| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Daniel Pipes reports in FrontPage about some anti-dhimmi steps in the Vatican (links in the original):
“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves.” Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus’ admonition to his followers to “turn the other cheek,” De Paolis noted that “The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century…and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.”De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund’s Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.
These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to flee their ancestral lands for the West’s more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are in a free-fall. Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.This reality of oppression and decline stands in dramatic contrast to the surging Muslim minority of the West. Although numbering fewer than 20 million and made up mostly of immigrants and their offspring, it is an increasingly established and vocal minority, granted extensive rights and protections even as it wins new legal, cultural, and political prerogatives.
This widening disparity has caught the attention of the Roman Catholic Church, which for the first time is pointing to radical Islam, rather than the actions of Israel, as the central problem facing Christians living with Muslims.
Rumblings of this could be heard already in John Paul II’s time. For example, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican equivalent of foreign minister, noted in late 2003 that “There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens.” Tauran pushed for reciprocity: “Just as Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well.”
Catholic demands for reciprocity have grown, especially since the accession of Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, for whom Islam is a central concern. In February, the pope emphasized the need to respect “the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all.” In May, he again stressed the need for reciprocity: Christians must love immigrants and Muslims must treat well the Christians among them.
Lower-ranking clerics, as usual, are more outspoken. “Islam’s radicalization is the principal cause of the Christian exodus,” asserts Monsignor Philippe Brizard, director general of Oeuvre d’Orient, a French organization focused on Middle Eastern Christians. Bishop Rino Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University in Rome, advises the Church to drop its “diplomatic silence” and instead “put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities.”
The Danish cartoons crisis offered a typical example of Catholic disillusionment. Church leaders initially criticized the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. But when Muslims responded by murdering Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria, not to speak of scores of Christians killed during five days of riots in Nigeria, the Church responded with warnings to Muslims. “If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us, ” said Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State. “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts,” added Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, its foreign minister.
Obtaining the same rights for Christians in Islamdom that Muslims enjoy in Christendom has become the key to the Vatican’s diplomacy toward Muslims. This balanced, serious approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well beyond the Church, given how many lay politicians heed its leadership in interfaith matters. Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity, the results should indeed be interesting.
Posted by Robert at July 5, 2006 7:35 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Enough now with this turning the other cheek!
It is possible to put a more assertive construction the words "turn the other cheek", usually taken to mean passivity in the face of agression. See this article for details.
For a sideways look at cheeks, see here.
I was pleased to see Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund get a mention. He puts our Archbishop of Canterbury - and our Prime Minister - to shame.
His book "Islam in Britain", a steal at £5.99 can be ordered here.
Posted by: Interested![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 5, 2006 7:58 AM
The massacred of Africa still are not mentioned.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 5, 2006 8:10 AM
Good sign that the Christian faith is now, starting with the Catholic Church, my church, is saying, " Enough Is Enough" to an out-of-control Islam. God Bless the Vatican.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 5, 2006 8:27 AM
About time they are speaking up. Especially since they are having so many convert out.
Posted by: Borg at July 5, 2006 8:37 AM
The new mosque in Rome has a minaret higher than St Peter's dome!
It sure is about time.
Too many priests in Italy have helped the mo's settle in nicely. Too many have sold their churches for mosques. Too many have allowed crucifixes to be removed from hospitals and schools.Too many have allowed polygamy in Italy.
It is sickening what has happened to the home of Catholicism.
I welcome this news.
Henry? Where are you? You will be very proud:)And rightfully.
Posted by: Gramfan at July 5, 2006 8:50 AM
The Church should call for another Crusade, this one a non violent one. Call for the conversion of all muslims in non muslim lands.
First to require at each mass, prayers for the conversion of muslims, then to train and fund missionaries to go out and convert muslims.
at July 5, 2006 9:24 AM
When the press started attacking this current pope I had a feeling he would be good. Finally a Pope who is doing his duty and sticking up for the church.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at July 5, 2006 9:39 AM
Talking about reciprocity, has any high level muslim cleric has kissed the bible yet? after the last pope kissing the koran, you would think that muslim clerics would rush to publicly kiss the bible to show how much they love christians and their holy book. but I guess these clerics know if they dare do that there heads will roll, and they will be denied the paradise they die for.
Posted by: desidude at July 5, 2006 9:52 AM
I have to say I'm liking this new Pope more and more....
Posted by: Foehammer at July 5, 2006 10:23 AM
I hope that the Vatican is moving in the right direction. Better late than never for the fastly disappearing Christians in the ME. However, I doubt that the US Catholic Conference of Bishops will go along with any of the new attitude coming from the Vatican. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I read that the USCCB makes good money resettling refugees in the US, a large majority of which are Muslim. Plus, the most Catholic universities, starting with the infamous Center for Islamic Studies at Georgetown, can't bow and scrape low enough to the Muslims.
Posted by: maryrose at July 5, 2006 10:36 AM
The Catholic Church, as processors of The Truth, should be the first to condemn Islam for the lie that it is. Representatives of the faith such as the former Pope should certainly not be running around kissing Korans as a publicity stunt!
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at July 5, 2006 10:38 AM
The link given by Borg above yields the following, a brief acocunt of the massacre by Muslims of non-Muslims, four days after the vote on independence held on July 1, 1962.
Le 5 juillet 1962, à Oran
Alors que Bouteflika insultait de nouveau la France dimanche dernier, sans doute n'est-il pas inutile de rappeler ce qui s'est passé le 5 juillet 1962. Ce jour là à Oran, encore ville française du département d'Algérie, 4 jours après le vote d'indépendance de l'Algérie, la foule musulmane armée, poignards dissimulés sous les voiles des fatmas, arriva en masse des quartiers arabes vers les quartiers européens au petit matin.
Ce fut le déferlement d'une haine raciste sans précédent contre les Blancs, les Européens :
"On égorgea, on tua au revolver ou à la mitraillette, on prit des rues en enfilade, tuant tout ce qui bougeait. On pénétra dans les restaurants, les magasins, les appartements, assassinant les pauvres gens avec des raffinements de cruauté, arrachant des yeux, coupant des membres. On vit même des femmes musulmanes dépecer des vivants avec les dents… Les auxiliaires de l'armée algérienne, les A.T.O., emmenaient les Européens prisonniers par longs cortèges vers le commissariat central où ils étaient battus et tués, ou vers le Petit Lac, ou vers la Ville Nouvelle".
Le général Katz avait donné l'ordre aux 18000 soldats français présents à Oran de rester l'arme au pied, impassibles au génocide atroce perpétré sous leurs yeux contre leurs propres compatriotes…
Après 6 heures de tuerie, on comptait plus de 3000 morts. Certains étaient encore pendus à des crocs de bouchers, d'autres dans les poubelles… Les disparus furent parfois signalés dans les prisons les plus terribles du FLN, les femmes prostituées dans les bars les plus sales d'Alger, torturées, livrées au FLN.
Michel Janva
Source : le Salon Beige, lesalonbeige.blogs.com "
Many in France among the young have been persuaded, by dint of contant propagandistic repetition, that the history of French colonialism in North Africa was one of unrelieved horror. This is nonsense. In Tunisia and Morocco the French ruled for scarcely 40 years, though their influence, before and after, remained. In Algeria the French brought 132 years of civilization. Hospitals, schools, modern cities, agricultural techniques that made possible the olive oil (still going), wine (presumably wine-making, but not viniculture, has ended, and those Algerian grapes are mingled with others to make plonk in southern, still Infidel, France), and other produce. The ignoring of the real history of France, and even the nostalgia for one's own North African childhood, by some French, who do not know, who cannot remember, what the French brought, and in a haze of misremembering, encouraged by the official organs of the French state -- those that, for example, mount an official exhibit devoted to Abd el-Kader, described as "un heros de deux reves."
Some do not forgive Camus his refusal to play along with programmatic "decolonisation" in Algeria. Some do not forgive the great ethnographer Jacques Soustelle, who understood what Algeria had been and what it would become, again, under Muslim Arab rule. Some do not forgive the French generals for favoring the more advanced, because less completely Muslim (they had another identity to appeal to) Berbers. Some cannot recognize just how awful Algeria is, confusing the tales that a co-worker, just back from visiting family members in Algiers or Oran, has to tell about her own family, carefully avoiding discussion of the obivous: how does Algeria compare with France?
We know the answer to that. And some of us know why.
But what's the Slogan of the Day, the Week, the Month, the Century? It's All Cultures Are Created Egual, and Always Will Be Equal. Don't, please, bring out that big book of "Tresors de la Bibliotheque Nationale." That's a tres grand bibliotheque, and a tres grand livre, and its overflowing contents might prove embarrassing. Especially if we are waiting for some volume to appear of all the culture riches of Algeria, or the Maghreb, or the entire Muslim world, over 1350 years. We must all agree to agree, apparently, with Mrs. Malaprop. Comparisons are odorous.
Yes, when one compares the civilization of France with the civilisation of North Africa after the arrival of Islam -- one rive with another -- those comparisons can only, in the Official View, stink to high heaven.
Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2006 11:01 AM
Much the same as with the society at large, a strain of liberalism filtered into much of the clergy and has lead to the "kids gloves" approach to islam and a watering down of authentic Church teaching in general. This is also the same with Protestant faiths. The more liberal the Protestant clergy/congregation the more appeasing to islam it becomes.
RELIGIOUS LEFT SEEKS TO SILENCE CHURCH’S VOICE
http://www.catholicleague.com/06press_releases/quarter%202/060627_religious_left.htm
POLITICAL ASSAULT ON CATHOLICS TRIGGERS LAWSUIT
http://www.catholicleague.com/06press_releases/quarter%202/060404_lawsuit.htm
So called conservative or Orthodox (read-Authentic) clergy understand the real threat islam poses. In general, Eastern Rite Catholics understand the danger of islam much more thoroughly than Roman Rite Catholics. Surely because they are not engaging in a philosophical debate regarding islam but have lived under its totalitarian rule.
I remember a good friend of mine who is a priest telling me that his good friend, a Maronite Rite priest, told him “enough with the dialogue... You would no longer wish to dialogue if it was your family and friends being raped and murdered. If it was your culture being erased from your homeland."
Pope Benedict fully understands the threat of islam. He is fighting against both the ideology of secularism and islam to try and save Europe. His writings both as Cardinal and Pope highlight this. Although I cannot say with 100% certainty, it seems most likely this is why he was chosen as Pope
Posted by: adobe at July 5, 2006 11:09 AM
The Church is taking some good steps forward- but watch for small steps Backwards, here and there. Those of us who pay attention will understand them for what they are: setting the stage for the next step Forward. God Gives; allah takes away. Others will read into it what they may, usually negatively. Please remember there are Always long-range calculations!
Posted by: Gary at July 5, 2006 11:25 AM
So first they drive out the Christians from their homelands and take over their houses, and then they send "immigrants" to follow those fleeing dhimmis to whatever refugee lands they can find in Europe. Where these advance teams of conquering Muslims then settle in next door to those whom they expelled.
Waiting for their Ummah's demographic strength to gather for the next, bigger expulsion.
And when is the Vatican going to recommend that devout Christians migrate to Bethlehem and Nazareth?
Wouldn't a million or two retirees sitting idly in rest homes throughout the West like a nice change of pace, climate and a chance to demonstrate their faith?
The 'Scooter' Crusade.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 5, 2006 11:29 AM
Desidude,
The day you see a mullah kissing a Bible is the day when we all shall be breathing much easier, atmosphere will be purer, oxygen in abundance. That day lies far away. That will be the day when the mullahs realize that they are being SERIOUSLY fried by Civilization. Then they will kiss the Bible to make us stop.
at July 5, 2006 11:29 AM
wine-making, but not viniculture
Viticulture? I thought "viniculture" implied an element of wine-making (vinification)as well as grape growing. Could be wrong though - having drunk loads of the stuff doesn't make me an expert.
Whatever, it's a shame. If Lebanon gets Islamised, what will happen to all that lovely Château Musar?
Anyway, coming back to the main topic, I rather like this Pope. The Koran-kissing days are over.
Posted by: Interested at July 5, 2006 11:35 AM
Right on, Hugh.
It's too little, too late, and if the huge number of American Catholics renouncing their faith every year is any indicator, salvation will not come from the Catholic Church, that's for sure.
at July 5, 2006 11:55 AM
Re: turning the other cheek in the first post above by Interested --
That "turn the other cheek" revisionism doesn't hold water when one reads the context in the New Testament (that linked comment mistakenly attributes the verse to the Gospel of Mark; it should be Matthew).
One would have to similarly revise the verse that comes immediately after Matthew 5:38, verse 39: "if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." -- which would be preposterous. Is giving also your cloak to the man who takes your coat an "assertion of your dignity"? Only in the rarified Ghandi-ish sense.
The context also makes clear that Jesus is proffering a new departure from traditional ethics, not a cementing of the old, as that "other cheek" revisionism would have it. "Ye have heard that it hath been said... But I say unto you," etc. If Jesus wanted to bolster, rather than overturn, a self-defense ethics, he wouldn't have so clearly contrasted the "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" with the "turn the other cheek" injunction. That linked comment is almost comical, and when it isn't, it's unhelpful for those who would use it today with reference to the Problem of Islam: the linked comment (using the argument of Tom Wright) presents the argument that Jesus was trying to establish a dignified assertiveness to the situation of being struck:
"Tom Wright explains that in the first-century world of Jesus a blow given to the right side of the face was given with the back of the hand. It was meant to humiliate as well as hurt. Turning the face [i.e., turning the face in the opposite direction from which it was forced to turn by the impact of the blow] was a kind of defiance, since the aggressor would either have to use the left hand to repeat the blow or strike with an open hand."
Gee, poor aggressor! He "has to" use his left hand to repeat the blow; or he "has to" strike with an open hand -- what privations! That helpless powerless victim of his blows sure got him back, eh?
"Either way, turning the other cheek was an assertion of equality, a refusal to accept the intended humiliation."
In that kind of world, a refusal to accept intended humiliation would simply be met with worse aggression. This Tom Wright thinks a superior who is striking an inferior and expecting a humiliated body language is going to stand for a repudiation of that? And when that hapless inferior "defiantly" turns his cheek, the superior is going to get all nonplussed and wet his pants? Of course not! He's going to clap his hands and order some Nubian slaves to give the inferior 100 lashes in the noonday sun for the cheek he gave him.
Tom Wright also wrote: "But Jesus is facing a situation where violence is not between equals. Ultimately the Romans were in charge and expected compliance. This meant that a different strategy was called for."
So how exactly is this supposed to help us now with the Problem of Islam, when in fact, we are the new Romans, only softened and fattened up by PC multiculturalism?
Finally, the phrase immediately before the Matthew injunction says: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil..."
You can't get self-defense out of "resist not evil", no matter which way you twist it.
Christians will just have to admit that Jesus didn't provide every last jot and tittle of advice about life, and that a significant portion of what he did say was too rarified for the ordinary person -- or at least for the healthy organization of polities of millions of ordinary people (perhaps in small communes or monasteries, those extremist ethics can work, but not in gigantic societies). To paraphrase a famous phrase, the Christian would want to say, "The Gospel is not a suicide pact."
Posted by: Television at July 5, 2006 12:01 PM
"Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities." from the third paragraph in the article above.
This is especialy tragic, no it is especially criminal, since Nazareth is in Israel and this process began while Bethlehem was under Israeli control. An Israeli ministry even attempted to facilitated the building of a mosque beside the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth. Fortunately, the Christians there, with much Jewish support, blocked this outrage.
Middle Eastern Christians and Jews are in the same boat and if one is destroyed, the other will soon follow. For too long Israel failed to distinguish between Muslims and Christians, wrongly labelling them all as "Arabs", and many Christians then internalized this false identification. To be a real "Palestinian" one must have ancient roots in the land. That applies only to Jews, Christians, and Samaritans. The local Muslims are not true Palestinians but are simply Arabs whose ancient roots are in Arabia and Jordan.
Israel must abandon this false policy before it is too late. Israel and Palestinian Christians must unite as one against the Muslim hordes. Israel is the legitimate homeland only for Jews and its substantial Christian minority while Palestine (i.e. Judea, Samaria and Nazareth) should be the homeland for indigenous Christians and a substantial Jewish minority. These two states should be in federation while the Muslims are transferred across the Jordan river.
I realize that I'm like a broken record on this issue, but someone has to be a voice for the interests of the Christian Palestinians before they cease to exist.
Posted by: Provoslavni at July 5, 2006 12:06 PM
Television - you are quite right, of course. A critique of my second link would also be much appreciated.
Posted by: Interested at July 5, 2006 12:13 PM
Arjun, good observation. Neither are the murdered of India, Indonesia, Philipines, etc., mentioned.
An old preacher once said "If a man strikes you on your right cheek, turn your left cheek to him. If he strikes you on the left cheek, then the third strike is to be yours, brother."
Jesus told us to be meek, not stupid.
at July 5, 2006 12:27 PM
Yes, Our Lord obviously didn't have a sufficiently clean interpretive matrix or earnestly pure data.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 5, 2006 12:50 PM
maryrose,
"I hope that the Vatican is moving in the right direction. Better late than never for the fastly disappearing Christians in the ME. However, I doubt that the US Catholic Conference of Bishops will go along with any of the new attitude coming from the Vatican. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I read that the USCCB makes good money resettling refugees in the US, a large majority of which are Muslim. Plus, the most Catholic universities, starting with the infamous Center for Islamic Studies at Georgetown, can't bow and scrape low enough to the Muslims. "
Well, maryrose, I do think that is starting to change, even though slowly. With more of the bishops that you refer in the post above that you have posted begin to retire, an example, the cardinal of our nation's capital, I think his last name is McCarrek, who is liberal, having just retired and the Pope appointing to the Washington D.C. archdiocesse the bishop who used to be Bishop of Pittsburgh, PA, a known conservitive, by the last name of Wurel is a sign of a start of a change even for the American church. Just last month USCCB just approved of certain changes to certain parts of the Mass that will be pleasing to the Vatican. So we are seeing the beginings of the influcence of B16. Keep a close eye at what is going on.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 5, 2006 12:53 PM
Bohemond_1069,
Also remember that even Jesus got really angry and violent not once, but twice in order to do some housecleaning of the temple.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 5, 2006 12:56 PM
Exactly so.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 5, 2006 1:01 PM
Hugh's quote about what Muslims did to non-Muslims, in their orgy of enthusiastic violence to express their happiness at independence in 1962 Algeria, includes:
"On vit même des femmes musulmanes dépecer des vivants avec les dents..."
"Female Muslims were even seen tearing up living people with their teeth..."
Posted by: Television at July 5, 2006 1:11 PM
Deportation is ethnic claenimg and is not nice at all. However if we can exchange muslims in the West for the persecuted Christians in Muslim nations, it will solve the problem that we face, as well rescuing the persecuted Christians in muslim nations. Exchanges of populations have occurred in history when two communities are unable to live in peace, and is justifiable in international law. The movement of populutions need not be dramatic and can take place in a relaxed manner.
The route we are on now is going to lead to civil war in Europe and the West. Generally speaking, civil wars in Europe are not powder-puff affairs. The winner in such a war will expel the losers. Far better and humane, is if we can make muslims understand that it is not in their interest, or islam's, to stay on and ignite a war that will very likely lead to murder and killing on a mass scale. It is a prospect too dreadful to contemplate.
Posted by: DP111 at July 5, 2006 1:11 PM
bigcatgirl13106,
"Also remember that even Jesus got really angry and violent not once, but twice in order to do some housecleaning of the temple."
Yes, but that violence was not in self-defense -- it was violence to express outrage at blasphemy and/or religious corruption (and it was specifically directed to members of his own subculture).
Violence to express outrage at blasphemy is hardly something we want to countenance in our fight against good Muslims -- people who routinely overturn tables and worse at the slightest hint of blasphemy.
Posted by: Television at July 5, 2006 1:20 PM
Posted by Provoslavni: Israel must abandon this false policy before it is too late. Israel and Palestinian Christians must unite as one against the Muslim hordes. Israel is the legitimate homeland only for Jews and its substantial Christian minority while Palestine (i.e. Judea, Samaria and Nazareth) should be the homeland for indigenous Christians and a substantial Jewish minority. These two states should be in federation while the Muslims are transferred across the Jordan river.
Agree totally. Such a policy will also restore Nazareth and Bethlehem to people who have a just claim on it.
Unfortunately though, Olmert is is in appeasement mode on a grand scale. Far from taking the actions necessary to bring the Jihad to an end, he is bent on giving away Judea and Samaria. This will only make the Jihad much worse.
Two articles worth reading
Israel's mission
By Diana West
June 30, 2006
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060629-090425-7354r.htm
and
Olmert still refuses to get it
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0606/glick063006.php3
Posted by: DP111 at July 5, 2006 1:20 PM
Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus et al....what matters most is that we stay united in one thing: we should always refuse to submit to Islam and all other ideologies of hate and fascism that lie hidden under rocks or will undoubtedly spawn in the future.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 5, 2006 1:26 PM
Interestingly enough, there are faint signs of a wake-up coming from other European countries.
You may have heard of a story about dozens of Kurdish Islamists taking over a Church in the middle of Brussels and desecrating the holy place. Both DhimmiWatch and CAGE reported it back in April of 2005.
Today, the police has finally grown itself some balls and threw the usurpers out of the Christian site.
Full story here:
http://www.acage.org/news/?day=07052006&id=0007
Honestly, I didn't even hope that would happen.
Posted by: dolphin at July 5, 2006 1:28 PM
Hello DP111, nice to bump into you again.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 5, 2006 1:43 PM
Television:
You confuse the instructions Jesus gave for personal behavior and conscience for political policy.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" would seem to allow for both practical public order and for personal spiritual growth, don't you think?
Posted by: Chatillon at July 5, 2006 2:13 PM
Chatillon, I have always thought so.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 5, 2006 2:52 PM
As a Roman Catholic, I must say I don't find anything in the current Vatican posture to suggest a forthcoming different approach to Islam, and while that attitude is certainly deplorable (I was aghast when His Holiness JPII kissed the Koran at Assisi) it is at least pragmatic.
Most of the Catholic missionaries I know (mostly Maryknolls) feel we shouldn't even attempt a presence in Muslim lands, and though I don't ordinarily endorse appeasement, a tough turnaround in Rome can only mean sentencing Christians of all denominations to death in dar al Islam.
For now, therfore, don't expect any substantive change in Rome. Don't forget, the current Pontiff has effectively been running the show for many years now anyway.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at July 5, 2006 2:53 PM
Isn't the treatment of christians in muslim countries a form of apartheid?
Why doesn't the world care?
Posted by: Voltaire at July 5, 2006 4:20 PM
Voltaire posted:
Isn't the treatment of christians in muslim countries a form of apartheid?
You are right. However I don't think it is persecution based on race as much is it is religious persecution. If the roles were reversed we could bet the liberal press would be jumping all over it.
At the risk of starting a President Bush bashing thread which I don't want to do, my most vocal complaint of them has been the complete sell-out of the indigenous Christians in the middle east, especially those in Iraq. As a general supporter of the Bush administration, I am tired of hearing about "freedom" when the few Christians left in Iraq live under tyranny.
For goodness sakes we have troops in Iraq, most of which are Christian, and some can’t be positioned to protect our Eastern Rite brothers and sisters? He should immediately place a company of Marines per Christian village to provide protection and ensure true religious freedom. For every mosque he intends on helping rebuild (which is ridiculous), a Church should be also be rebuilt.
The Eastern Christians are the silent, forgotten victims throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East.
at July 5, 2006 4:44 PM
Television...Your post about 'turning the other cheek' was interesting. You wrote a lot, some of it I agree with, other parts need challanging.
This is not the format to launch into a religious/spiritual discussion that has little to do with jihad, but I would just like to remind you that some things like the cheek, the cloak and 'resist not evil', have meanings that you may have overlooked...have a good day/night...
at July 5, 2006 5:15 PM
For every mosque he intends on helping rebuild (which is ridiculous), a Church should be also be rebuilt.
The Eastern Christians are the silent, forgotten victims throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East.
Posted by: adobe
Adobe I agree but I would add all US aid, all of it should only go to those who except our core values.
at July 5, 2006 6:23 PM
DP111,
Thanks. The two articles you linked to are excellent and should be read by everyone who wants to understand the current situation in Israel. Sadly, at this time when Israel and Christian Palestine need a strong leader, Palestinian Christians have no one and Israel is stuck with a corrupt dhimmi like Olmert.
I knew Olmert was bad news from the time he ran Jerusalem as an enterprise of personal corruption. As Prime Minister, I thought he would be a combination of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Then I thought he would be Israel's Neville Chamberlain. Now I fear that he may be Israel's Quisling. He may be acting tough in the middle of this crisis, but a personality marred by such corruption will always return to its base nature. God help us all.
Posted by: Provoslavni at July 5, 2006 6:34 PM
I think Islam can reform one day. Possibly not in my lifetime, but hopefully soon. I think it will be inevitable. When it does happen however, they are going to owe alot of people apologies. What's worse we have it all on tape. At least when christians and jews did most of their bad stuff we didn't have any cameras around. MAkes it much easier to apologize. But when you have video evidence of atrocities against human rights, that's alot of damning evidence. I believe there will be reparations due to other religions in the dar al Islam, and perhaps many others in dar all Harb.
Posted by: Tomilio at July 5, 2006 7:34 PM
The catholics are just now beginning to realize what has happened in bethlehem and Gaza (and other Islamic paradises worldwide)...
The complete exporting / annihilation of ALL Christians and Jews... (catholics included)
Will not stop until either
Islam wipes out all NON muslims worldwide..
Or we fight and maybe win (while we have the chance)...
Because with all of the leftist morons and peacenics out there...
they would not believe that Islam is evil even if bin ladens rusty knife was sawing their foolish head off...
Posted by: jingoist at July 5, 2006 9:07 PM
Islam is a bogus religion and an inhuman, murderous, totalitarian political ideology that has virtually no redeeming qualitites.
It's time someone addressed Islam for being the evil that it actually IS (and NOT a 'religion of peace").
Posted by: pythagoras at July 5, 2006 9:32 PM
Tomilio,
I find the possibility of reform in Islam to very remote and then only among the minority Shi'a. Reform is absolutely impossible among the Sunni. Those who do reform soon find themselves branded (correctly) as heretics who have placed themselves outside of Islam. Those sects that still identify themselves as "Muslim" but are truly reformed, such as the Alevis or the Ismailis (Agha Khanis) are persecuted and hated by the Muslim majority. Incidently these sects are usually "extremist" Shi'a or came out of the Shi'a.
This is because unlike the rigid Sunni schools, Shi'ism recognizes the principle of Ijtihad, a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Among the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites (the Ithna Ashari or "Twelvers" who are the majority in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon), the principles of Ijtihad are:
1. God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing.
2. God created Laws for humankind and only God has the authority to do so.
3. God appointed Messengers to convey the Laws to humankind.
4. At present, neither the Messenger (Muhammad), nor the Imams (God-appointed Leaders) are accessible. The current Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is in occultation.
5. Therefore, qualified jurists have the duty to find God's Law, and Ijtihad is the process of finding God's Law from the Qur'an and the Hadith using specific methods. A person who applied ijtihad was called a mujtahid, and traditionally had to be a scholar of Islamic law or alim.
While this theoretically could open the door to reform among Twelver Shi'ites, sadly the only succesful modern "reform" has been that of the Ayatollah Khomeini who reformed the comparatively more liberal Shi'ism to resemble Sunni Wahhabism.
Not a positive development at all.
As I said, among Sunnis reform is not even theoretically possible without abandoning the very core of Sunni jurisprudence and thought. Ever since the 10th century CE, Sunnis have "recognized the closing of the Gate of Ijtihad (see the writings of al-Ghazali). Thus, ever since a couple of centuries after the finalizing of the major collections of hadith, Sunni Islam has been based on the principle of taqlid, Arabic for "imitation", which is the opposite of ijtihad. This means that under the Sunni interpretation, any ijtihad permitted is simply a theoretical and ideological exercise without any legal force at best, or more likely un-Islamic or heretical and therefore haram.
That is why reform will never occur among Sunnis and is unlikely among the majority of Shi'ites. In fact, like most totalitarian systems, any sustained perestroika or glasnost will inevitably lead to its collapse. The best scenario is for Muslims to convert, in mass, to Ismailism or other heretical Islam or to be guaranteed the opportunity to abandon this un-natural system for other faiths without fear or threats.
at July 5, 2006 9:54 PM
"dozens of Kurdish Islamists taking over a Church in the middle of Brussels and desecrating the holy place... back in April of 2005.
Today [July 5, 2006], the police has finally grown itself some balls and threw the usurpers out of the Christian site."
You call that balls!!!??? The police waiting over a year to throw them out? Someone in Brussels should throw the police out.
Posted by: Television at July 5, 2006 10:02 PM
Bohemond,
I brought up the massacred of Africa because there have been news in the media off and on of wiping out of entire villages for some years now. Recently I stumbled across some articles that mentioned the genocide of Christians in Africa. The exact no. is uncertain, and claims vary from 600000 to 2000000. In the past 10 years itself. Most of the people won't weep for a genocide that is 50 - 60 years old, but this is too recent not to be even acknowledged. The media, for the most part, thinks that Africa and whoever lives there can go to hell. There are very few stories coming out of there. I sure would want the Vatican to stand up for these innocents, at least speak about it.
at July 5, 2006 10:13 PM
Chatillon,
"You confuse the instructions Jesus gave for personal behavior and conscience for political policy."
And which of the two spheres is relevant when an individual or group physically attacks you and/or your friends and family? Did Jesus say?
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" would seem to allow for both practical public order and for personal spiritual growth, don't you think?"
It would seem to "allow for it", but when juxtaposed with the aforementioned "resist not evil", it sets up at the very least a tension. Is it a workable tension? Perhaps. What does the Christian do when the Caesarian half of his existential posture finds it exigent to resist evil, and the Divine half finds it exigent to "resist not evil"?
You guys are talking in a blithely ahistorical manner, as though Westerners haven't been grappling with this tension for centuries.
Usually, Westerners throughout the history of Christendom seemed to fall decidedly on the side of the Caesarian mode -- which I think bespeaks more of a response to obvious pragmatic problems with noesis rather than with the pneumatic otherworldly commands of Jesus: i.e., Christians throughout Western history have opted to relax the tension in favor of Caesarianism whenever pragmatic circumstances demanded it. But relaxing the tension in favor of one side or the other would be a disfavor to the other side. Perhaps the subculture of monasticism allowed for a spiritual outlet as it were, a segment of the population who were pioneers of the otherworldly transformation of ethics in this life and as such provided a vicarious function for the rest of society (often including priests and Popes) who, of necessity, had to remain embroiled in fighting and killing, etc.
But I am giving that passage the benefit of the doubt. After all, Jesus was referring specifically and apparently only to taxation, not to self-defense. And if pressed, he might well have said, "if the Romans wish to defend you with their armies, let them; but don't participate in that self-defense." I.e., behave like a parasitic commune, since your Father's other world is superior to this world of which the Romans are for the most part sordid stewards. Be in the world, but not of it. Etc.
Posted by: Television at July 5, 2006 10:17 PM
Ronin Posted:
Adobe I agree but I would add all US aid, all of it should only go to those who except our core values.
Definitly, I agree entirely....
BTW- is your handle based of the movie??? It's a great movie, I like action/espionage plots.
at July 5, 2006 11:26 PM
"Television...some things like the cheek, the cloak and 'resist not evil', have meanings that you may have overlooked..."
-posted above
Also, there is a difference between 'smiting' of cheeks and assault with intent to murder in the most ghastly fashion possible.
Mathew 5:39 through 44 seem more guidlines for fellowship within like minded communities.
Islam, being like a mad rabid dog, hardly applies IMO.
I still heartily endorse and will try to follow Christ's teachings but surely Christ would not have all Christians commit suicide.
at July 5, 2006 11:30 PM
"I still heartily endorse and will try to follow Christ's teachings but surely Christ would not have all Christians commit suicide."
Thousands of Christians in fact chose to be killed rather than fight -- first by the pre-Christian Romans, then later by the Muslims in Spain. These were the Christian "martyrs" (unlike Muslim "martyrs", the Christian martyrs never murdered other people). There developed strict guidelines in the Church about martyrdom -- the martyr must never go out of his way to seek his death, but must only accept his death if the pagan authorities demand that his life will be spared only if he recants his Christianity.
Which kind of Christian will help us with our current problem of Islam: The hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Christian martyrs who willingly, without resistance, allowed themselves to be murdered for their faith by Muslims in Spain -- or the Christians who fought and killed to reconquer Spain later, by the 15th century?
Both types of Christians are noble, to be sure. I am in awe of the Christian martyrs and their peaceful commitment to their principles even to the death; but I frankly prefer the other type of Christian who took up arms to fight, kill and kick out the Muslims from Spain.
at July 6, 2006 12:38 AM
Television:
The dilemma you describe has been with Christianity since its inception.
Self control as described by Jesus is hardly passive. To love one's enemies requires immense self-control, the origin of which comes from one's faith, which for a Christian comes from accepting Jesus of one's own free will.
A Christian's personal deportment takes place within a human collective, a society. Laws are instituted to protect public order and the greater public good. What one might accept on one's own account in order to imitate the example of Christ is one thing. Permitting an injustice to be perpetrated upon an innocent third party is quite another. Jesus did NOT say "If someone strikes your mother's (father's, child's) cheek, tell her to offer the other as well." Laws exist to address such offenses to life and limb and a Christian can, indeed I would argue must, support such laws.
Jesus's words concerning Caesar and taxation were uttered with His knowledge that the taxation was to be used to maintain the Roman Empire, including the administration of Roman Law in Judea as well as support of wider Roman military operations. His words hardly constitute wholesale support of the Roman Empire, but address the reality of being in the world while not of it.
Finally, while Jesus did not outrightly proscribe violence, He sternly warned against it: live violently and you'll die violently. He made this point specifically in the context that God does not need human violence --military intervention or otherwise-- to further His cause. So a Christian engages in warfare reluctantly and then only to prevent a still greater evil befalling the innocent, after first earnestly looking for peaceful resolution. That the nations of Christendom have all too frequently fallen short of this ideal does not invalidate this principle in the least. It's called Chivalry and its days are not over.
The Church is doing the right thing.
Posted by: Chatillon at July 6, 2006 10:58 AM
Well, I think that the evolution of the church to better positions in this chapter is clear, but we have to do several things that have solved. The first question is the lack of faith of catholics, very important in their majority that make them failing in evangelizing, muslims convert easily when see good catholics and good catholic famillies, and although the apostasy threats exist, in Western, a muslim converted can live.
The second problem, is Europe, their lack of faith, their lack of future and hope because they are selfish, proud and autosufficient. They think that the secularism will cure islam. And like Netherlands, Sweden or France demonstrates, it fails.
The third problem is the great importance of the french ideas in Western, in XVI century France destroyed the christendom, with their support of protestantism, their alliance with muslims that looted Italy, Spain and french cities like Nice. They treated the muslims not like unfaithful but like allies against the enemy, Spain and the Austria House.
Now, the secularist ideas reign in Europe thanks to France and Europe is dying.
For this reason, I think that only a rebirth of my country Spain and the rebirth of France, the France of Cliny, St Louis, Clodoveus or Charlemagne, can save us.
Respect evangelism and protestantism, well, they are having a lot of successness in converting muslims but they have to give pressure for a true freedom of religion, because many new protestants have died in muslim lands and this is unaceptable, and US have to do something, like a protestant country that it´s.
But in the clear moments, we will have a new St Pius V, Pope, that in 1571, after his success of the Holy League, with Spain, Vatican, Venice, Genova, and not protestant countries neither France, he remembered:
Once upon a time a man sent by God called John. In this case was John of Austria brother of Philip II.
Greetings
Posted by: Franze at July 6, 2006 2:19 PM
Arjun, sadly it seems that when Christians of color are slaughtered and enslaved by muslims the world press takes no notice.
I recommend these sites:
http://www.iabolish.org/aasg/press_releases/2005_01_01.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/143/23.0.html
http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/032201.htm
and the book "My Escape From Slavery" by Francis Bok http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312306237/ref=ase_christianitytoda/103-6028040-0607024
BTW, off topic but the current issue of Time magazine has a good story on India this week, and a beautiful Indian woman on the cover. I didn't realize you were the largest democracy in the world! Congratulations! Wish I could send you a copy, or maybe you can get it over there.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 6, 2006 7:45 PM
God if he is god does not need to have christians running around shooting others in order to get them to see Gods point of view and plan of salvation...
I know this isnt exactly a christian forum and that is fine... but i will share what happened approx 1 month ago..
again i know most dont believe in dreams or the prophetic but i do... This was approx 4 weeks ago.
It took me a while before i was ready to send this out.. I dont care if you dont believe..
For I know its true..
The dream / vision #4
I am looking at a dusty villiage in Iraq (I didnt need explaination) i already knew what i was looking at.. and where i was located....
From the left upper side of the street maybe a second floor window i am looking out over the street ...
Its a small village just one main street dirt road. Dusty its almost dusk sun is setting in the desert a pale orange hits the street..
I see a single man with a cross on his back walking down the street... (i already know this isnt a good thing)...
As he is walking from the roof top on the right i see a shadow , movement then as the man with the cross gets to the end of the street a shot is fired and he drops dead instantly, the cross falling on the road..
The next evening same location i see Three men all carrying crosses down the same dusty road and at the same spot where the first man was killed the previous evening i see on both sides of the street some more movement both from the rooftop and a window as several ak 47's are pointed at them...
Almost on Que the ak47's open up and all three are killed instantly the crosses dropped on the road..
The third day (implied) same location i see a huge mass a sea of men all carrying crosses..
So many the entire street is filled...
All of them surging to the same spot where the 3 men had been killed and the single man the day before that...
They street is so plugged the men with crosses barely have room to walk.. This is like asking for it... There is no place to hide or run..
this is really really bad.. i think to myself..
I can feel a RAGE in the air...
Satan is angry at these men daring to show up in this city... Daring to show the people the truth.
Windows begin to open up (two shutters open up directly accross the street from my view)
An RPG is readied, men on rooftops pull the pins from soviet era grenades.. the RPG fires first hitting direct center of the men with crosses..
the blast throws all the men in the center twards the outside.. I see a leg flying through the air..
Then all the men on top start thowing their grenades... It is litterally Raining Grenades i watch them comming down hundreds of them...
Some exploding at ground level others at chest level mid air explosions...
Then the shooting starts every window every roof top has an automatic or heavy machine gun firing full auto... Magazines and belt fed machine guns..
The men are trapped they cant run and they at first took a few steps but realizing they are going to die stood there with their crosses...
Its inevitable..
They are gunned down mercilessly..
Until all are dead bodies all over the street
Blood everywhere..
Then the view changes...
I see some muslims in some rooms who had hidden
Possibly from the Islamic terrorists.. Others to protect their children from the crossfire
and they all saw what evil had been done ....
They also knew why....
They were sickened and repented before God for their sins and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior...
Then the view changed again...
Darkening like a movie theater does before the start of the main attraction
Then i saw the first man with the cross and i Saw 1000 muslims who were saved..
And God asked me a simple question?
Was it worth the sacrifice of this mans life?
I answered Yes (1 for 1000) not a bad return...
I thought to myself...
Then God showed me the Three who died along with more muslims who had repented and asked the same question again?
I answered Yes (still 4 for 1000) ok still acceptable price
Then God showed me 10,0000 men who DIED and then showed me 2,000,000 million Muslims who were saved...
Now i start to think man the price is getting extreemly high... but is still ok..
but then God shows me 10,0000 men who died and only a few trhousand who were saved.. But i Knew their souls were saved for all of eternity...
Was it worth it God asked...
I answer God not really believing it (Yes the good answer) But i was choking on my words...
even 10,0000 for 2 million is ok but the reverse
more men died then were saved...
God then answered me with a reply "You have stated correctly" it was worth it..
Then he asked me how about you?
At that point i Blew up (as usual) WHAT???
Why Me? (and God meant to go knowing i would be killed) there was no doubt...
There muslims... (i replied) they want to go to hell let them... i thought then i tried to reason with God...
"Let me get this straight you want me to go over and be killed in the hopes that a few might repent? It AINT worth it"...
God said I love them and sent my son to pay for their sins...
Even if it was only one...
Thats what i was told...
For your review..
at July 6, 2006 10:03 PM
Bohemond,
Thanks for the links. I think the Time people cover more Asia specific stories in the issue over here. It is very different from the U.S. edition. Same with Reader's Digest and Fortune.
I left lots of comments for you a fortnight or so back. Busy with something then ?
Keep Safe :)
Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 7, 2006 8:09 AM
Arjun, sorry I missed the comments, wife has been sick and lots of other things happening here, plus Texas just got our version of the Monsoons. Makes driving very interesting! Texans not used to water coming down sky! thought you might have a different version of Time there. This is the one I saw: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101060626,00.html
at July 7, 2006 6:47 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)