Things starting to move.

Benedict can be trusted. He's intelligent. He's read and thought. That's enough. That's more than enough. Nothing magical about it. He has met privately with the famously anti-Vatican Oriana Fallaci. He has met privately with hs famous adversary Hans Kung. Both of them, whatever else may have once bothered them, bothered them about the former Cardinal Ratzinger, realize that that bothers them hardly at all any longer, given the size, given the scope, given the depth, given the duration, of the menace of Islam, a menace that is merely a matter, at this point, of head-counting, of overbreeding, of Da'wa and demographic conquest, but one which the self-idiotized of the Western world seem to have persuaded themselves they can do nothing about -- when they can do everything. And practically everything remains to be done.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2006 7:43 PM

Benedict is obviously an intellect of the highest order. I'm impressed. He has a crucial role in combatting the Islamization of Europe. Whatever the faults of Chirac and company . . . for better or for worse, we're all in this together.

Posted by: biorabbi at January 6, 2006 7:49 PM

I certainly applaud the Pope's acknowledgement that Islam cannot be reformed, "because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is."

But I'm afraid that Father Joseph Fessio appears to share the pessimism of Mark Steyn regarding the fate of Europe. What the hell? Is this "inshallah-fatalism" thing infectious or something?

So all of western civilization is to collapse (except for America as the last hold-out becaue they have home schooling??!) because the west refuses to make an all-out intellectual assault against the house of cards that is Islam? Well pardon me for asking, but how crazy is that?

I am reminded of an article at faithfreedom.org today, called The Narcissistic Allah":

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FaiyzaTaffakur60106.htm

The author, Faiyaz Taffakur, is pointing out how bizarre it is that the Koran is so full of injunctions to worship Allah, that it becomes a joke to imagine that Allah himself dictated this message to Muhammad:

"Now, let us suppose that the Koran has indeed come from Allah. Witness that the Koran is heavily laced with verses praising Allah. If Allah is the source of the Koran, then he has spared no effort in praising himself. He has called himself the Exalted, the Supreme, the Most Compassionate and Merciful, the Sovereign, the One, The Source of Peace, to just name a few. Not only has he praised himself, but he demands his followers to regularly chant the Koran and praise him with the most fanciful salutations. Based on this, can anyone say that he is good? He is more a petulant, narcissist worthless creature."

Obviously, Allah is Muhammad's projection. Obviously he invented the whole thing. And it's these sort of slip-ups that give the game away.

But in the face of such absurdity, we are faced with not only most of the liberal (elitist - whoa, what a joke - I thought "elite" somehow connoted "superior", in intellect at least) media cowtowing to the most reactionary, antiliberal force in recent memory, most of western academia doing the same, and now apparently, even the highest levels of the Catholic Church (whom actually, I might expect to actually BE reactionary), saying basically "Oh well. Sigh. Thank goodness for home schooling."

I'm sorry, but What the hell?? Would someone explain why the west is rolling over and playing dead? I DO understand the abhorence of violence. I consider that rather enlightened. But where is the intellectual challenge that ought to be issuing LOUDLY!!! from the WEST! From the media, the academy, the Catholic Church, the artists, the intelligensia.

I'm sorry. I'm glad the Pope and this Father Fessio understand what is going on but I am not at all impressed by this interview or this response.

Posted by: Caroline at January 6, 2006 7:53 PM

The great failing of John Paul II was his ineffectual strategy of using "quiet diplomacy" on behalf of persecuted Christians within Dar ul Islam. It did nothing to stop the slaughter of Christians in southern Sudan and elsewhere.

His feeble dealings with the Islamic world were a striking contrast to the bold moral challenge he posed to the Soviet empire.

It's very apparent that Benedict XVI is up to speed on Islam. But considering his age, his Papal reign is destined to be relatively brief. One hopes he will use his time wisely and issue an encyclical about Islamic intolerance and its challenge to religious freedom.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 6, 2006 8:03 PM

Father "aw shucks" Fessio.

Posted by: Caroline at January 6, 2006 8:15 PM

As long as cardenal Johnathon Morris is the Spokesperson for the vatican > I will have to assume the doxology of the CC is "their is no god by allah and mohammed is his messenger."and The Catholic church holds Jesus as a great prophet .
He has to be excumunicated and sent back to Mecca before I will trust the Pope.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at January 6, 2006 8:31 PM

Home schooling is the best he can offer? Next it'll be hedge schools.

Caroline- modest allah wanted 50 daily adoration sessions at first and had to be bargained down. I suppose the muslim-infested workplace can be grateful for small mercies!
And of course as we used to say as kids "Self-praise if no praise"

Posted by: Silvester at January 6, 2006 8:38 PM

"hedge schools."
-- from a posting above

Worked for Heaney.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2006 8:47 PM

I curse my wordperfect for being down so that I can't cut and paste a decent fisking of this interview, but seriously, this is beyond pathetic. I'll just grab random quotes as evidence of how pathetic Father "aw shucks" Fessio is:

"And number one was fidelity to Jesus Christ, that we must serve Jesus. He's our Lord. He's our master. Everything else is secondary, which was beautiful for him to say that. "

Head swivel here. Did FF actually just say that it was, "beautiful" for the head of the Roman Catholic Church to actually acknowledge that Jesus is "Lord"?? Yeah. Cool man. That was a really groovy thing for the Pope to say, like, you know, man? It was beautiful. WTF??

"he wanted to help the Catholic Church go into the future by understanding properly the II Vatican Council, which was all the bishops in the world getting together to try and chart a course. But then, when he came to the content, he said the very first thing we have to do, and make sure we do well, is to praise and worship and adore the Lord in a proper way. If we do that, then everything else will follow from that. You know, our work with the poor, our evangelization, our attempt to find greater unity with our fellow Christians"

But then ,when he came to the CONTENT??????

WTF???

"you know, our work with the poor..."

From the way this guy is talking, I'm starting to imagine that his work with the poor involves passing out joints and getting stoned.

"Benedict XVI, even before he was Pope, has talked about the remnant, the fact that we as Christians, if we are truly faithful to Christ and His word, we're going to be a minority, and a minority which is becoming more and more marginalized, and even oppressed. So I don't think, I don't think Benedict XVI is thinking that we're going to have a new Christendom, in which Christian principles permeate all of society. I think he probably is more, his vision is that we must be faithful to Christ, and He will support us and strengthen us, and we can't predict what our role will be in society. But it's probably going to be as a minority."

Hey, but what diff will it make, you know? Crank up that led Zeppelin baby and pass the joint.

"Well, I mean, he'll address himself to it in the sense that if Christians take seriously the word of God, both in the Gospels and in Genesis, they're going to be fruitful and multiply. As you say, that kind of a reproduction rate is not going to work. In fact, this year, well, last year, actually. 2005, there were more Muslims born in France than people of traditional French background. Within four years, the top four cities in Holland will be...most populous cities, will have a Muslim majority. I mean, if we look at the demographics, which can change, but they change slowly, I don't see any other issue for Europe, or any result, than looking like North Africa, you know? Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, I mean, they were all Christian, thriving Christian communities, you know, in the early Church. And now, you can't profess your faith there. You can't bring a Bible in some of those countries."

But hey, you know - what the hell? Hey Father Thomas! I'm doing an interview here - pass me that joint and crank up the Creedence Clearwater man!

"Well, that's what Jesus wants, you know? He prays we'll all be one, as He and the Father are one. Well, we're not very near that now. But at least we can respect each other and have good arguments with each other, and try and come to the same unity of love and faithfulness to Christ. That's important."

(aside: Dammit Father Thomas. I said Pass me that joint!)

I'm sorry, Hugh, what were you saying? Oh sorry, that's right, what Jesus wants. Right man. Cool topic. Anyway, as I was saying...

Look. My connection is going to time out and my WP is down so I can't cut and paste. But seriously, this is way too easy to continue with. I'm sorry but this beyond pathetic. There is no seriousness here whatsoever.

Posted by: Caroline at January 6, 2006 9:33 PM

A very revealing interview. Benedict clearly wants to tread a cautious, peaceful path, telling the truth about Islam, on the one hand, while trying to promote peace and avoid conflict, to the extent he can, on the other. But, of course, Islam will force conflict as Islam always does, since its purpose is nothing less than the destruction of European civilization and the Church as we know it. The war that is being brought against the Church by Islam is of an entirely different character from the communist oppression faced by John Paul; when Muslims in Europe are strong enough (and maybe even before that) any opposition to Islam, any criticism, will expose clergy, churches, lay people, facilities to open violence. Christian communities in Europe may be tested in ways not seen since the time of Nero. Benedict XVI seems to see this in Europe's future, and yet he remains calm, purposeful, methodical, and hopeful in his approach.

One cannot help but admire him.

Posted by: JTF at January 6, 2006 9:37 PM

This interview, together with the link to Sandro Magister's post on Bostom's Legacy of Jihad, is *very* important.
It shows that Rome GETS IT.

And as for Fr. Fessio's style, give the guy a break. He is extremely passionate in the interview, very concerned about Islam. We need many more prelates/priests like this. I hope B16 makes him a Cardinal. Together with Fr. Neuhaus, who had alerted me to the looming threat of Islam long before 9/11.

EXCLUDE DHIMMITUDE. DEFEAT JIHAD.

Posted by: miasarx at January 6, 2006 10:13 PM

FF: "And he quotes key Islamic leaders saying the following: Because of your religious tolerance in Europe, we will overtake you. We will be coming into Europe. Because of our religious beliefs, we will conquer you. I mean, there should be no doubt about it. They're intent, and I don't blame them for this. They believe they got the true religion. They are going to overcome here. They've been trying to do it for...since the 600's."

"AND I DON"T BLAME THEM FOR THIS..."?!

FF" And even though his ideas are clear, and his committment to the Christian faith is completely solid, he is very gentle, and he doesn't want to harm people. He doesn't want to upset people. He wants to talk to them, and listen, and get input. He doesn't act quickly. But he's already making changes here and there. I mean, I think...I'm not disappointed at all."

"HE DOESN"T WANT TO UPSET PEOPLE". Well God forbid he should "upset" people.

"The Angel Gabriel comes to Mary, says you're going to bear the son of God. She accepts that. Jesus comes across the lake and says follow Me. They follow Him. You don't, nor do I, have much control in this country, or the world, or even the city we live in. But we have control over our own hearts, and our own loves, and our own lives, and our families. And I think we just have to follow the Lord and wait on His call."

Complete fatalism that. It doesn't even occur to him that he should speak out on behalf of persecuted Christians in Muslim lands. He only speaks of looking out for one's own most personal sphere.

"The future is going to be through education. It can't be any other way. And we believe that it's important to impart to young people a knowledge of Jesus, a knowledge of His word, a knowledge of a tradition of the saints in the history of the Church, a knowledge of our civilization which has produced so much beautiful work. I mean, look at Lord of the Rings, and look at C.S. Lewis. I mean, the impact they've had. Why did it have that impact? These were two highly educated Christians, who took their talents and gave them to the Lord, and look what it's done."

So when he feels inspired to speak of "our civilization which has produced so much beautiful work", all he manages to come up with are two recent blockbuster Hollywood movies.

"So we want to try and impart that kind of knowledge to those who have the talent to imbibe it and absorb it and to go forth and then pass that on."

That kind of knowledge? Meaning the knowledge and history and tradition of Christianity that can be encapsulated into two recent Hollywood blockbuster films?

No wonder he imagines that Christianity can be saved by home-schooling in some small, private enclaves in America. Hopefully they'll have DVD players on hand or else western Judeo-Christian civilization is totally screwed.

Posted by: Caroline at January 6, 2006 10:38 PM

miasarx: "He is extremely passionate in the interview, very concerned about Islam."

Wow. We are definitely reading two different interviews.

Posted by: Caroline at January 6, 2006 10:50 PM

so the Pope knows the true islam, l suspect people as Bush, and Rice know as well, and are trying to work around the problem.. problem is that one of these days, it needs to be brought out in the open. that is either they become Democratic and come into the modern world or we declare them enemies of our culture and destroy them. Democracy will destroy Islam, especially when women obtain their freedom, Islam as it is known will be destroyed. l do not know how lonf it can take, but l did not think the Berlin wall would come down in my life time, but thanks to Pres.Reagan it came down!

Posted by: Lulu at January 6, 2006 11:03 PM

I know it's not the main topic here... but what's with all the references to abortion and "homosexuals"?

Such references convey a lack of "clue" about what contributes to our problems and makes sane folks distrust the truths he does speak.

"Gee if only those homos--the ones not becomeing priests--would pretend not to be gay long enough to impregnate their wives (in addition to boffing the men they meet at the bars after work), just like it used to be, well then Islam will be defated."

Posted by: kamala at January 6, 2006 11:04 PM

Boy, some of you folks are brutal. Catch a clue, Fr. Fessio and Pope Benedict are on your side here.

Posted by: kelley at January 7, 2006 12:08 AM

It is comforting to know that this Pope understands the nature of Islam, so we are unlikely to suffer seeing another Pope kiss the Koran. It is sobering to realize that, other than inspiring the Faithful to act with courage and conscience during the looming battle of Civilization against Islam, the current Pope (apparently) will be a fatalistic observer and not a leader. We, the laity (of whatever faith), are on our own to interpret the situation and find a successful solution, if there is going to be one. We must exercise our free will, while we still can practice it, to resist and to defeat the totalitarian onslaught of the Mohammedan death cult.

Posted by: Stendec at January 7, 2006 12:10 AM

Hugh Hewitt is an idiot. I hate him. I am actually surprised this interview even took place on his show. Hewitt is the type of guy who hears Bush say "Islam means peace" and that's good enough for him.

And I agree with kamala, while the Pope is worried about abortion and homosexuals, Rome is literally being shat upon by the Muslims. Priorities, priorities, priorities. How about drawing up a real plan for dealing with Islam, like say teaching the real history of jihad in the seminaries so we don't get any more dhimmi cardinals and priests. They make not like homosexuals, but last time I checked they weren't blowing up Christians or cutting their heads off. Sheesh.

Posted by: igor at January 7, 2006 12:17 AM

Kelley: "Boy, some of you folks are brutal. Catch a clue, Fr. Fessio and Pope Benedict are on your side here."

What difference does it make, practically speaking, if the guys on your side are lying comotose in the locker room?

Posted by: Caroline at January 7, 2006 12:22 AM

Hans Kung?

Has Hans Kung changed his tune?

According to this article, Hans Kung supported the death 'fatwa' against Salman Rushdie -- or at least defended it:

Fighting against odious thinkers unifies all religions: they have to be destroyed. Given the power it once had, the Roman Catholic church would act exactly as Iran is acting today. Viewed in this context, the "Christian-Islamic dialogue" that has been going on for some years now can be seen in quite a different light. This dialogue's goal — this is detectable in its selection of themes — is obviously coordination and concerted action of the world's religions against democratic liberties and freedom of speech. One of the most important participants in this dialogue is Hans Küng, professor of theology from Tübingen, West Germany. In Europe, Küng's reputation is that of a "liberal" Roman Catholic scholar of god, as he has quarreled repeatedly with the Holy See.

Hans Küng was a member of German Foreign Secretary Hans-Dietrich Genscher's delegation on his visit to Tehran late last year. There he, along with other Roman Catholic clergymen, conducted high-level talks with Iranian leaders, among them Khomeini's son-in-law. Topics were Feuerbach's and Marx's critique of religion and current affairs that concerned both religions — Islam and Christianity. The Iranian theocrats seemed especially interested in the Roman Catholic university teacher's experiences with convincing the students of religious doctrines, as it is not too easy to get Iranian scholars to believe in the Koran. The Roman Catholics surely were able to offer the mullahs some hints as to how they did it.

The talks' practical results were the accomplishment of an agreement on cultural exchange between Iran and the Federal Republic of Germany, and of course a resolution to strengthen economic cooperation. Accordingly, the so-called "liberal" Küng in an interview with the "Bayerischer Rundfunk" (Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation) defended Khomeini's threat. In his opinion, writers should take religion more seriously. Rushdie should have known what he was doing and have refrained from writing the book. Authors, after all, couldn't write as they liked, because it couldn't be tolerated that religious figures like Jesus or Mohammed were attacked in writing. For Küng, the limits of freedom of speech are defined by "religious feeling." He who hurts these dubious "feelings" is responsible for the results — a murder threat in Rushdie's case. Not only is Küng "theological-diplomatic advisor" to Germany's foreign secretary, but he is also seen as one of the most influential European professors of theology, especially for students at theological faculties.

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheists.org%2FIslam%2Fenlightenment.html

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 7, 2006 12:38 AM

If that is still the way Hans Kung thinks, then I retract mention of, and certainly all hopefulness about, his curiously friendly meeting with the Pope, soon after the Pope had met with some Muslims and in that meeting refused to give them what they clearly wanted, and instead continued to sound a certain theme. I'll see if I can find out more about that meeting, and if I do, and if I am allowed to discuss it, I'll post something here.

Not everyone is impervious to reality. Some people take in new information. Look at Orianna Fallaci thirty years ago, reporting from the Middle East, and look at her now.

Posted by: Hugh at January 7, 2006 12:52 AM

The interview was a good sign, despite what others seem to say here-take it for what it was.

As for priorities, since REPRODUCTION is a major area of concern, Europe would not be in the mess it is today if it had listend to Popes of the last century. As a Palamite, I am not exactly interested in giving the Papacy free points, but they were right. Europe created its own mess by mass contraception, abortion, the degredation of marriage and the philosophical annihilation of its theological heritage. If there were a vibrant Christian church in Europe, we wouldn't have to worry about muslims in europe because they'd be converting. As to homosexual, putting the argument aside as to the moral status of their behavior, since REPRODUCTION is a major area of concern, encouraging homosexuality isn't going to help increase a population since homosexuals still have a 0:0 prenangancy rate. Families have a priority-to those who provide the goods go the benefits.

As for Lewis and Tolkien, for those who may not know for whatever reason, either they don't read or they don't read Christian literature, Lewis' fictional books are packed with sophisticated theological and philosophical material and the same can be said for Tolkien. Tolkien's Ring of power is taken right out of Plato's Republic for example. Lewis' The Silver Chair is an assult on Logical Positivism. Works by both authors have been top 20 sellers for literally decade after decade.

It is important that the Papacy recognizes and cleans house now and the interview about B16 reflects that. We can use just about any ally we can get and last I checked, there weren't a few Catholics on the planet. (Gosh, didn't anyone watch Monty Python's, the Meaning of Life? Every Sperm is Sacred....

In any case, things don't look too different to this Pope than the popes of 1,000 years ago. The Franks, Brits and Normands are still bickering. The Muslim hordes are invading. And there is rank heresy to combat within. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2006 1:04 AM

Actions speak louder than words. Judging by the actions of the Pope I am not convinced he is not a dhimmi. As the chief protector of Roman Catholic Christianity, he should be fighting ferociously against Jihad and Islam. What good is his knowledge (or lack thereof) of the true nature of Islam if he lacks the courage to expose it publicly and fight its influence? Robert Spencer is more worthy to be the Pope than the current Pope.

Posted by: US_infidel at January 7, 2006 1:04 AM

American_Palamite,

You don't get it. Increasing Christian reproduction won't defeat the Muslim horde. Muslims will still outproduce Christians even if we banned contraception and abortion due to Muslim polygamy and intermarriage. The Europeans must get the Muslims out of Europe or convert them. That is why crapping on the feminists and homosexuals is pointless. The RCC doesn't have to join their ranks and support them but focusing most of their energies on them is a misallocation of resources. Temporary alliances usually backfire and aren't worth pursuing. But if the Pope cannot state that Islam is the enemy of the Church much like John Paul II said Communism was, then we won't get anywhere. Until the Pope does that then I will consider him an anti-dhimmi. I'm tired of words, I want action (in this case, Church policy).

Posted by: igor at January 7, 2006 1:32 AM

Don't underestimate the power of prayer, even when outward activity seems close to nil. Of course, it would always be nice to have more people praying for the conversion of "Dar al-Islam," as American Catholics used to do for the USSR.

But prayer lets the divine take over where human abilities end (though it's useful to pray that we are aware and carry out everything we're able to do), and can undercut any enemy by turning their hearts from within, provided the cause is acceptable to God-- and surely propagating the honest truth about Islam is.

I pray every night for crosses over the skyline of Mecca.

More preachy than I'm used to getting, but there's my two dinars on the subject.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 7, 2006 1:34 AM

Iqor,

Increasing the reproductive rate of Europe and other non-muslim states certainly will help. It will certainly deprive muslims of gaining hold of Europe or any other modern state by default. Muslims don’t have polygamy in modern states. And many muslim countries still have high infant mortality rates. Not all muslim states are oil rich ya know. Moreover, strengthening the Catholic Priesthood certainly will help to convert the muslims and cleaning out the Catholic seminaries of people who weaken them will aid that effort. I teach at a Catholic university-I know of what I speak. Moreover, Rome isn’t spending most of its energies fighting homosexuals or feminists per se. Lately it has concentrated on those within its ranks, which I would think it was in their purview to do. Moreover, it would certainly help if the homosexuals and feminists would get off the backs of Christians. It’s a two way street.

For purposes of paper, B16 doesn’t need to say much about Islam. There is plenty of past Catholic apologetical works that have done that and I suspect popular Catholic apologetic groups like Catholic Answers will reproduce many of them or write ones of their own. The Church’s position on Islam is fairly clear-it is a heresy. As for bold moves, B16 has already and recently rebuffed Islamic visitors to the Vatican indicating in no uncertain terms that Muslims have to do more than just talk about peace and tolerance. In any case the man isn’t stupid and he isn't a muslims kiss ass either, so I seriously doubt he is going to do nothing. From what my Jesuit and Dominican sources tell me, there is already a lot more going on that we don’t currently see.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2006 1:59 AM

For purposes of paper, B16 doesn’t need to say much about Islam.

B16... you've sunk my battleship!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Btw, got any handy links on Palamites? My usual resources aren't showing anything useful.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 7, 2006 2:04 AM

American_Palamite,

I certainly hope you are right. Although you are right about demography helping Europe (I think it should be encouraged of course) but the Europeans need to fight Islam on all different fronts and I think there are some things that are far more important than increasing the birthrate (immigration reform comes to mind). But Muslim polygamy is practiced in Western countries. Moreso in Europe than America, but it does go on and the freqeuncy of its practice is alarming to most Westerners. We should also be worried about the birthrate in Muslim countries (infant mortality notwithstanding, they'll still pop out more kids), because when there are no jobs for the young men, they'll come over to the West on student visas and stay here.

I still think we need to see a bold move though. Benedict XVI should request to visit Saudi Arabia and deliver a speech or something like that. The Catholic church cannot just sit by just talking and planning behind closed doors, it needs to give Islam a clear challenge or else they will disappear as an institution. I think it was Nariz that mentioned it here first that the #1 Western converts to Islam are lapsed Catholics. It is very important for the Pope to take this tough talk a little further. The future of Europe depends on it.

Posted by: igor at January 7, 2006 2:15 AM

Shinoliite,

A Palamite is one way of referring to the Eastern Orthodox theological/philosophical perpsective. This is because one of its best champions (who also debated muslims btw) was Saint Gregory Palamas (14th century).

Try the brief bio at http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=1055&PCode=2LENTS&D=S&DT=3/27/2005

and here

http://www.monachos.net/patristics/palamas_historical.shtml

Glad to be of service. :)

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2006 2:19 AM

Iqor,

Granted, we should resist Islamization and combat Islam on all fronts. If we are talking about a population decline of say, Italy from about 60 million people to 15 million people in about 35 years, reproduction seems somewhere near the top of the list. As to polygamy, I think western nations should crack down on it. If we give the Mormon sects such a hard time about it, why not the Muslims? (Incidentally, there is another reason to leave the definition of marriage alone-don't open the door to the legalization of polygamy in the west.) Hell, leave the Mormons alone-they are all over baseball, mom and apple pie and they eat bacon. No alcohol, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

If B16 wants to be an instant martyr sure he should go to Saudi Arabia. Even if he did, it wouldn’t do squat, except give the Mahoundians another cause to cheer. I don’t think the Catholics are just sitting and planning behind closed doors. Just because we didn’t see much happen with Solidarity in Poland, didn’t mean nothing was happening.

There are two very good reasons why the number of converts come from Catholic backgrounds. First, there are more Catholics than anything else. Second, because so many of them are so poorly educated in their faith. (In point of fact and to be fair, most people are poorly educated in their worldview. Most people couldn’t argue their way through a wet metaphysical bag.) Nominal or not, there are just more Catholics than anything else practically. Again, Every Sperm is Sacred... ;) jk

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2006 2:31 AM

Benedict, bless him, 'gets it'. He understands the mortal danger that our civilization is in.

I wish he would make a stronger stand, and likely he will; the sooner the better.

WE must take responsibility, which seems ok in a democracy, and inundate our politicians with demands that immigration of muslims stop NOW.
That's up to us and our leaders.

The Pope understands; why the f-ck don't the leaders in my country.

Posted by: dby at January 7, 2006 2:46 AM

Shinoliite
Don't underestimate the power of prayer....can undercut any enemy by turning their hearts from within, provided the cause is acceptable to God-- and surely propagating the honest truth about Islam is.

I pray every night for crosses over the skyline of Mecca.

And you have our sense of humour!

Our twin weapons are prayer, humour and a fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Our three weapons are prayer, humour, a fanatical devotion to the Pope and complete and utter bloody mindedness....
Amongst our weaponry are such elements as prayer, humour, a fanatical devotion to the Pope, complete and utter bloody mindedness and the fellowship of Jihadwatch.

I would have liked to have read a writen report on the Pope's encounter with these scholars; I think it was hard to get the real flavour of his thinking from an informal interview in those circumstances. I believe that the Pope gets the danger. I don't believe that he thinks the only way is to head for the hills, batten down the monastery hatches and hide. I just hope he gets enough time to do the positive good of which he is capable, which may be the setting in place of suitable cardinals young enough to carry our the work.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at January 7, 2006 3:15 AM

:)

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

One last comment before I finally call it a night:
Anyone who names their kid Hugh Hewitt is a sadist.

'Nite!

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 7, 2006 3:24 AM

Kelley: "Boy, some of you folks are brutal. Catch a clue, Fr. Fessio and Pope Benedict are on your side here."

"What difference does it make, practically speaking, if the guys on your side are lying comotose in the locker room?"

Posted by: Caroline above..

Because OUR guys will wake up. If he were our president and spoke about islam this way, many here would welcome it, also many around the world would issue outrage.

His position can be of great help, needed now as much as can be found.

A bit of a stretch seeing the "koran fall from heaven", but overall I look forward to hearing more from him.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 7, 2006 4:34 AM

WOW!WOW!!! Many people think that it isn´t enough but I know that this interview is very very important.
And who say that the Pope hasn´t to speak about abortion or homosexuals, well, the abortion is a killing, and always it will be. Since the abortion is legalised Western is falling, this is a fact. A civilisation that kills their children, don´t have a future.
And homosexuals, I haven´t read nothing about them, but like, you can imagine St Paul and St Peter were clear respect that, and The Pope can´t change the doctrine of God.
Coming back to the chapter, WOW!! Benedict XVI you are better that I expected. WOW!
Like a catholic I am proud of him.

Posted by: Franze at January 7, 2006 5:12 AM

I agree with Caroline, if home schooling is the best solution they can come up with, then what's the point? I would wager all dhimmis home school, eventually.

I remember wading through one of Kung's tomes back in the seventies when he was all the rage. If he supported the Rushdie fatwa, then he's an even bigger dolt than I thought after reading his book.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 7, 2006 8:48 AM

I definately don't agree with Caroline. Home schooling probably isn't the right ANSWER but you have to realize the potential importance and power when the Pope is talking about the correct PROBLEM.

Communism was dragged down by the moral position and power of the pope talking about the PROBLEM of communism along with the U.S.+Reagen providing the ANSWER.

The pope will do his part preaching about the problem and now the West has to come up with the answer.

I'm hoping this can be a turning point. Last night at 3am I sent out my first ever (in what 15+ years of email?) spam-like email to my address list which included the pope interview and the Mark Steyn demography article. It is a devistating 1-2 punch to help wake up people. I'm also contemplating printing up a few 1,000 pamphlets to leave around town. There should be a website spinoff/start that highlights these two articles and is a starting off point to wake the world up.

Posted by: foursuvs at January 7, 2006 9:58 AM

"the Pope is no dhimmi"

And neither is the Vatican, otherwise they would have chosen other for his place. I just hope that this pope can live long enough to leave us with a lasting legacy.

Posted by: cruzado at January 7, 2006 10:34 AM

Christianity makes no such claim, that the hand of God authored the writings in the Christian religion. The content was written by humans inspired by the philosophy, morals, ethics, and parables of Jesus and his followers. Western society emerged from Christianity, and contains all the freedoms we expect. Christianity is dynamic since it is human, and fully conforms with the International Bill of Rights, consisting of the ICCPR, ICESCR, and UDHR.
ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR : International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
UDHR : Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Islam’s religious writings are claimed to be the direct hand of Allah, and these writings were given to Allah’s messenger, Mohammad. Since Islamic writings were not written by humans, they cannot be reinterpreted by humans. The writings remarkably reflect Arab tribal beliefs in the 6th Century. Most of the content in Islam’s religious books do not comply with, and rather fully contradict the International Bill of Rights consisting of the ICCPR, ICESCR, and UDHR.

Muslims are starting to talk about reforming the Islamic religious books. Reforming Islam is not an option. Islam must be reformed. Islam is a snapshot of the 6th Century world, severely contradicting the human rights and freedoms we have established. Islam poises an imminent danger to the world’s citizens. Radical followers of Islam wish to destroy the world, as we know it, and return the world to the mentality of the 6th Century.

The world & humanity is dynamic and constantly changing. If a religion is to be considered significant, it must be dynamic, and evolve with the ethical and moral wisdom of the world’s citizens; this is what the International Bill of Rights represents, and this wisdom must be consistently reflected and interpreted in the world’s religions.

Posted by: SFOD at January 7, 2006 10:37 AM

"I think it was Nariz that mentioned it here first that the #1 Western converts to Islam are lapsed Catholics."

Unless Nariz can provide a verifiable and non-Muslim source for that claim, I have no reason to believe it. Muslims make the most ridiculous claims about the vast number of people converting to their "religion." I don't believe them for a second.

Posted by: kelley at January 7, 2006 11:26 AM

American Palamite:"Every Sperm is Sacred"..." a statement of unusual understanding.

An atheist reading this interview would alternativly laugh and cry...
While the Catholic Church, as such, can be a positive influence 'against' Islam, standing alone it is a useless appendage. Individually, Christians/Catholics can be divided, while officially, muslims cannot. "United we stand, divided we fall", applys here. While I see the Church and its Pope as self serving and luke warm about Islam, it can be very useful if it gets off its behind and actually 'does' something. Talk is cheap. If you dont stick your neck out, you dont get anywhere.
Otherwise, I was not too impressed with the interview...It was too gushy and smaltzy. Islam cant be defeated by gush and smaltz...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 7, 2006 11:49 AM

SFOD:"Muslims are starting to talk about reforming the Islamic religious books. Reforming Islam is not an option. Islam must be reformed."

Let them talk all they want. They will never do it. SFOD is right in that reforming Islam is not an option. It plain and simply cannot be reformed, and must then be defeated if it causes trouble. In order to adequatly reform Islam, the Quran would have to be reduced to about four pages. The Hadith would be destroyed and the only thing left is, 'God is great'. Thats it, no actions or comments allowed. Then the 'Religion of Peace' might have some credibility...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 7, 2006 12:03 PM

Good topic here. Pope Benedict XVI is clearly an intelligent pope who knows his theology inside and out. I trust his spiritual leadership. He understands what the church and Europe is up against with Islam.

Now if only more Europeans could only put their faith and trust in Pope Benedict XVI. Then Europe may be able to redeem itself someday in the future.

Europeans should clear off the dust from inside their beautiful churches and begin practicing the Christian faith that was once of such great importance to Europe. Otherwise, plan to see a lot more mosques on the streets of Europe and decaying churches with no one inside.

American-Palamite:
It is good to have you on this website. Your posts have some depth to them. I enjoy your theological perspective.

Posted by: Johnathan at January 7, 2006 12:05 PM

If every sperm is sacred, then, as Carl Sagan asked, "is masturbation mass murder"?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 7, 2006 12:57 PM

Igor, you said: "But if the Pope cannot state that Islam is the enemy of the Church much like John Paul II said Communism was, then we won't get anywhere." Tragically there is a fundamental difference - the Pope did not have Communist V column sabotaging his media, schools and law nor did Communists have to the pleasure of the company of PC-infected dhimmis ridden with post-colonial guilt and liberal hiccups as wel as human rights activists defending them. Communism was an external enemy, Islam is the enemy within.
"Muslims don’t have polygamy in modern states" - American_Palamite, sadly polygamy is already semi-official in the UK. The government was forced to acknowledge it for tax purposes here!
Shariah laws have been introduced in the fields of mortgages and family matters in the UK.
I recommend this very revealing and frightening report:

http://www.barnabasfund.org/islaminbritain.htm

http://www.barnabasfund.org/islamisationeurope.htm

Posted by: Polish infideless at January 7, 2006 1:12 PM

"If every sperm is sacred, then, as Carl Sagan asked, "is masturbation mass murder"?"

Interesting quote. If that was the case, then so would be ordinary sex. Just remember that for every egg fertilized, millions of Spz are wasted.

This would make a very interesting theological discussion. Those interested might want to read the excellent "Mentiras fundamentales de la Iglesia católica" from the controversial Spaniard writer Pepe Rodriguez. Extremely thought-provoking.

Posted by: cruzado at January 7, 2006 1:58 PM

American_Palamite: "The interview was a good sign, despite what others seem to say here-take it for what it was."

I know my comments were harsh. But why should I jump up and down because apparently the Pope of the RCC realizes that Islam cannot be changed! He's the Pope for God's sake. Given Christianity's long struggle with Islam as its mortal enemy it would be utterly shocking if the Pope DIDN'T recognize that! And it's a sign of how bad things are that people should be so excited that the Pope of all people actually "get's it"!!

And I realize my comments about FF were also very harsh but that's because I abhor this attitude that not hurting anyone's feelings takes precedence over anything else and that's how he comes across - totally fatalistic and concerned about being "nice" and bending over backwards to see things from the "Other's" POV to the point of sheer lunacy. Case in point:

"And he [Pope Paul] quotes key Islamic leaders saying the following: Because of your religious tolerance in Europe, we will overtake you. We will be coming into Europe. Because of our religious beliefs, we will conquer you. I mean, there should be no doubt about it. They're intent, and I don't blame them for this. They believe they got the true religion. They are going to overcome here. They've been trying to do it for...since the 600's."

What does he mean "I don't blame them". They outright state that they plan to use our OWN religious tolerance against us so as to overtake us and abolish religious tolerance altogether (as FF acknowledges elsewhere in the interview) and he doesn't "blame them"?

Well I DO!! I think that is WRONG! I think it is immoral and unjust!

So no - I am not impressed at all. And what I want to know is where was the RCC in the past 40 years when Europe opened the gates to the Muslim invasion? It may be perfectly understandable that many lay westerners didn't understand the threat until very recently but I'm not going to give such a pass to the RCC on that score. I thought they were to be as shephards to a flock of sheep. Instead they've stood by as the wolves were let in among the fold. What have they done to protect Christians against that invasion? When were they loudly speaking out against it? Warning western governments of the consequences? They had to know what Christians faced in Muslim majority countries and they had to see the implications for Christians in the west should such open immigration be allowed. What did they do about it? What did they say about it? When did they warn their flock?

Posted by: Caroline at January 7, 2006 6:01 PM

Hey, the folks over at http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/ are following this!

Caroline, I don't know what is behind your very strong feelings about this interviw and the RCC. We could blame all sorts of people, governments and institutions for not doing squat during the "past 40 years when Europe opened the gates to the Muslim invasion." Not sure why you single out the RCC here. Not sure what sort of response you are looking for with your lengthy criticisms. What's the point? How about we move forward with all possible allies to fight this menace to our civilization?

The Church is simply not going to talk or act the way you want it to. It frequently makes its moves behind the scenes, as it did during WWII when Pope Piux XII saved some 700,000 Jews in Europe. I take enormous comfort from what Benedict has said and done in his few short months as pope. Bravo, Benedicto, keep it up!!

Posted by: kelley at January 7, 2006 8:56 PM

The Church was a high-priority target for infiltration during the Cold-War, for all we know this pope or others high-up started out that way. All that stuff from the coldwar ain't gonna go away anytime soon, we get to live with this Soviet B.S. for a long time to come.
Basically, the communists tried to do to the church what the present administration is trying to do to islam-- subvert it and corrupt it(from a purely technical point of view, not that islam was not born corrupt).
There's lot's of evidence that the commies have been successful. And success can be measured from many different angles.

Posted by: kentim at January 7, 2006 9:29 PM

kelley - for the life of me I can't fathom what this thread has to do with Islamophobia, such that "islamophobia-watch" should be interested. Unless that term is to encompass the concern of western Christians that they will be basically annhilated, as this interview with FF makes somewhat clear (oh, except for those few enclaves of home-schooling in the United States, where the tradition of western Judeo-Christian civilization shall valiantly carry on). I see. So the concern of western Christians about their annhilation now qualifies as "Islamophobia". Meanwhile, Muslims give no apology whatsoever about their hysterical response to the lid of a Burger King ice cream cone package that somewhat, sort of, in some vague sense, kind of resembles something do with Muhammad or Islam but whatever it is, it is, you know, REALLY REALLY offensive. Right. I think I understand the PC rules here. Concern about the annhilation of Judeo-Christian western civilization="Islamophobic". Concern about the potentially offensive or insulting nature of a 4 inch diameter wide lid of a Burger King frosty ice cream cone=PERFECTLY REASONABLE!

Funny how they refer to Hugh Hewitt as "right-wing". What does that make Islam on the whole? It's so far to the right of Hugh Hewitt as to disappear off the map altogether. Do we have a term for that?

"Not sure why you single out the RCC here. Not sure what sort of response you are looking for with your lengthy criticisms. What's the point?"

I'm not looking for any response. I'm simply posting my thoughts on this interview on a thread which is addressed to that topic. I single out the RCC here, because this thread happens to be ABOUT the RCC. You won't find me even mentioning the RCC on any other threads. But, since we happen to be discussing that topic on this thread, then yes, I will say that the RCC most certainly DOES bear a great deal of responsibility for the fate of Christians (its "flock") in the west.

"How about we move forward with all possible allies to fight this menace to our civilization?"

By all means...

Posted by: Caroline at January 7, 2006 9:41 PM

Caroline, perhaps you're not aware that millions of Western non-Muslims would dismiss everything done here at Jihad/Dhimmi Watch as "Islamophobia". That's part of the reality we have to deal with; it won't go away by thinking it's not there.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 7, 2006 9:54 PM

Dr. Pepper - I'm quite aware it's there. It's a lie. People on the whole have become habitual liars. Doesn't mean me or you have to become one.

Posted by: Caroline at January 7, 2006 10:07 PM

Caroline, I don't think most of them are liars. A liar knows the truth; I think most PC people really sincerely believe in the PC version of reality -- therefore, they are not lying: they are duped, yet they are not imbeciles, rather they are reasonabley intelligent and educated. That's how insidious, powerful, yet banal PC is. Culturally speaking, that's a far worse problem for us to deal with than liars.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 7, 2006 11:00 PM

Caroline,

I am certainly not worried about offending people. Second, there were other things on the Church's plate for the last 40 years, like the Soviet Union for starters. The Soviets for example practically annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church and plenty of Catholics along with it. That is another holocaust story that needs to be told to America. Try, The Black Book of Communism, for starters.

You may not be aware of it, but there have been HUGE theological upheavals going on across Christian traditions, Rome being an exception only in its formal teaching and these have practical consequences. It is very easy to complain about how the Pope does things when you don't see everything the Pope does. Hell, and as a Palamite, I don't even believe in the Papacy!

As to muslim immigration, it is not like the Pope has a whole lot of control over it. Besides, democratic societies are responsible themselves and that is where most of the blame should rest.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2006 11:02 PM

Pope Benedict XVI is the best thing to happen to the Catholic Church in my lifetime.

One of his first statements in his pontificate was to declare that if Europe did not reject the insipid relativism that permeates modern society, it would succumb to Islam within another two generations.

Almost immediately after, he sent a message to Patriarch Alexei of Moscow with the statement that an Orthodox-Catholic alliance was esential to resist the advance of Islam.

May God give him health and many, many years!

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 7, 2006 11:24 PM

American_Palamite

I really appreciate your posts! However, as a Palamite, you should believe in the Papacy as it existed for the first nine centuries of Christianity when the Pope was completely Orthodox and the Patriarch of Constantinople was proudly Catholic.

Remember, some of the greatest Orthodox Fathers were Popes of Rome such as Saint Leo the Great and Pope Saint Gregory the Great (St. Gregory Dialogus) who prior to becoming Pope of Rome served in Constantinople as a papal envoy. It was he who codified the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy in its present form.

Let's pray that Benedict, who's theology is more Byzantine than any Pope in the last millenium, can bring about this Catholic-Orthodox alliance that the world so desperately needs.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 7, 2006 11:41 PM

Guys just what is your problem? This pope is on our side.

His statement was clearly a brave stand against radical Islam.

The complaints I heard against him here sound very rediculous to me.

Provoslavni

"Let's pray that Benedict, who's theology is more Byzantine than any Pope in the last millenium, can bring about this Catholic-Orthodox alliance that the world so desperately needs."

That just doesn't seem realistic. Despite the 19th century Greek Victories against the Turks the Greek Orthadox Church is still heavily Dhimmi, for example out of hundreds of very high ranking Greek Orthadoc Officials the only one to protest the PA forcing the church to constantly appoint an Islamo-christian with anti-semitic agendas to be patriarch by threatening to reject anyone who doesn't fit that description.

Posted by: Druze at January 8, 2006 12:34 AM

What the world doesn't need now is for one God, Inc. to battle another.

As someone raised Catholic until I left that hypocritical mass of self-congratulatory pharisees at age 13, I see little to recommend one Organized Faith over another, except that at least their 'Mahdi', Jesus, has not been so censored and distorted by the Christian Church as to be rendered as rapacious as Mohammad's "God".

With "Christ" at least you have some sayings of peace.

(Although there might have been far more had the orthodoxy of Rome not destroyed the earliest texts by the time of the Council of Nicea, and, meanwhile, killed thousands of "heretics". And millions more in a millenia of monstrosity equal to the current Islamic fanaticism and iconclasm.
Some of the earliest texts came back to light at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, during the late 1940's, including what might be the "Q" document: the "Sayings of Jesus", -along with the "Gospel of Thomas" and fragments of a "Gospel of Peter", all of which are far more individualized and mystical than what the "Synoptic" [sic] Gospels allowed).

'Christian' churches should divest themseves of all their gold-plated crap (bejewelled-Bibles, 24 karat chalices, platinum pyxes, ad nauseam) and get down to the Franciscan basics of service and humility.

Instead, they drive armored cars (The "Popemobile"), have cushy expense accounts, fly first class to "conferences"/"convocations", wear designer silk costumes and never admit that human understanding slants all perception, "divine" or otherwise, to the point that all knowledge is ONLY human knowledge.

Also, this current Pope needed to made a public show of humility, first, for his cowardice during the Nazi era, when he allowed himself to wear the 'bent-cross' uniform, unlike his more courageous German brothers and sisters -who fought against the Hitler regime in "The White Rose" movement, and others, and who laid down their lives rather than kowtow to an incarnate anti-Christ. He did not. And has said nothing about it since his papacy began. No asking for forgiveness, which might have been a shockingly human act.

It is business as usual. The wealthy Church of Rome rolls onward, saturated with what Christ would have mocked and whipped from every temple, starting at St. Peter's and working down to every local church in Christendom -where the buildings, trappings, cars and clothes take precedence over "feeding the poor, clothing the naked, comforting the sick and visiting the imprisoned".

Whitewashed sepulchres, with their inner decay neatly disguised behind gilt and bombast. "They clean the outside of their cups, but the interior is rank with corruption" as their nominal founder put it.

Still, with as little love as I have for the God, Inc. crowd, I'll take a bunch of weak Christian pharisees -who at least have the Sermon on the Mount to restrain their murderous human impulses- over the egomaniacal Imperialistic Islamists -who have nothing but "paradise is under the shadow of the sword" as a core creed.

The brain was meant for more use than to merely keep the ears apart.

Doubt is the greatest gift given by the Creator. (Whether "Nature" or "Something More", who can say, since we all depend on nothing more powerful than our own minds, ultimately, to judge the Mystery.)

And it is this humble power to say "Who the hell knows?" which will undermine the dismal dogmatism of Islam.

It tamed Judaism and Christianity -after centuries of their equally God-intoxicated depredations.

I pray it does the same to the Mohammedan madness soon.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 8, 2006 12:34 AM

Dr Pepper: "I don't think most of them are liars. A liar knows the truth; I think most PC people really sincerely believe in the PC version of reality -- therefore, they are not lying: they are duped,"

Dr Pepper - the question you raise is profound, to say the least. It raises the issues: What is self-deception? On what is it based? And to what degree should we hold self-deceivers responsible for their beliefs and their actions?

Posted by: Caroline at January 8, 2006 1:13 AM

profitsbeard wrote: "this current Pope needed to made a public show of humility, first, for his cowardice during the Nazi era, when he allowed himself to wear the 'bent-cross' uniform"

Your facts are wrong!

Joseph Ratzinger Sr., the Pope's father was a police commissioner who risked much as a public opponent of Nazi ideology which was wholly opposed to his traditional Catholicism. This is the home the Pope was raised in.

As a teenager attending school, Ratzinger avoided the Hitler Youth as long as possible. But when he reached age 16 membership became compulsory. A sympathetic professor arranged to have Ratzinger exempted. Even at this young age, standing on his anti-Nazi principles involved great personal sacrifice since his family was not wealthy and the government offered generous tuition assistance to members of the Hitler youth.

In 1943 all German students were conscripted. Ratzinger was forced to do various jobs for the military until he came of age to be drafted at 18. He was stationed near the Austro-Hungarian border but an officer, whom he described as "obviously anti-Nazi" arranged for him to serve near his home. Then only 18 years-old, Ratzinger returned to his family risking death by deserting from the German army. He wrote in his memoirs that he was terrified of being caught by the SS who shot or hanged deserters on the spot.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 8, 2006 1:20 AM

profitsbeard,

I don't know what you have been reading, but it hasn't been history. The Council of Nicea is in 325 A.D. The Roman Church wasn't burning biblical texts let alone heretics since Christianity was an outlawed religion until the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. The Council of Nicea dealt with the Arian controversy which came out of Egypt. The Bible wasn't even canonized until the councils of Rome in 382 and Carthage in 397.

The period you are thinking of is much much later, particularly late antiquity and the middle ages. Generally the Church didn't burn anyone as that was the sphere of the state. I dare say it is very likely that you have swallowed a lot of enlightenment propaganda regarding the Inquisitions as well as the Crusades.

As for the Nag Hammadi library, the "Q" document wasn't part of it for a very simple reason. Q is a hypothetical construct from literary criticism. It is a document believed to have existed that the gospel writers of Matthew, Luke and John draw on in common with Mark. There is no manuscript in existence of the Q document. You can check this with any scholar in any religion department at any major state university in the English speaking world. It is hardly a secret.

And the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnsotic texts don't tell us anything of historical value concerning Jesus that the canonical Gospels don't tell us already. Anything original to them is more Gnosticism syncretism/mythology than historical fact. The Gospel of Peter along with practically all of the other gnostic works are well known to have been written well into the second and third centuries and therefore can't be 1st century documents, which is not the case for the canonical gospels. To put it in a few words, you don't seem to know jack about what you speak.

As for the role of reason, the Enlightenment project is in the process of doing itself in. Most of the Enlightenment critiques of Christianity for example have all been dispensed with or are part of a continuing philosophical debate where the Enlightenment positions of say Hume or Kant aren't always or even mostly on the winning side. If anything the Enlightenment has made Christianity intellectually stronger, whereas Islam's near complete ignorance of it and the epistemological, metaphysical and ethical problems it posed puts contemporary Islamic apologetics somewhere at the intellectual level of a 6th grader.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 8, 2006 1:45 AM

To American_Palamite's beautifully phrased and accurate post immediately above:

Ditto and AMEN!!!!!!!

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 8, 2006 2:47 AM

prophetsbeard may have had some of his facts or timing wrong, but it should be obvious his conclusion is not dependant upon only those errors.

Okay, here it is...
There is NO reason to believe in "god". Metaphysics is non-sense. I read somewhere here that C.S.Lewis did a "refutation" of Logical Positivism, I can imagine the contortions and leaps of faith that involved, til it finally ended up sending the reader through the looking glass and proclaiming truth simply because they WANT it to be true.
SEEING IS BELIEVING.
All these religions spend their time trying to refute this or that which causes them problems, and "prove" the unprovable, they end up pushing VALID ideas out of the picture simply because those ideas can be turned against the idea of the "existence" of "god".

What a bunch of b.s. religions are. As if I HAVE to BELIEVE what some HUMANS wrote in a book 2000 years ago. And if I don't, woe be to me, for I shall be punished for eternity.
I must believe, even though there is absolutely NO REASON to believe. Except of course-- It is psychologically comforting to believe- there is a "great father" in the sky watching over me, and he loves me, and no matter how life goes on earth I can rely on "heaven" when I die as long as I believe in "him" and worship him. I can eventually become god-like and immortal in paradise for eternity-- oh my, what an exploitation of ego-centrism and fear of death.

Ah, yes, then there's the "devil" and "hell", where bad people get to be in misery for eternity. The "devil" is "behind" all evil in the world,trying to buy peoples souls. He's behind these words I'm writing is'nt he, I must have subconsciously "sold my soul" to the devil and am now in service to him/it. And he has demons who run(or do they fly/float, nah, they just transport themselves like in Star-Trek) around(invisibly of course) tempting us all to join "him". He was behind Lenin, Hitler and Stalin right? After all, those people tried to eradicate Jewish and Christian belief, how could it not be that they were tools of the devil? A true-believer must believe islam is Satanic, how can they not? It, like the above, is the anti-thesis of Christian/Jewish belief. The devil is the anti-thesis of god, is he not?
Well, then, the anti-thesis of Christianity must be the work of God's nemesis.
And Armageddon is coming!! I can hardly wait for that. Let's see if we can make it happen, cause then we finally get to see "our lord" and we can vanquish evil and go to heaven. Then our faith will be vindicated, and those obnoxious unbelievers will get their's. We knew it all along, the fools.

What a waste. Trust me, I wish there was a God, sometimes I wish I could go back to believing,but it's only because of psychological reasons, it would only give me a false sense of security and lock me into an ideological box.
I'm not here to debate it, I don't think there is any reason to believe, so debate is non-sensical.

Posted by: kentim at January 8, 2006 9:59 AM

Provoslavni,

"[the Pope] sent a message to Patriarch Alexei of Moscow with the statement that an Orthodox-Catholic alliance was esential to resist the advance of Islam."

Do you have evidence that he clearly and directly stated this reason for such an alliance ("to resist the advance of Islam")? Or do you simply infer it from indirect, elliptical phrases?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 8, 2006 11:44 AM

Caroline,

The self-deceivers should be held responsible for the damage their self-deceit wreaks; however, such an illumination of the problem is a far more complex and difficult process (morally and practically speaking) when you have a broadly diffuse sociocultural phenomenon of sincere self-deceit & gullible obfuscation, than it is when you have an "elite" of simple liars and recipients of bribes.

In fact, we have both -- but the knowingly unscrupulous (as Hugh describes the Saudi-funded MESA Nostra academicians) and semi-consciously beguiled (as Hugh describes Bernard Lewis) "elites" would have little effect, were there not a broad and deep fertile ground of general sociocultural predisposition already afoot.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 8, 2006 11:54 AM

Profitsbeard, kentim,

I agree, the world’s religions discredit themselves by not reforming supernaturalism.
Christianity & Buddhism, still seems more tame then others.
If I read the philosophy of the words of Jesus in King James Bible : Book of Luke : Chapter 6
http://mindprod.com/kjv/Luke/6.htmlh
the author is clearly intending for the best possible human outcomes for all of society.
The author is also raising the issue; established religions have to much structure, i.e. dietary laws
But, we have to realize, many Westerners are looking for the very structure religion offers,
and we don't want them to join Islam, some of those new Mosques in the West, have cutting edge modern architucture, & the physical bells & whistles & community feeling, is what is desired.
I believe, many are born into an Islamic families, and quietly question the entirety of Islam, and they also appear to have ‘potential threats’ to worry about, if they make noise.

Anyway, where did we all come from, understanding the genetic code, may be the best way to understand how living organic matter is possible when all the environmental conditions are favorable anywhere in our universe, the topic offers endless possibilities.

Origin of the genetic code / source : Wikipedia

Despite the variations that exist, the genetic codes used by all known forms of life on Earth are very similar. Since there are many possible genetic codes that are thought to have similar utility to the one used by Earth life, the theory of evolution suggests that the genetic code was established very early in the history of life.
One can ask the question: is the genetic code completely random, just one set of codon-amino acid correspondences that happened to establish itself and be "frozen in" early in evolution, although functionally any other of the near-infinite set of possible transcription tables would have done just as well? Already a cursory look at the table shows patterns that suggest that this is not the case.
There are three themes running through the many theories that seek to explain the evolution of the genetic code (and hence the origin of these patterns)1. One is illustrated by recent aptamer experiments which show that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for the base triplets that code for them.2 This suggests that the current, complex transcription mechanism involving tRNA and associated enzymes may be a later development, and that originally, protein sequences were directly templated on base sequences. Another is that the standard genetic code that we see today grew from a simpler, earlier code through a process of "biosynthetic expansion". Here the idea is that primordial life 'invented' new amino acids (e.g. as by-products of metabolism) and later back-incorporated some of these into the machinery of genetic coding. Although much circumstantial evidence has been found to indicate that originally the number of different amino acids used may have been considerably smaller than today3, precise and detailed hypotheses about exactly which amino acids entered the code in exactly what order has proved far more controversial45. A third is that natural selection organized the codon assignments of the genetic code to minimize the effects of genetic errors (mutations)6.

Posted by: SFOD at January 8, 2006 1:19 PM

I'm absolutely appalled.

Why?

Because I clearly held this forum and its sponsors in much higher esteem than it deserved. If I didn't feel duped into thinking this was a worthwhile forum, I wouldn't be so offended.

Where is the intelligence I attributed to those on this forum? Did anyone here bother to do even the most rudimentary exploration of the topic before smearing his or her diatribes against Pope Benedict XVI here?

Clearly not.

If even one had, perhaps the MAJOR break with prior positions this represents on the part of the Vatican would have been noted.

Perhaps even one person would have noted to himself or herself that they would be hard pressed indeed to find ANY other religious OR political leader that has taken as firm a stand as Benedict has. If you can name them, do so -- I know I come up empty and not for lack of way too much research on this topic.

Is there even one of you that knew before spewing your hatred that John Paul II was firmly committed to a position of "dialog at all costs with Islam" in an effort to "avoid" the clash of civilizations. That Benedict instead realizes and PUBLICLY AND REPEATEDLY has stated the conflict is here and in the article is stating the REALITIES we all must deal with rather than being silent as JPII was.

That the official position of the Holy See is NOW that we are ALREADY in conflict and the Church is actively and VOCALLY speaking up against Christian persecution.

That the PBXVI has ALSO broken with JPII's position on Iraq.

I won't be back; my view of this forum has been too badly degraded by what I've seen to bother.

But if anyone here has the slightest trace of self-honesty they might want to spend just a few moments ACTUALLY getting a fraction of a clue about the topic. We all need to pray for Pope Benedict XIV for OUR SAKES, not curse him.

They can start here:

Official NEW Holy See position on Islam and Iraq - http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=43865&eng=y

OLD Holy See position on Islam - http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6973&eng=y

Posted by: KG at January 8, 2006 1:59 PM

Dr. Pepper asked in regard to the Pope's call for an Orthodox-Catholic Alliance: "Do you have evidence that he clearly and directly stated this reason for such an alliance ("to resist the advance of Islam")? Or do you simply infer it from indirect, elliptical phrases?"

The answer is both. Soon after becoming Pope, he met with his friend, the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna, to discuss Orthodox/Catholic relations. They discussed ways in which the Christian Culture of Europe was threatened by "secularism, liberalism, and relativism" and how this weakness in modern European culture went hand in hand with the rapid spread of Islam as young people are seeking absolutes of morality and faith.

Bishop Hilarion, speaking on behalf of Patriarch Alexei of Moscow, declared that while "Catholics and Orthodox are engaged in a battle for the survival of European civilization, of European peoples, of Europe as such" (Inside the Vatican, June 2005).

The next week the Pope made his pastoral visit to Bari where he formally called for Orthodox and Catholics to stand together. That without yet formally being one Church, we can act as one Church, and present ourselves to the world as a unified force, an alliance.

Furthermore, just last Friday, the Pope celebrated Theophany in the Sistine Chapel where he baptized several babies, then chrismated them and communed them, signaling his long held desire for the Western Church to return to the original rites of Christian intitiation that have been maintained in the East. This Pope is serious about ending the schism and believes it is essential for the survival of both Europe and Christendom as a whole.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 8, 2006 5:59 PM

"Benedict...in the article is stating the REALITIES we all must deal with rather than being silent as JPII was."

Benedict is doing no such thing in the article; the only person stating anything is Father Joseph Fessio. That's part of the problem with Pope Bendedict; all this anti-Islamic sentiment and conviction supposedly held by him has to be inferred all the bloody time.

I'm waiting for an ex cathedra Bull that clearly and unequivocally presents the Papal position. Until then, don't bother me with other bull.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 8, 2006 7:32 PM

Kentim,

Unfortunately, I don’t find your comments any more coherent than profitsbeard’s. While it may be true that it is possible for the conclusions to be true while the premises are false, when the premises are so obviously false it leaves little hope that the conclusions are true. The mistakes made would be akin to someone saying that Ronald Reagan was president during the American civil war.

Simple logic will pretty much dice up the reasons that you proffer for disbelief. I am not arguing that there are no sophisticated arguments for disbelief but you surely don’t give us a peek at any. If there is no reason to think that there is a deity, that is a pretty strong claim. To know that it was true, you’d have to know every possible reason making you nearly, if not, omniscient. Or you’d have to know the limits of human knowledge, making you more well informed than practically anyone else who ever lived. Sorry, but I don’t think its reasonable to give you that much credit.

As someone who works as a professional in metaphysics I find your hand pounding dismissal less than persuasive. If metaphysical questions aren’t settled, empirical science becomes rationally unjustified. Just for the recored, metaphysics isn’t about tarot cards and crap like that. It is the science that investigates the fundamental nature of reality and consequently deals with questions like, What is time? What is causation? Is nature uniform? Is reality intelligible? How is identity through change possible? What is the relation between mind and body? Is there a God? Do we have free will and what could it possibly be?

Lewis’ wrote a good amount of non-fictional works dealing with metaphysical, epistemological and ethical questions. He imports a number of his arguments from those works into his fictional works. His critique of Logical Positivism in the Silver Chair is a philosophical argument, not a bald assertion of belief. As things turned out, Lewis was right that Logical Positivism was false. Logical Positivism, which once ruled the conceptual English speaking world from about the 1920’s to the 1970’s is now dead. You can literally count on one hand the professional advocates of LP living today. I believe they are two or three in number.

As to the “unprovable” nature of theistic beliefs since that is a claim, you’d need to give an argument to support it rather than hand pounding assertions repeated ad infinitum. Best of luck.

As to what you have to believe, I think you are confusing theism, belief in a god or gods with a specific theistic tradition. Theism could be true while lots of traditional theistic religions could be mostly false. Not all forms of theism for example believe in an after life or a place of punishment. And even some that do, like Christianity, don’t think you become cosmic toast for mere disbelief. And theism doesn’t ask you to believe for no reason, but for what it takes to be good reasons. They may not be good reasons, but that needs to be the consequence of a dispassionate evaluation.

The quasi-Freudian analysis that you give of religion regarding denial cuts both ways. Rationalization and rhetorical dismissals in the absence of argument show just as much deep seated fear of death and moral responsibility as the supposed projections of a “great father.” Von Hartman’s critique of Feuerbach still rings true; The fact that I need or wish something to be true is not to be adduced as evidence that it is false.

And is it not as if the non-religious therapies for the fear of death and proffering significance to human existence are all that livable or paltable. Oh yes, keep consuming goods to keep you distracted from the fact that you are approaching annihilation and nothing you ever did or do means anything at all. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” Oh, that is going to work wonders in confronting Islam, let alone the problems of human existence. Uh, NOT.

As to the devil, he is not the anti-thesis of God, though I am sure he would like to think so, for the simple reason that God is unique. You seem to be confusing Christian theism with Manichean dualism. On a Christian account, there simply is nothing at the other end of the metaphysical spectrum and God is not part of the spectrum of being in the first place.

Lenin, Stalin and Hitler didn’t need any help from the infernal regions to be as morally evil as they were, though I don’t doubt that they received some, whether they knew it or not. Humans manage to be morally evil all by their little lonesome. Sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the “devil-made-me-do-it” club. People are morally responsible generally for the kind of persons they make themselves into, which is another way of saying that people have a measure of freedom. Consequently, “know thyself” is a perennial concern.

As to the eschatological nutters, theism and Christian theism in particular doesn’t entail their perspectives. Relatively speaking, while they enjoy a lot of air time, they influence the minority of Christians. Most Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Lutherans aren’t veritable Chicken Littles.

In sum, I don’t think you have been rational enough. In large measure it doesn’t matter to me so much what conclusion one comes to investigating these ideas, but rather how one does it. I know personally and professionally what it takes and I haven’t seen you display much of any of the intellectual virtue that is required. Oh sure, there is the cute rhetoric in the form of straw-men, poisoning the well, etc. in the cadre of informal fallacies trotted out. These are the usual tools of sophists. In terms of substance, there just isn’t much of anything that passes for an argument (let alone a good argument) in your comments, which leads me to think that you have the fundamentalist outlook as the people you deride, it just has different content.

As to Islam, strategically speaking denigrating religion qua religion isn’t going to be a plausible or widely effective strategy. It plays in the hands of the stereotypes that Muslims already have of the West. Moreover, the religious impulse nursed in Islamic societies isn’t easily erased or suppressed. The fact that it persisted under Soviet aggression and Free European hedonism should make that obvious. Islam has one major competitor on the planet in terms of numbers and in terms of the conflict of ideas and in any other way that matters and that is Christianity. Like it or lump it, ironic as it is, Judaism falls under the protective umbrella of Christian civilization. There just aren’t going to be 1 billion Jewish converts when you wake up in the morning. Much the same can be said for other major world religions. For all the talk of a communist China, Christianity is growing at an amazing rate in China. In the next decade or so, there will be more Christians in China than all of the population of North America. The moral is, don’t bite the hand that saves your ass.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 8, 2006 8:17 PM

I suppose it is safe to say the Pope is aware of the threat of Islam. As a nonbeliever, like Fallaci, an "atheist" Christian so to speak, I do want to see the end of our civilization. Christianity is undeniably part of our civilization. Islam is a certain death for us and is a foreign entity that is clearly incapable of adapting to our modern societies. It is for this reason that I am pleased to see the Pope take action.

However, I caution those who are so pleased to see a resurgent church. We all have enmity for the undeniably most primitive, violent and vile religion to have ever survived to our times: Islam. However, in attacking that monstrous religion, we must be careful to preserve the gains in our societies which include: (a non exhaustive list) women's rights, the end of slavery, gay rights, freedom to worship (or not), freedom of speech, freedom of free association. Whether you like these rights or not, whether you agree with them fully or not, they are generally accepted in Western Civilization. Let's admit that none of these rights really existed in a plenary form Biblically.

In wanting desperately for the church to resurge in order to somehow defeat Islam, do we dare shake the foundations of our civilization and backtrack one bit on the hard fought rights listed supra? Do we dare reopen and question the validity of these rights, as the Islamists want us so desperately to do? It is their desire to destroy our civilization and replace it with the stone age "divine law". I for one am not willing to "renegotiate" rights.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 8, 2006 9:40 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever,

A more vibrant Church would only I think re-invigorate the notion of natural rights. As Anscombe's classic article, Modern Moral Philosophy points out, the concept of moral obligation and rights is a hold over from Judeo/Christian theism and Enlightenment ethical theories (Kantianism and Utilitarianism specifically) generally lack the metaphysical meat to justify an adherrence to them.

In legal theory now, I can't think of hardly anyone who adheres to the notion of a natural right any longer. Rights now are privileges granted by states and weighed against state interests. A more vibrant Christian Church doesn't entail re-negotiating of those rights since the universalization was merely the extension of implicitly Christian concepts embodied in the law of the saeculum in the first place.

The reason why Muslims don't recognize these rights is because they lack a concept of nature and secondary causation. That is, Muslims are voluntarists and pretty strict voluntarists at that. Something exists or has moral value extrinsically, that is only in so far as it is willed by God. Everything then is intrumentally valuable, which is why the taking of a human life can't be immoral in and of itself. And this is why science has never flourished in Islam and so only on the backs of dhimmis. To do science you need the idea of secondary causation, that things have a nature and by their very nature cause things, that they have some measure of independent existence or independent existence on some level, even if not on every level. In volntaristic systems like Islam, this is generally very hard to maintain, if at all. This is why you get Occasionalism, the belief that events occur on the occasion of their being willed, but there is no connection between the contiguous or succedding events. So I think about raising my arm and my arm is raised, but my thinking about it doesn't cause it to be raised, but rather God raised my arm on the occasion of my thinking about it.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 8, 2006 10:14 PM

Well, American_Palomite,

I was'nt arguing, I simply expressed my opinion. If you want to believe in the supernatural, and if you want to believe it is a "science" go ahead. (another highly productive aspect of the "economy")
As I already stated I have no reason to. That means I am aware of no factual evidence or testable hypothesis based on accepted scientific criteria that shows probable cause to believe in the existence of an omnipotent being.

Posted by: kentim at January 8, 2006 11:25 PM

kentim,

I recognize that you weren't arguing but you were asking a question. I was providing answers.

As to your recent post, from the fact that you have no reason to believe in a deity, I can't see what follows from that other than biographical information about you. The question would be not if you had any reasons, but if there were any. As to what counts as a science, given the demarcation problem of what counts as a science, it isn't at all obvious that metaphysics isn't one. Furthermore, the use of the term "science" to denote a specific set of practices is more the product of recent history,habit and philosophical prejudice than argument.

As to factual evidence and testable hypotheses, it is a category fallacy to demand of non-empirical entities empirical proof. No one requires empirical proof of the existence of the number 1. The proof for an entity is dependent on the kind of entity it is. Analogously, asking how much the color blue weighs is absurd.

And since the notion of confirmation has fallen on hard times and Popper's Falsificationism is false (Popper admitted it was) incrementalistic views of science tend to be on the shit end of the philosophical stick these days. What is worse is that facts apart from models are meaningless so that facts don't discriminate between theories or at least it isn't obvious how they would do so. Rather the explanatory relation is the other way around, models explain facts.

My earlier point was, how would we even justify the initial and necessary assumptions necessary to even carry out modern scientific practices, such assumptions as the uniformity of nature. It is necessary to do science, at least a realist view of science, so that it isn't possible to know the cosmos is so using the practices of science. It is the assumption that renders such practices possible in the first place. Metaphysics makes science possible and not the other way around.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 8, 2006 11:59 PM

Let's Hope that the church and the New Pope can fight back hard against Islam.
I think this new Pope gets it. let's hope he has the time to speak up and set the course for the rest of the church and Western Europe.

At a wedding reception in New Jersey, I sat on the same table as the local priest, a very intelligent and well read man. When the subject of Islam came up, he mentioned that the local Islamic cultural center had invited him to meet at their Mosque to be a part of a local roundtable to discuss religious tolerance and inter-faith out reach, I was shocked and spent the rest of the night telling him what a horrible error that would be. I was doubly shocked to find out that the press had been invited and that he planned to go.

I reminded him that the Pope turned down an such an invitation.

I explained that if he showed up the Islamists would use his presence there to advantage and that a picture of him in the local press would advance Da'wa.

The pope has his work cut out for him, needless to say that I will give him a copy of Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam" a must read for everyone in the church.

Every little bit helps, I suggest that all Christians should contact their parish priest and do the same.

Posted by: El Cid at January 9, 2006 9:24 AM