Ahh postmodernism, that garbage philosophy that equates the rants of rapper with William Blake and the murderous sermons of the local mullah with the Pope on Easter.

And considering Europe and the intellectual class is steeped in this intellectual filth, its no wonder intellectuals pooh pooh the threat of Islam, when they themselves have no ability to make any qualitive distinctions anymore. The poor deluded saps can't tell up from down.

Personally I thought PoMo was ready for the garbage bin after Alan Sokal exposed the movement for the bullshit it is.

Posted by: waltc at June 28, 2008 8:30 PM

Well no kidding it surely is the greatest threat to the Church as is seen in the many examples and the history of Islam. The dedicated cleansing of areas once conquered by Islam. The indigenous culture and peoples forced to convert to Islam or pay the Jizya and be second class citizens. It is awful.

Posted by: savsiv at June 28, 2008 8:50 PM

"In other words, the day Brits develop a renewed sense of their own spirituality is the same day they will see the growth of Islam for what it is."

Amen to that, Raymond.

(See? I can read the byline). ;)

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 28, 2008 9:07 PM

The biggest mistake the Christian church in all its incarnations is making is fighting the ordination of women. There is ample evidence that the early Church was largely egalitarian, despite St. Paul's invective against women, and it took nearly 200 years for the church "fathers" to get women back into the previous "Saharasian" place that desert tribalist conquerors put them.

The Christian church is in a desperate place actually. Largely inhabiting the West, where freedom of religion reigns, Christianity is subject to choice. Women, who are free to leave, are leaving in DROVES and taking their womb-wealth, on which all religions ultimately depend, with them.

And they should. No woman should be subjected to pure male rule under some ruse that God said so, whether that's Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or New Age male supremacy (yeah, they do that, too).

The recent declaration by Pope Benedict that he will excommunicate any woman ordained and any man who ordains her — AND THAT DISCUSSION OF IT IS BANNED FROM THE CHURCH (why don't you just go ahead and burn the books, too) — may very well cost Christianity the Vatican.

And this blunder occurs at a time when radical Islam is clamping down on women to an insane degree — ever more conservative and controlling, in protection of womb wealth, but also because theocratic states, once they have destroyed all the other religions and driven out their practitioners, always torture women.

Interesting reading: Saharasia, by Dr. James DeMeo ... and Culture and Conflict in the Middle East by Carl Philip Salzman.

This Pope is going to bring down the Vatican.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 28, 2008 9:23 PM

"The [Anglican] leaders of the church have lost their confidence in the Gospel."

I just got back from Mass after converting from Anglicanism to Rome. After reading "Truth and Tolerance" by Pope Benedict, I concluded that Anglicanism and Protestantism also, does not realize the consequences of Christian disunity.

I love the current Pope and think him a faithful teacher of the Gospel and leader of the Church. It was a compelling act of assertion when a former Muslim was baptized on Easter.

Indeed, the Church is facing greater issues that sexuality and women bishops. Sure critics of the Church will say the the exclusive role of male leadership in the Church is unfair, however it is highly debatable whether women were in priestly and Bishopric roles in the early Church. The exclusivity of male and heterosexual leadership need not be interpreted as sexism, but rather a pragmatic strategy. Without sexual co-interest these male leaders are giving a certain freedom from these concerns. Certainly we are not beasts who can not control our sexual desires (although much of North America seems to think this), however sexuality does often complicate human relationships. By removing sexuality from the leadership equation, the Church is gifted with a group of leaders who can focus on developing a non-sexual community of leaders. This blessing is also reflected in many female-only leadership amongst Nuns. I suppose that Christ could have had all female leaders and this would have functioned the same way. Yet, in Christ's wisdom he chose men. We must however remember that many Roman Catholic women have been powerful examples of the faith and have led in different ways.

I suspect that some will still decry this as sexism and leave the Church. This is sad, however claims that the current Pope will "bring down the Vatican" seem unfounded given the large number of women I see at Mass. The opposite is true, that many women find a profound, coherent, and faithful worldview within Roman Catholicism. It is a beautiful religion and despite very educated attacks from the Greek Pagans to German Secularists, the Roman Catholic Church is still the oldest and largest institution in human history. The Roman Church faithfully bears a beautiful truth about God's love for humanity through Jesus Christ, and in light of the nihilistic tendencies of many Protestant Churches, I suspect more and more Westerners will be drawn to Rome's clarity and conviction regarding the Gospel. The fact that they have male-only priest seems beside the point when compared with the overall loving and holy mission of Christ's Church.

Anyway, the Church has survived the Pagan Roman Empire, Marxism, Fascism, and I am certain it will survive Feminism too. Benedict is merely asserting the 2000 year old wisdom of the Church over Western Liberalism, of which Feminism is merely a sub-set of. No sister, the Church will not die because it does not embrace Feminism. As we've seen with the Anglicans, the embrace of Liberal theology and politics has led to the near death of the Anglican Church in the West in just two generations. No, I don't think Rome and all the brown and black non-Western Christian women and men around the world are going to look to Western Liberal Church trends as an example of wisdom. The opposite sentiment seems to be true and also appears to be asserting itself in various places, despite empty attacks on the Church. Indeed, we are seeing the rise of an increasingly confident Church as it re-orientates itself in a post-Christendom world.

Protestant brothers and sisters, its time to return to Rome in order that together, with the leadership of Christ boldly proclaim Christianity as the truth and light for all humanity. What divisions are holding you back from returning to Rome? That's why I returned. Much of the concerns of the Reformation have been addressed. Read Scott Hahn's "Rome Sweet Home" http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782

Posted by: James Martel at June 28, 2008 10:01 PM

RE: "Our Government is allowing it to happen out of political correctness, but it should be protecting our values and heritage."

"This will never happen as long as people think the number one value is blind “tolerance”—tolerance of hate, racism, violence, and misogyny, all in the name of “religion”—and that their Western, Christian heritage is the source of the world’s woes, from crusades to colonialism, and naught but a source of shame and guilt."

“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” --British novelist Dorothy Sayers

Posted by: In Remembrance of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf at June 28, 2008 10:47 PM

First, Mr. Martel, do not call me sister.

And yes, if you continue subjugating and disenfranchising HALF OF HUMANITY -- which isn't really Christianity but male self-worship, supplanting God as the focus of communion -- you are not so different than the desert tribalists who threaten us. So I see you as WAY out of the true path of Christianity in your extreme "piety" while you spout discrimination.

This stupid Pope's harkening to 3rd century doctrine, thrown together by men for the sole purpose of gaining control of women (and using, as does Islam, some trumped up religious excuse for doing so — this "iconography" that Jesus chose only male disciples — is itself a lie achieved only by the manipulation of texts included in the Bible and throwing out anything and everything that would indicate otherwise.

But even if it WERE true (and it was not) that Jesus ran something other than an egalitarian church (which the apostles did, Paul NOT being one of them), would that hold water now?

The answer is no.

Slavery was not abolished with the help of Christians because Christ did so. Christ was compassionate toward slaves, but He never so much as took up the issue. Muhammad, on the other hand, didn't argue with it, either, but did make a part of zakat giving money to slaves with which to buy their freedom. I note, however, that slavery is still rampant in Muslim countries, so I'm not sure how impressed they were with that. They seem much more impressed with his marriage to Aisha at age 9. I guess people take from religion what they think serves their own personal tastes and interests, no?

So, the abolition of slavery came from the EXTENSION of Christ's PRINCIPLES to CURRENT evolution, expansion and enlightenment of human thought.

Now we are at the point that if the Church doesn't make the last leap to the TOTAL EQUALITY OF WOMEN ON ALL LEVELS OF THE CHURCH AND IN ALL FUNCTIONS OF HTE CHURCH, INCLUDING THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE PAPACY, THE CHURCH WILL GO DOWN, BECAUSE WOMEN WILL ****RIGHTFULLY*** LEAVE IT. They should leave it rather than raise another generation of women subject to this infusion of Christianity with male self-worship.

And don't give me any more of that sticky piety of yours, either, at least not while you are telling women to deny the callings they experience as much as you do, and while you stand in their way pretending that your penis makes you spiritually superior. And I mean that, because that is exactly what this boils down to, though I regret having to be so graphic. But so long as men run this false piety and self-aggrandizement to the detriment of the most enlightened religion on earth.

The Roman Church cannot possibly win while it does this to women, and you don't seem to realize how critical an issue it is.

Example: CEDAW.

The RCC and the OIC form a block for the prevention of the implementation of CEDAW. They do it for different reasons, but they stand together, as ONE on this issue. The OIC do it because they do not want to lose polygamy and sharia law by giving women access to education, medical care, and counseling outside sharia courts. The RCC opposes the implementation of CEDAW because they fear that women will have access to birth control (likely) and abortion (unlikely, unless it is legal in the country already).

The principle reason that the RCC cannot stand firm against the onslaught of Islam is that it is in collusion with it to control women.

If, on the other hand, the Pope did just three things, people worldwide would flock to Christianity:

(1) Stop this ridiculous insistence that priests not marry. This is NOWHERE in the Bible, and it really screws men up.

(2) Stop this lie about homosexuality and the RCC. The RCC is ***** FULL OF GAY PRIESTS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ***** and the RCC, and every other Christian church, has been knowingly ordaining them for 2,000 years. The very idea that the Church doesn't know it is ordaining about 40% gay priests is a dirty little lie all the churches should stop telling. I thought we had some allegiance to the truth. This isn't about ordaining gay priests, it's about ADMITTING that we have been doing it all along and lying about it, and simply continuing to do what we've been doing and stop our pretense about it.

(3) Stop suppressing — and openly welcome and embrace — women in all levels of participation in the RCC.

Now, don't condescend to me again with this "sister" crap. It doesn't make me feel any better than you disenfranchise half the spiritual population of the planet while condescending in this manner, as if you are teaching me spiritual lessons. You have no such authority with me so long as you are obviously voting for the spiritual disenfranchisement and male intellectual and religious control of women worldwide, which, as far as I'm concerned, is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, AS WELL AS AN ENABLING OF THE VICIOUS CRIMES OF ISLAM AGAINST WOMEN.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 28, 2008 11:24 PM

I didnt see this coming.
I doubt anything will come of it beyond an apology.

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at June 28, 2008 11:33 PM

James Martel

As a Catholic and a Christian I am in accord with your views. Mother Angelica's (Rita Rizzo's) biography by Raymond Arroyo is a wonderful biography of a Catholic woman: tough, determined, faithful.

Women have important roles in the Church, and many who disagree also obsess about running everything and everybody. I have to say this about every single woman I've met who wants to be ordained or in charge: They are all dhimmis, every one. Jewish female rabbis to lesbian nuns, they all came out after 9/11 in this city to blame America, embrace Islam, and call for "tolerance." Had a rally downtown. Asked, "Why do these people hate us?" These women aren't strong; they are weak, very weak and very stupid.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at June 28, 2008 11:33 PM

CapitalistGig

That's a projection. It's the men who obsess about running everything and everybody -- and create everything from iconography to shari'a law to do it.

And how dare you call every woman who wants to be ordained or in charge a dhimmi.

If all people who want to be ordained -- which is not the same thing as wanting to be "in charge of everything" at all anyhow -- are dhimmis, then I guess you'd best spend your time trying to reform men rather than women, since they seem to want it so much, and so exclusively, that they'll let the whole world go down rather than give it up.

If the Pope stopped this evil, and that's what it is, ISLAM WOULD NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON.

As it is, Muslim imams and shari'a court clerics throw the Pope's words in women's faces all the time.

"Even the Pope says that women are ..."

Well, as a Christian I am NOT in agreement with you. And frankly, I would be a Catholic if not for this issue. So when I say that I know the RCC is slitting its own throat and driving people away with this patent discrimination, suppression, condescension and naked male aggression, I speak from personal experience.

And I know hundreds of women who feel the same way. Thousands and thousands and thousands who have left.

It's cruel, it's evil, it ENABLES every other cruelty in the world against women ...

... and worst of all, it enables the steadily advancing, ever worsening radical Islam by SUPPORTING ISLAM'S ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 28, 2008 11:59 PM

Since you don't think much of Benedict, tell me: Which feminist pope did you like best, Morgaan?

:)

And what is the source for your contention that women are leaving the Chirch "in DROVES?" BTW, do you mean at Harvard?

And wherever do these formerly Christian women take their "womb-wealth?" I've always wondered why we Christians aren't reproducing like the Muslims, and now I know: It's because our women are leaving and taking their womb-wealth with them! Who'da thunk it?

But why aren't patriarchal Christians hoarding and protecting their womb-wealth as the Muslims do?

You'll probably want to work on this thesis a tad. There must be a forum where you can share it without being entirely off-topic.

Speaking of postmodernism, whenever I hear the term "womb-wealth" it makes my skin crawl.

I'd rather listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

HAID

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 29, 2008 12:09 AM

Sorry. Make that, "leaving the Church."

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 29, 2008 12:12 AM

Ladies and gentlemen: let's not get distracted by, for example, proselytizing or the airing of intra-kafir grievances. If one party among us insists, for example, that the counter-jihad cannot commence until we all become Catholics, or adhere to a particular brand of feminism, or whatever, the jihadis are likely to sneak up on us and get us while we are still busy arguing.

I like the stance of the current Bishop of Rome, vis a vis Islam. I hope he keeps it up, and that (since he is very old) his successor will maintain the campaign; I ALSO hope Rome can lead by example and sound reasoning, and encourage other church leaders - such as, for example, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Russia, Greece, etc - to resolutely confront Islam by evangelism and by supporting just and legitimate kafir self-defence against the Jihad.

I hope Anglicans drop their general woolly-headedness and come round to a position similar to that taken by Dr Mark Durie, Bp Michael Nazir-Ali, and Bp Patrick Sookhdeo, and that Evangelical Protestants, of whatever stripe, will avail themselves of Jacques Ellul's insights about Islam.

Right NOW: all non-Muslim women, all non-Muslim men, of whatever non-Muslim faith (including Hindus, Buddhists, animists, Sikhs, Taoists), or none, are mortally threatened by Islam.

Lets agree to set aside our intra-mural quarrels and concentrate all our energy on the task in hand - self defence against Stealth Jihad and against the Fast (military) Jihad.

Now, back to the article. It is not, I think, coincidence that Mrs Ruoff is "a former magistrate". She seems keenly aware of the legal aspects of the problem: which one of us will volunteer to stump up, and (having ascertained how to contact her) send her a copy of Mr Spencer's "Stealth Jihad" as soon as it comes off the press?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 12:20 AM

Uh-oh!!! The Thirty Year War resurfaces again - except that instead of the battlefields at Magdeburg and Lutzgen, it's now restricted to a single thread on JihadWatch.

That's progress - 300 years later ;-)

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2008 12:22 AM

Make that 'a single thread on DhimmiWatch'

DDA

I second that! It's time to leave those battles in the 17th century where it belongs, or else this Protestant vs Catholic simply looks like a bloodless version of Shia vs Sunni.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2008 12:30 AM

Now, in light of Raymond's remark - "the day Brits develop a renewed sense of their own spirituality is the same day they will see the growth of Islam for what it is" - it might be worth remembering that it can be said that there has been a major 'national [spiritual] awakening' in Britain around once a century, for the past 800 years, the last being around the mid-19th century.

My husband's paternal great-grandfather was a lay preacher in the Salvation Army in rough mill towns in Northern England (the same places that are now inhabited largely by Mohammedan colonies), in the late 19th century. He used to go out street preaching; even though angry hecklers would throw rotten fruit, and sometimes harder things, like cobblestones. Once he got laid out, and came home on a hurdle.

With history like that lying just beneath the surface, there could be a volcanic upheaval that will astonish everyone - especially the Mohammedans. No-one expected the Wesleys, or William Booth, or, for that matter, the Oxford Movement.

Christianity is far from dead in Britain. The fact that two bishops, at least, are firmly evangelical, is a start. There is quite a large grassroots protestant 'house church' movement - google 'Adrian Plass' to get a bit of insight. Research 'John Rutter' and 'Graham Kendrick'.

Here's a very typical hymn/ song by Graham Kendrick (b. 1950). Remember: this was written in 'godless' relativistic modern Britain, by someone reared in that environment. I do not quote it in order to proselytise, but in order to enable people here to get inside the mind of at least one modern British Christian. The tune, BTW, is beautiful and eminently singable.

1, Lord the light of Your love is shining
in the midst of the darkness shining
Jesus Light of the World shine upon us
set us free by the truth you now bring us
shine on me
shine on me

REFRAIN:
Shine Jesus shine
fill this land with the Father's glory
Blaze Spirit blaze
set our hearts on fire
Flow river flow
flood the nations with grace and mercy
Send forth Your word, Lord
and let there be light

2. Lord, I come to Your awesome presence
From the shadows into your radiance
By the blood I may enter Your brightness
Search me, try me consume all my darkness
Shine on me
shine on me

3. As we gaze on your kingly brightness
So our faces display your likeness
Ever changing from glory to glory
Mirrored here may our lives tell your story
Shine on me
shine on me

We should also remember, from this very online community, our dear departed Dominic, and the redoubtable 'Granny Weatherwax', both of whom identified as English Christians; and consider that there may be more such, and that their numbers may be growing quietly while we are not looking.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 12:39 AM

Haid ...

Of course Catholics are hoarding womb-wealth. The struggle between Islam and Christianity **IS** about numbers.

Right now the Muslims (as Spengler has pointed out) are VERY clear that after 2050 their numbers will have declined (that's right) to the point that
they cannot wage the war for the domination of the world. They are VERY aware of this, which is why they're doing it now, which is why they are tightening the screws on women, hoping to keep them held down for demographic growth.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html

Womb wealth is a tribal concept, and if you think it gives YOU the creeps, what the hell do you think it does to me?

In tribal cultures women are the principle form of wealth because they increase the numbers (and clout and power) of the clan. They are also useful because you can sell them for a "bride price" that is paid by the husband, who hopes to use this breeding animal to increase HIS clan's power and size. She is useful in this way to her father because he can sell her to a clan of low population and get livestock in return. She has, you notice, NO LIFE other than mothering.

The concept of womb wealth in the Catholic Church is VERY real, most likely because Christianity has had to stare down Islam before in Europe and is very clear that Catholics should have big families, as big as possible, because there is safety in numbers. After all, what are we talking about in this thread: safety in numbers. Why do you think the German government is paying GERMAN women to have children now? What do you think Hitler was thinking in WW2 when he encouraged German women to have as many children as possible, and encouraged Jewish women to have abortions?

Be serious. The last time God sent a Son to this world, he did ***NOT*** need male participation in this act. He did, however, choose to effect this through a woman. Could he have just materialized a Son? Certainly? So He certainly does not need to have the entire world overpopulating itself out of its food supply in order to place on this Earth whatever he wants. And it certainly cannot have escaped these brilliant MEN at the Vatican that MEN were not necessary to this process before and most assuredly wouldn't no be so again ... and they're so arrogant that if the second coming is a Daughter of God rather than a son, they'll all explode and melt from the inside out.

So, the RCC's obsession with women's reproduction is actually three-fold:

(1) There is an honest concern with the life of the unborn. But abortion and birth control are not equivalent.

(2) The RCC has no interest in limiting numbers of people, even if it means starvation of masses of people, if it means limiting numbers of its flock.

(3) The patriarchs of the church do not want to share power with women. Why? Because they like having it themselves and they are despicably greedy and stingy.

(4) If they can succeed in defining, in PRECISELY the way Ahmadinejad does, that woman's function is procreation, they can prevent all the things they don't want: falling numbers (they think, though paradoxically this is the opposite of what would happen) and a crack in the world's most exclusive all-male God club.

It's my belief that this is REAL evil, no matter which religion does it, and I don't expect God to be amused by it.

The Muslims go to the extreme of patently saying that Allah screwed up when he made woman. Had he done it properly, she would have come with cover and properly locked.

Christians, though certainly this extremely during the Inquisition, having taken to torturing women publicly on trumped up charges of witchcraft (just who was really "of the devil" in that?), is long past its nightmare.

What remains is the arrogance and self-righteous pseudopiety of the powerful within the establishment.

It's interesting that the Vatican held onto the last book of Nostradamus' — banning it so that no ORDINARY MORTAL could read it — while cherishing it, recopying it, protecting it, studying it. Do you know what this book shows?

It shows the fall of the Vatican and the flight of the Pope out of Italy. And do you know what panel immediately precedes that? You should try to find out if you don't.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 29, 2008 12:45 AM

A few further observations.

Re. Britain.

I have been reading the dhimmiwatch archives (am currently in 2005).

It is clear from many UK stories posted there that not only Christians, in Britain (both Afro-Caribbean black Christians, and native 'white' English and Welsh and Scots), but also British Jews, and Hindus and Sikhs, have been suffering very badly from Muslim aggression in the Muslim-dominated districts.

Jihad-aware Christians should be the first to turn out in support if their local rabbi is attacked or synagogue vandalised, and yes, if the Hindu temple is attacked by Muslims, or if Hindu processions are assailed; and they must do so primarily in the awareness that if we Infidels do not hang together, we shall assuredly hang separately.

Local area campaigns against the building of Mosques, for example, or the establishment of Islamic Schools, and against all the various forms of 'sharia creep', have to be conducted by all kafir together.

A delegation consisting of all the local Christian clergy plus their parish councils; the local Rabbi, with a full minyan; a Sikh in his turban, and an assortment of ordinary citizens of all colours, professions, and backgrounds, all saying THE SAME THING - 'we don't want that mosque! the Muslims are attacking our kids!' - is going to be pretty good at getting a politician's attention.

Bat Yeor's and Bostom's books may be read as cautionary tales - we MUST NOT do what those societies and civilisations did, who were 'split' and then gobbled up by the jihadi sowers/ exploiters of discord. Warner's Centre for the Study of Political Islam makes some positive suggestions about how to avoid that dismal fate.

Finally: for those who are interested, there is a handy demolition of postmodernist relativism, in C S Lewis's little book "The Abolition of Man". The chapter entitled 'Men Without Chests' is particularly apposite.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 1:07 AM

Yes, I know, Morgaan. Given Benedict's age, that panel cannot be far off, if indeed it turns out to be the one predicted, as it is in many, many more sources besides Nostradamus, I hope you know.

As others have pointed out, these topics are not for here. I'm sorry for ribbing at you, but you have a way of making an otherwise patient soul anxious and irritable.

:)

Anyway, since I'm apologizing to you, let me also apologize to Raymond and everyone for my part in derailing this thread. Dumble, as usual, steadfastly maintains the course heading, thankfully.

Raymond, welcome to JW/DW. LOL.

And Morgaan, forgive me, but I can't resist. If you're going to say something is threefold, you need to stop numbering after three. ;)

Best regards,

HAID

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 29, 2008 1:30 AM

When Europeans first came to America, they were prevented from starving by native Americans. And what did native Americans get in return? Genocide, mass starvation, smallpox on their blankets by the invading Europeans. Why didn't the native Americans recognise the Europeans as the enemy? Why didn't they realise that Europeans only wanted to conquer them, not be friends with them?

We are the equivalent of the native Americans or Australian aborigines. Why don't we realise that muslims only want to conquer us? Why do we act in the same way that native Americans did?

Please think about this.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 29, 2008 6:31 AM

Excellent points, Voltaire.

However, James Martel wrote:

"As for Protestant brothers and sisters, its time to return to Rome in order that together, with the leadership of Christ boldly proclaim Christianity as the truth and light for all humanity. What divisions are holding you back from returning to Rome? "

LOL!

You risk turning Northern Europe into the North of Ireland with views like that.

Under the surface of our society are very real sectarian divisions.

Your views also remind me of those parishoners who were confronted by their priest's rape of members children, when asked about it they simply said the Church would survive, they had limited interest in those whose live were ruined.

Thankfully science continues to undermine and erode your book of fairytales.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 9:14 AM

Condescending and supremacist to the last, Haid, but of course you have that right because you are man.

So, if the little woman has anything of substance to say, you scan her post for any technicality upon which you can hang a sign that says "stupidity" leaving your gender apartheid intact.

And if the confrontation of truth makes your otherwise SELF-DESCRIBED "patient soul" somehow "anxious and irritable", then perhaps you should consider that reform, as Chapman said, "consists in taking a bone from a dog."

You try to take that bone away and that puppy is going to get very angry and irritable indeed.

Much of the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood has to do with controlling women (after Qutb's infamous trip to a church social and an obsessional rant about a woman's thighs) — and the shari'a revolutions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Nigeria followed directly from the increasing rights of women, which Muslim men did not like at all — those rights being enshrined in Brussels-based constitutions of the early 1900s that brought Muslim men up in arms about the freedom of "their women". This is not the ONLY thing in this backlash, but it is THE untouchable subject. No one will take this one on, because in the West, particularly in the conservative religions, there is a silent empathy with and support of domination of women, whether that be domination locking a woman in or locking a woman out. Both are forms of imprisonment, and that is a form of domination in which a man feels he has every right to be a woman's jailer and ruler and supreme authority. The ultimate arrogance is that men claimed the imprimatur of God to do it. As soon as God is invoked in support of this oppression, the discussion is over, as the Pope will tell you.

It is not women who weaken the fight against radical Islam in the West. It is the men who will not break with the last form of apartheid and inequality that weaken their own position vis-a-vis radical Islam.

When the Pope of the RCC lines up with radical Islam as he just did, that is an EXTREMELY clear message from him that given the choice between backing the complete freedom and equality of women or LOSING THE WEST TO ISLAM, he is more than happy to lose the West to Islam.

Also, watch carefully the collusion of the RCC with Gulen. That's been going on since the mid-1990s, and it is very dangerous, because Gulen's supposed "liberation" of women is nothing of the sort. It's just a pretty face on an ugly attempt to have the gender apartheid continue, and if there is a collusion with the Roman Catholic Church — one I assure you will be temporary as its purpose is the eventual overthrow of the RCC — then I figure you guys will wind up in relation to the caliphate in the position you've had us forever. And, of course, it will be worse for us. And, of course, as they always do all cultural reference to Christianity will be wiped out.

And it will have been men who assisted it because they were not willing to remove the co-dependency hook with which they got us.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 29, 2008 9:21 AM

It is ironic on this thread that while there is a debate about St. Paul and women's rights and dignity, I refer to two important factors. First in the letter of Paul to the Galatians he says that " there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. Also the Pope just opened up the year to St. Paul last night. Despite what some of the postings say, the gates of hell WILL NOT prevail on the Christian faith. Will post more latter.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 9:32 AM

Book of fairy tales? Please move away from the crack pipe.

Could our current problems have anything to do with this?
http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/19/112901/

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at June 29, 2008 9:57 AM

"Book of fairy tales? Please move away from the crack pipe."

Believing that the Earth and the ENTIRE universe were made in six days and god had a rest on the seventh, despite growing scientific evidence to the contrary, would suggest drug usage.

The more science flourishes the more it contradicts your fairytales.

Hugh is also an atheist.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 10:13 AM

"When Europeans first came to America, they were prevented from starving by native Americans. And what did native Americans get in return? Genocide, mass starvation, smallpox on their blankets by the invading Europeans. Why didn't the native Americans recognise the Europeans as the enemy? Why didn't they realise that Europeans only wanted to conquer them, not be friends with them?"

posted by: Voltaire

Many of the American Indian tribes initially saw the Europeans as potential (and powerful) allies against their traditional enemies, and thus were anxious to befriend them and get them on their side before their enemies did. Thus in Mexico the tribes subject to the murderous Aztec rule welcomed the Spanish as liberators.
As for genocide, there was mass death, but it could hardly be called genocide, as it was due almost entirely to epidemic diseases unwittingly imported by the conquistadors from the Old World-- smallpox was the most notable, but others included measles, whooping cough, chicken pox, and (where the climate was suitable) malaria and yellow fever.) The American Indians had virtually no resistance to these diseases. The Europeans (and the Africans brought in to replace the lost Indian populaton) did, thanks to centuries of exposure to these diseases. The population of Meso-America -- Mexico plus Central America -- fell from an estimated 20 million in 1500 to less than 5 million in 1600. Some of these were, to be sure, due to battle deaths and to ruthless Spanish exploitation; but the vast majority -- over 90% -- were due to epidemic disease.
Incidentally, it would not have mattered to the Indians if another Old World people had reached America first -- say the Chinese or the Arabs or the West Africans -- these disease were endemic to the entire Old World, and would have been brought by any of these peoples.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 29, 2008 11:05 AM

Despite some otherwise faithful anti-jihadists' sad attempts to make this thread a Catholic/anti-Catholic debate, I would like to come back to Dr Nazir-Ali's contention, namely, that Anglicanism's big problem is Islam, not sexual ethics.
I think he's wrong.
If the West were as strong as it should be, Islam would not be a problem. Therefore, the question should be: What makes the West weak?
I would hazard a guess that the answer to that question has something to do with sexual ethics, whether Dr Nazir-Ali or Ms Sinclair like it or not.
The Church of England has long been the vanguard of promoting the ideology that sex is about "love", pleasure, and anything and everything but procreation. In this view, womanhood itself becomes simply a weakness, children an unbearable burden. Contraception and abortion become the necessary means to liberation from the evils of womanhood and children.
Am I wrong to think that the West's current demographic nightmare has nothing to do with this "feminist" anti-woman and anti-child ideology?
Am I wrong to think that we don't have to choose between barrenness and Islam? That in fact a choice for one is effectively a choice for the other?

Posted by: ppeter at June 29, 2008 11:25 AM

Morgaan Sinclair- your anti-catholic views and plain ol ignorance about Catholicism is astonishing.

Where do I begin? -considering I don't have too long to post here

Basically, you equate the hierarchy in Rome with power hungry men who are misogynists. You are dead wrong in your assessment. There are many many holy and humble men and women serving the church in Rome.

Humility is a virtue. The love of worldly power is not. The Roman Catholic Church won't ever ordain women priests because Jesus Christ acts through his priests in "Persona Christi" - the "person of Christ."

To use one popular image -Catholic priests are "married to the church"- who is "the bride of Christ". These roles can't be reversed. God has made men and women unique and distinct in how they move and have their existence.

Women serving as priests can't be "maried to the bride of Christ." A woman can't be married to a bride.

Women serving in the church- as nuns or lay people can take roles of leadership as professors, intellectuals, CEO's, etc. But they can't serve as priests. The fact that women can't serve as priests does not diminish their importance and value in our society. Get over it.

Posted by: Johnathan at June 29, 2008 11:28 AM

Honestly, the CofE issues are the flip sides of the same coin!

Islam Overtakes Catholicism as the World's Largest Religion?

Islam grows as it values fertility.

Posted by: A Simple Sinner at June 29, 2008 12:32 PM

How can you expect anti-jihadism to become more mainstream with the creepy catholic religiosity pedaled here?

People from different religions and none post here. Using this site to promote THE ONE TRUE FAITH puts people off, only last week someone accused Ghandi of being a pederast!

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 12:34 PM

@ A Simple Sinner

Do you think homosexuality can be cured?

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Big Luke--

As we have affirmed many times when we find threads have gone far afield, this is a non-sectarian site.

Debates about homosexuality and of the merits of Catholicism versus other denominations go beyond the scope of the site. I believe we've also gotten off-track with respect to moral equivalence where teachings of Islam and those of other religions are concerned.

Our cause would be best served by focusing on the main thrust of the article-- namely, the deafening silence of much of the Church of England and others on Islam and its teachings on jihad and human rights. Meanwhile, in articles like the one above, the C of E shows that its members are highly capable of heated debate on other controversial issues.

Posted by: MarisolJW at June 29, 2008 1:14 PM

This is why the issue of Islam and jihad is one that ALL of us - regardless of political, religious or any other differences - can be united upon. Islam treats all unbelievers with the same hatred. Why not join together to stand for the freedoms that will be taken away from ALL of us under the teachings of Islam?

And yet we are not. This is what confuses me the most.

Posted by: Mo at June 29, 2008 2:10 PM

It's hard to stand together when some of us define freedom as barrenness. Oppose the culture of death, and then you oppose freedom and are no better than the jihadists.
If the West takes that path, it is done for, Islam or no Islam.
All here agree on opposition to jihad (despite what Ms Sinclair and some of the other posters here insinuate), but if we stand for nothing positive, we won't get far.
Until the West grows up and admits to itself that its demographic survival is not a "Catholic" issue, then we may be getting somewhere.

Posted by: ppeter at June 29, 2008 3:11 PM

Morgaan Sinclair,

"The biggest mistake the Christian church in all its incarnations is making is fighting the ordination of women. There is ample evidence that the early Church was largely egalitarian, despite St. Paul's invective against women, and it took nearly 200 years for the church "fathers" to get women back into the previous "Saharasian" place that desert tribalist conquerors put them.

The Christian church is in a desperate place actually. Largely inhabiting the West, where freedom of religion reigns, Christianity is subject to choice. Women, who are free to leave, are leaving in DROVES and taking their womb-wealth, on which all religions ultimately depend, with them.

And they should. No woman should be subjected to pure male rule under some ruse that God said so, whether that's Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or New Age male supremacy (yeah, they do that, too).

The recent declaration by Pope Benedict that he will excommunicate any woman ordained and any man who ordains her — AND THAT DISCUSSION OF IT IS BANNED FROM THE CHURCH (why don't you just go ahead and burn the books, too) — may very well cost Christianity the Vatican.

And this blunder occurs at a time when radical Islam is clamping down on women to an insane degree — ever more conservative and controlling, in protection of womb wealth, but also because theocratic states, once they have destroyed all the other religions and driven out their practitioners, always torture women.

Interesting reading: Saharasia, by Dr. James DeMeo ... and Culture and Conflict in the Middle East by Carl Philip Salzman.

This Pope is going to bring down the Vatican."

Would it suprise you that if Jesus wanted women to be priests, he would have ORDAINED HIS OWN MOTHER, Mary to be a priest. Jesus showed love and respect for women starting with his mother. Also St. Paul, and today this being the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, as I had posted early this morning in his letter to the Galations, said that all are one in Christ Jesus, that there are no divisions. St. Peter pleaded to Christ to heal his mother-in-law. Those early church communites that had as you have written women priests were for the most part were gnostic Christian communites.

Women in the Christian faith, and I will cite the RCC, were accepted and respected. Many started religious orders or movements. Some of these women, for example, Teresa of Avila, even was famous for reforming her order and went on to found communites of this reformed order in Spain. Another women, who lived a few centuries earlier, Julian of Norwich, England, became a famous mystic. Others over the centuries, such as Elizabeth Ann Seton and in the late 20th century, Mother Teresia of Calcutta both worked in ministries of education and caring for the "poorest of the poor".

Be thankful for popes such as Pope Benedict XVIth for having the courage to stand up to the Muslim community in the best interests of the Christian faith. When he came to America a few months back, he was very well-received by not only President Bush, but even by Christian leaders of other churches and non-Christians as well. Pope Benedict XVIth was even very well received by many young people on the grounds of a Catholic seminary in NY state. Up to 25,000 young people showed up to greet this pope. It also included a number of young seminarians who are studying to become priests. This same seminary in the many weeks that followed got applications from young men that are interested in studying to become priests. This is the "womb-wealth" that you speak of. What was started under the leadership of the great pope John Paul II continues under Benedict XVI. People are hungry for the truth and real faith.

Today I and members of my RC parish church celibrated the 10th anniversary of ordination to the priesthood of its parish priest. Today I also came up to the mother of this priest to congratuate her on her son's anniversary of priesthood. I told her I do pray for her son, which I say every time I see her. In other words, I thank her for her "womb-wealth" gift to the RC Church.

Last would it suprise you that the Christian faith, and in a special way, the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical Christian Churches are growing by leaps and bounds in what is called the global south communities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The future for the Christian faith is bright because it will be from those countries that will go back to the west to re-Christianized it as well as do the Lord's missionary work in the Muslim countries.

IMHO, Pope Benedict XVI will not bring the Vatican down, but with the help of God, make it stronger. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 3:24 PM

ppeter,

Ironic with what you have said, because of the sins that the CofE accepts, the more conservitve Anglican branch is on its way of breaking away from that church.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 3:32 PM

Read what Marisol wrote above.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 3:32 PM

Morgaan Sinclair,

Christianity grows because of the witnessing to the good news of the Gospel, which creates new believers. If you are looking for numbers, it is that.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 3:54 PM

Remember also that there is no compulsion in religion (unless your religion is a terrorist cult).

Persons not happy with their creed can just leave or invent their own (unless they're muslims).

Raymond, thanks for your insight. At least we have the freedom to debate.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at June 29, 2008 3:56 PM

James Martel,

With what has happened as of late to the conservitive Anglican community, it would not suprise me if that community will in large numbers end up swiming the Tiber and become Catholic. There is a Anglican usage rite also in the RCC for starters.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 3:58 PM

@ bigcatgirl13106

Read what Marisol wrote.

It looks as if you place your own desires above the anti-jihad movement.

Many aren't Christian here and don't want to be.

It's about anti-jihadism - you're alienating people.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 29, 2008 4:51 PM

Big Luke,

I am not forcing anyone to become Christian, just simply defending my faith and supporting those people who stand up to the Islamofacism such as Pope Benedict XVI. What it is all about is that those who have no faith should not attack those of faith when the focus should be on Islamofacism.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Thank you bigcatgirl for pointing out that Christianity is on the increase all over the world - just not in the western world.

Growth is occurring in the most astonishing places, but it is the Evangelical and Pentecostal type of Protestant Christianity that is mainly growing. In Seoul for instance there are megachurches of 230,000 on a Sunday service. In China there are more Christians than members of the communist party. In South America people are turning from the Catholic faith (thus declining ITS numbers) but what these figures claiming Catholic 'shrinkage' DON'T reveal is that they are turning to Evangelical Protestantism instead. So no overall decline in Christianity, but a revival in spiritual intensity.

Bigcatgirl will no doubt point out areas of Catholic growth too, for this is also occurring in other parts of the world.

Globally Christianity and Islam ARE in tension; Christianity grows by conversion, Islam by demographics. But in the more moderning parts of the Muslim world like Iran and Algeria Christianity is making converts amongst Muslims sick of the violence and intolerance of Islam.

33% of world population is Christian; 20% Muslim.

Posted by: devorgilla at June 29, 2008 6:06 PM

The sad thing is the Churches that do ordain women and gays are the ones most likely to support Muslims here in the west, as seen with the Anglicans who have a pagan running the Church and supporting the Shariah.

And why? because of political correctness and post-modernism that permeates these organizations and stifles any sort of opinion that is the party line.

Tell the followers in these churches that they can't be ordained and they will go jihadi on you like Morgaan does. Tell them about how evil Jesus and Paul were to women and you get kudos. Tell these very same folks about FGM and honor killings in Muslim society and you get a yawn.

This infusion of political correctness has reduced these churches to a Burger King with pews. Faith without effort or pain, no self-restraint, no change of direction, just a place to feel good about yourself.

And just as worthless as Burger King.

Posted by: waltc at June 29, 2008 6:18 PM

devorgilla,

Thank-you and God Bless for making my day/night with your good word. It is truly uplifting. :)

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 6:43 PM

waltc,

How true, the Christian churches that are growing are those that are faithful to God's word. The liberal churches are going away slowly.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 6:45 PM

"With what has happened as of late to the conservitive Anglican community, it would not suprise me if that community will in large numbers end up swiming the Tiber and become Catholic. There is a Anglican usage rite also in the RCC for starters."

Thank you for your kindness towards Roman Catholicism. I felt I needed to respond to that anti-Catholic feminist polemic, especially since I am once of the Anglicans who's returned to Rome.

This thread is actually quite important to the anti-jihadist movement since few political movements in history have had any weight unless they have the force of some common community among them. Secularists don't have such a community and therefore while their contributions are helpful, they lack the intergenerational weight of a faith community. In order to fight an intergenerationally sustaining religious ideology like Islamism, a counter community is necessary. While some, with noble intent, point to abstract values (ie all men are created equal). It seems apparent to me that a global communal movement is the minimum that is needed to oppose Islamism, and to bear witness to roots of these noble values ie. That all people are stamped with the image of the God of Israel/Christianity.

I don't mean to disparage the intention of non-Catholic anti-jihadists, but to point out, especially to Anglicans and Protestants, that division in Christs Church undermines the current and coming struggle against the tyranny of Islamic religion.

Lastly, I also think it is high time for Christians, Roman Catholic or not, to peaceably not put up with anti-Christian polemics.

Posted by: James Martel at June 29, 2008 6:57 PM

Your welcome James Martel!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 7:04 PM

The question sociologists of religion now ask is - why is faith not expanding in western countries, especially Europe? For Christianity is still vibrant in the USA.

Speaking personally as someone 'recovering' their faith, I never had any real rupture with Christianity, but with the Church. Several other posters on previous threads say much the same.

The Church just seemed dead and de-spiritualised. That was why I left it. I was a teenager and at that age you look for support and inspiration in your faith and I didn't find it in the Church. It seemed to be taboo to talk of matters of faith or of the sense of one's encounter with God, or search for God, or thirst for God. I found the doctrine of the Trinity difficult to grasp, and Christ's free offer of grace. Why would He do that? I had nobody to talk with over these things so I gave up.

Looking back, I think it was a question of two things. Firstly that some of the wrong sort of people entered the ministry. People without inspiration who saw it as a cushy number. Secondly, good people who probably did have a sense of Christ and entered the ministry, but who felt constrained from speaking of that experience and witnessing it.

I think the Church didn't know which way to turn. Become more rational, more 'everyday' or become more spiritual? The former was the pressure from society and the Church thought it should respond to that, but it grasped spiritual death when it did that.

I'm not entirely sure it was 'postmodernism'. That came later, once the Church had lost its spiritual centre.

Posted by: devorgilla at June 29, 2008 7:09 PM

Thank-you for your testomony.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 8:13 PM

James Martel,

I re-read your comments and it confirms very greatly why Pope B16 is doing a lot of reaching out to the rest of the Christian community, an example, he attended that special gathering of Christian leaders with him when he was in America. He senses the growing tensions between Christians and Muslims. Thus his reaching out to other Christians.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 8:18 PM

I'd settle for a common ground secularism of rationality and toleration vis a vis the US Bill of Rights or the UN Charter. If we are going to be secular and resist encroachment from both religious and political extremists, we have to acknowledge a political system born in rationality and toleration. Islam is a threat to this just like Communism or Fascism. Waiting for the RC Church or the C of E to save the day is like waiting for a passenger train on a branch line long abandoned

Posted by: Dumbo at June 29, 2008 9:04 PM

I posted my one comment this morning before I left for church where I prayed for Big Luke's soul and enlightenment and just got back in a little while ago. Anybody got a problem with that?

James and Big Cat Girl are making the point that while you don't have to be a Catholic to fight jihad, anyone who uses this site to spread anti-Christian B.S. will be called on the carpet. So I don't know which complaint is more valid, the one that whines about Catholics/other Christians putting in their two cents from a religious point of view as to how to solve the onslaught of Islam or Catholics/other Christians defending themselves because someone feels icky.

Interesting to note though, that the guys in history who stood up to the Muslims in the big battles, like James Martel, Jan Sobieski, Don Juan of Austria in the Battle of Lepanto, Jean Parisot de la Valette at the battle for Malta in 1565 were all Catholic.

Big Luke, please enlighten us as to how "science continues to undermine and erode your book of fairytales." Surely, being scientific, you have some proof, right? And right after that, tell us how your non-faith based ideas can help us destroy the Muslim juggernaut that's coming right at us. Anything that works will be appreciated.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at June 29, 2008 9:11 PM

Well, when you use a name like "Isabellathecrusader" you remind me of the one of the anti-Semites who threw the Jews out of Spain and harrassed the conversos with the Inquisition.

Posted by: Dumbo at June 29, 2008 9:41 PM

Dumbo,

Taking on this current and present danger of Islamofacism requirs not just having governments that are based on democratic principals, but also non-Muslim faith communities that also believe in both FAITH and in REASON as well.

Also it would be wise to not take issue with a poster who has a screen name of her choice which involves history and historic persons.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 29, 2008 10:07 PM

As regards the 'demographic jihad': I have said it before, and I'll say it again, in terms of raw numbers we can't match the Muslims, simply because we are not prepared to use and abuse our womenfolk, as they are.

Many in the Islamosphere still start women breeding at ten - I read someone's story here in jihadwatch about a Muslim woman in Afghanistan who had never experienced a period, since she was married before menarche, subjected to intercourse as a prepubescent girl, impregnated on her very first cycle, and had a baby every year ever since. Supposing she survives (lots don't) she has, what, forty babies in her fifty years of life as 'tilth', as a baby machine?

Is anyone here, anyone at all, going to seriously advocate that we adopt the Muslim custom of forcible marrying-off our daughters as barely-pubescent or even prepubescent girls and subjecting them to yearly pregnancies for the rest of their reproductive lifespan? That would be selling our civilisational soul to the devil.

Suppose we revert to a 16th/ 17th century Catholic or Lutheran or Amish model: girls marry at 15, 16 or 17, at the earliest (I doubt any modern midwife or gynaecologist would recommend they marry any earlier) and men have one wife. Even so, the most they are likely to have is twenty kids (my own Lutheran German ancestress in the 1870s had 17 kids, including two sets of twins) which still can't beat the Muslim woman's potential of thirty or forty.

Because Catholic or Protestant men care about their wives' physical health and wellbeing, and listen to midwives, even the most child-friendly couples would probably space their babies at least 18 months apart, which means the family is more likely to involve 10, at most, rather than 20 kids.

Furthermore: since the 17th/ 18th century western societies, and then from the 19th century on, societies influenced by the west, have more and more inclined to allow women to choose their mates, rather than marrying them off, willy nilly, as soon as they reach nubile age. This means that not all kafir women, and not all kafir men, find a mate to their taste; or find their mate later in life, which reduces their chances of having a lot of children.

I married at 23 and have four children; my younger sister found her mate at age 19, and has six; another married in her late twenties, and has three; another married at 30, and has two. A number of female friends - clever, positive, pious Christian women, who would have made great mothers, and who certainly did NOT dislike or hate children , nor despise marriage - simply did not find mates. My sister-in-law, a devout Catholic Filipina, would LOVE to have made lots of fat little Aussie babies with her husband, but they did not find each other till she was in her late thirties, and it seems they are out of baby luck.

A fervently Catholic friend found her soulmate when she was 38 (after she and her family had almost resigned themselves to her being 'the one who was going to stay at home and look after the elderly parents'). She and her husband expected to miss the boat childwise; they have two sons, but that was a surprise to all.

Are we prepared to revoke a woman's freedom to choose (which carries the risk that she may not breed because of not finding a mate to her taste) and decree that ALL women once they reach 15 or 16 MUST be married whether they want to be or not, and MUST breed, whether they want to or not? We can't do it. We just can't.

Now add in, for Catholic and Orthodox communities (and also for Buddhist and Hindu societies) the fact that a percentage of pious men and women will choose a religious/ monastic vocation, i.e. celibacy, and again, you just can't match the Muslims in raw numbers.

Islam treats children as tools, as cannon fodder, as things, to be made and used and sacrificed to allah: think of the basiji, used to clear the minefields in the Iran-Iraq war; think of the thousands of daughters murdered in 'honor' murders; think of the way succession in the Ottoman line was handled, by murdering all the competing male heirs.

We kafir at our best view children as ends in themselves: a divine gift, each one uniquely precious and beautiful; we have fewer of them, and devote more time and resources to each one. We can make our societies more child-friendly and woman-friendly and family-friendly, certainly (flexitime for men is one way workplaces can do this!); but we still will not match the Muslims in the raw numbers.

If we tried to achieve their results by their methods, we would have to destroy all of our hard-won freedoms and remake ourselves in their ghastly image.

The idea that Islam values life and fertility and the family, as opposed to the 'decadent' non-Muslim world, is a furphy. Nonie Darwish, Phyllis Chesler, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan show quite sufficiently well that the Arab/Muslim model of the family is a nightmare - a forcing-ground for bizarre and deadly psychopathologies of every kind.

Take away the props of western aid and western medicine, prevent Islam from stealing its neighbours' resources, add the AIDS pandemic and the ecological/ social downward plunge characteristic of every thoroughly Islamised land, and the Muslim demographic explosion would rapidly reverse. The Ottoman Empire, once it was 'contained' and forced back upon itself, imploded. Mamluk rule in 'palestine' over a period of centuries produced not merely ecological and demographic decline, but a precipitous collapse; so did Ottoman rule in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Look at Egypt. They can't feed themselves. Without external props, they will simply: implode.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 11:55 PM

I would expect a comment like that from someone who goes by the name of Dumbo.

But please, do educate us on what a bitch Queen Isabella was. So I take it in your world, calling her an anti-semite negates the fact that she and Ferdinand expelled the Mohammedans after 700 years of tyranny on the Iberian Peninsula, uniting their country while protecting and promoting the welfare of the common man in Spain. We hear a lot about the Inquisition but usually after someone mentions that word, all discussion stops. Let me take you a little further.

Isabella did have her hands full trying to rid her kingdom of the Mohammedans. She also had to contend with some conversos who liked the status quo and did not want the reign of a Catholic sovereign. These conversos colluded with the Mohhamedans to undermine her authority. Hence, there was a reaction.

I don't know if you can really call her an anti-semite, considering that she employed many conversos in her government and also worked with Jews who did not convert. Her bankers were Jewish, the ones who lent her money for the war effort and also allowed her to pawn her jewels for the same cause. Her lifelong and best friend from childhood, Beatriz Bobadilla, was married to a converso, Andres de Cabrera, who became a trusted advisor to Ferdinand and Isabella. Her confessor was of Jewish decent. Ferdinand's escribano de racion, (a treasurer,) Luis de Santangel was descended from the Jewish Rabbi, Azarias Zinello. His maestro racional, Chief Treasurer, Sancho de Paternoy, was of Jewish decent. His friends and advisors, Jaime de la Caballeria and Juan de Cabrero, his cup-bearer, Guilleo Sanchez, his steward, Francisco Sanchez and another treasurer, Gabriel Sanchez, were all descendants of Jews. If they were so anti-semitic, it doesn't make sense that Jewish folks would be so close to the royal couple.

But Dumbo, please, enlighten us on what you know about Isabella. Or is it that you heard one line in a university class, have parroted it ever since and really don't know what you are talking about?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at June 29, 2008 11:56 PM

The above debate seems to center on the egotistical ambition of some individuals.

In fact, Christ did not preach ambition. He preached humility, self-emptying, sacrificial love for each individual we encounter in life. Our exercise of our Christianity is to meet the needs of those we meet with self-sacrificing generosity, compassion and devotion. In addition we are to pray and fast that we grow closer to God.

Salvation does not depend on what Roman Catholics do or do not do.
Salvation does not depend on who presides over any church.
Salvation does not depend on whether or not you, or any person, has the ambition to become a cleric, or becomes one.
Salvation is not about this life, but about what we as individuals do with our lives in relationship to other individuals we meet, and our relationship with God.

Christianity has nothing to do with self-fulfilling ambition, desires or glory. Self-fulfilling ambition is self-centered to the exclusion of the needs of others, those others we are to serve as we are Christians. All of this inane debate about personal ambition within Christianity is detracting from the essential truth here: an evil ideology that considers abuse, male sexual gratification, envy, butchery, torture and death sacramental expressions of their faith is about to smother Western Christianity in the same way it smothered Eastern Christianity. In 634 there were a lot more Eastern Christians than Western Christians, people!

Mohammed is coming! Mohammed is coming! Mohammed is coming! Isn't that the point of the article in this thread??? How deceived are you all when you allow the central TRUTH to by hijacked by you own temporal, petty ambitions that are not germane to salvation and your ambitions become the topic of the thread. Your self-delusion is clouding your ability to respond to the largest threat to your faith and its future for all generations: your petty ambitions.

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at June 30, 2008 2:52 AM

littlegreekwoman

Hear! Hear! Well said.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 30, 2008 4:11 AM

thelittlegreekwoman,

A well organized and well said commetary!

True the Christian MUST in both the east and the west STAND UP to the Mohammedian hordes in order to survive. Now is NOT THE TIME TO FIGHT EACH OTHER. The reason why the Muslims did well in the east was that Christians were fighting each other then just like it was shown on this thread yesterday. Good news is that I had seen the liturgy at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome encore last night, showing the Pope and the Head of the Orthodox Church. What a blessing to see the starts of full unity!

Even better news is that much faster in spreading then Islam is the spread of the Christian in the global south. The good news of the Gospels will get to all four corners despite the dangers of oppresion. Even in countries such as China, the Christian faith is GROWING. Keep an eye on that country.

Here is article:

tp://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/world/story/16b2d416da587c328625747700062b60?OpenDocument

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 30, 2008 6:09 AM

Thelittlegreeik woman wrote:

"The above debate seems to center on the egotistical ambition of some individuals."

Bigcatgirl wrote:

"A well organized and well said commetary!"

I think you're one of the ones she's talking about, bcc.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 30, 2008 11:44 AM

BigCatGirl ...

Acts 1:14, which states that the original nucleus of the church included the apostles, “along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” “The women” may refer to wives of the apostles, or to the women who followed Jesus (see Luke 8:2-3, for examples). [see http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/ministry/women7.htm]

And try to remember that by 200AD much had been scrubbed from the history of the church, bent throughly by Greek and Roman culture. If you're not familiar with the extreme male-worship in Greek society AFTER the invasion of the Dorians, you might want to look into that.

Whatever, there is ample evidence women served as full deacons in the entire time for the CREATION of a priesthood along the patriarchal precepts that were slowly and very repressively introduced into the church.

So, this whole thing was NOT Jesus' doing, and at least Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, had at least the status of the other apostles. Books and writings detailing their participation and the esteem with which particularly Mary Magdalene was held were stricken from the "official" (allowed) books of the Bible by patriarchs extremely intent upon making sure women were put into and kept in a state of subjugation to male authority, this time using "God's will" as the enforcement mechanism.

Had Jesus had ANY instructions for the priesthood, he would have SAID them. He placed no restriction. That was done by people coming after him, most notably Paul, who had no personal relationship or experience of Jesus at all. Paul's writings are despicably anti-female and misogynist and should be stricken from the New Testament, as has been suggested by a number of scholars, who do not believe him to be representative of Jesus orientation of teachings.

But, of course, his writings are EXTREMELY useful for the people whose major intent in religious administration is maintaining falsely attained privilege. One recent case of this is the president of Bob Jones who fired a female Hebrew teacher of nearly 25 years standing because he found a verse somewhere in the Bible that said that no woman should ever be allowed to teach a man.

We have a fit when the Muslims say this, but not when our own church "fathers" do it to us.

I would not think it necessary to even have to stand on some kind of precedent on a basic human rights issue. I don't care if this is the way people have done it FOREVER — and the people who abolished slavery on moral grounds had NEVER known a world without it — but the precendent is actually fully there.

Barring women from the priesthood is evil, it's wrong, it's against basic human rights and equality.

AND BTW (to another above,) I'm the one who makes a 5-hour roundtrip half a dozen times a month to attend my favorite CATHOLIC church, so shut up and stop lying. How dare you launch an ad hominem attack accusing me of hating Christianity and/or the Catholic Church, when I'm the one trying to set it right and help rid it of its own sins. And this is DEFINITELY a sin.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at June 30, 2008 12:16 PM

Big Luke,

It also applies to you too, fair is fair.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 30, 2008 12:58 PM

Morgaan Sinclair wrote to bigcatgirl:

"How dare you launch an ad hominem attack accusing me of hating Christianity and/or the Catholic Church..."

I just re-read all of bigcatgirl13106's posts (including the long one addressed to Morgaan Sinclair), and I failed to find one scintilla of evidence supporting Morgaan Sinclair's claim I quoted above; i.e., I found no evidence in any of bigcatgirl13106's posts supporting the claim that she "launched an ad hominem attack accusing" Morgaan Sinclair of "hating Christianity and/or the Catholic Church".

Posted by: DenverRodeo at June 30, 2008 3:40 PM

@ DenverRodeo

Don't be such a chump.

Read Marisols instructions above - walk away from this.

Posted by: Big Luke at June 30, 2008 4:39 PM

DenverRodeo,

Thank-you for your good word. Just ignore Big Luke, I have decided to ignore him myself. There is no more arguing.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 30, 2008 6:46 PM