Five hundred years ago Tuesday, on October 31, 1517, a Catholic monk named Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a German church, thereby launching what would come to be known as the Protestant Reformation. Whatever else can be said of him, Luther unwittingly initiated something else that is often overlooked. As European historian Franco Cardini explains it, “The Reformation produced one logical if unexpected result: a definite boost to the positive evaluation of Islam, and therefore to the birth and development of an often conventional and mannered pro-Islamic stance” in the West.
Thus, although Luther maintained the traditional Christian view of Islam — denouncing the Koran as a “cursed, shameful, desperate” book filled with “dreadful abominations” — he condemned the concept of crusading, which had been essential for the survival of some European Christians, such as those of Spain: since its conquest by Islam in the eighth century, the Iberian Peninsula had faced wave after wave of Islamic incursions emanating from North Africa (especially at the hands of the Almoravids and the Almohads, whose jihadi zeal and barbarous means far surpassed anything ISIS can come up with).
Nor was Luther merely against crusading “over there” (e.g., to liberate the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, etc.). In 1517, the same year that he nailed his theses, history’s greatest jihadi empire — that of the Ottoman Turks — absorbed the vast domains of the Mameluke sultanate in the Middle East and North Africa and, having already conquered much of the Balkans, prepared to renew the jihad into the heart of Europe. Against this, Luther originally preached passivity — going so far as to say that, although the Muslim sultan “rages most intensely by murdering Christians in the body … he, after all, does nothing by this but fill heaven with saints.” When the Turks marched to and besieged the walls of Vienna in 1529, rebellious Lutheran soldiers were heard to cry out that the “Unbaptized Turk” (meaning the sultan) was preferable to the “Baptized Turk.”
By portraying the Catholic pope as more of an “Antichrist” figure than Europe’s hitherto traditional Antichrist figure, the Turkish sultan — an office held by Muslim leaders who had been responsible for the slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Christians in the name of jihad — men such as Luther and John Calvin, who held that Islamic prophet Muhammad and the Pope were “the two horns of Antichrist,” ushered in a sort of relativism that prevails to this day in the West; one which instinctively cites (often distorted) episodes from Catholic history to relativize and minimize ongoing Muslim atrocities.
To be sure, the Catholic Church responded with its own invective “and frequently tried to discredit Protestant doctrine by likening it to Islam — Muhammad was an early Protestant and the Protestants were latter day Saracens,” explains Bernard Lewis. Cardini elaborates:
The Reformation generated more vehement and coherent arguments between Christians, the ultimate effect of which was to favour the Muslims. It became customary amongst Catholics and Protestants for each to censure the “vices” of the other’s religion and to emphasize that the infidel [Muslims] exemplified the corresponding “virtue,” which naturally would have been much better suited to the Christians…. In fact the arguments between Catholics and Protestants frequently led to a competition as to which of the two could hurt the adversary more by heaping praise upon the infidel.
All the while, Muslims sat back and laughed — to the exasperation of sensible men such as the Renaissance humanist, Erasmus: “While we have been endlessly fighting among ourselves,” argued the Dutchman, “the Turks have vastly extended their empire or, rather, their reign of terror.” Incidentally, of “Luther’s contention that those who make war on the Turks rebel against God, who is punishing our sins [Catholicism] through them [the Muslims],” Erasmus countered that “if it is not lawful to resist the Turks, because God is punishing the sins of his people through them, it is no more lawful to call in a doctor during illness, because God also sends diseases to purge his people of their sins.”
Be that as it may, what began with Luther was bequeathed to subsequent Protestant leaders. This was only natural; as the early Protestants and Muslims had the same common enemy — Catholic Christendom, particularly in the guise of the Holy Roman Empire — the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” came into sharp play. By 1535, “It was one of the bitterest truths,” writes historian Roger Crowley, “that the Catholic King [Charles V] would spend more time, money, and energy fighting the French and the Protestants than he ever devoted to the war with [Sultan] Suleiman.” (Little wonder many Islamic conquests of European territory occurred under the “Magnificent One’s” reign.) Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I of England formed an alliance with the Muslim Barbary pirates — who eventually enslaved some 1.3 million Europeans, including not a few from Ireland and Iceland — against Catholic Spain, prompting that nation’s papal nuncio to lament that “there is no evil that is not devised by that woman, who, it is perfectly plain, succored Mulocco [Abd al-Malek] with arms, and especially with artillery.”
In 1683, when the Turks came again for Vienna — enslaving and eventually slaughtering some 30,000 Christians in the process — their chief non-Muslim allies were two Protestant counts: the Lutheran Hungarian, Imre Thokoly, and the Calvinist Transylvanian, Prince Apafi. In fact, the Muslim pretext for marching onto Vienna was to provide military aid to Thokoly, who was then in rebellion against the Austrian Empire. Telling fellow Muslim commanders that “they ought to take advantage of the disorders of the Christians by the siege of the place [Vienna], the conquest of which would assure that of all Hungary, and open ‘em a passage to the greatest victories,” Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa mobilized arguably the largest Muslim army ever to invade Europe. Before setting off to the relief of Vienna, and cognizant of Thokoly’s mischievous role, the Polish king, John Sobieski, wrote to the former “that if he burnt one straw in the territories of his allies, or in his own, he would go and burn him and all his family in his house.”
That the Protestant Reformation unwittingly benefited Islam should not be interpreted as an attack on the Reformation or a defense of Catholicism. Nor does it say anything about the theological merits, or truths, of either. (I am, for the record, neither Protestant nor Catholic, and don’t have a horse in the race, as it were.) Rather, the point here is that the actions of fallible men, of both religious persuasions, had unforeseen consequences. And if the historic rifts within Christendom — beginning at Chalcedon in 451, when Orthodox (not Catholic or Protestant) Christians were at each other’s throats — always worked to Islam’s advantage, it should come as no surprise that the greatest of all sunderings also had the greatest impact on Christendom.
In short, “The Reformation produced one logical if unexpected result: a definite boost to the positive evaluation of Islam, and therefore to the birth and development of an often conventional and mannered pro-Islamic stance.” This “mannered” and “pro-Islamic stance” continues to haunt the West to this day. After all, it’s not for nothing that naïve and favorable views of Islam — to say nothing of passive responses to Muslim aggression and a paralytic, all-consuming fear of being seen as “crusading” against Islam — are especially ingrained in and compromise the security of historically Protestant nations, including the U.K., Scandinavia, Germany, Australia, and the U.S.
Of course, that these views have less to do with anything intrinsic to Protestant theology and more to do with a number of historic forces that have culminated into a sort of uncritical or mindless tolerance for anything and everything in the West — including unabashed Islamic terrorism — is evident in one ironic fact: today it is the Catholic pope — a role traditionally filled by Islam’s greatest and most vociferous opponents — who exhibits an unparalleled determination to empower Muslims and whitewash the image of Islam.
Paul N Silas says
Bull, plain and simple. Luther was an Augustinian Monk and as such believed in Augustine’s “Just War Theory”. Thus the author is dead wrong.
Should he have pleased man by going along with the numerous errors and corruptions of the Pope’s , or follow God’s word ?
Serve man or God?
mortimer says
I agree with much of what Raymond Ibrahim has written. We cannot make a blanket condemnation of Luther’s understanding of Islam, because Luther was not totally wrong.
However, Luther was not totally right about the danger of Islam and he seriously underestimated it. Luther and his followers were in serious danger from Roman Catholicism as witnessed by the European wars of religion fought between 1524 to 1648.
Today, we know more about Islam than Luther. Western Protestant leaders are trying to protect their flocks in Muslim-dominated areas by maintaining a low profile. There is a serious need today for a Protestant Brotherhood to offset the Muslim Brotherhood. A Protestant order of knights who are devising a plan to rid the world of the evil political ideology of Islam.
gravenimage says
Good post, Mortimer.
John Forbes says
THIS MAY BE WHERE THE VERY EFFECTIVE DOCTRINE – DIVIDE & RULE – CAME FROM.?
IT IS AS EFFECTIVE NOW AS IT WAS THEN !
HARD TO COUNTER ACTUALLY & THE BRITISH RULED MUCH OF THEIR EMPIRE IN THIS WAY FOR MANY DECADES !
THE WEST CURRENTLY HAS NO REALLY STRONG LEADERS & IS BADLY COMPROMISED & SPLIT BY THE EU & THE OTHER POWERS LIKE TURKEY !
AT PRESENT i CAN ONLY SEE ORBAN AS WILLING TO REALLY STAND UP & I AM PRAYING THAT TRUMP CAN SURVIVE THE CONTINUAL BACK STABBING & OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE LEFT & THE OBAMA/CLINTON LEFT OVERS – LIKE MCMASTER ( WHOM HE NEEDS TO TOSS UNDER THE BUS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE )
Charles says
Mortimer, Good work! To ground in the present what Raymond is suggesting:
Our village of Haliburton, Ontario, is now hosting, thanks to local do-gooders and the local tabloid press a Muslim family of nine off-springs (9 !) who came over from Syria…they say.
The group is now lodged, as they collect social security and work part-time, in the total Anglican (Episcopalian in U.S. terms) Rectory.
The Minister has, for this purpose, retreated to her own house near the village.
As I contemplated again Prince Charles in an online photo all decked out in the regalia of an Arabic potentate (complete with a curved sabre) I was reminded that Anglicanism had been founded by Henry VIII
gerard says
Paul Your hatred of the Catholic Church has clearly blinded you to the main thrust of this article: The Reformation seriously weakened Europe’s defences against Islam.
Sons of Liberty says
gerard , Lutherans do not hate the Catholic Church ! The CHURCH had deviated away from the teachings of Christ by selling indulgences to gain acceptance in the eyes of God . THIS is contrary to the FACT that CHRIST …SUFFERED AND DIED on the CROSS for OUR SINS ! He PAID IT ALL , ..which led Martin Luther to say WE ARE SAVED BY THE GRACE of CHRIST not by ANYTHING ELSE. We can NOT DO ENOUGH to PAY FOR OUR SINFUL NATURE ,….WE are SAVED ONLY BY CHRIST !
Malcolm (South Afric) says
That is half a statement. you could also be condemned by Christ. To think one is saved before judgement is an assumption.
Sons of Liberty says
Malcolm , it is NOT a half statement . The LAW condemns US all , we are SINFUL by NATURE ,…Jesus Christ saves us from our SINS.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Do not shout be calm and graceful.
These are the conditions that Jesus gives to be saved, So be calm.
“He that believeth and is baptized,” said the Son of the Living God, “shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned — or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism.
Now do you belive that Jesus started a Church, that the Church exist to day that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
Think carefully before you ansewer.
gravenimage says
Not entirely, Gerard. The Christian West–including Protestants–*did* take the Mediterranean Sea back from Muslim pirates.
But Raymond Ibraham does makes some good points.
John S. Obeda says
I’m a retired Lutheran pastor, of LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) And it certainly makes sense that the fighting that occurred at the time, for instance, the 30 years’ war, and other trouble, would have helped the Muslims to extend their territory. Of course, the Reformation had to occur. But it is a shame that some Christians, as Ibrahim points out, even “helped” the Islamists in their devilish work. That’s evil human nature at work. But the Biblical doctrines that Luther emphasized and preached were and still are totally rejected by the Qur’an. And, if the Christians of today would be faithful to the truths that Jesus preaches and, if they would know what’s in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, then the Christians would realize that Islam is totally incompatible in a democratic country. But we see what clueless and unfaithful politicians and citizens are doing. God help us and have mercy on us and on our descendants..
gravenimage says
Good points, John.
Jimmy says
The Protestants sided with the ottoman empire against the Catholics. If not for the Catholics Islam would have conquered Europe long ago.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Your comment is actually further evidence that this suicidal internecine bickering still exists today and weakens our fight with Mohammadism.
Everything in this article is accurate. (I do, however, dispute that the Reconquista was a crusade.) I think Ibrahim makes an extremely important and valuable point. And he makes clear that he is not belittling Protestantism, so I don’t see the point of your taking exception.
In dealing with people who foolishly want to ‘cut off their nose to spite their face,’ history has taught us that the Great Jan III Sobieski had the most efficacious approach, (and I quote from Ibrahim’s article):
“Before setting off to the relief of Vienna, and cognizant of Thokoly’s mischievous role, the Polish king, John Sobieski, wrote to the former ‘that if he burnt one straw in the territories of his allies, or in his own, he would go and burn him and all his family in his house.'”
Aaron says
Protestantism was always a first step to the secularism it ushered in–a secularism that then makes a society ripe for Islamic conquest.
Gerald Harp says
Luther did irreparable harm to Christianity. First of all, Christ himself prayed aloud that his followers would remain united but the Lutherans took up the slogan of “better the Muslim than the Catholic”. Thus, Lutherans joined the Ottoman Turks in the battle of Lepanto in 1571. They also joined the Turks in their effort to invade Vienna in 1693, the Christians were able to win the battle because of intervention by Polish forces. No, Luther did no good but rather great harm..
Gae says
Pope Francis is much more danger to the Western civlization then dead Martin Luther, who also hated Jews…as Muslims do. Pope francis is silent about murder of Christians by the Muslims just as he was silent in Argentina when Facists were killing people during millitary occupation… Olthough many Lutherans supported Nazis during WWII, Catholic church was also mum.
Now, the pope, just as old communist, Angela Merkel in Germany, had invites Muslims “refugees” into Europe and tells Catholics to be nice to those nhordes of millitary age men, well dressed with fancy p-hones who rape and pillage Europe and come to live on the backs of working Europeans.
James says
Pope Francis is not silent anout the murder of Christians by Muslims. That is a lie, and repeating it, as some of his critics do, does not make it true
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-tribute-christians-persecuted-isis-islamists-a7496406.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-christmas-season-pope-iraq/pope-pays-tribute-to-iraqi-christians-persecuted-by-islamic-state-idUSKBN14F0QA
These lies against the Popes from supposed Christians are a disgrace. It is not Christ Who is “the father of lies”. But any filth is good when the target is the Papacy. What is wrong with the truth, regardless of whether it is favourable to someone, or not ?
Jimmy says
“numerous errors and corruptions of the Pope’s”? “God’s word or man’s word”? Umm let’s see about that
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. Six wives 2 of which he beheaded countless mistresses If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. AND THERE IS MORE….. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as ‘Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past fifty years. If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
So remind me again who’s following man’s word and who’s following God’s word?
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Good post Jimmy,
However it is not objective truth they seek. They are not to blame it is part of Protestant DNA , that stems from corrupt Catholics such as Martin Luther and their merry band of ex Catholics at the time.
Who would of thought that protestant movement was essentially started by backward Catholics and they still oblivious to the light.
Paul N Silas says
Many of the Nations that the author sites as “Christian” has long since stopped being so. Look at the United Methodists or Presbyterian Church USA, they might as well be part of the Communist Party.
Also how about the Marxist in a white dress Pope the Roman Catholics have? Talk about a church that is pro-Islam!
“Give me that old time religion, it’s good enough for me”.
Bryan says
I think that you completely miss the gist of his argument. Obviously Christendom was wounded by the many divisions (sects) that resulted from the Reformation. A weakened Christendom helpednIslam.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Paul N Silas
You state that you are a theologian, yet you have tarred with on brush Presbyterians, united Methodist, Catholics. You obliviously have special powers, however I do question from whence they come,
The problem that you have, Protestantism is saying the same about your denomination, now as been said before, which one of you is right?
You all claim Jesus, His Word, Faith the bible.
Sons of Liberty says
Malcolm , ..Satan has worked AGAINST,… CHRIST’S CHURCH ,…from the beginning and YES , he is still at it TODAY. Christians need to realize that we have FAR MORE IN COMMON than we have in differences. Look to the CROSS and you will see ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW . That is why MUSLIMS HATE the CROSS of CHRIST ,…BECAUSE …SATAN knows HE WAS DEFEATED by JESUS CHRIST on the CROSS. He CAN’T USE our SINS AGAINST US because CHRIST PAID IT ALL on the cross.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Be calm Sons of liberty
I am in agreement to some of the things you say such as this, “Malcolm , ..Satan has worked AGAINST,… CHRIST’S CHURCH ,…from the beginning and YES , he is still at it TODAY. Christians need to realize that we have FAR MORE IN COMMON than we have in differences”.
I do not look at a cross, a thief died on a cross, the other cross a political extremist.
Catholics look at a crucifix, that is Jesus crucified on a cross. Some, every week others daily.
Catholics have fought extreme Islam for far longer than any nation on earth, we know what we are up against so we are the ultimate threat.
They see others as the secular and they are secondary.
Catholics do not need your help we can do this on our own, we have done this before and I make no apologies for Lapanto or Vienna. We are patience, a hundred years is nothing for us, it takes men of strong faith not numbers to win a battle.
balafama says
to malcom
no one is asking you malcolm,to apologize for lepanto and vienna . you sound like you have a hatred for non catholics and you sound arrogant and divisive . the truth is that islam finds the message of the cross grossly offensive and the jihadists are ready to kill all who believe in JESUS CHRIST whether catholic or not . in fact in the middle east and parts of asia it is the non catholics that bear the brunt of christian persecution. so get off your high horse and learn a thing or 2. u can be catholic without condemning and demeaning non catholics.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ balafama
Thanks for your response, frankly there is no hatred for anyone, the accusations against Catholics or our Church I have heard thousands of times before. We need to deal in truth, evidence not what some rabid person who spews out propaganda to justify a view point.
If one just follows the Democratic Party vitriol against republicans or trump plus the liberal media concerning the dossier (opposition research) you would think Trump was the most awful person in the world.
If one sought evidence and searched for the truth one would come to a different conclusion. No one is saying Trump is perfect, however a different portrait would emerge.
Catholics in general, spend no time or little getting into debates. Our churches are meant for worship and prayer, no time there is spent for any religion, Islam or protestant beliefs. We do not discuss it, our focus is on our redeemer.
Just to say, I love my Church, brothers and sisters, also open to all people who can reason and seek the truth.
Have no time for anecdotal evidence or plain meanness or falsehoods.
In passing just to let you know that the rest of what you say is rubbish, now this might hurt your sensibilities.
To me the fact that innocent Christians are killed or people, is terrible, the point you try to make that Catholics suffer less than protestants is false, unless you provide evidence of it.
Now you have an opportunity to do so, and this is the bull that should not be tolerated.
Kay says
Sons of LIberty,
You are correct. Christ is already victorious!
The divisions in Christendom are the wounded Body. We preach Christ crucified.
Let us stand together in that.
James says
The Pope is not a Marxist, and that is not a dress.
Jim says
In support of Raymond Ibrahim’s thesis, you might also be interested in the following books:
Worshipping the State by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D., and
Politicizing the Bible by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D. and Scott Hahn, Ph.D.
https://www.amazon.com/Benjamin-Wiker/e/B001JP7RQK
Both books discuss the negative aspects and results of the so-called Reformation. The popular viewpoint of today that Islam is an underdog comes from the fact that the “reformists” eventually hated everything having to do with the Catholic Church, including the Crusades. So it became popular to discredit the Crusades and to believe that the Jihadi Islamists were strictly defensive, so “defensive” that they ended up attacking Spain and southern France, Italy, Malta, Vienna, and the whole of Christian North Africa. No, it was Chrisomdom that was defensive.
mortimer says
The chivalric Christian military orders such as the Knights of Malta and the Order of Santiago and the Knights of Columbus should be working to check and reverse the spread of political Islam. Only the Knights of Columbus have done anything to my knowledge. (Kudos for the Knights of Columbus!)
There is an urgent need for a Protestant chivalric order to mount an ideological crusade against the ideology of political Islam.
Sons of Liberty says
Jim, The Reformation had far more to do with basic Christian theology NOT A HATRED of everything Catholic . It certainly was NOT a defense of ISLAMIC Doctrine or making Muslims out to be a VICTIM ! AS was stated in the article MANY Lutherans or other PROTESTANTS were in the battle fighting the MUSLIM INVASION. Today , Christians need to UNITE with each other and with our Jewish brothers and sisters against the threat of an EVER INCREASING …Islam. The United States was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs and if we don’t unite,… the Hirya (civilization jihad) will succeed !
Jim says
Liberty, I have read Luther’s 95 Theses, and I have also read the contemporary Pope’s 95 responses to Martin (you should too, just to round out one’s knowledge.). I know there is no mention of the Crusades in them. (Sheesh) The point is not what Luther had written, it’s what happened since that point in time; it is the evolving attitudes over the decades after that. It was Protestants who tried to make the Crusades look like an evil thing, because it was another way to attack the Roman Catholic Church. Not all Protestants for sure, but the “right” ones who would be in a positions of influence. I was a Protestant when I was young and I remember what was said about the Catholics and the Crusades, so don’t tell me it wasn’t like that. Who but a handful of people nowadays think of the Crusades as a necessary defense against Islamic aggression, invasion, and offense? Very few. Sadly, even my priest has fallen for the lies (he’s very Liberal). We need to change that attitude. We need to be sad that the Crusades failed, because the Islamists are not only at our doorstep now, but they are inside. We need, dare I say it, a paradigm shift in how we look at the Crusades and Islam. We need to go back and take another look into history, only this time we might be able to understand why the Crusades.
Also, the US was created on Deist principles. Our underlying culture was inherently Christian, that is true and it did unknowingly influence the Founders. However, The Founders were primarily Masons who did not like “Pope-ism.” The Deists were elites. The average citizen at that time was generally religious, so they had to make concessions, like “good” politicians do. Deism died after the turn of the 19th century. It no longer made sense to people, but the so-called Separation of Church and State notion, which is not in the Constitution (unless it is written in lemon juice) still prevailed. It is essentially an atheistic State. Nevertheless, the 2nd Amendment does have a line that Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of religion, a clause completely overlooked today. When they want to remove crosses over WWI veteran graves, are they not prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Did any law of Congress put them there? I could go into how people misinterpret the phrase “Establishment of Religion” and what it meant in the 1780/90’s, but I’ll stop here.
eduardo odraude says
Jim, You mean the First Amendment, not the “2nd Amendment”. And the First Amendment not only forbids making a law that prohibits free exercise — it also forbids any law establishing a religion. Free exercise and non-establishment are to a degree mutually contradictory, but in practice the contradiction works, and means that the First Amendment amounts to a partial separation of religion and state. More precisely, the free exercise clause lets religious (and non-religious) motives influence legislation, so long as that influence does not, in violation of the non-establishment clause, exclude the influence of other religious or non-religious motives on legislation. No religion or non-religious outlook is to have a monopoly of influence over the law and no religion or non-religion is to use legislation to suppress other religions or philosophies. So the First Amendment is not entirely a separation of church and state, but the First Amendment is a separation of any single church, religion, or non-religious philosophy from control of the state.
balafama says
calling america essentially an atheist state is the biggest hogwash i ever heard. most of the founding fathers were not deists as you revisionists want us to believe. they were mostly self professing protestant christians.most of america was and are still protestants .
”endowed by our creator ”,”pursuit of life liberty and happiness” are not deist principles. equality of all men before GOD is not an atheist nor deist principle .pls show me the book of deist principles that states this.
they were about 100 men or more during the drafting of the constitution. not just not just george washington and franklyn benjamin.
James says
Poiliticising the Bible, to judge from its revews, sounds more like a work of Fundy polemic than a work of careful scholarship 🙁 I’ve not read it, so it may be better than it seems to be, I hope so.
Kay says
Thanks for the references Jim.
The viewpoint against the Crusades (and seeing Mohammedens as underdogs) is widespread. In our current secular age, it is easy for the non-religious to hate everything Christian– or that they identify as Christian– and to use their warped and partial knowledge of the Crusades as justification.
makmorn says
I agree, while the reformation was needed from a theological standpoint, it was the catalyst for a whole lot of division in the west.
Salah says
Luther, just like Muhammad, was a filthy pervert. Both of them hate the Catholic Church. Both of them hate the one and only True Church.
That said, Jorge Bergolio (aka pope francis) is not the real Pope, he is an ANTIPOPE. He’s in bed with Islam, with Soros and with the filthy globalist gang. Everything he says or does has absolutely no value for the true Catholic.
Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict 16) is the ONLY living Pope, though one of the worst for letting this happen.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/10/31/luther-october-31-arsh-2017/
Paul N Silas says
Nonsense! Luther was married and had 6 children.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Salah
Historically you are right on Luthers morality. He married a Nun. He went back on his oath of celibacy which is a lifetime oath, He had a consuming hatred of the Pope.
Now here is a reasonable assumption, to me, when adults go back on their word, would that be enough to view their speech with a little critical scrutiny, especially when the subject exhibits hatred ?
Toby says
Malcolm,
Holding Luther to his lifetime oath to a church that he left because it was corrupt is just wrong headed. This is where your catholic thinking is overriding your common sense. We get that you think Luther is bad but I would ask you where is your condemnation of the many popes who violated their vows and committed the most filthy viol acts while acting as the head of the catholic church? And they never left the church so they had no reason to break the vow.
Aaron says
What Luther could never understand is that Church can never be corrupted by her corrupted priests, because the purity of the Church is solely dependent on Christ, alone. A corrupt priest who himself is going to hell can still offer you a valid sacrament one that ensures your own deification and salvation. Satan has always been a work inside the Church just like he was work in the ranks of the Apostles. So what? The only avenue to Father is through Christ by way of the sacraments. For this reason, Jesus initiated the Church on the day of Pentecost. To turn your back on the Church as Luther did is to turn your back on Christ, himself.
Jimmy says
The church that Christ founded and it’s apostles can be traced back to Christ in unbroken linage was not corrupt, the arrogant self absorbed heretic Martin Luther was because he wanted to be his own self appointed authority with his own private interpretation of scripture who thought he could interpret scripture better than all the apostles and their successors.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ Aaron
Was going to reply to Toby, Not necessary you made the point spot on, the question now is, has he the intellectual capacity to understand it, I hope so.
Toby says
Aaron and Malcolm,
I completely understand your point I just do not agree and in a historical context it is delusional. For you to believe the roman catholic church is “The Church” is going to the heart of the protestant roman catholic divide so I am glad you brought it up. But your argument is not only with protestants it is with many other churches who make the exact claim as roman catholics do. The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Coptic Church all make the same or similar claims as roman catholics do. They believe they are the original church and you split from them making you the protestants. Many of them have their own popes. Which pope is the real pope? You see your hatred for protestants is part of a false doctrine your church has been preaching for centuries. This doctrine caused your church to kill hundreds of thousands of protestants because you did not like their form of Christianity. Very much like the Muslims have done in the past and do today.
Let see if either of you have intellectual capacity and moral fiber to understand that saying and believing you are the one and only true church, makes all the “bad acts” go away is just a completely bankrupt idea and not supported by scripture.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Toby you have a point, there are orthodox Churches that were started by apostles, many of them are in communion with Rome. They have their Pope which is valid and is to do with their tradition, however, are in communion with Rome and the universal Pontiff. We consider them as valid Churches. Those not in communion with Rome are also valid and we always seek unity.
We do not consider protestants in the same way, the originators are not apostles but extremist catholic clergy, some catholic laypeople, the fruits are clear to see by all, a divided lot, we acknowledge the vast majority of the protestant community as good brothers and sisters and, as we are Christians ,so are you.
We do not attack any of today’s protestant leaders or their followers about issues that affect the world, in fact our priest do not even discuss you in homilies we have no interest in that.
Hopefully that might answer some of your questions.
Any readings of the early Church and its development coupled to Christ promises about the Church is a good way for anyone who is not Catholic to understand Catholic.
So how do we move forward from here, We will never follow you however we will support you in common issues we hold dear,
As a Catholic lay person have tolerated protestant stupidity and abusive accusations for years and I guess that other Catholics on this site feel the same way, turn the other cheek is not an option in today’s world so there is a need for Catholics to defend our traditions. So there is a individual movement (not organized movement) among the young to stand up and not depend on a priest to do it, which to my mind is a good thing.
There is a growing activism among young Catholics to Defend our Church and it is not a one issue thing such as Islam. It is how we worship, it is about family, country, community, Islam, justice, truth, killing the unborn, human dignity and many other…
It is quite baffling for Catholics to understand the hatred of some Protestant and others have towards us (Church). When we make no effort to do the same. We seek no fight but we will defend in truth our Church.
I do not know the other Catholics on this site but I can vouch that they will acknowledge the goodness of many protestants and not mention the bad, we will mention the originators of the revolt against the Church.
Not quite the same with a minority protestant comunity who take every opportunity to besmirch that which we love including the mother of our redeemer. That we will not tolerate.
So with that, will extend the hand of friendship to you.
James says
Aaron
“Well said”, to you and Malcolm in particular. 🙂
Toby says
Malcolm,
I appreciate you hand of friendship and I respect your willingness to defend your church. I and I do understand your church for you is your faith. There is much we do agree on but we do not need to be disagreeable. So let me just say they because the roman church has said the other churches who claim to be original are in communion with the roman church they are good to go. I am sorry but that logic is just foolishness to me. Yes they may have been started by one of the apostles but you purposely left out the most important part in any union or partnership. That would be they both agree. You know very well that most do not agree they are in communion with the roman church.
Funny Malcolm I have had the exact opposite experience as you. I have had many arrogant catholics say horrible things about protestants. My church rarely if ever talks about catholics. So as you can see each of us come to our point of view from very different experiences. I can tell Malcolm you are probably a very honorable guy whom I would have a lot in common but buying into catholic dogma that is not based on scripture is not one of them.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
It is not the Catholic church that says so, it is history, it is evidence. The Church sees the positive side of Protestantism, it does not mention the bad per say.
The opposite is true regarding your faith, ignoring the vast majority of good in others even your brother denominations and megaphone the bad.
If you are forced to see the good it is begrudging.
The hand of friendship is always there.
God Bless I am out of this thread
Malcolm (South Afric) says
The above report on the (revolt) Reformation, had more to do more to with a perfidious catholic monk (extremist)Martin Luther and the political ambitions of European Prince of various principalities. Nothing different from today’s political climate.
The peripheries of subsequent consequences, is what the report state, which is fair.
Paul N Silas says
If putting your faith in God and His word makes us protestants (extremists) count me in .
c matt says
And from whom did you receive that word? I presume you were not around Jerusalem and its environs ca. 30-33 A.D.?
Paul N Silas says
Why would a loving Father God hide the meaning of his Bible so only “Special People” can understand it?
Pope’s are mere sinners, just like the rest of us. Priests and Popes don’t have “Special Powers”. Those fantasies are reserved for Comic Books.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Paul N Silas
You are quite right, we are all in need of redemption even the pope. This does not make the Church wrong in its teaching or in its mission that Jesus Christ entrusted to Her, (Her …the Church)
What mission did Jesus give, to any former Catholic or protestant?
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Paul N says
“If putting your faith in God and His word makes us protestants (extremists) count me in” .
Your are in, however, I leave it to you and the the 45 000 morphed protestant denominations to get to grips of what your faith is, notwithstanding what the Word of God is,
It would be reasonable to assume, if you were in agreement, you would be one, not like Isis who morph into something else. at the slightest disagreement.
See you do have commonality.
gerard says
Paul The Canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Catholic Church. Without CC you would not have the Bible.
James says
Without the Church, the New Testament would not exist, let alone have been canonised. The Biblical basis for a 27-book, sacred, canoinical, inspired, collection of Scripture to be used by all Christians of all times, is non-existent. There is not even a hint in Scripture that Christians would be given more Scripture than Jesus was familiar with, no promise of it, nothing. In fact, the tendency is all the way, against any idea of a New Testament Scripture.
James says
…all the other way…
Aaron says
Silas, the “special people” you refer to all those who have been baptized into Christ’s loyalty. Yes, you can understand the Bible to some limited degree intellectually, but it really only opens up when you’ve been initiated into the Divine Mysteries and start living a sacramental life. Then the Bible becomes one’s own personal story and one understands it through their own experience–and unless you are in communion with the Church it’s not even really your Bible.
The Scriptures and Liturgy constitute a single organic whole, you can’t really have the one without the other. The Bible was only written in order to be heard in the context of the Liturgy. Sure it’s a fine thing to study it independently now that books are easy to obtain, but this has no connection to the purpose in which it was originally preserved and canonized. In this sense Protestants really are just like Muslims, people of a book and not a living tradition.
Kay says
Many people put their faith in God and worship in the church they were born into or found later. Their worship is true regardless of the historical political splits.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
mortimer says
Malcolm, we are talking about how Christians should rally together, put aside snide remarks and minor differences and resist and repulse political Islam. Your sectarianism has NO place in this forum.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
mortimer
Is this a infalible statement.
Every one has a right to to have their views put out, it is the hight of arogance for any individual to assume to police the comments however this has not stopped you stupidity in the past or your vindictiveness to our pope.
Truth is a wonderful thing and no one should fear it.
My abode is a world where the frontline is outside my house, not some protective invoroment where people like you are all talk and no action or have a shallow idea about history or world events.
gravenimage says
Agree, Mortimer.
John S. Obeda says
This is a note for Aaron. You write that he who turns his back on the Church, is also turning his back on Christ. No. The problem you have here is the definition of Church The Holy Christian Church consists of people who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour and they come to Him for the forgiveness of their sins. They believe that their salvation is by grace and not by their works. This truth Christians cannot give up. So Luther did not give it up. He who gives up this truth of salvation is the one who is turning his back on the Holy Christian Church. By the way, Luther didn’t want to leave the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted the Church to go back to the teaching of Scripture for Scripture alone is the source of truth.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ John
There are concepts in truth that you are incapable of understanding, the bible came out from early Christian tradition, the one Church is the protector to it, tradition and scriptures are inseparable.
If Jesus wanted every Christian to have a bible He would have made that possible from day one.
The Church came first the bible later.
For good reason protestants have the bible now, the truth is that you are at odds among yourselves and have different interpretations of it.
Instead of unity you have division, One needs to recognize that fact. You have not the courage to admit it.
God our farther wants unity among His people Evil want division.
A rough reading and understanding of scripture makes this clear, even to the uneducated.
Kay says
There have been divisions in the Church even since the time of the apostles. We must have the mind of Christ.
peter hinks says
great read.would not have had a clue about any of that.
Mockingjay says
Agree.
– It makes so much sense – and it certainly does not seem to be a coincedence anymore that the original country of the reformation now so proudly declares “Islam belongs to Germany”.
Paul N Silas says
If you are a Roman Catholic, you belong to “The Church”.
If you are a Christian, you belong to Christ.
c matt says
If you are a Catholic, you belong to the Church Christ founded (Mt. 16:18). If you are a Protestant, you reject the Church Christ founded. Good luck “belonging” to Christ if you reject His Church.
Paul N Silas says
You mean the Roman Catholic Church that killed thousands during the Crusades, slaughtered and tortured more during the Spanish Inquisition, burned Rev. John Huss at the stake, imprisoned and murdered Protestants for our beliefs? Who’s Priests have molested countless young children and then tried to cover it up, or the Church who has a Marxist as It’s leader now ? THAT “TRUE” CHURCH?
Champ says
Bravo, Paul N Silas!
Champ says
What would Jesus say to the Roman Catholic Church?
Jesus rebuked the religious hypocrites of his day …
“Why did Jesus rebuke the scribes and Pharisees so harshly in Matthew 23:13–36?”
https://www.gotquestions.org/scribes-and-Pharisees.html
Excerpt:
“Jesus elaborates on their hypocrisy in the fifth woe. He tells the religious leaders they appear clean on the outside, but they have neglected the inside. They perform religious acts but do not have God-honoring hearts. It does no good, Jesus says, to clean up the outside when the inside is “full of greed and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25). The Pharisees and scribes are blind and do not recognize that, when the inside is changed, the outside, too, will be transformed.”
Same rebuke applies to the RCC.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
c matt says
Gee that was a very very truthful response,
God Bless
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Paul N Silas
Do not be a moron, you are out of your shallow depth.
Your understanding of Christianity has a short history and is based on extremist Catholics whom we still deem as heretics.
We do no deem todays Protestants, in the same light. as you are not the originators of the stupidity you find yourself in.
Let me put it this way, for a Catholic to dialogue with a protestant is like a Catholic trying to dialogue with a liberal.
Have respect for the conservative evangelicals and Trump
James says
Christ and His Church are inseparable. To wound it, is to wound Him. According to Scripture. No divorce between them is possible.
Kay says
Paul,
The Church is Christ’s body.
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. …
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Your are in, however, I leave it to you and the the 45 000 morphed protestant denominations to get to grips of what your faith is, notwithstanding what the Word of God is,
It would be reasonable to assume, if you were in agreement, you would be one, not like Isis who morph into something else. at the slightest disagreement.
See you do have commonality.
mortimer says
Malcolm, join in the battle against political Islam. Protestants, Jews and Roman Catholics and atheists united to fight Hitlerism. We must do so today against political Islam. Take your sectarianism to another forum.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Mortimer
My fight is against evil whether or not it be you or islam. The source is the same.
James says
Not if the cost is to allow the Church and the Pope to be defamed. We are not the sectarians – we did not break from Luther; he left us,
Ciudadano says
Great article. As usual Raymond brings an interesting and different angle to things.
It is funny that Catholic Church had came up with the sale of indulgences as a mean to finance the crusades. While Luther was protesting the sale of indulgences and the crusades, the Holy League was fighting the Turks at Lepanto. However “when Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and his armies began to invade Austria, Luther changed his mind about the need to fight, but he stuck to his condemnation of the Crusades.” Go figure!
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html
Kay says
Let’s pray that many today begin to see the need to stand firm (or to fight) against the encroachments of Mohammedism!
mortimer says
Ciudadano, it is cheaper for us to fight political Islam IDEOLOGICALLY, but the churches and governments in the West are not doing so.
THAT is the problem we must address. All Western governments should develop protocols to deconstruct Islam and destroy its ideology FOREVER.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Mortimer you make rash statements you do not know what the Church is doing.
Catholics in Poland are standing up supported by cardinals, a week ago millions of their young prayed around their borders.
In Africa many are facing the threats with bravery. Every time a Catholic chooses death rather than submitting to Islam we rejoice as this is the Catholic way, There are those who in faith refuse to back down from evil.
Kay says
Yes, there are faithful models for us in other lands, countries we seldom think about. Many have been slaughtered for their faith in Christ.
I continue to pray for my distant brothers and sisters.
John S. Obeda says
You are correct mortimer in emphasizing the fact that our leaders are NOT instructing their people what the Qur’an and the Sunnah teach. And, since they are clueless in the evil doctrines and ways of Islam, the Islamists have the upper hand. May God wake up our leaders and people. If our leaders would be faithful in their work and rule, then people like Spencer and Gabrielle and Geller, etc. could go on vacation. And, since our leaders are clueless, then God help people like those here to do it.
WorkingClassPost says
I also thought it was a great article.
It didn’t strike me as being about the rights and wrongs of the Reformation (or Martin Luther), but about unintended consequences and the folly of believing that having a common enemy is a valid reason for choosing allies.
We see exactly the same thing today, with the left aligning itself not just with islam, but with islamic terrorism.
Our governments are doing likewise in the ME, by siding with anyone and everyone who opposes Western hegemony, however mundane or non-violent that opposition is.
I guess the only thing we’re all agreed on is the need for an Islamic Reformation.
http://primaryaccount.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/us-day-to-remember.html
Naildriver says
The above article was interesting, though as some here have contended not altogether believable, and history is fraught with all sorts of idiocy. But his observations and history does bring up the fact that today the reason Islam is the threat it is , is owing to our own missteps and allowing treasonous or venal individuals too much authority in or relationship with this enemy, Islam.
Some so called Christian denominations and cult off shoots are little better than Islam, such as Mormons, particularly those Mormons who adhere to the earlier belief system and polygamy of Smith. But, Christianity is generally the best thing to have happened to humanity. Islam the worst; and, in contrast islam is the antithesis of Christianity and Christ, and Islam clearly promotes the lowest and primitive of man’s limbic system, such as revenge, anger, fear, self-pity, and violence.
Christ never had anyone murdered or found it necessary to have a 6 year old bride; nor was He, as the Hindu or Buddhist, overly concerned with religious experience as a form of masturbation via exercises, fasting or self torture — the world was a fine place, and love, forgiveness and peace was the best way to enjoy it, where acts do not assure one’s salvation.
Today, with the expanded notion of human-rights, Islam is trying to piggy back in upon those notions, but should be stopped cold owing to its pernicious and false claims.
Given history’s lessons as with 6 hundred years of the Assyrian oppression, if Islam is allowed to entrench itself as a fixture in the West, it will bring about another and perhaps permanent Dark Age — just my humble opinion.
PATRICIA FRANCES KOENIG says
The division of Christendom into the Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox severely weakened our identity and our defense structure. That opened the door to many Islamic invasions. And that invasion –
halted for a while after the Victory of Lepanto – began again in Europe and is beginning in America. Only this time …they call the Islamic invasion… “migration” of 90% male Muslims…ready and willing to fight Europeans and Americans.
common sense says
Just read Isaiah 3 and Ezekiel.
The libs turned away from our constitution then say we are ‘polarized’. They are just rebellious separatists, that is darkness at work on people that can’t even read through an article like this. Their brains are constipated just like the Pope’s and I’m a Catholic LOL!.
Alicia Sinclair says
Agree entirely that this Pope has been-and is indeed still being a disaster. When he was found to know his bible less well than Donald Trump( Francis thinks that building bridges is a Christian duty-when there are none mentioned in the bible, although there IS plenty about building walls)-then the game as up.
Islam and Catholicism have plenty in common re ritual and world organisation-but Islam and Protestants do share that independence from mediators notion.
Islam therefore owes something to both…and when John Paul gave way, and Benedict was fatally compromised after Regenburg, then Islam became the only realistic coming global faith.
Jesus will simply use other methods using us, as the churches rend to irrelevance. The E.U is another case of liberal catholic idiocy-had the E.U backed Brexit, they`d have got loads of people back.
Sepp says
When Martin Luther was born, all of Christendom was using the same Church Calendar.
When Martin Luther proclaimed his 95 Theses, all of Christendom was using the same Church Calendar.
When Martin Luther reposed, all of Christendom was using the same Church Calendar.
The Bishops of the Christian Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) at the First Œcumenical Synod in Nicæa in Asia Minor in 325, adopted a Calendar that is a perfect blending of the Julian calendar and the Alexandrian Paschalion, which created (although not automatically) a consistent annual celebration of the Feast of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Martin Luther did his part to sunder Christendom. And so did Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 with his needless adoption of a New Calendar.
The needless adoption of a New Calendar occurred gradually, over several centuries, sometimes peacefully and sometimes with bloodshed, across Christendom.
There are, however, millions of traditional Orthodox Christians who still adhere to the traditional Church Calendar rather than the current civil or commercial calendar.
gravenimage says
Why do you think that the adoption of a more accurate calendar weakened Christianity?
Michael Casmer says
First of all Luther was a friar, not a monk. Big difference. Also, Protestants killed each other and also Catholics as well (like the English Monarchs for instance)
Wellington says
Astute article by Ibrahim (no surprise).
Interesting the comments here too. My oh my, what divisiveness among Christians even to this day, to the profit of Islam and to the detriment of Western Civilization, which only tends to further validate why Raymond Ibrahim wrote this particular article in the first place.
Frankly, and I write as an outsider here, being the complete agnostic that I am (not just ignorant am I but invincibly ignorant) though an admirer of the Judeo-Christian ethic as opposed to my loathing of the Islamic ethic (after all, one can accept a religion’s ethic without necessarily accepting its theology, Buddhism and Taoism being arguably other examples here).
For what it’s worth, and it is probably not worth much, I have long thought Erasmus had the superior take on things compared to Luther, i.e., sure there is corruption in the Catholic Church but don’t break away from it, just make sure you clean it up.
And what has been the result of the Protestant Reformation? Why more than 25,000 different Protestant sects as of now, tending to prove that once one breaks away from the Catholic Church hopeless division is a guarantee. Of course, the Catholic Church certainly shares some of the blame here. Renaissance Popes sure knew art (hey, no velvet or tacky Jesus’s in the Vatican, eh?) but, let’s face it, many of them were deeply corrupt as well (best example for my money is Alexander VI——-what a guy). But, as always, an ideology, in this case Catholicism, should not be judged by the fact that many adherents of that ideology don’t fully implement its tenets, or wrongly do so. The ideology itself should be judged on its own merits irrespective of many of its followers. For instance, there really are some nice Muslims out there but it would be foolish to think because of this that Islam is therefore OK, just as it would be equally foolish to think that because some Christians are hypocrites Christianity is not OK.
And so, the fratricide continues within Christianity all the while the one truly malevolent religion created by man, Islam, can only profit from this. So, here’s my advice to all Christians, and I mean ALL Christians: Quit with the internecine struggles since virtually none of your sects are wicked and you are in possession of the right ethic respecting how the species Homo sapiens should conduct itself. Unite and focus on the great malevolence before you—————Islam. Direct your attentions here. Always. Without cessation. Forever.
Good to read the many comments on this post. Damn, JW is such a wonderful site and for more than just opposing the only major faith which is screwed up to its very core. Just sayin’.
gravenimage says
Luckily, Wellington, there is no *actual* fratricide between Christian denominations today–disagreement, no matter how vigorous, is not the same thing, thank goodness.
Right now, Christians and all other Infidels should stand together against the threat of Islam. I know I stand with you all here if you oppose the savagery of Jihad.
Bridget Ames says
Alexander VI was actually likely one of the best popes, we have had, he was targeted by a smear campaign much like a Saintly Marie Antoinette, Fake news is nothing new it is how wars have been won in the past and kingdoms over thrown.It began first in the garden when Satan approached Eve… But Alexander VI will still some how be a string protestants like to pull at, but much like the Crusades they know very little about this man and his Saintly daughter who was also a victim of a smear campaign.
Toby says
Very funny.
gravenimage says
Raymond Ibrahim: The 500th Birthday of the Pro-Islamic West
…………………..
Interesting piece from Raymond Ibrahim. He definitely makes some important points–considering other Christians greater enemies than the barbarism of Islam is madness.
Also problematic–though hardly exclusive to Luther–is considering Muslim slaughter to be *deserved* by the victims due to whatever human shortcomings they may have had. No one deserves this savagery.
But Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians *have* all defended against Islam–we would do well to remember this, and stand together against this bloody evil.
Kay says
+1
Lydia says
There is a spectrum within Christianity that goes from total non violence and pacifism, such as non retaliation (turn the other cheek) all the way to defending what is good in a tangible way, Bible verses can be supplied for each end of this spectrum (bring a sword) etc. The Amish, for instance, are an example of total non violence to the point of not even self defense. It also has to do with the reason for the aggression. Jesus, at His arrest, did not resist physically, even though some disciples had swords and one even cut off an ear of a member of the arresting army, which He healed back. (see Gospel accounts of crucifixion events, 4 in all). So on that note I don’t condemn anyone and I understand this in a spiritual sense.
But there is nothing in Protestantism that aids islam. In fact, orthodox Protestantism affirms that Christianity is the only true religion, while if you dig into official Catholic documents and see what they teach kids in Catholic school, they validate all religions, at least as of recent times. This pope is the cap to that pyramid of error. Then you have the dark ages where they operated much like a spiritual dictatorship, not much better than terrorists today, torturing those who dissent, demanding monetary payment for souls to get to heaven (indulgences) and it was total exploitation and tyranny, which is what the Reformation liberated us from, and also got the Bible into our hands, praise the Lord!
eduardo odraude says
Lydia, I’m no Catholic, but I think your characterization of Catholic history is a caricature: “total exploitation and tyranny”
Yes it was sometimes oppressive. But it also helped birth the great medieval European universities and the sciences. During the so-called Dark Ages, Catholic monasteries preserved classical learning and did much to civilize European society. We hear about Galileo and Giordano Bruno, but people today are much less aware of how science friendly the Church often was. If Catholicism was as tyrannical as you suggest, Europe would never have developed as magnificently as it did in so many ways.
Toby says
There is good and bad in most organizations and it has been no different for the catholics. it is true they have done much good in Europe and the world. But we can not ignore the evil deeds it is guilty of either. As you can see many will defend the popes and catholic church as if they are without fault. This mindless defense is just a tool of the devil. To this very day there is deep corruption in the catholic church that is allowed to continue and you have a leader of that church that is a borderline communist and makes excuses for islam.
Bridget Ames says
Amazing!
MFritz says
Sorry, but Mr. Ibrahim’s article is mostly political “edutainment” with a clear agenda and not a historical and scientific essay on the reformation and its long term effects.
Some points are interesting and maybe worth discussing, but most of his conclusions are wrong.
– The title is idiotic. Our main issues with islam go back DECADES, not even a century. And they’re not based on long term HISTORICAL events but on recent political decisions and mostly due to reckless lobbyism. Your main contender, if any, should be the Age of Enlightenment, Mr. Ibrahim. But, alas, there isn’t such a “handy” anniversary.
And also Martin Luther is considered an “anti-semite”, which is very typical for our times, but also stupid and mostly wrong in the historical context of the 16th century (anti-judaism would be correct btw).
– Luther’s “split” from the Catholic church was mostly along political lines (just look at his initial supporters from the nobility) and don’t mistake the Lutherans with the Anglican church under Henry VIII.
– The reformation caused a COUNTER-reformation, which, strangely, had no effects at all, Mr. Ibrahim? What about the Age of Enlightenment, Napoleon’s reforms etc. pp.? There’s quite a lot of time between 1517 and 2017.
And the list goes on and on. Sorry, I come on JihadWatch for political information and not historical indoctrination. For that I can visit the fake news-websites.
WorkingClassPost says
Did you really say: “Our main issues with islam go back DECADES, not even a century.”?
R says
“The title is idiotic. Our main issues with islam go back DECADES, not even a century. And they’re not based on long term HISTORICAL events but on recent political decisions and mostly due to reckless lobbyism.”
Um, what? There’s definitely something idiotic here and it’s not the title of this article.
Toby says
This article has some truth to it but in its attempt to explain the real reason islam made great inroads into Europe. It was not the Reformation. In a historical context this is just wrong. The East–West Schism, traditionally dated to the year 1054 happened 500 years or so before the Reformation. There are two catholic churches each with there own pope each claiming the be the real thing. One is called Roman Catholic and the other is Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox had the distinct misfortune to be closest to the origins of islam.
As islam moved west it ran into the Eastern Orthodox church first. What did the Roman Catholic church do to help? Not much. The crusades were not a large response by the whole of the Roman Catholic church. Many Roman Catholics were happy to allow their rival to suffer and be defeated. it was not until the Islamic armies made it to the Roman Catholic countries that they became concerned.
So it was not the Reformation at the origin of this problem. It was the earlier split in the catholic church were catholics would not help catholics that allowed the Islamic invasion in the first place.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ Toby
Those disloyal catholic s were thoroughbred protestants at the time. I presume they would be quite disappointed in your remarks Toby, even though you are spot on.
Ha ha
Toby says
Malcolm
You argue in a heads I win tails you loose childish way. You actually seem like you have some intellect so why don’t we reason together. You and I both know the Eastern Orthodox Church would make the very same claim (and did and do) about the roman church. They claim to be the real catholic church and you broke away making you the original protestants. Who is right? Your pope or theirs?
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Not referring to Eastern Orthodox.
Referring to countries, who secularist and protestants sold armaments (to Islamic) to the ottomans. They essentially armed the ottoman armadas that invaded Europe 16th,17th century.
Nothing Different to days recent history, Obama Hillary Clinton influenced by various pastors, who knows KKK. These polititians funneled weapons to ISS via Libya. We been saying that for years before news started filtering out,
Secular France, England no better. Still selling arms to Saudi Arabia, responsible in part in wiping out ancient Catholic communities who have been there since the time of Christ.
Trump much better hopefully, he will see that Saudi is no good, Egypt the same. Maybe that is wishful thinking.
Calin Carmaciu says
A very very interesting article. Congratulations! In my opinion it is the effect of the third big wave of Christian iconoclasm, emerging from Luthers and Calvins Protestantism, that lead to the pro-islamic change in Western Europe. We can easily observe today that the mainly protestant countries have a completely different approach to Islam, marked by positive discrimination of the jihad, in contrast to the mainly Catholic and Orthodox countries.
Toby says
Calin Carmaciu,
Your statement is wishful thinking at best and mostly just deceptive. France is a very catholic country some would say the most catholic in Europe. And yet it has the highest percent of Muslims. Italy the very heart of the roman catholic empire has a very high percent of Muslims as well.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
You off the mark Toby
France: A secular government that wants the the statue of J P. ll removed as it has a cross on it. {Which has different symbolic meaning, as in suffering} No we do not worship statues.
The cross might offend Islam or the secular.
Calin Carmaciu the french revolution is a good reminder how the secular French slaughterd thousands of priest, nuns and the tens of thousands of catholic lay people.
They destroyed our churches, thieved our art, smashed our statues and imprisoned our people for just being Catholic.
A few years ago it was discoverded that a stolen painting was on display at a French musem, did they give it back, no.
That is not obviously offensive to the secular only a cross on J.P. ll statue.
The statue of liberty, probably paid for by the thievery, who knows, just a presumtion.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Please read this
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/11/01/french-court-orders-cross-removed-statue-john-paul-ii/
Toby says
Good try Malcolm,
You cant have it both ways and argue intelligently and honestly. France was catholic before its revolution. It is catholic now. It was catholic when it killed protestants with the blessing of Rome. And then you find France evil when it turned on Rome during its revolution. The argument being made here is that protestants cause liberal ideas that allow the Islamic horde to invade. The author said protestant countries in Europe had were in effect pro Islamic. Well prove it. Italy and Greece have way more Muslims then Norway.
So Malcolm it truth I agree with you that France is secular but that is not what they claim by virtue of self reporting catholics. Having said that all of the protestant countries in Europe are secular as well. So what are we to take away from this? I guess it is to say if you can discount the actions of France because you say it is secular than I would say the same about the UK all of which proves the original point to be false.
James says
France is secular, almost as much so as Britain.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ James
How about that, just pipped you to the post. You have the name of one of my favorite apostles. In fact I collect spring water, named the same, there is a drought where I live. It is good clean clear water.
God Bless
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ Toby
Not arguing a point just stating truthful historical reality.
The Crusades we Catholics own it, however some secular protestants want to claim it. They cannot a Pope i think it was Urban ll, someone will fact check it. The point is only a pope can call a crusade. So we own it and we do not shy away from it. (a religious war)
It is so strange that protestants who condemned us from saving Europe, even later the secularist up to a few years ago did the same, now wish we did a thorough cleansing and some now claim a hand in it.
For Catholics it was a religious war and coming to the aid of our brother and sisters who were in need.
Catholics from France and England fought each other in the name of the State (Politics) not in the name of the Church, Now English Catholics who were persecuted by the State had the opportunity for pay back they took it. This was not called for by the Church. (politics)
During WW ll Germany armed forces comprised of Protestants Catholics secular. The same as the Allied forces. This was nor a religious war.. (politics)
Get the point Toby
FFF says
You people are proving Raymond’s point exactly. Now is not the time for infighting. As you bicker the jihadis sit back and laugh and bide their time. Stop pointing your finger at fellow Christians and focus on the true enemy.
gravenimage says
Agree, FFF.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Nice try, but Christianity itself was destined to fail from the very beginning.
Christianity’s insistence on compassion mercy and forgiveness (aka PITY) instead of on problem-solving ANGER proves it is really only all about endorsing Submission to fearful despair and giving up in favor of static death. Basically, it is nothing more than the existentialist nihilism of Buddhism grafted onto the Judaic god.
gravenimage says
Actually, you are mistaken in thinking that Christians never defended against Islam. In fact, if it were not for the efforts of these brave people, we would not be free today.
UNCLE VLADDI says
“HATE” isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom they have to address to distract us from what they’re really trying to ban.
Since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we’re all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of victim who attacks innocent others first, and those who don’t, they insist pity is always good and anger is always bad.
Since criminals expect that all is generally allowed unless and until it is very specifically disallowed in advance, the only real crime is trying to prevent them from doing whatever they want to do, to whomever they want to do it to, and whenever they want to do it. Such attempts are always seen by them as “mean!” or more recently, “HATEFUL!”
But as Robert Spencer noted:
Incitement to violence is easy to spot – but incitement to “hostility” is in the eye of the beholder; so all anti-free-speech initiatives conflate (anti-crime) free speech and even (what they call “hateful”) feelings with actual violent crimes; for instance trying to criminalize speech against a religion or race (say, against someone for their simply noticing that islam isn’t really a race or a religion, but is only a global crime-gang).
The whole notion of “hate-speech” and “hate-crimes” IS a crime! Having “hate” isn’t a criminal act, it’s EITHER the perfectly natural and neutral human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing injustices (like islam), OR it’s a victim-blaming slanderous HABIT; but either way, it’s only an effect, and not a cause of anything. I hate crimes & the criminals who commit them; so what?
“Hate crimes” are really only thought-crimes, which is a victim-blaming slanderous assertion made by criminals to deflect everyone’s attention away from their own crimes (since criminals are psycho-paths who hate thinking, of course to them nobody else should ever be allowed to indulge in potentially “dangerous” thinking, either) by asserting that anyone merely considering or feeling that one should dislike something bad – ANYTHING bad, aka crime and criminals – should be accused of committing the only “illegal crime” in itself: “Hate!”
“DIVERSITY” is where one has given up on using one’s angry energy to unite people, to stop them from being criminals, and so one decides in stead to pretend to PITY every one and every thing equally … in stead of caring enough to risk being angry.
so one then pretends to PITY them by using various less offensive and obvious synonyms for pity, such as “tolerance ,” “compassion,” and slanderous “inclusiveness” – as if some people had already been “excluded” just for being “different,” and are therefore victims – as opposed to having excluded them selves by choosing to be criminals.
So “diversity!” means a demand to embrace (pity; tolerate) the difference between self-determined criminals and their innocent victims, rather than get angry with and try to change them.
The real emphasis, in “Diversity!” is on “Tolerating” it – because why would anyone have to be told or ordered to tolerate that which was NOT dangerous to them (i.e: crime and criminals!)?!?
Claiming “Diversity is always Good!” is idolatry, because in reality, in some situations and circumstances, it’s good, and in some it’s bad – but it’s NOT always good! As with all idolatry, the dynamics have been extracted or “abstracted” – the diversity FROM what, and TO what, have been removed from our ability to think about them, by the criminals’ choice of focus words.
The purpose of idolatry is to hide and distract us from being able to see the implications of each statement: that rights only come with responsibilities, responsibilities with rights, causes with effects and effects with causes.
People who haven’t taken the time to thoroughly define their terms of reference can only fall back on unreliable vague and generalized feelings – which most often result in a contrarian and adversarial “Me Good, You Bad!” subjectively hypocritical stance of paranoid masochism.
Further, in regards to “DIVERSITY:”
The leftopaths went from tolerating it, to celebrating it, and now to enforcing it on others.
Forcing others to accept one’s “difference” only confesses to one’s unique status as an extortive slaver – revealing, in one’s “diversity,” that the only real difference is a criminal one!
So, people who choose to celebrate the idol of “Diversity!” are all criminals! Because, while they say they really only want to be left alone (thus obeying the Golden Rule of Law) they are also determined to use pre-emptive violence to force others to do so – which decision, as it breaks that very same Golden Rule, reveals their criminal hypocrisy.
Endorsing Diversity means extorting tolerance for criminals because the cowards advocating for it don’t want to risk dealing with them. It’s the Stockholm Syndrome Christian version of islam!
R says
Protestant scum. There’s a reason why much of Protestant doctrine resembles Mohammedanism.
gravenimage says
This is just silly, R. Where are Protestants raping and murdering non-Protestants?
Examples, please.
Toby says
R,
You must be joking. We all know the Muslims persecute and even kill those who do not believe as they do. In fact they even kill other Muslims who don’t believe exactly as they do. Who does that sound like? Oh that’s right roman catholics who killed hundreds of thousands of protestants in Europe.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Toby how about giving figures of of how many Catholics were killed in relation to the battles you claim took place.
It might surprise you that extremist disloyal catholic s, now termed protestant tried to wipe out Loyal Catholics, stop the crying and the propaganda and study the events from both sides. You are similar to the Democratic party.
Individual catholics have a right to defend themselves, you think we dont. We are not pacifist as you would like us to be.
Its time for you to stop the weeping and look at the facts from both sides.
gravenimage says
Religious wars between Catholics and Protestants are, thankfully, things of the very distant past. Are you unfamiliar with history over the past several centuries?
Malcolm (South Afric) says
Come on R we cannot call protestants scum, that is not good. I do agree with you that there are many similarities in division, in the burning of our churches in France, England destroying our art murdering our priest and lay people i Think of (Sir) Saint Thomas More, is there a correlation, yes,
Now should we remind them of that yes it is a good thing when they put out general things about individual Catholics and tar the entire Church for individual perceived sins that happened hundreds of years ago.I think its fair’ however there many good people among them that do good,
I wish you well R.
Malcolm (South Afric) says
@ Aaron
Was going to reply to Toby, Not necessary you made the point spot on, the question now is, has he the intellectual capacity to understand it, I hope so.
kyparissiotes says
The Lutherans’ line “the Unbaptized Turk” (the Sultan) “is preferable to the Baptized Turk” (the Pope) reminds me of the famous statement of the Byzantine Megas Dux Loukas Notaras, “Better the Turban than the Tiara.” This was uttered shortly before the final fall of Constantinople; it reflected the attitude of many people in Byzantium. Their attitude helped condemn their children to some 500 years of slavery. Now Europe as a whole is imitating them.
gravenimage says
There has, tragically, been a lot of this suicidal madness.
We should not make the same mistakes–we should stand together against the threat of Islam.
Bridget Ames says
Raymond will you come up with another rebuttal to the latest, frontpagemag, article claiming that it was not Luther who opened the gates? I think in many ways you are playing the role of Johann Eck in such a debate, please keep up the good work!