On Sunday, November 9, 2014, I had the honor of speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ Veterans Day Ceremonies in Sierra Madre, California. Hard-Left California Representative Judy Chu was on hand to give awards to several of the veterans, was in the front row for my talk, and was not happy at getting a dose of the truth.
More about the event here.
Many thanks to Don for his help with this video.
Don McKellar says
This is an excellent, very natural and engaging talk, Robert! Absorbing. What kind of a pathetically small, closed, locked-out of reality mind must it take not to listen to this and not recognize what’s going on the world, and what’s so wrong with the way the powers that be are handling it? How much more obviously can it be laid out?
Don McKellar says
I haven’t even finished watching it all, and half-way through had to comment. I’m listening to the rest and it’s getting better and better!
gaoptimize says
Robert Spencer, for at least one day, was the Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
to adapt a quote:
“Jihadis? We ain’t got no jihadis. We don’t need no jihadis. I don’t have to show you any stinking jihadis!
Kevin Walker says
Haha. I remember that scene & lines spoken by Alfonso Bedoya, the Mexican bandit.
Cornelius says
As always, our Fearless Leader presents himself and his argument with grace, composure, and irrefutable logic. Well Done Robert!
Jihad Crusader says
“Well done My good and faithful servant…!”
dumbledoresarmy says
Hi, Cornelius!
Long time no see. Have you been lurking but not posting, or have you been away altogether?
Anyway, nice to see you posting and hope you are well.
Harmeet Walia says
I hear the problems voiced in various forums ( especially on your website) loud and clear, the problem is what remedies can be employed? What is needed is a out of box solutions. Muslims should be required to set their house in order. The US Muslims should take the lead, and set an example to the Muslim world as to how it views the acts of terror of their fellow Muslims.
1 Pass a fatwa against jihadist excommunicating them from the faith. The fatwa in no uncertain terms deem their acts as blasphemy as they bring dishonor to Islam.
2. For every beheadings or acts of ethnic cleansing, raping and slavery that comes to the attention, US Muslims ( by a number they can decide for example,, 1 act of terror should equal to 100 followers of true Islam to exit their faith). They should refuse to enter a mosque or display any article of faith. Once the religious leaders and organizations see how their numbers are decreased, they will take measures to cleanse their faith. Non- Muslims should not interfere but do a likewise protest if their organized religion indulge in terror. Every human being irrespective of their faith should engage in such non-violent protest of abandoning their faith, when the followers of their faith indulge in mindless violence.
3 The law of reciprocity should be applied to all religions. If any country does not allow other religions to practice or build places of worship, then the citizens of such nations should be not allowed into countries where they are allowed to practice their faith. Humans reform only when there are penalties.
4. When ISIS or Al Qaeda promote and indulge in violence, a Muslim Army drawing upon all Muslim Nations should volunteer and eliminate such threats. It is incumbent when non-state actors indulge in violence, non-state volunteers need to curtail it.
5. Those who belong to any religious faith should have a likewise charter of actions when their fellow followers indulge in acts of violence. Every follower of any faith and by extension their faith in God and goodness should uphold the principles of ethical human behavior.
Although some of the actions stated above may be idealist in nature, we have to begin somewhere. Just like they have the Geneva convention for the conduct of war, we need a charter to end religious violence and the solutions should come from those who follow their religions. Unless God personally appears on TV and rules whose God and whose Religion is the chosen one, all religions and humanity need to find ways to conduct themselves ethically and coexist in a non-violent manner. This nonsense of killing in Gods name has to Stop.
Western Canadian says
No other ‘religion’ is committing the crimes that islam is, and no other ‘religion’ sanctions such crimes, only islam. Your comments are insulting nonsense.
Harmeet Walia says
Western Canadian,
Appreciate your kind response. If my solutions are ” insulting nonsense”, would love to hear your sensible solutions.
St. Patrick says
Burn all kookoorans,destroy all mosques,and decry Fidel! and then everybody listens to Classical Gas by Mason Williams..That work for ya?
Western Canadian says
What part of the only ‘religion’ committing these crimes did you not understand? Perhaps adding that islam is also the only ‘religion’ that sanctifies and encourages crimes against humanity would make it clear that your ‘suggestions’ are all un-Islamic??
Bezelel says
Harmeet,(5. Those who belong to any religious faith should have a likewise charter of actions when their fellow followers indulge in acts of violence. Every follower of any faith and by extension their faith in God and goodness should uphold the principles of ethical human behavior.)
The Principals of islam is the problem, it has nothing to do with ethics. It is all about justification of unethical by anyone except muslim standards.
Mo says
@ Harmeet Walia says
What a vile attempt to equate “all religions” – y’know, like they’re all the same or something. As Western Canadian rightly said, it is insulting.
There’s only ONE religion whose followers are committing these violent acts all around the world, on a regular basis, in direct obedience to its texts.
Care to take a guess at which one that is?
Harmeet Walia says
I think you folks are “cherry picking” my narrative. Of course Islam has a problem, my suggestion is to have a out of the box solution that forces Muslims to take a stand against their own. I was not equating other religions, Perhaps I ran into the wrong website, but I feel we all should be problem solvers. We owe it to humanity to find solutions when Muslims cannot solve it, we should propose solutions that have the potential to work. Anger, hateful remarks, “destroying mosques” , insulting, belittling,do not solve problems, they polarize society. If these are your proposed solutions, then jihadists too engage in the same conversation. Hate is a language of adversaries. It does not solve anything. I would still love to hear solutions that have the potential to work. You may choose to direct ridicule at me, I am not offended but would love to see a cerebral response instead of a visceral one.
Mo says
@ Harmeet Walia
“Of course Islam has a problem, ”
Islam doesn’t have a problem. Islam IS the problem.
” If these are your proposed solutions, then jihadists too engage in the same conversation. ”
See? Now you are equating us here with jihadists.
Looks like YOU are the wrong website. We don’t put up with those sorts of games here. (We’ve seen this sort of thing oh-so-often.)
“Hate is a language of adversaries.”
LOL! Here we go!
Anything to say on the jihadists? Or just whining about perceived “hate” here?
St. Patrick says
What did Che and Fidel do?
Bezelel says
Hameet, Pamela Geller has suggested that islam expunge the violent texts from the koran. Sill what to do in the mean time when confronted with an enemy who is progressively advancing their agenda to destroy civilization? As long as their efforts are successful they will continue to progress.Hence a halt to their progress is primary. How? Diplomacy? Not working.
Myxlplik says
Hameet,
I agree we have an immigration problem, & a brilliant solution would be to restrict immigration from Islamic countries which discriminate against minorities. This is all of them at this point.
Western Canadian says
” I am not offended but would love to see a cerebral response instead of a visceral one.”
Since you have offered nothing that is even faintly cerebral, this comment is at best foolish, at worst, completely dishonest. Your so-called ‘solutions’ are all un-Islamic. Any muslim decent enough to oppose any, repeat ANY, aspect of islam, is no longer a muslim, according to islam itself. You have proposed nothing.
EvenSo says
Robert Spencer – thank you for a very good speech.
pdxnag says
Nice concise speech. The audio quality was superb. I wish folks would begin to have a credit line in their videos for the audio tools used and perhaps the name of the audio engineer.
Don says
pdxnag – I am with you. Wish people would share their technology more so we could all improve our skills. As the person who recorded (head on angle) and edited the video, I can share with you that the setup was pretty basic. I was using a Canon Vixia HFM500 video camera (very affordable and highly recommended to me by professional videographers). The camera was recording right in front of the PA system, so I was able to reduce the record volume, thereby reducing the background noise typical in an outside setting. The camera has great flexibility in audio and video settings.
KiwiKaffir says
A great Speach by Mr. spencer. I just wish our politicians could hear it!
duh_swami says
A-1 as usual. Islams agents are good at deception by words. So good that after a decade of explaining it, more explaining is needed. The really short explanation is one word, ‘evil’. If you want to know what that consists of, Robert would be happy to explain it, as would numbers of other people who understand the problem…
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Good speech, as always. I’m curious as to how Rep. Chu manifested her dislike of it. Did she just make a lot of sour faces, or say derogatory things afterwards?
Jihad Crusader says
Robert:
Baesd on the comments so far, the content of your talk could not have been more perfect…fundamental principals of dangers and consequeces of Islamofacism and the infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood Islamists in all levals of our government. It’s unfortunate that you did not have enough time to touch on the indoctrination of 7th graders on Islam in public schools across the U.S., as well as players involved who are close to the Obama Administration. The information you shared is just the tip of the iceberg. We will work to get the national VFW more involved in the education and defense process, as active duty U.S. Military Senior Officers have been either silenced or fired…9 November 2014 was the beginning.
andrew sapia says
The left will never counter Robert’s arguments, they will only attack him personally. I would like to hear someone on the left make a substantive argument against what he just said. I watch a lot of ant-jihad stuff online. Hell I am 50 years old and have 3 daughters and 6 grandchildren and am very concerned. I have yet to hear a clear refutation of what Robert has said hear. It is all emotional and put in terms of discrimination rather than a real threat by religious fanatics that want to do us harm.
Bruce says
A few comments: This issue is not easily divided into left-wing/right-wing partisanship. George W. Bush said “Islam is a religion of peace.” Bill Maher is generally thought of as left-wing, and his friend, Christopher Hitchens, was a socialist. As Robert Spencer pointed out (yet again), almost all of the politicians across the spectrum, both here and in Europe, have this wrong. Most religions have some really nasty stuff in their scriptures – take a look at the Book of Joshua – but have evolved over the centuries to embrace, or at least accept, tolerance. Islamic scripture is especially nasty, Muslims have never gone through an Enlightenment, and the whole religion seems to be evolving in the wrong direction at this juncture. Ideally, Muslims themselves will turn their religion around, and join the civilized world; the first step must be to stop lying about what the problem is. I suspect that we are in for a long, twilight war against this evil. Our best weapon against it is ridicule (OK, drones work pretty well), which is why the Islamic fifth columnists in the West are attacking, first and foremost, free speech.
andrew sapia says
The injunction for Joshua to kill the Amalekites was a specific injunction for a specific time and place not an open ended command for all time. This is one major difference regardless of what one thinks of the supposed genocide in the old testament.
The injunctions in the Koran are not specific to time and place they are open ended, fighting infidels, kaffirs, and people of the book (Jews and Christians), these are commands for today and for the future.
The difference between the protestant reformation and the supposed need of one in Islam is that this is the Islamic reformation. The church reformers were going back to what the scriptures said. This is why the radical reformers were almost all pacifists. The problem is that when you do the same thing with Islam you get not Quakers and Mennonites, you get ISIS and Boko Harram. This is the Islamic version of the reformation.
Mo says
@ Bruce
Here we go yet AGAIN with the stupid comparisons.
“Most religions have some really nasty stuff in their scriptures –
Is that so? Like what?
“take a look at the Book of Joshua ”
When did you read/study the book of Joshua?
Can you show me the open-ended commands there for Jews to kill unbelievers?
Can you show me where Jews (or Christians) are committing such acts all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to those commands? You seem to know a lot about the book of Joshua, so that should be easy for you to answer. Right?
“– but have evolved over the centuries to embrace, or at least accept, tolerance. ”
What intolerance did you find in the book of Joshua that you think must be changed?
Bruce says
I will answer Andrew first: I’m an atheist, and I find much of the Old and New Testaments objectionable for reasons that have little to do with this discussion, but even if our overall view of religion is different, I don’t think that we’re as far apart as you seem to think regarding Islam. I agree that the horrific parts of the Old Testament are specific to time and place; however, they could be used to justify some very unpleasant behavior. My point was the same as yours: they are not so used. For various historical reasons, the Jews have evolved past barbaric violence.
Some early Protestants were pacifists, most were not. The religious wars, especially of the 16th and 17th centuries, were essentially over religious compulsion. Yes, there were doctrinal differences, but the reason that they were WARS was compulsion. The reason that they ended was the Enlightenment. I’ll agree that I’ve just oversimplified a lot of history, if you’ll agree that we don’t need to argue about it. The main point is that compulsion is central to Islam, and I believe I’ve already said that Islamic doctrine is “especially nasty.” I don’t think that Islam needs a reformation so much as it needs an Enlightenment – a broad movement to reconcile its doctrine with rational thought and hard-won principles of tolerance and freedom that we have in the West. As I also said, things are moving in the wrong direction, and I doubt that I’m alone in feeling pessimistic (the prospect of a “long, twilight war” doesn’t fill me with joy).
As for Mo’s comments, of course I’ve read the Book of Joshua – why else would I cite it? Look at Andrew’s comments if you want to know what’s morally wrong with it, or, better yet, read it yourself. No civilized person could endorse what’s in there. Of course I can’t point to Christians or Jews committing the sort of acts, in the name of Joshua or any other scripture, that the Muslims are now committing in the name of their religion – that was the whole point of my comment. Horrible things have been done in the past in the name of both Christianity and Judaism – if you don’t believe me, read some history – and if we could nevertheless get to the point in the West where the American Constitution was written, then perhaps the Islamic world can get there too, but, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, they have ALL of their work in front of them, and meantime we need to keep our powder dry.
Mo says
@ Bruce
“As for Mo’s comments, of course I’ve read the Book of Joshua – why else would I cite it? Look at Andrew’s comments if you want to know what’s morally wrong with it, or, better yet, read it yourself.”
I’ve read it. That’s why I asked you provide the open-ended commands from there or anywhere else in the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. It’s why I also asked for the examples of Jews or Christians commiting these violent acts on a regular basis, all around the world, in obedience to those open-ended commands.
“No civilized person could endorse what’s in there.”
There’s nothing wrong with God pronouncing judgment on wicked people. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
“Of course I can’t point to Christians or Jews committing the sort of acts, in the name of Joshua or any other scripture, that the Muslims are now committing in the name of their religion – that was the whole point of my comment. ”
No, your point was to try and equate the Bible with the Koran and Christianity with Islam.
“Horrible things have been done in the past in the name of both Christianity and Judaism”
And again, the comparison.
There are NO open-ended commands in the Bible for either Jews or Christians to commit violence against anyone. That’s why you didn’t provide that evidence.
Stop trying to equate Islam with Christianity or Judaism in that regard. There is no equality to be had. Zero. None.
Bruce says
OK, Mo, you asked for it. I’ll answer your points in logical order:
Me: “No civilized person could endorse what’s in there. [The Book of Joshua.]”
You: “There’s nothing wrong with God pronouncing judgment on wicked people. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.”
Starting with Joshua 1:
“After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord spoke to Joshua son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, saying, ‘My servant Moses is dead. Now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and the Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory. No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you may be successful wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.’”
Notice that God doesn’t say that the people in the land are wicked, only that their land has been promised to the Israelites. The first place that Joshua took was Jericho. The Israelites behaved exactly as God instructed them to, and here’s what happened:
“So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.”
“Joshua then pronounced this oath, saying,
‘Cursed before the Lord be anyone who tries
to build this city—this Jericho!
At the cost of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation,
and at the cost of his youngest he shall set up its gates!’”
How did God feel about this genocidal massacre?
“So the Lord was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land.”
Do I really have to copy out the entire Book of Joshua? The whole book is the same. And yes, it’s morally wrong, in fact it’s a travesty, and not just because I don’t like it.
You: “I’ve read it [Joshua]. That’s why I asked you provide the open-ended commands from there or anywhere else in the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. It’s why I also asked for the examples of Jews or Christians commiting [sic] these violent acts on a regular basis, all around the world, in obedience to those open-ended commands.”
I doubt that you’ve read it, since you seem to think that it involves punishing the wicked, but the book provides plenty of commands to commit violence. Whether they are “open-ended” commands depends to a large extent on who’s reading them. I will provide some examples below, while answering your other points.
Me: “Of course I can’t point to Christians or Jews committing the sort of acts, in the name of Joshua or any other scripture, that the Muslims are now committing in the name of their religion – that was the whole point of my comment.”
You: “No, your point was to try and equate the Bible with the Koran and Christianity with Islam.”
I didn’t equate them, but now I will. Here are some of the passages, from Deuteronomy, that were used to justify the Inquisition:
“If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.”
“If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom you have not known, then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt-offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt.”
Notice that these passages are very similar to the Koran’s passages instructing Muslims to kill apostates. From the New Testament, and more familiar to the victims of the Inquisition, is John 15:
“Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
There are other Old Testament passages that are horrifyingly similar to a Koranic verse – first, from Judges:
“So the congregation sent twelve thousand soldiers there and commanded them, ‘Go, put the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead to the sword, including the women and the little ones. This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.’ And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man and brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.”
“ Then the whole congregation sent word to the Benjaminites who were at the rock of Rimmon, and proclaimed peace to them. Benjamin returned at that time; and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead…”
Haven’t had enough? Numbers:
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Does that sound familiar? You either believe that these things happened, or you believe that the Old Testament is a load of crap.
Me: “Horrible things have been done in the past in the name of both Christianity and Judaism.”
You: “And again, the comparison.
There are NO open-ended commands in the Bible for either Jews or Christians to commit violence against anyone. That’s why you didn’t provide that evidence.
Stop trying to equate Islam with Christianity or Judaism in that regard. There is no equality to be had. Zero. None.”
There is plenty. You could justify the Crusades as a response to a vast Muslim assault on the West (but watch out, you’ll end up as politically incorrect as I am), but it would be hard indeed to justify a thousand years of savage Christian attacks on Jews as “self defense.” They were justified, in the minds of the perpetrators, by the Christian religion. My point all along here has been that, as evilly as Judaism and Christianity have acted in the past, they have been tamed through a long, difficult process. It’s possible that Islam could undergo such a process, but there’s little evidence that that’s happening. Quite the contrary.
By the way, thanks for getting me worked up enough to write this – I don’t know if anyone will read it, but you have started me on a project that I’ve been thinking about for some time.
Mo says
@ Bruce
Too funny! How I love it when atheists pull this stunt. They’re loathe to go after Islam, but when it comes to the Bible and Christians, they cannot help but let their true hatred shine through. I love it.
Now, where’s the evidence I asked for? You know, those open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers?
And all those Jews and Christians who are committing such acts on a regular basis, all over the world, on a regular basis in obedience to those command?
You know you’ve got NOTHING.
Bruce says
I cited several examples that have been used historically. I don’t have time to write out the entire Bible and analyze it, at least tonight. As to why I haven’t given examples of Christians and Jews, around the world, behaving today the same way we see Muslims behaving, all I can say is that you appear not to have understood a single word that I wrote. As for atheists being “loathe” to criticize Islam, you should Google Christopher Hitchens on the subject, or Aayan Hirsi Ali, or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, who actually started the argument with Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s show. In my first post, I said “Islamic scripture is especially nasty, Muslims have never gone through an Enlightenment, and the whole religion seems to be evolving in the wrong direction.” I refer to it as “this evil,” and suggest using ridicule and drones against it, and then refer to “Islamic fifth-columnists” in the West. If I’d been talking about you, would you feel complimented?
Mo says
@ Bruce
“I cited several examples that have been used historically.”
Christians or Jews use passages from Joshua to commit violence against unbelievers? Really?
“I don’t have time to write out the entire Bible and analyze it, at least tonight. ”
That’s because you can search it from beginning to end and you won’t find ANY open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or anyone else. Not one.
“As to why I haven’t given examples of Christians and Jews, around the world, behaving today the same way we see Muslims behaving, all I can say is that you appear not to have understood a single word that I wrote.”
No, it’s you that doesn’t seem to understand.
I asked you to provide some evidence of these open ended commands, along with the examples of Jews or Christians obeying these commands.
You’ve got nothing. And you know it.
Please go play games with someone else. I’ve played this game far too many times with atheists. The topic starts off with ISLAM (you know that religion that DOES have these open ended commands and its adherent obeying them?) but before you know it, it’s aaaaaaaaaaaaaall about the Bible.
Bruce says
The Biblical scripture that I cited as supporting violence against unbelievers was Deuteronomy and John, used historically to justify the Inquisition. I quoted the Book of Joshua to answer your claim that “There’s nothing wrong with God pronouncing judgment on wicked people,” so you could see for yourself that no one accused them of being wicked, and that there is indeed a lot wrong with that scripture. I began my comments by discussing Islam, and I’ve tried to bring this back to Islam many times. I will leave it to any third party who may read through the thread to decide which one of us has insisted that “it’s aaaaaaaaaaaaaall about the Bible.” I agree with you about one thing: it’s time for us to quit.
Jihad Crusader says
The truth about the Inquisition…the facts:
For people who lived during the Middle Ages, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery. in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
Most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.
During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches’ sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.
Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened.
Mo says
@ Jihad Crusader
Don’t fall for the trick of being put on the defensive! The one making the comparison/equality between Islam and Christianity is the one who has to prove their claim!
This is just a game many anti-theists play. They loathe Christianity and so they attempt to equate it with Islam. Next thing you know, Christians get drawn down the rabbit hole, trying to disprove the accusations.
Before you know it, the ENTIRE discussion is on Christianity and all its perceived faults, instead of ISLAM.
It’s a game. Don’t fall for it!
Jihad Crusader says
Thanks, Mo.
The Truth shall set those free who care to hear The Truith. Lies about the Inquisition (as well as the Crusades) have been spewed out to the unknowing / ignorant for hundreds of years,
Regarding Islam, it is a political, fascist, totalitarian ideology that hides behind the mask of religion. Islam failed miserably in Mecca for years before Mohammed moved to Medina, where he turned Islam into an evil, brutal political sytem. Islam is NOT one of the “great religions” of the world..Islamism is the antithesis of Judaism and Christianity.Facts and actions speak for themselves…Islamists love death more than they love life.
Mo says
@ Jihad Crusader
Yep!
E. Alexandra Pierce says
“No, it’s you that doesn’t seem to understand… You’ve got nothing. And you know it.”
Oh, you’re wrong there, Mo. Bruce has made his case very well, and quite civilly. You, however, did not.
One of the reasons why counter-Jihad discussions between the non-religious and Christians get derailed so often is because many Christians are unable to address the issue without putting it in their own biased context. All too often they make declarations like, “The reason contemporary Christianity is so civilized compared to Islam is because there’s no scriptural basis in Christianity for [insert atrocity here].” It’s simply not true, and there’s no obligation for anyone to pretend it’s true for the sake of agreeing about the problem of Islam. If anything, promulgating such statements compounds the problem. If you’re going to hinge a position against Islam on the unwarranted belief that it’s literally incapable of undergoing an Enlightenment process, then you may as well stick a fork in counter-jihad right now. As a person of faith, you should know better than most that it’s asinine to expect people will just drop their religion if you tell them enough times how much it sucks. The only realistic expectation is that unrelenting criticism of Islam will lead to a shift in interpretation of doctrine – not the elimination of it.
Mo says
@ E. Alexandra Pierce
“Oh, you’re wrong there, Mo. Bruce has made his case very well, and quite civilly. You, however, did not.”
Nonsense. He’s claiming the book of Joshua – an account of wartime and judgement by God of very wicked people – (you’ve read it, right?) has any similarity to anything in the Koran.
It’s false. Period.
“One of the reasons why counter-Jihad discussions between the non-religious and Christians get derailed so often is because many Christians are unable to address the issue without putting it in their own biased context. ”
Saying facts is biased? How do you figure that?
“All too often they make declarations like, “The reason contemporary Christianity is so civilized compared to Islam is because there’s no scriptural basis in Christianity for [insert atrocity here].” ”
It’s true. But next you are going to claim it is not.
” It’s simply not true, and there’s no obligation for anyone to pretend it’s true for the sake of agreeing about the problem of Islam. :
Bingo! (I could do this in my sleep!) See what I mean?
I will ask you the same thing I asked Bruce: 1) Present to me the open-ended commands from the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. 2) Then show me where Jews or Christians are committing such acts all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to those open-ended commands.
Bruce couldn’t do it. Neither can you. And you know it.
The ones who are biased are anti-theists like you, who loathe all religion but particularly Christianity. You WANT there to be a similarity between Christianity and Islam so you can continue your biased lumping together of all religions as being more or less the same.
And you’ll even make false claims to do so, like you’ve done here.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Mo: “Nonsense. He’s claiming the book of Joshua – an account of wartime and judgement by God of very wicked people – (you’ve read it, right?) has any similarity to anything in the Koran. It’s false. Period.”
Except Bruce proved the opposite. He quoted from the very book in question, which plainly revealed that Joshua slaughtered an entire people (except the female virgins) and there’s no mention of those people being wicked. The reason given is that they happened to be on land that Yahweh decided the Hebrews should have. It’s exactly like what Muhammed later did. You provided nothing to refute that.
Mo: “I will ask you the same thing I asked Bruce: 1) Present to me the open-ended commands from the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers… Bruce couldn’t do it. Neither can you. And you know it.”
Except he did. Bruce provided a plethora of Biblical examples of horrendous barbarity which could very well be taken as open-ended commands similar to those in the Quran. And again, your argument pretty much consisted of sticking out your bottom lip and saying, “Nuh-uh!” instead of proving him wrong.
Mo: “2) Then show me where Jews or Christians are committing such acts all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to those open-ended commands.”
Bruce never claimed that, which only reinforces his conclusion that everything he DID say has either sailed over your head, or you didn’t actually read it. In fact, he said the opposite. He said that isn’t happening, not because the scriptural basis isn’t there, but due to a centuries-long process of reformation and Enlightenment undertaken by Judaism and Christianity which resulted in those texts being either ignored or re-interpreted.
Mo: “The ones who are biased are anti-theists like you, who loathe all religion but particularly Christianity. You WANT there to be a similarity between Christianity and Islam so you can continue your biased lumping together of all religions as being more or less the same.”
Oh dear. That’s just not the case, Mo. Not in my case, and judging from Bruce’s posts, not his either. In fact, I was in solid agreement with Sam Harris (who Bruce mentioned) when he addressed a convention of atheists and criticized the tendency to equate modern-day Christian extremism with Islamic extremism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA
Like Harris, Bruce unequivocally agrees with you that Islam is horrendous compared to contemporary Christianity (and Judaism). I echo that sentiment. We agree Islam needs to be ridiculed and criticized and countered, and we do so.
You’ve chosen not to acknowledge such things in what we say. Instead, you’re having a hissy fit because we’re not humoring your erroneous assertion that contemporary Christianity is largely peaceful because it’s inherent in the scriptures. Unfortunately, that assertion needs to be refuted for the sake of progress, which leads back to what I said before (the only part of my post which you tellingly neglected to screech about): promulgating such statements compounds the problem. If you’re going to hinge a position against Islam on the unwarranted belief that it’s literally incapable of undergoing an Enlightenment process, then you may as well stick a fork in counter-jihad right now. As a person of faith, you should know better than most that it’s asinine to expect people will just drop their religion if you tell them enough times how much it sucks. The only realistic expectation is that unrelenting criticism of Islam will lead to a shift in interpretation of doctrine – not the elimination of it.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
I read it – and I admit to usually skimming longer posts on forums, regardless of whatever position is being taken. You have an engaging style, though. If I may ask, what is the project you’ve been inspired to tackle?
Bruce says
E. Alexandra,
Thanks for reading the posts carefully. You won’t get through to Mo – he’s obsessed with the idea that the only way to fight Islam is to convert everyone to Christianity. As you pointed out, that’s not going to happen. Without getting into a long historical wrangle with Jihad Crusader about the Inquisition, I will simply say that in order for the church to get control over medieval heresy trials, the church itself had to believe that heresy was legitimately a crime. Heresy is a crime that can only be committed within the context of religion. My point, which I believe you agreed with, was that Christians used to burn people at the stake for heresy – they don’t anymore. Muslims do. Of course that means that Christianity is superior to Islam; but it also means that if Christianity could become civilized and enlightened, so, possibly, could Islam. If not, then, as you’ve pointed out, we may as well stop talking about it, and prepare for a war of extermination. We’ll see who gets to play Carthage, and we might remember that the Punic Wars had terrible consequences for Rome, as well.
As for my project, I would like to create a website modeled on Robert Spencer’s “Blogging the Koran,” which I’ve been reading. My perspective is atheist, while his is Catholic; I would start with the OT, then the NT, and finally the Koran.
Mo has assumed that you are an atheist, simply because you agreed with me, but I don’t see any particular evidence that you are. Certainly, a lot of my friends and acquaintances, and many writers, all of whom are Christian or Jewish, have opinions that are consistent with mine. Most Christians and Jews, along with atheists, are tolerant, and many agree with me, and the other atheists I’ve mentioned in previous posts, that the intolerant, misogynistic, primitive, religious compulsion of Islam, backed by brutal violence, is an existential threat to everything we believe in.
Mo says
@ Bruce
“Thanks for reading the posts carefully. You won’t get through to Mo – he’s obsessed with the idea that the only way to fight Islam is to convert everyone to Christianity.”
First of all, I am female.
But more importantly, now you’re going to outright LIE about me? Show me your evidence that I’ve said or even remotely implied any such thing. . SHOW it to me. Or at least have the decency to apologize for lying about me. I’ve done nothing of that sort to you.
(You know, after you provide the open ended comments from the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers, and the examples of Jews or Christians committing such acts all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to those open ended commands.)
I don’t give a rat’s tail what you believe, but you will NOT lie about me in public like that.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
lol. Mo, honey, you sound about as mature as a toddler who’s throwing a tempter tantrum over being told they can’t have a cookie before dinner. After all your posts full of hissing lies like “you atheist/anti-theists just hate Christianity above all other religions,” and puffed-up challenges like “show where Christians and Jews are committing such acts all over the world regularly,” despite no such assertions being made, your overblown, false indignation is just plain unseemly. “I’ve done nothing of that sort to you,” you say. Oh, my word.
Lady, wake up and smell what you’re shoveling. He’s been nothing but civil to you in the face of your puerile sneers. If there’s anyone who ought to be apologizing, it’s you.
Bruce says
Well, Mo, I apologize for assuming that you were a man. I’m a man myself, so I didn’t really mean it as an insult. My mistake.
As for my statement that you wanted to solve the problem of Jihadist Islam by converting the Muslims to Christians, that was not a lie, but an assumption. Instead of throwing a tantrum about it, you might ask yourself what you’ve said that would lead me to that conclusion, and to my genuine surprise that you’re offended.
First off, you have repeatedly characterized Islam as pure evil, that cannot be compared to other religions. When “Crusader Jihad” – whose pen name suggests his [her?] solution – wrote that Islam is “an evil, brutal political sytem [sic]. Islam is NOT one of the “great religions” of the world,” your response was “Yep!” So I have ASSUMED that you think that there’s a problem with Islam.
If there’s a problem, then there should be a solution. That’s what this thread is supposed to be about. I pointed out that other religions have been tamed, and that perhaps Islam could be as well. My comment was that we should hit them with drones when we have to, with ridicule all the time, and vigorously defend the First Amendment from attacks by Islamic fifth columnists. The general tone of your response to me, along with your ad hominem attacks, led me to ASSUME that you disagreed with me.
E. Alexandra Pierce pointed out to you that if Islam cannot be changed, as other religions have changed, then this whole conversation is useless. “If you’re going to hinge a position against Islam on the unwarranted belief that it’s literally incapable of undergoing an Enlightenment process, then you may as well stick a fork in counter-jihad right now.” I agreed with her, and pointed out that the alternative is a war of extermination. She and I both gave you several invitations to tell us your solution. Your response was to call her an “anti-theist,” although she hasn’t said anything about her own religious beliefs.
I once heard Anne Coulter say that we should conquer the Middle East and convert everyone to Christianity. Since you seem to be a kindred spirit with her, and since you have disagreed with the very basis of other obvious solutions, I ASSUMED that you agreed with her. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. What do you think we should do about Al Qaida, ISIS, Hamas and the like? What do you think we should do about blasphemy laws, rape gangs, and the Saudis with their madrassas and their oil money? How does this end? Forget atheists, forget the Bible (unless I was right, and you agree with Coulter) – answer the question.
Mo says
@ Bruce
“As for my statement that you wanted to solve the problem of Jihadist Islam by converting the Muslims to Christians, that was not a lie, but an assumption.”
Assumptions? That’s what lies are called these days?
I’m still waiting for those open ended comments from the Bible that command Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. As well as the evidence of all those Jews or Christians committing such acts all over the world, on a regular basis, in obedience to those open ended commands.
“First off, you have repeatedly characterized Islam as pure evil, that cannot be compared to other religions.”
It is evil, as evidenced by the evidence presented at this site day after day, month after month, year after year.
It is evil, as evidenced by its texts. (You’d know that if you’d bothered to read them.)
It is evil, as evidenced by its followers obeying its commands and the example of its warlord, child rapist prophet, Mohammad.
Which of these facts do you disagree with?
I’m done reading your nonsense.
Provide the evidence asked for repeatedly. You know you won’t. Because you know it does not exist.
Bruce says
Well, after a 2 week hiatus, we’re back at it. I’ll work backwards from your last comment.
I did provide the scriptural evidence you asked for, which justified the Inquisition. Christian inquisitors didn’t burn heretics “all over the world” only because there weren’t Christians all over the world, but they were in a large part of it. Either you were too dim to understand what I wrote (although it was right out of the Bible), or you never bothered to read it. Either way, your statement that you are “done” reading my “nonsense” rings hollow. You either haven’t read it or couldn’t understand it if you did.
I don’t “disagree” with your statements about Islam – I have stated all along that Islamic scripture is evil, and so are Muslim acts, largely based on that scripture. That was a central part of my point, which, again, you don’t seem capable of understanding. The fact that Christians and Jews no longer commit atrocious acts “all over the world” has also been central to my argument, but, doggedly ignoring everything I’ve said, you keep demanding that I “prove” the opposite.
Finally, an “assumption” and a “lie” are not the same thing. Get a dictionary. Everything you’ve said in this thread indicates that you think that Muslims should be forcibly converted to Christianity. If that conclusion isn’t true, then you have been repeatedly invited to tell us what is true, and you have refused to do so. Your answer has been, “Waahhh! You’re a liar!” Really? Then tell us the truth.