6:21 PM

v4ri4bl3 --

You, Harris, Dawkins, Derbyshire, and so forth are engaging in an ad homeneim attack against Robert Spencer when you assert that his analysis of Islam is not credible because he happens to hold beliefs to which you don't subscribe and which you deem to be unreasonable.

Imagine if Socrates thought that way! We would not have Western Civilization! Imagine if Socrates believed that he had to perfect his own use of Reason before he asked others to question the use of theirs?

Further, pick up and read Sam Harris' The End Of Faith, at about page 273 or thereabouts. The line where he says something like "science has not proven that consciousness arises solely from the brain." If you want intellectual dishonesty, look no further than Sam Harris. Sam Harris is a Western convert to Buddhism, and like many Western converts to Buddhism, holds all monotheist religions in contempt. Yet he apparently believes in the possibility of reincarnation because it hasn't been dis-proven. If we hold Harris up to the same criteria that he wants everybody else held to then he fails miserably. Harris believes that society should stop being influenced by
people who hold scientifically unverified beliefs. Of course, that set involves Harris and his Eastern woo-woo "consciousness" mysticism. So Harris can be safely ignored according to his own criteria.

But please don't hold Robert Spencer--or anybody else--to Sam Harris' criteria. That criteria spells the end of progress towards acquiring reasonable beliefs because it only allows people who have supposedly perfected their capacity for reason to be in a position to influence the beliefs of others.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at October 31, 2007 6:36 PM

@Bonniea

Thank You and Bless you too!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 31, 2007 6:40 PM

James McDonald,

You wrote: "However, in their books, they focus on the truth of the claims, and find them equally lacking in substance."

People have been arguing over whether there is or is not a god since the concept was invented (or man was created, however you want to look at it). That argument is not going to be solved in the next few years, if ever. So, it would be helpful if Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al., would use their considerable talents to help unify us instead of dividing us further. That way they will get to keep their heads attached to their bodies, live under a constitutional, democratic, secular government, and won't ultimately be looked at as part of the threat, instead of part of the solution. When they are seriously threatened, today in the here and now, by violence from Christians, I'll be more sympathetic to their concerns. (BTW, it's not that I think they shouldn't be allowed to write and publish those books, I have recent books by all of those authors except Dennett.)

I'm sure they think they're helping by continually focusing on the irrationality of believing in a supernatural being. But at this particular point in history, while we are facing this particular enemy, they are not helping. The fact that they actually believe these books help illustrates that no one lives a life completely devoid of irrational beliefs.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 31, 2007 6:46 PM

Robert Spencer and the rest of the anti-jihadis need to both focus on building political strength, and avoid engaging in pissing contests with college snots. However, Spenc/Horo/Fitz/Johnson appear to be addicted to debating with goofs. They need to go into withdrawl. Only the brain dead could judge Islamofascist Awareness week events as a success.

Posted by: supercargo at October 31, 2007 6:47 PM

"If someone believes that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and gave him a book from Paradise, that is no concern of mine except insofar as the book tells believers to subjugate me and destroy my society. If a version of Islam were constructed that did not contain this supremacist impulse, and were accepted by the great aggregate of Muslims, I would have nothing further to say publicly about Islam." Posted by: jihadwatch

I agree.

Posted by: Josephine at October 31, 2007 6:50 PM

v4ri4bl3,

However, if you decide not to stop someone who is about to murder a child in cold blood on grounds that Jesus taught non-violence, I would consider that an immoral act

To say that Jesus taught absolute non-violence is as curious as saying that he taught absolute tolerance. Or recycling. Are you sure you are not confusing him with Ghandi?

So which exactly of Jesus’ precepts would one defy by resorting to violence to prevent a murder of a child? Or repel an armed aggression against your country?
Are you trying to say that the Christian doctrine of just war contradicts Jesus’ teaching?

If so, then your understanding of Jesus’ teaching diverges fundamentally from the mainstream of Christian theology and philosophy.
Which is OK, except that you will have to challenge authority like, for example, Aquinas, who did not see that ALL violence contradicts the “turn the other cheek” injunction.
Obviously, either you, or Aquinas misunderstand something about Jesus’ teaching. Now Aquinas made his point quite persuasively some centuries ago. It is your turn now…

Another thing: could you, please, list Christian “religious superstitions” you would like to see eliminated?

Posted by: thomas. h at October 31, 2007 7:16 PM

John Derbyshire: "His zeal for his own religion, and scorn for other people's, is the kind of thinking that, in my opinion, gets us nowhere we should want to be; but it's a point of view, and I respect Robert's scholarship. Nuts? No way."

Since John Derbyshire said this is your point of view and since you are correcting that, Robert, I think it's the right time to ask this. Do you have any problem with other religions including minor religions, by default?

Since pagan belief systems often have little in common with each other except not being Jewish, Christian or Muslim, I should explain the "by default" bit - with a made-up example that does not point to any actual church I'm aware of. If there were people reviving the religion of ancient Carthage complete with infant sacrifice and adding eternal revenge on the city and people of Rome, plus agitating to ban Latin letters and get clocks with Roman numerals suppressed, you would I assume have a problem with that: anybody sane would. But if they just wanted to say prayers, garland statues of Queen Dido, Hannibal and so on, you would have no problem with that, even though you would think that Tanit and Baal Haammon are false gods? It's no skin off your nose, right?

If so, then I don't see how you could be said to scorn other's religions. You would just think you are correct, which everybody does in matters of religion.

Is there anything you have said - I haven't seen anything - that would lead a fair person to conclude you scorn religion other than your own religion and believers other than those whose beliefs you share? Is there any actual quote that people can (or do) point to as problematic in regard to religion in general?

Posted by: David Blue at October 31, 2007 8:10 PM

However, if you decide not to stop someone who is about to murder a child in cold blood on grounds that Jesus taught non-violence, I would consider that an immoral act.

I don't think Jesus expected anyone to abandon common sense. It's worse than an immoral act, it's a mistake...

All this stuff is just some more nit picking at Robert because they can't get him on anything legitimate. But since when do leftists need legitimacy to press an attack?

Posted by: duh_swami at October 31, 2007 9:08 PM

I think abortion is ok, Intelligent Design is bunk, Christianity is false, BUT...

I think Robert Spencer is a genius.

Political beliefs should not get in the way of realizing the dangers that Islam poses. Unfortunately, most people that share my views on the first 3 issues there, would then tell me that I am being intolerant when I say Islam is dangerous.

It is hard not to feel like the fight is hopeless sometimes. Thanks to you Robert for never backing down.

Posted by: Mikhail Danilov at October 31, 2007 9:32 PM

Sigh...I figured this could get long with people other than Mr. Spencer. Here is my best shot at answering all of you in one post. If you would like to discuss further please email me instead. No need to clutter the page with debate...

Ynkedoodl2,

You state, "I turned to Christ as my savior because the Old Testament correctly prophecies the coming of the Messiah in Jesus." Take a look into the Logical Fallacy known as "Circular Reasoning" or "Begging the Question." The truth of a claim can not be determined when the premises of the claim rely on that same conclusion. Suppose I present you a book that says that I am God. I tell you we know this is true because part of the book, which is 3000 years old, foretells of my existence. You look, check, and the book does indeed mention my name, my appearance, and my place in time. Is it then logical or reasonable to believe this claim? The only rationale answer is NO. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Presenting a book as true, because the book says its true, is circular reasoning, and it is a fallacious.

RalphInfidel,

Saying that an atheist can not distinguish between religions is a joke, and you certainly spent no time actually reading my argument. My argument is not whether the tenants of Islam are better or worse, from a moral standpoint, than those of Christianity. My argument was just that, if we expect Muslims to re-evaluate the beliefs they have, which are based on religious "Faith", we should not fall victim to hypocrisy. If are unwilling to critically analyze our own beliefs, then we can not expect them to do the same. It would be blatant hypocrisy. But, if Mr. Spencer is content in pointing out how atrocious the tenants of Islam are without suggesting that they be re-evaluated, then how does he expect the situation to be improved?

poetess,

Why mix terms? Islam is a religion, however you want to obscure it. Because it has more political implications than Christianity, does not mean that it is any less of a religion. The reason why it succeeds so WELL as a political movement, is PRECISELY because it is believed to be the word of God. Would you disagree? Speaking of which, Judaism is a religion of THE LAW, in much the same way Islam is inseparable from SHARIA. Is Judaism not a religion as well?

Hyman Roth,

Sir, how can you possibly put these words in my mouth: "You, Harris, Dawkins, Derbyshire, and so forth are engaging in an ad homeneim attack against Robert Spencer when you assert that his analysis of Islam is not credible because he happens to hold beliefs to which you don't subscribe and which you deem to be unreasonable."

I truly hope you just didn't read my whole post. By definition, an ad hominem attack requires that I attack Robert's character instead of his argument. But I only criticized his approach. In fact, I make it clear that I am in COMPLETE agreement with Robert's analysis of Islam. In fact, I yield to the authority of his knowledge on the matter. My point is merely that it is difficult to get Muslims to criticize their most treasured beliefs, when we refuse to criticize our own. They will ask, "By what criteria should a claim about the divinity of a book be based?" The honest Christian should say "Faith": the same thing the Christian uses. But that gets us no where, as "Faith" in the celestial authorship of the Koran is why its so hard to reform. How can you change the word of God? And worse, you totally misrepresent the position of Sam Harris. He has gone to GREAT length to show that he is not a believer in pseudo-science. As a man working towards a degree in neurology he is fully aware of our current understanding, and lack thereof, of consciousness. He makes NO claim such as that consciousness exists beyond the mind. His point is merely that our understanding of the mind is not very good. And he is right. Perhaps visiting his website you can read his position more clearly.

RalphInfidel,

I totally disagree with you about these authors. By promoting reason, we may very well be able to eliminate religious superstition, thereby eliminating violence in the name of God. As soon as someone believes their book is written by God, it can say "You must sacrifice your first born," and they would do it. I think the atheist's method of attacking Islam is even Better than Spencer's. Spencer merely focuses on making people aware of these issues. The atheist authors offer a resolution: eliminate the piety. If you can't convince a Muslim, that, perhaps the Koran was not written by God, Islam will continue to be as malevolent as ever.

Thomas. h,

I think this discussion may be out of the scope of my argument. My point is merely that Jesus is not the best example of a moral human, while he is much better than most. I think that Hell as a principle is entirely immoral. Would you condone the endless torture of an individual? I know I wouldn't. In fact, humans have even passed laws to ensure that this doesn't even happen to CRIMINALS! And yet Jesus says that if you merely rely on your own critical thinking, instead of accepting the validity of an ancient book, on which the only evidence or argument for its truth is contained within its OWN pages, then you are doomed to eternal torture. This, in my opinion, is hideous. And some of America's founding fathers came to the same conclusion. Their tendency towards Deism as opposed to Christianity demonstrates this. In "The Age of Reason," Thomas Paine points out that it is INSULTING to attribute the Bible to God. But as I said, outside the scope. I would be interesting in conversing with you further but it must be through email. I have ranted well enough.

Respectfully All,

James (v4ri4bl3@gmail.com)

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at October 31, 2007 9:43 PM

Another thing: could you, please, list Christian “religious superstitions” you would like to see eliminated?

Personally I tolerate "religions" mostly, since I think most are two parts mythology and one part faith based mystery, with a grain of spirituality thrown in. So I take all religions with a large grain of salt, but they are essentially harmless. However, I draw the distinction at Islam which is not a religion but a form of barbarity converting human beings from savagery, which is what religion is supposed to do, back into savagery again. That makes it a cult.

Islam is the only religion that contraverts basic humanity into aggression. Whereby all other religions try to tame humanity from its savagery with ideals teaching respect for the other, caring for another, and the sanctity of another life, only Islam teaches to kill the other if not in agreement with the Moslem faith. This makes it a sinister belief system that is more a cult than a religion. For this reason (and I do not consider myself an atheist because the universe seems to have some sort of higher potentiality in life and all living things) I am positively hostile to any cult that kills rather than enlivens humanness in us, which rather than raise our consciousness to something higher in our human existence, it brings us down back to primitive savagery. Islam is a savage faith which brings out the worst in a human being, and rather than merely a inoffensive myth and mystery, it becomes an act of hostility towards all who fail to embrace it. Personally, I would rather shun Islam, were it not trespassing on our freedoms, but because it strives to do so with its Sharia ambitions, I think it should be outlawed. Cults have no place in humanity's belief systems if they are hostile to our freedoms. Islam is a “religious superstitions” cult hostile to civilization.

Of the three Abrahamic faiths Islam is the most regressive one. Whereas Judaism and Christianity set to make man free, like Moses "set my people free', and Christ's acceptance of human equality where even slaves become equal before God as Christians, in Islam it reverts back into slavery again, as "slaves of Allah." This slavery extends to women treated as chattel and non-Muslims either forced into conversion or killed, or relegated to second class servitude to Moslems as dhimmies. Only Islam takes humanity back into savagery, so it is not a progressive revelation by Mohammed, but entirely regressive, and enslaving. It should be banned world wide. Never submit to this so called religion, because it is no more than a cult of enslavement and savagery towards humanity.

I personally think Derbyshire missed this point. Of necessity, if he values his freedoms, and freedom as a civilizational factor for all humanity, then he would agree with Spencer's treatment of comparing the two religions of Christianity and Islam as unequal. In fact Islam is severely subordinate to Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed's cult is severly handicapped by his war theorum for humanity, a perpetual war until the whole world is subdued for Allah. Witness the Islamic world at war, always at war, with itself and the rest of the world. Islam must be banned.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 31, 2007 11:01 PM

RalphInfidel at October 31, 2007 6:46 PM said:

"I'm sure they think they're helping by continually focusing on the irrationality of believing in a supernatural being. But at this particular point in history, while we are facing this particular enemy, they are not helping."

And religious people probably think they're helping by continually focusing on their usual rants about "evils" and "immorality" of atheism, which they perceive as a "nihilistic religion".

Atheists (me included) are strong and good allies in the struggle against mohammedanism, but religious folks usually refuse to accept godless "infidels" as an allied force.
This childish stubborness is especially typical for Americans, but eventually they will have to learn to cooperate, just like my fellow countrymen (israelis) did in order to survive.

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at October 31, 2007 11:06 PM

I completely conncur with Robert on this essential point (which makes nonsense of Mr. Derbyshire's misguided dig about proselytizing):

I have no interest in Islam.

Except that it has an interest in me.

And contains a Koranically-based call to terrorism.

Taoism is far more lyrical; Buddhism, more sublime; Judeo-Christianity, more loving; Yogic Hinduism, more profound.

Our concern with Islam is purely therapeutic.

Not hermaneutic.

Posted by: profitsbeard at November 1, 2007 1:03 AM

v4ri4bl3--

Your argument against Robert Spencer is ad homineim because it's based on his own personal beliefs which are irrelevant to the topic:

Spencer is a Christian, therefore Muslims should not be expected to listen to his arguments about Islam's relationship to human rights and civil society.

Further, you assume that Spencer does not or has not critically assessed his own personal theological beliefs.

As for Sam Harris, I stand by my characterization of him as a religious bigot of the New Age variety masquerading as a scientist. I love his writing style, but his critical thinking is most definitely not pointed inwards. I've read one of his books (The End of Faith), and have visited his web site. It's chock full of Western-born Buddhists who smugly look down their noses at anybody with a religion different that their own. No thanks.

Page 209 of The End of Faith:
"Consciousness may be a far more rudimentary phenomenon than are living creatures and their brains. And there appears to be no obvious way of ruling out such a thesis experimentally."

Sam is holding his own faith-based belief in consciousness to a different standard than everybody else's faith-based beliefs. Namely, he has a belief with no solid evidence that "consciousness" exists independently of a physically observable system (such as yummy brains) and justifies his faith by observing that scientists haven't dis-proven it. Let the so-called "scientist" come forward with evidence for this thesis. Hell, let him formulate a falsifiable hypothesis first.

The Pope is infinitely more honest than Sam Harris. There's faith, and then there's reason, and he doesn't expect the one to prove (or refute) the other. Sam Harris wants to use reason to refute every other faith and validate his own.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at November 1, 2007 3:29 AM

Mr. Spencer, if I may?

>>It was an attempt to respond to the "Religion is the Problem" types like Christopher Hitchens by exploring whether it is really useful to lump all religions together,

Flying the flag of defence for the Hitch here, both he and, strangely enough to an even greater extent, Sam Harris say that Islam is the problem, and that conflating religions is bullshit.

Here's the quote:

Consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.

Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line. This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I'm unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.

To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, "all religions have their extremists," is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don't have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don't have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at November 1, 2007 3:32 AM

James & Syndic Nuruodo

My point is; the probability of convincing a large percentage of the population to abandon all faith in Supreme Being very soon is very low, however admirable a goal it may or may not be.

It's obvious that Deism and theism, especially Christianity, have played important roles in the development of Western civilization, the world's most materially successful and tolerant of individual behavior. Based on what I see in the rest of the world, I not convinced I want to quickly remove an underpinning of custom and behavior in a society that is so successful and, relatively speaking at least, benign. Removing faith or religion from society hasn't always made it less dangerous or more civil; a lot of atheists were killing and being killed in the last 100 years.

And yes, you'll sometimes get irritating responses from Christians for proselytizing atheism; at least their not trying to behead you. But, realistically, there are no penalties for talking about atheism with devout Christians, the freedom from insults isn't a right, just ask a Christian.

Critically examining specific areas in religious text that conflict with civil law and custom seems like a more pressing and realistic goal. This is where Robert's work is important, and I'm sure he's open for the same discussion, whether the source is Islam, or Christianity.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 1, 2007 4:11 AM

v4ri4bl3,

I honestly can’t see what your rejoinder has do with my comment. I merely pointed out that your understanding of a particular teaching of Jesus is faulty and referred you to authorities who do not have problems reconciling it with “brutal realities” of man's world and suggested that you may want to expose their flawed reasoning. How does your curious impassioned tirade against the idea of Hell (as you conceive it) addresses the matter?

I also asked you to itemise the Christian “religious superstitions” you would like to see “eliminated” - as you put it. Is it the “superstition” of Hell that you want eliminated? Completely?- or would you be satisfied with a kinder, gentler, or re-educational sort of Hell?

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 11:58 AM

Syndic Nuruodo says:

...religious people probably think they're helping by ...focusing on their...rants about "evils" and "immorality" of atheism, which they perceive as a "nihilistic religion".

Whether a “nihilistic religion” is a perfect label for atheism can, of course, be discussed. What can not be discussed (unless one is a pious atheist) is the monstrous evil which invariably follows the rule of the atheist priest caste - starting with the Jacobin terror and carried over and perfected by the Lenino-Hitlerism of the 20 century.
The Himalaya of human corpses left in its wake can not compare to anything in human history. Not even the Moslem conquest of India. And the ongoing everyday butchery of millions of unborn babies is a further testimony to the evil of atheism.

Atheists (me included) are strong and good allies in the struggle against Mohammedanism

Strong?, good?
What is next? “reliable"?!
From the perspective of an ordinary European this is an mind-boggling refutation of our everyday experience. We are governed by the socialist, leftist elites whose most discernible feature is faith in atheism and multiculti lunacy and demented hatred of Christianity.
For all practical purposes, atheist means leftist and leftist is synonymous with promoting indiscriminate immigration from, predominantly Moslem, world. Europe is well on its way to become Eurabia and the chief engineers and enforcers of that treason are the atheist elites who, correctly, recognize in Islam their natural ally. Countries most advanced in their freefall into the Eurabian night are marked by their atheist, leftist governments (Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Norway) and almost accomplished destruction of Christianity.

but eventually they will have to learn to cooperate, just like my fellow countrymen (israelis) did in order to survive.

You must be joking! Cooperate with you?! To survive? That would be hilarious if it were not so outrageous. It is YOU who needs us to survive. It is atheism who leads a parasitical existence in the West protected by the Judeo-Christian values on which the West is built.
Once the Sharia becomes a law here you can kiss your atheist ass goodbye. So who needs who?

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 2:00 PM

Thomas H,

We should continue this conversation elsewhere. Please email me with further conversation. I feel a nuisance when cluttering this page.

First off, Yes. I refute your interpretation of the words of Jesus as told in the bible. I don't see ANY way you can reconcile Jesus' teachings with ANY sort of violence. The only violence/retribution he seems to allow for is his own, as he did with the money-changers in the church, and the way he allows for the afterlife retribution. I can't find a single saying that he provides where you could defend even self-defense.

"Put up your sword. All who take the sword die by the sword," along with turn-the-cheek teaching imply completely yielding even to violent offenders. He also tells us to not care for the morrow. Give me one good example of a scripture of his that supports self-defense? Don't appeal to the authority of Church leaders. Hell, its not like the authors are available for comment is it? Anyone who can read has the opportunity to evaluate the texts. Of course, knowing the history and context is important. By I don't think you can find anything of Jesus to support a Just War. I believe the Old Testament may be required.

Second, since your sticking to cliche and exhibiting bigotry at the same time, why don't we consider Mustaches as big of a problem as atheism! For we all know Hitler, Stalin et al had them! Are you clueless as to the motivations of these individuals? Perhaps you can refer the the atheist doctrine they were following? Oh wait, there isn't any atheist doctrine...good luck with that. Its offensive and ignorant to group atheists with Hitler. This man was sanctioned by the Catholic Church and they had nice little birthday parties together.

You words demonstrate an underlying hateful, bigoted personality and I feel sorry for you. I would never call Christians parasitic because I think they are wrong. You are a sick individual.

Speaking of faith. You talk about atheism needing faith, which is also a joke. Would you agree then that you have faith against belief in Zeus? No. Faith is only needed to support a positive existence claim, in the absence of evidence. It is not needed to have absence of belief in parallel with absence of evidence. Absence of belief in a claim until good reason is provided is default in all other realms of our lives. Otherwise our justice system would read, "Guilty until proven innocent." There is no such think as evidence of innocence, just as there is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. We judge the likely-hood of guilt or existence based on evidence in their favor. When there is none, we conclude innocent or non-existent.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at November 1, 2007 2:45 PM

@v4ri4bl3
You asked me:

"I present you a book that says that I am God. I tell you we know this is true because part of the book, which is 3000 years old, foretells of my existence. You look, check, and the book does indeed mention my name, my appearance, and my place in time. Is it then logical or reasonable to believe this claim?"

My answer: YES.

C'mon guy! If a 3000-year-old prophecy is 100% correct (name, appearance, and place in time), how is it rational, logical, not to believe it? The proof of Jesus' divinity is not something to be believed in. It is manifestly obvious to those with an open mind and an open heart.

Then when you read the words of Jesus, you feel in the presence of the divine, unlike the words of Muhammad which (like his thuggish behavior)are so evil they stink to high heaven.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2007 2:53 PM

Ynkedoodl2,

Ummm, you totally missed the point. I think this puts you under the classification gullible. Since, you have agreed to my self-proclaimed divinity, when would you like to start worshiping me? Perhaps we could start off with small donations to my bank account, but in time I think I could use you as a full time servant. We can you start?

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at November 1, 2007 3:06 PM

v4ri4bl3 ,

I was eagerly awaiting something of substance from you.

You know, something different than the hysterical, high pitched spewing of the vulgar, shoddy invectives so typical of the intellectually lazy, primitive and impotent who are desperately trying to score a point - at any price. Even at the price of appearing pathetically bungling.
Look, I pointed at concrete things in your posting. If you can't answer my points then shut up instead of exploding in a indignant tirade which is as pompous, as it is boring and more often than not incoherent. But always totally irrelevant and off.

Just to demonstrate your inanity; how in the world can you invite me to "continue this conversation elsewhere" and ask to "please email me with further conversation” and a few lines later call me a "hateful, bigoted personality”, “a sick individual” and tell me that "feel sorry for " me.

Well, let it be clear; I don’t feel sorry for you at all. On the contrary, I think your stupidity serves you right.

Anyway, I won’t promise to ignore you in the future as it is a great fun to kick your butt and observe with delight as it sends you into most comical frenzy. I am saying that, so you won’t get an idea that I am trying to debate you. You got your chance and you made a complete fool of yourself.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 4:56 PM

thomas h will you please get a grip?

>>Strong?, good?
What is next? “reliable"?!

Could you please, please read that rather extenise quotation from Sam Harris that I quoted?

From the perspective of an ordinary European this is an mind-boggling refutation of our everyday experience. We are governed by the socialist, leftist elites whose most discernible feature is faith in atheism and multiculti lunacy and demented hatred of Christianity.

Okay, here we have a lumping together of unrelated items. Who is devoted to 'multiculti lunacy'? Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens?

The idea that only Christianity has the strength to oppose Islam, or that atheists lack the moral strength to fight, is nonsense. And offensive nonsense, at least to this atheist.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at November 1, 2007 5:47 PM

Thomas H.,

I stand by my arguments and you have not yet demonstrated that your arguments are the better. I explicitly refute your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus with regard to non-violence and self-defense, AND I provide examples why. If it is you who refuses to proceed with a rebuttal, how can you accuse me of avoiding your point? Hypocrisy your cup of tea?

Your last post demonstrates how you enjoy stroking your own ego more than conversing as a mature individual. You made no attempt to continue the debate. This either implies that you don't want to or merely are not able to.

You are still free to email me to continue the conversation. The invitation is still open. Unlike what you obviously assume, I may think you a detestable person and still be capable of having a normal conversation with you. Its called civility. You, Sir, are the fool.

-James

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at November 1, 2007 5:52 PM

Ynkedoodl2,

Gosh, look at that:

"I present you a book that says that I am God. I tell you we know this is true because part of the book, which is 3000 years old, foretells of my existence. You look, check, and the book does indeed mention my name, my appearance, and my place in time. Is it then logical or reasonable to believe this claim?"

To which you responded in positive.

And the ninny is back with, what he amazingly believes is, a “gotcha”:
Since, you have agreed to my self-proclaimed divinity, when would you like to start worshiping me?

Wow!
First he presents a 100% hypothetical situation (a 3000 years old book saying he is god; mentioning his name, appearance, place time etc) and the he rushes back to the actual situation (no book with his name, no reference to him as a god) and triumphantly announces that he cleverly maneuvered you to admit that he ACTUALLY is a god.
Only a person with analytical powers of a parakeet can produce such feat of ridiculousness, but it takes a certified cretin to brag about it.

But the funniest part is his saying that "you missed the point".

Cheers,

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 6:24 PM

v4ri4bl3,

Our exchange is still visible and all who care are kindly invited to refer me to the passage where you successfully demolish the Augustinian and Aquinas' doctrine of the just war. I will then ask the honour and privilege of forwarding your treatise to the Vatican, so it may replace the erroneous beliefs of the Church authorities. I hope your doctrine will be referred to as The Magnificent v4ri4bl3.

BTW, have you completed your vision of a gentler and kinder Hell? I have shown around your criticism of the inhumanity of Hell and as most of my associates and myself are sinners, we can't wait to hear your suggestion how to improve our probable "living" conditions in the, not so remote, future.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 6:53 PM

Thomas,

Any chance that you are actually willing to take this debate elsewhere? I feel we trespass on Mr. Spencer's good nature in high-jacking this thread.

In my example to Ynkedoodl2, I was merely trying to demonstrate that such a book could easily be fabricated with such claims and simply be just that, fabricated. I wasn't referring to the bible. I was referring to a hypothetical situation where I propose the same claims of my own personal divinity, as is common here in Miami actually---look up "Miami Jesus" in Google, and asked whether or not it should be believed. Any thinking person would not automatically accept such a claim. They would ask for evidence. Those that don't, follow people like David Koresh. It doesn't appear the thought crossed Ynkedoodl2's mind that perhaps it was all fabricated. A stance I think is infinitely more plausible than not.

As far as Aquinas and Augustine's "Just War," I must be honest and say I haven't looked into it much. I'm glad you mentioned it because it will give me something to learn. Regardless of that, they have the same bible to examine as I do, and I don't see how Jesus's teachings condone war, under any circumstances. From what I have learned, albeit briefly, about a just war, it isn't exactly universally accepted. Jesus was exclusively pacifistic in his teachings: Love your enemy as yourself, turn the other cheek etc. If we are going to argue this point, as I am not in a position to read up on Christian theology in a short amount of time, perhaps you can present where my interpretation is flawed by providing examples instead of yielding to these, supposed, authorities.

Personally, I don't consider the "Church" an authority on anything. If they want to make arguments about reality then we can discuss it.

Regarding Hell, I merely think the entire notion is abhorrent. Punishment is only a good thing when it serves a purpose. From a social standpoint, prison is necessary to prevent future harm that an individual might inflict while simultaneously helping to promote the individual's willingness to not commit the crime again. Hell serves neither purpose. It is merely there to inflict needless suffering. How fortunate we are that such a place is almost certainly primitive fiction.

All you.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at November 1, 2007 7:34 PM

Fanusi Khiyal,

The idea that only Christianity has the strength to oppose Islam, or that atheists lack the moral strength to fight, is nonsense. And offensive nonsense, at least to this atheist.

Well, my comment was addressed to Syndic Nuruodo and has nothing to do with the trio (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) you are naming. I don’t think they, or yourself belong to, what I explicitly refer to as, the ruling, socialist, leftist elites, so I don’t understand your agitation.

I think you are wrongly imputing to me what I never said or intended to say.
Nowhere did I express that belief and I regret you are getting that impression.

I, of course, have my opinion about political Atheism, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that I imply that every atheist “lacks moral strength to oppose Islam”.
I said that where I live (Scandinavia) one can not deny the most obvious correlation between socialism, atheism, liberalism of our ruling elites and their effort to deliberate wholesale transplant of Mohammedanism. The almost universal rule is that the conservative part of our society is generally Christian and opposed to the islamization of our country, while the “progressive” section is, generally again, atheist and adhering to the multi culti ideals.

The key word here is “generally” which gives ample place to the, I am sure, honourable atheists like yourself who are concerned with the survival of the West.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 7:53 PM

James McDonald, a.k.a. variable,

Like I tried to point out above:
"….And yes, you'll sometimes get irritating responses from Christians for proselytizing atheism; at least their not trying to behead you. But, realistically, there are no penalties for talking about atheism with devout Christians, the freedom from insults isn't a right, just ask a Christian. Critically examining specific areas in religious text that conflict with civil law and custom seems like a more pressing and realistic goal……"

If Christians aren't threatening you or taking away your civil rights, why is it so important for you to 'prove' to them that they are wrong, to take away their faith? It is counter productive, and quite frankly, a bit of a sideshow… one that can only help our mutual enemies.

If you were to convince all the Christians in the world to give up their faith today, it would only be used as propaganda to support the Islamist world view that Christianity is a weak, false faith that people abandon, while Islam is a strong, robust, "true" faith. Those ready to wage violent jihad or commit suicide just to kill infidels (setting aside the whole 72 virgins pathology for a moment) are a lot less likely to be swayed by argument than the Christians you've been arguing with here. So, what, really is the point of prodding people into arguments about a faith that is not threatening you?

Call me a pragmatist, but I'd be a lot more interested in knowing that Christians have my back, and reassuring Christians that I really do have their's.

Considering the relatively small number of atheists in the world and the antagonistic positions their spokesmen keep taking, it's understandable that people of faith are not overly impressed with the reliability of atheists as allies.

Meanwhile, the Islamists and their allies are on a self delusional, euphoric roll of conquest. The Islamic world needs to be convinced that is in its own long term survival interest to learn to live in peace with us; faithful and otherwise. If words don't work, it will have to be demonstrated... in some manner that will make it absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear.

Pick your battles and "focus, grasshopper". Starting unneeded battles with people who have the same basic interest at heart, freedom, seems like a waste of time and talent. Like I've said before, I still consider myself a liberal and I don't think I'm the only liberal that feels this way.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 1, 2007 8:49 PM

RalfInfidel,

Meanwhile, the Islamists and their allies are on a self delusional, euphoric roll of conquest. The Islamic world needs to be convinced that is in its own long term survival interest to learn to live in peace with us; faithful and otherwise. If words don't work, it will have to be demonstrated... in some manner that will make it absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear.

Well, words definitely don’t work - on the contrary. And their effect, concurrently with the increasing presence of Moslems (in Europe at least), diminishes dramatically with each year. Additionally, the European leftist governments have no interest in increasing the volume of the “words” out of fear of losing Moslem voters who, practically, all vote for the Left. Moslems are winning the race of political influence in the West and consolidating their advance. It is hard to see anything self-delusional in their perception of the process. The only thing they need to overtake Europe is not terror, but time.
To illustrate their growing, but absolutely justified confidence; a few years ago a Moslem responded to a comment on the slow rate of Moslem integration to the West with:
“we don’t need to integrate. In two generations it will be YOU who will need to integrate.”

Cynical, brazen, insulting? Absolutely! Groundless? Not at all. Which brings us to your hint that it will have to be demonstrated... in some manner that will make it absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear
Now, what will be the nature of the demonstration and who will decide on the demonstration? Certainly not our ruling elites who, by then, will include a considerable Moslem fraction. If they don’t react now when there still is a chance why should they try to reverse the islamization process when it is too late? No, Europe is like the proverbial frog in a slowly warming up water . The more advanced is the temperature the less it realizes it is going to cook.
So please, what do you think will be the scenario that will trigger the “demonstration” you are hinting at? I’m sure I am not the only one here interested in knowing.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 1, 2007 11:03 PM

Seconding RalphInfidel.

To all Infidels, including myself, who from time to time buy into the heated debates between Christians and atheists (or Christians and Jews, or Christians and Hindus, und so weiter, fill in blanks here) some wise words from J R R Tolkien's wizard Gandalf when engaged in cobbling together a rickety coalition against the world-destroying Dark Lord:

"The laughter of Mordor will be our only reward if we quarrel".

And from another fictional Wise Man, Rowlings' Dumbledore, in The Goblet of Fire: "Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great".

Speaking as a Christian I seriously believe that some at least, within the ranks of Islam, formally employ and indeed have probably always employed occult means that are intended to curse - to divide, to confuse, to bewilder, to harm - their perceived 'enemies', that is, all of us.

Rationalists are free to disagree with me and say that no such thing is possible.

Quite apart from that, there is plenty of evidence of Muslim practice of common-or-garden propaganda and 'spiritual violence', as frequently pointed out by one of our regulars, 'Frank'; and the nonsense and lies to which Hugh frequently refers, are also clearly evident.

At this forum there may well be, at times, not the out and out Muslim trolls/ dawa artists who are easily recognised and spurned, but more subtle Muslims in other guise, posing as Jew, as Hindu, as sceptic/atheist, as Christian, as Liberal, as Conservative - whatever mask will serve, at a particular time, in a particular thread, to exacerbate any perceived division, to divert and devour energy. Such infiltrators and sowers of discord were used by Muslim conquerors in the past - see Bat Yeor or Bostom for examples.

We must not, of course, automatically assume that this or that provocative person is such a one - it may be a mere 'troll'; it may be exactly what it says it is - but the possibility is there. Let us exercise caution and self-control. I speak as one who finds both virtues very difficult - my admiration for Spencer's self-command and patience increases daily.

PS - And let us be on our guard against both Boggarts (shapeshifters seeking to arouse and play on fears) and Dementors (counsels of despair).

A round of virtual drinks all round. Confusion to the Jihad! Good health to [insert name of your [infidel] head of state]! May he/she wake up to the threat of Jihad and Sharia and act accordingly with all wisdom and dispatch!

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 1, 2007 11:23 PM

thomas h.,

I am sorry if I wrongly interpreted that. I just get to hear that certain point of view a good deal.

I should like to know one thing though:

>>, of course, have my opinion about political Atheism,

What, exactly, do you consider political Atheism? The political aspirations of atheists ranged from Communism at the one end to Objectivism at the other.

>>The almost universal rule is that the conservative part of our society is generally Christian and opposed to the islamization of our country, while the “progressive” section is, generally again, atheist and adhering to the multi culti ideals;

I would have to be a fool not to see this. I merely think that an attempt to oppose this multiculti crap head on with Christianity is futile, and it ignores a powerful new ally. The 'New Atheists', Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and so on, are powerful allies in this struggle, and it would be foolish to discount that. Not to mention that the threat of Islam is causing the postmodernist, multiculti left to implode. Go over to samharris.org and look at 'The End of Liberalism'.

By counting on atheists like Sam Harris, we stand a good chance of destroying the multiculti opposition from within.

Ta,

Fanusi Khiyal

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at November 2, 2007 8:07 AM

Fanusi Khiyal,

What, exactly, do you consider political Atheism? The political aspirations of atheists ranged from Communism at the one end to Objectivism at the other.

I should think it self-explanatory. When atheism stops being a private conviction, or a business like, for example, Scientology, but uses political means to penetrate institution in order to establish itself as universal, objective and dominating truth, (an official creed - some would say) then I would call it political. In most cases it attaches itself to a fighting ideology like Communism, Nazism, Socialism, or the most recent mutation of liberalism.

“To oppose this multiculti crap head on with Christianity is futile, and it ignores a powerful new ally. The 'New Atheists', Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and so on, are powerful allies in this struggle, and it would be foolish to discount that.

It is not apparent to me why they should be “NEW” as Atheists, but they are conspicuously late as allies. As it happens, I most sincerely detest the three characters you are mentioning. To my mind Dawkins and Hitchens are nasty, vile and deeply dishonest egotists. They have a long history of deriding and denigrating an average conservative Christian like myself and delighting in vicious hostility toward everything Christian. Lately, very lately, they have realized that Islam, if it takes over the West, will feed them to the rats and they are worried… Frankly, I don’t give a damn for their sudden transition from an enemy to ally. And I think that Sam Harris is a supersilious bore. Hyman Roth describes him very well in his last post above. Sorry about it.

As for their being “powerful”- I really don’t know what are you talking about. What exactly is the nature of their power and how have they applied it for protection of the Christian West visa vis the onslaught of Islam until now?

To sum it up. Too little, too late and too few to make a difference for the cause and to win respect and trust. Let them prove themselves first...

But now its time for me to quit. I need to get up at 4am.

Posted by: thomas. h at November 2, 2007 5:22 PM

thomas h.,

You will forgive me if I wonder where you are coming from.

To my mind Dawkins and Hitchens are nasty, vile and deeply dishonest egotists. They have a long history of deriding and denigrating an average conservative Christian like myself and delighting in vicious hostility toward everything Christian.

Could you please substantiate that alligation? I have carefully followed both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and I have never heard them 'deriding and denigrating' average Christians. They have some very sharp words for Christianity but that's a somewhat different proposition.

I am going to pass over alot of the other comments, and focus on this one point:

too little and too late

Okay, allow me to propose a simple experiment. Go onto Google news and type in "Sam Harris" and see how many hits that you get. Try the same thing with "Richard Dawkins" and "Christopher Hitchens". Compare that with the number that come up if you type in "Robert Spencer". Now, I freely concede that Mr. Spencer is by far the greater scholar of jihad and Islam. However, I believe that we all agree that alot of people are unaware that there even is a problem in the first place. Getting the idea that there is a real problem out there in the first place, is central to this struggle.

Add to this the fact that Sam Harris especially is able to be heard where a great deal of the anti-Jihadists are not heard. It's difficult enough to get even Fox News to discuss Mr. Spencer's books. However, Sam Harris can even make a splash in such places as 'The Huffington Post'.

Please take a moment to examine the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions-ii_b_8683.html

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/who-are-the-moderate-musl_b_15841.html

And, my personal favourite:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

You see where I am going with this? Precisely because of who they are, Harris et al reach far more people. 'Too little, too late'? Hardly.

Robert Bidinotto, in response to Victor Davis Hanson, has an excellent essay on the problems with trying to oppose Islam with a 'nicer' form of mysticism:

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=476

Here's the key point

"So we are on dangerous ground. History gives evidence of no civilization that survived long as purely secular and without a god, that put its trust in reason alone, and believed human nature was subject to radical improvement given enough capital and learning invested in the endeavor."

This brief passage undermines the rest of Hanson's marvelous analysis and his compelling description of the symptoms of moral-philosophical corruption -- a corruption that leads to western "self-loathing" and self-sacrifice in the face of bloodthirsty barbarians. I fervently wish that the better conservatives, such as Hanson, would grasp that you do not uphold and defend our rational, scientific, Enlightenment heritage by joining the postmoderns and Islamists in their criticisms of reason; and you do not combat primitive savagery, superstitution, and fanaticism with desperate appeals to some competing, but "nicer," form of faith-based mysticism.

Contrary to Hanson and his fellow conservatives, it is not that reason is failing us. It is that we in the West have utterly abandoned reason.

This is the key. Many atheists, such as myself, despise Islam with every fibre of our being. But we are not going to just bend a knee to some other form of celetial tyrranny. It's dishonest and foolish to do so.

Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at November 3, 2007 5:03 AM

Fanusi Khiyal,

Here is a little, but in no way unusual morsel of nastiness from Dawkins:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that…”

Well, thanks for so graciously "rather not considering" I am wicked.

And what would Dawkins do about parents who persist in telling their children about religion?
Here it is:
“It’s probably too strong to say the state should have the right to take children away from their parents,” but I think we have got to look very carefully at the rights of parents-and whether they should have the right to indoctrinate their children.”

Probably too strong? If so, it is probably not too strong of me to say that the man shows definitely fascist traits.

But he gained my absolute contempt after adding his signature to the letter in the Guardian calling for a moratorium on all cultural and research links with Israel at European, or national level in solidarity with the “Palestinians”. After it became clear that the moratorium will, contrary to the expected, not succeed he was the first one to recant his support. One has to admit he is a quick son of a bitch!
As for Hitchens I puked all over him after his vile and mendacious smearing of Mother Theresa. I don’t want to continue argue for his nihilism, cynicism and nastiness by quoting and linking and diving in the pile of offensive junk he leaves in his trail. Other have done it much better than I can ever hope for - even if I could find enough interest to engage you on that topic. Besides, I don’t want to depart too far from the thread.

I don’t waste time on Sam Harris.

You are asking where I am coming from? Well, I am coming from world of people who keep your three luminaries in utter contempt. Not because they are atheists, but because they are motivated by hatred to things which are precious to us.
As for the links you are supplying so I may educate myself on these matters, you will excuse me if I won’t follow them. We are swimming in an ocean of links where one easily finds opinions supporting or refuting infinity of views. And beside lack of interest I don’t have too much free time. So thanks, but no thanks.

I am going to pass over alot of the other comments, and focus on this one point:
too little and too late

Well, I actually wrote “too little too late and too few”. VAST majority of the European ruling elites is leftist and leftist’s own vast majority is atheist. And that crowd’s major concern, and very often source of income, is continuing de-Christianization of the West. Precisely as it was at the time of the communist Russia when virtually all supporters, fellow travellers, useful idiots and spies for Kremlin were left/atheist wing.

Go onto Google news and type in "Sam Harris" and see how many hits that you get. Try the same thing with "Richard Dawkins" and "Christopher Hitchens". Compare that ….

Please no googling. Been there, done that and , sorry not tonight…

…I believe that we all agree that alot of people are unaware that there even is a problem in the first place. Getting the idea that there is a real problem out there …

And no , I don’t think we “all agree” about it. I think one has to be an idiot not to be aware that “ there is a problem”, but some prefer to deny it. There only are different degrees and reasons for the denial.

You say that Sam Harris can even make a splash in such places as 'The Huffington Post'.

Good for Sam Harris that he can make all these splashes. Firstly, let’s not forget that it took Sam Harris very long time to start making splashes. Otherwise I don’t think that people who after all these years needed Sam Harris to make them aware of “the problem” are such a valuable ally.
I would say that very few atheists have as strong and deep motivation to oppose Islamic conquest of the West as an average conservative European. For us it absolutely is a “clash of civilizations”. We resist Islam as we see in it a death warrant to our identity; historical, cultural, national, traditional and, of course, religious.
But you see in it chiefly a threat to your personal freedom- not just freedom of being atheist, but freedom to express your “antireligiousness” in as immoderate forms as you fancy without paying with your head – the freedom you have been guaranteed in the Christian West. Our stakes are widely different and carry different weight. And they naturally generate in us different intensity of commitment. We may loose our world, while you only risk loosing your existential bubble, or intellectual niche. Really, had Islam been half as tolerant, indeed, docile vis-a-vis atheism as Christianity you would have no real reason to oppose one kind of God Delusion being replaced by another.
For a conservative Westerner a nation’s identity rest in its past and he wants to protect it. But a progressive has his eyes fixed on the future and wants to improve, redesign man, “wake him up to his greatness”. To accomplish that he works to free him from the shackles of his benighted past. Just look at the progressives like Lenin, Mao or Pol Pot.
If tomorrow, all churches are closed or turned to mosques, Notre Dam is made a museum, crucifixes are banned your Dawkins and Hitchens and all those who waited for Harris to “make a splash” would not risk their life in defence for the symbols of the Christian God Delusion. I would – and I am not a hero.

You and I inhabit a different universe. It took you a long time to see that the enemy that on the daily basis butchers Christians, Jews, Indians and Buddhist is eventually coming after you too. I don’t know about you personally, but your Hitchenses and Dawkins were never concerned with the fate of the Christians (for example) in Moslem lands. Of course, why should they be concerned what adherers to one God Delusion do to the adherers to other God Delusion? Today they are worried and want to be with us. Fine with me. I am only getting a little annoyed when they fancy themselves powerful, or too significant. Christianity may survive without that anti-christian crowd even if all of it, instead of only significant majority, help flooding Europe with Moslems. But if the conservative fail in the defence of the Christian civilization the fate of the antireligious is sealed.

But enough of this. I am not sure I want to continue that exchange as it becomes rather monotonous an tiring . I also have a lot do packing and leaving for Poland for a week. So if I won’t respond to your possible reply, please don’t think I am being discourteous.
regards,

Posted by: thomas. h at November 3, 2007 2:31 PM

Fanusi Khiyal: "I fervently wish that the better conservatives, such as Hanson, would grasp that you do not uphold and defend our rational, scientific, Enlightenment heritage by joining the postmoderns and Islamists in their criticisms of reason"

Postmodernism's abandonment of reason is as big a long term threat to civilization as Islamism; it will leave us unable even to feed ourselves, and even less able to defend ourselves.

Fanusi Khiyal: "and you do not combat primitive savagery, superstitution, and fanaticism with desperate appeals to some competing, but "nicer," form of faith-based mysticism"

But isn't it a stretch to think that Christians are opposed to Islamic tyranny just because it Islamic, and not because it is tyranny?

Fanusi Khiyal: "Contrary to Hanson and his fellow conservatives, it is not that reason is failing us. It is that we in the West have utterly abandoned reason."

Yes, and I submit that continually antagonizing Christians about their faith, a faith that does not threaten you and opposes the same enemy that would kill you, is unreasonable, wasted effort, and counter productive.

Fanusi Khiyal: "Many atheists, such as myself, despise Islam with every fibre of our being."

Yup.

Fanusi Khiyal: "But we are not going to just bend a knee to some other form of celetial tyrranny."

Which Christian here or anywhere else is telling you that you must "bend a knee" under threat of death or second class citizenship? If Western Civilization loses this struggle against Islamic Nazism we won't have to worry about Supreme Court battles over religion symbols in schools, or Christmas decorations on the town square, we'll have much greater problems.

Trying to convince Islamofascists that they should become atheists is not going to make them doubt their faith; it's going to make them want to subjugate or kill you (even more). We should appreciate the fact that Christians, almost universally, do not hold this view. And the odd "Christians" that hold such a radical view, and act on it, are hunted down and punished by Christians.

To assume that: faith is tyranny and atheism is not, is also an abandonment of reason in my view, as history has shown. There are too many other factors involved… like the tenets of the faith, and the things the atheists actually DO believe.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 3, 2007 4:16 PM