[Book Review] Christianity Good, Islam Bad?
A friend of mine who had a thoroughly Roman Catholic education at the hands of the Christian Brothers tells me that the religious component of that education consisted largely of memorizing arguments with which to confound atheists, agnostics, and Protestants.
Robert Spencer is not, strictly speaking, a Roman Catholic, though I believe his church is in communion with Rome. His writings, though, are very much in the spirit of those Brothers. Anyone who writes much is driven by some daemon or other. What drives Spencer is plainly the determination to tell the world how true, wise, just and fruitful altogether has been western Christianity, most especially in its pre-Reformation styles, and how vile, intolerant, cruel, and inhuman is Islam.
Spencer is exceptionally well equipped to do both things. He possesses deep knowledge of early Christianity-has a Master’s degree in this area, according to Wikipedia. His own Church is Syriac, and so I presume uses an Arabic liturgy, leading to the further presumption that Spencer is a fluent reader of Arabic. He has been poring over Islamic texts for decades, and can quote chapter and verse from the Koran (which he annoyingly spells “Qu’ran,” as if any western reader has a clue what to do with that “Q” and that apostrophe), the Sira (authorized biography of Muhammed), the Hadith (oral traditions about Muhammed), and the works of medieval Islamic scholars.
In Religion of Peace? Spencer uses all that scholarship to three ends. First, he counters those who say that the more rambunctious kinds of American Christians are no better than, or may even be worse than, Muslim jihadists. Second, he discourses on the theme that Islam is inherently militant and intolerant-that this is not a mere matter of interpretation-while no such thing is true of Christianity. Third, he wants to tell us that modernity-science and political progress-had its origins in Christianity, while the stasis and stagnation of the Islamic world is similarly templated in the doctrines of Islam.
Man is noble, and worthy, not because he is a slave, but because he is free. That is what distinguishes the Judeo-Christian view from the Islamic view of mankind. Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid [a radical Saudi cleric] would say that mankind has value because human beings are the slaves of Allah. Jews and Christians, and even the secularists rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture, would say that mankind has value because human beings are free.
That is the difference. And that makes all the difference. (pp.206-7)
For my taste, Spencer spends altogether too much time on the first of those ends. The “equivalence” school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism, is certainly real, but is it actually that important? Spencer thinks so: “This [equivalence] is the prevailing malady of the West in our time. It is why this book had to be written.” (p. 11)
I understand that this bogus equivalence must be very vexing to a committed Christian, but Spencer seems not to understand how wacky all religions seem to the irreligious. All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking. To people who eschew such thinking-people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science-Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.
That does not preclude the possibility-which I think is an obvious fact-that in the present state of the world, Islam contains a far higher proportion of crazy troublemakers that does Christianity. It is, though, the ultimate basis of the “equivalence” school, and one that a believer like Spencer cannot admit, nor even, in all probability, grasp.
Similarly with the apologetics that fill another large portion of this book. It is a handy thing, I guess, for argumentative Catholics to have, in the spirit of those Brothers, defenses of the Church in things like the Crusades and the Galileo business, all packaged neatly together with refutations of popular notions about medieval Islamic scholars having invented algebra and heliocentric astronomy.
However, a person whose leisure-reading tastes don’t run to this sort of apologetics, and who is plowing through Spencer’s book only from duty, or idle curiosity, or as a courtesy or professional chore, is bound to wonder whether an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist… To adapt an old doggerel:
Islamist fleas have Christian fleas
Upon their backs to bite ‘em.
And Christian fleas have Muslim fleas,
And so ad infinitum.
It’s all a bit tedious, unless you are the kind of person to whom it isn’t. After a hundred pages or so of this book, in fact, I began to feel-in spite of Spencer’s scholarship, which I do not doubt, and his expository skills, which are very fluent, and his brief against Islam, which I found persuasive-that there was something a bit infantile behind it all. To an irreligious person, it all looks a bit like a game of theological mumblety-peg: “My Yahweh can whup your Allah, nyah nyah!”
That same irreligious person, reading Spencer’s book, will likewise be startled by the author’s assertion that medieval and early-modern Roman Catholicism breathes the very spirit of rationality, and was the seed-bed from which modern science grew. To us pagans, it looks rather as though science only really got going when the power of faith had ebbed from its late-medieval high point; and then, it got going mainly in those north European nations that had embraced Protestantism after the Reformation.
Spencer will have none of that. “The Bible,” he tells us, “assumes that God’s laws of creation are natural laws, a stable and unchanging reality-a sine qua non of scientific investigation.” (p. 156) Hmm. Which part of the Bible assumes that? Joshua 10:13, perhaps, where Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still? Or Matthew 17:21, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes? Or Acts 1:9, in which Jesus is taken up into the sky by a cloud? Some other part, perhaps.
This particular theme-that we should thank the Roman Catholic church for having midwifed the birth of science-is now common in Catholic apologetics. What seems to have happened is the slow realization, by Catholic intellectuals, of the appalling bad-publicity fallout from the Galileo affair (whatever the actual facts of that affair), leading to a determination never to be on the wrong side of any major scientific issue, ever again. Hence all the pronouncements from the hierarchy that biological evolution is a really spiffy theory, containing nothing that might offend believers… qualified with murmured insistences that, you know, God must have had something to do with it.
No doubt this is all very reassuring to the faithful. To non-Catholics, however, it is rather transparent, and at odds with the magical elements of the faith. And even if it were true that the church midwifed science, is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?
Spencer’s more general assumption that our civilization is a child of Christianity can likewise be fairly doubted. Does religion in fact explain anything about history? It is of course impossible to know how different the world would have been if Jesus of Nazareth, or Mohammed, had died in the cradle; but the suspicion lurks that it might not have been very different. Would the Arabs have come surging out of their desert oases in the seventh century without the Prophet and his faith to inspire them? Would Frankish knights have taken ship to recover the Holy Land, if they had not considered it Holy, only a lost province of the Roman Empire? Would white Europeans have developed science and consensual democracy if they had been only white Europeans, not also Christians?
All that we know for sure about history and its great tides is that people here behaved like this, while people there behaved like that. Why? What were the determinants? “Modes of production,” thought Marx: geography, says Jared Diamond; it is even being whispered that (gasp!) biology might have had something to do with it. There are theories a-plenty, but this is a zone in which we truly understand very little. Robert Spencer, who is obsessively interested in the minutiae of religious doctrine, naturally assumes that religion is a, if not the, principal determinant of historical events. I see no reason for irreligious people to follow him all the way on this, though personally I’d guess that things would be somewhat other than they are if nobody had ever heard of that white steed or that Immaculate Conception.
* * * * *
Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.
There are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter. We need not have done so. Wise men as long as forty years ago were sounding the alarm about the gross folly of opening our territories to such numbers of strangers with whom we had nothing in common. If Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology-the ideology of jihadism-the Christian West (Spencer actually says “Judeo-Christian,” but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.
The second ideology has in fact been the great enabler of the first. And, very uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do-the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?-the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear? Or if, having appeared, it dissolves in squabbling, as it surely would? What shall we do to be saved?
It is true that the author is under no obligation to give detailed political prescriptions. He can fairly say: “I am a diagnostician. I have made a close study of Islamic texts. This is what I have found. These are the implications, so far as the behavior we can expect from Muslims is concerned. It is not for me, a retired and uncourtly scholar, to prescribe social policies.” That is a tenable point of view.
The degree of restraint it implies, though, is wellnigh superhuman. Most of us, if we knew as much as Robert Spencer does about the problem, would feel the urge, perhaps even the moral imperative, to suggest a solution.
Possibly the author takes the division-of-labor view I have just mentioned-”Not my job!” Possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself. Or perhaps he thinks that the solution that obviously follows from all his painstaking exegeses is so radical that if he were to state it clearly, he would be cast out from the sphere of “acceptable” commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and “hate groups”-a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.
If the last, that is a pity, for what Robert Spencer leaves unsaid needs saying.
If what he has told us is true-and so far as the present state if Islam is concerned, I think it is-then the West should proscribe Islam, and the sooner the better. We should not allow Muslims into our countries, other than for necessary diplomatic or scholarly purposes. We should revoke the visas and permits of resident aliens who are Muslims, and ensure their departure. We should offer to purchase the citizenship of Muslim citizens, and bribe them to leave. Those who will not leave should be carefully watched by the police, and subjected to social disabilities-they should not, for example, be admitted to the armed forces, or allowed to proselytize in prisons. (Take a religion addled with violence and infused with a hatred of our society, and teach it in prisons to the most violent and antisocial of our people? Have we gone stark raving mad?) Mosques and madrassahs should be closed, or at the least punitively taxed.
For the U.S.A. there would be some constitutional niceties to be sorted out, but I am not speaking of any grave injustices here, still less of any cruelty or harm, which no civilized person wishes to a fellow human being who has done nothing wrong. Millions of harmless, peaceful Muslims will of course be inconvenienced, but life comes with no guarantee of uninterrupted convenience, and moving from one country to another is not especially arduous-I have done it myself several times. Nothing in such a program of “separationism” is immoral or improper, unless the first word in the phrase “sovereign nation” has lost all meaning.
But there, of course, is the rub. There, too, perhaps, is the real reason why Robert Spencer does not follow his analysis with the separationist prescription it so clearly implies: the reason being, that there is no chance whatsoever of such a prescription being applied in any western nation.
For if there is a sickness in the soul of Islam, there is a corresponding sickness in the soul of the West. As the darkness, cruelty, and obscurantism of jihadist Islam, described in such detail in this book, descend on our lands, our souls rise joyfully to greet them.
Hospital staff in the Lothians [a region of Scotland] have been told not to eat at their desks to avoid offending Muslim colleagues during Ramadan. [The National Health Service in] Lothians has advised doctors and other health workers not to have working lunches during the 30-day fast, which begins next month. The health service’s Equality and Diversity Officer sent an e-mail to all senior managers, giving guidance on religious tolerance. This includes ensuring Muslim staff are given breaks to pray, and time off to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan. It is understood they also advised hospital managers to move food trolleys away from areas where Muslims work.
It may even be that Robert Spencer suspects, at some level, that this sickness in the Western soul has its roots in Christianity, just like-according to him-every other aspect of our civilization.
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as “Allah” is not sitting well with the Catholic community. Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn’t care what he is called. “Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? … What does God care what we call him? It is our problem,” Muskens told Dutch television.
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution-major and critical, according to Spencer-from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
One cannot help noticing that in Japan, where Christians form less than one percent of the population, and Christian traditions are not a significant component of the national culture, Islam is neither a problem nor a threat, simply because Japan does not let Muslims-nor any other foreigners-settle in great numbers. The Japanese don’t give a fig for the universal brotherhood of man, and still cherish their national sovereignty. We no longer care much about our sovereignty, so long as our bellies are full and we have gadgets and clowns to amuse us; and our bishops, not to mention our Christian President and the globalist elites who surround him, tell us that doubts about the wisdom of mass Third World immigration are unkind, if not actually “hateful” (not to mention damaging to their stock portfolios).
It is not so much secularism that is the problem as Christianity and its legacy. If, as the subtitle of his book declares, Christianity is a religion of peace, while Islam is irredeemably militant, what on earth does Spencer think is likely to be the outcome of a conflict between the two? If-to put faces on the abstractions-Roger Cardinal Mahoney and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?
A sensibly exclusionist, separationist policy like Japan’s is therefore not available to us, because of our principles-those principles Spencer tells us are rooted in Christian thinking, those principles that send our author into such raptures of cultural superiority. Well, well: Christianity got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.
British-born John Derbyshire is the author most recently of %%AMAZON=0452288533 Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra.%% His %%AMAZON=0312156499 Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream: A Novel%% was a New York Times “Notable Book of the Year.
“Spencer seems not to understand how wacky all religions seem to the irreligious.”
Derbyshire’s review is interesting but contains a fundamental flaw. Whereas Spencer’s view of both Christianity and Islam is an educated one, I would argue that most irreligious people’s view of Christianity is an ignorant one. And I would include Mr Derbyshire in that category, although he only implies rather than honestly states his own position. Nor does he give us bona fides about his own knowledge/research etc. of religion.
Derbyshire does not define this silly notion of “magical thinking” and then conflates Muhammed’s flight on a steed with the Immaculate Conception. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he really means the Virgin Birth..
And where the Koran is the stenographic record of Allah, the RC view of the Bible is that it is subject to interpretation because it was inspired and not dictated by God.
The rest of Mr Derbyshire’s review is hard to take seriously as the logic may be impeccable but the thesis (es) is unsound.
Islam is not a belief system that is equivalent or interchangeable with Christianity on any scale that measures the human behavioral properties that the West prizes.
Islam has a lot more in common with Stalinist Communism and Hitler’s Nazis than Christianity.
Islam springs from a tribe of caravan raiders and brigands that sought to anoint its robbery and murder with holy oil, hence the “book” that springs from the forehead of Mohammad to emulate the Jews and their bible. Islam has never really been about anything else. Murder, robbery, extortion, slavery. Islam and its Moslems have been at war with the Judeo-Christian West for 1300 years; it never ends, but ebbs and surges as they sense weakness or strength.
If I were to wager on the outcome of a street fight between true Christians and Arab Moslems, I pick the Christians. As the basis for this, I recommend that you review the performance of the vaunted Arab Legion (or its descendants) against the Israeli Jews in ’48, ’56, ’67, and ’73. But 15 years hence, the children of those thrashed Moslems would be sneaking up on the kids of the Christians who fought the good fight and then forgot them.
Western civilization is certainly not simply the product of Christianity, however. We owe the Greeks and the Romans a great deal. But Christianity softened and humanized Rome, and that softening is the true legacy of the Church.
Think about this: Islam would never have succeeded against Rome. As an enemy, pagan Rome was implacable and unrelenting. If you compare the taking of Spain by the Moors to the campaign of Hannibal you can see the sense of it. Instead of Reconquista and eventual “peace” with Islam, Rome persevered to annihilate Carthage. That was one of the things that the religion that teaches us to “turn the other cheek” took from the European psyche. We no longer can draw on the kind of murderous cultural resolve that fueled the Imperial Roman engine, unless it is drawn from us by extraordinary events.
John’s comments on science ultimately miss the point here, as both Islam and Christianity ascribe sovereignty over creation to a sole Creator. Monotheism is able to “midwife” science because it removes all miracles to the one Rulemaker who, by definition, is the only one who can break the rules. Whereas mystical and polytheistic religions allow for human ‘magical thinking’ to influence space & time & matter, and so are inherently resistant to science, monotheism is compatible with science because it sees the miraculous as interventions in the mundane creation we humans inhabit, rather than as intrinsic parts of it.
The flourishing of science, however, is another matter. While Islam is compatible with science, it lacks the seperation between the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of man” which in Christianity allows human endeavors to flourish without the constraint of having to be sanctified. Sure, there are silly Christians who insist on chewing TestaMints and playing card games with “Christian” playing cards, but even they “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. In the “kingdom of the left hand” Christians are free to glorify God in their vocations, whether they be butchers, bakers, or scientists. Similarly, and most importantly to John’s very good Quo Vadis point, Christianity gives Caesar honor in his vocation, granting him the “power of the swoard” to restrain evil and establish temporal justice.
Ironically, it is liberal Christians, children of the Enlightenment who therefore have lost the theology of the Two Kingdoms precisely because they reject the miracles of the Bible, who are worthless in the fight against jihad – or against moral decay in our society for that matter.
So, of course I’d rather have Christopher Hitchens on my side than Bishop Muskens. But I’d rather have orthodox Christians on my side than Gordon Brown or Hillary Clinton!
So the answer really is for the Christian majority in the west to return to solid, Biblical teaching. Then they will stop all this “social Gospel” nonsense (which is no Gospel at all, because it is about good works rather than the forgiveness of sins!), let God be God, and be content going about their vocations – vocations which include being soldiers, rulers, and policemen wielding the “power of the sword” so that our civilization can be protected from terrorists abroad and criminals at home.
Power is the issue. fascism is a contender in the games of power and these days Islamic fascism is in the news. A few decades ago, it was the Christian variety. Whether either variety is a true reflection of their ancestors wishes, whether the Christian variety is based on Christ’s teachings less than the Islamic variety is based on Mohammed’s teachings..this is almost irrelevant…for a few years, either will do the job of killing large numbers of people and imposing uniformity by force.
I would hesitate to say that Mr. Derbyshire’s critique of Christianity comes from ignorance, because he recently described his journey from somewhat weakish faith, to none at all; he comes from the Anglican tradition, and is well-schooled in Christian fundamentals. His reservations have a stronger pedigree than mere ignorance.
That being said, the phrase following that one, “…people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science…” seems to me very feeble. This empiricist pose that stands those of scientific mind against the magically thinking believers, is itself a form of magical thinking, based on unprovable assertions and presuppositons– faith, in other words. That Muslims do not believe in a world of cause-and-effect, per se, certainly would give rise to a foundational problem with modernity, and I think it is a worthy topic of study.
Certainly, I would enjoy it if Mr. Spencer’s writings were more open about his evangelism; but many people would then discount his arguments regarding Islam, and instead focus on Spencer’s Christianity.
“Christians are dangerous when they do not follow their religion, Muslims are dangerous when they do.”
This is the crux of the argument.
As an agnostic, I find the Beautitudes (“Blessed are the peacemakers…”) superior to the violent Koranic injunctions (to “strike at their necks…”, et al) and the Koran’s/Mohammad’s misogyny, intolerance of polytheists and pagans -and all other “unbelievers”, its call to dominate the world, and for all “infidel” people to convert, pay protection money and live as serfs, or die.
Islam is an expansionistic, imperialistic theocratic tyranny.
Christianity has succumbed to the same kinds of brutal, human-all-too-human temptations to power and cruel follies in its history as are enshrined in orthodox Islam’s dogmas, by they are not inherent in the New Testament texts.
Islam is a warlord’s marching orders to subjugate the world with a “God” as their greatest weapon.
Christianity is a Prince of Peace’s message to forgive and love.
The divinity of either messenger is immaterial to me.
The message is.
Mohammad’s is a call to carnage.
Christ’s, to compassion.
I’ll take Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Epictetus or Angelus Silesius over Mohammad.
And am fighting for my choice.
Because Islam leaves me no other.
I like Derb, but he has been an example of the half-informed on this matter for some time. By attempting to understand aspects of belief and nonbelief, he ends by understanding neither.
Derbyshire faults Spencer for putting so much time into refuting ideas popularly held by the educated classes in the West, wondering if it is all quite fair, and at all quite necessary. He then goes on to repeat many popularly-held ideas as way of explanation why people find Christian belief unnecessary. Derb, you provided excellent evidence that the ideas attacked are precisely the obstacles for you and others. Odd, that.
Mr. Derbyshire then puts forth the fantasy that an Islamic scholar could write an equivalent rebuttal. I guess no one has to bother to actually write it and supply the evidence, then, if the educated classes are going to assume it does or could exist anyway. Spencer should then not bother to do all this research and make a case with meticulous, even tedious detail, if even people of rigorous mathematical training are going to simply dismiss it as meaningless.
Sorry you found it tedious, Derb, and perhaps Spencer should be a more engaging writer. But you made his case for him, rather than the opposite.
Because Mr. Derbyshire admittedly has never opened a Koran and examined the contents (he chooses “radical dentistry” instead), he is able to make this utterly asinine statement:
“…God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.”
Are you kidding, Mr. Derbyshire? First of all, the conflation of Mohammed’s fictional “Night Journey,” in which he “saw” women lining up for Hell (no men in that line, of course), as well as other horrors concerning women, such as hanging by their breasts (you aware of any of this, Mr. Derbyshire?), with the Christian Annunciation and the following birth of Jesus, is ludicrous. One may as well compare an oozing swamp with a pristine lake.
Secondly, Mohammed has “allah” commanding MANY times in the Koran to “Kill the Unbelievers” and “Slay the Infidel wherever you find him.”
Whereas, as everyone knows, Jesus said, “Love thine enemy.” Jesus never harmed anyone, whereas Mohammed is a Beheader Extraordinaire. Now, just whose “instructions” would you consider to be “better” and which to be “worse,” Mr. Derbyshire? Clearly, there’s a huge difference between the two.
Before you pen another article in which the Koran is concerned, Mr. Derbyshire, I advise you to eschew the root canal and opt instead for a few hours at your desk with the Mohammedan “holy book” so you can learn something about it before you write. That’s a reasonable suggestion, wouldn’t you agree?
Finally, considering what deep “merde” your country is in concerning the Islamists, I’m amazed by your flippant tone.
Darcy, USA
P.S. Mr. Spencer spells it “Qur’an,” not “Qu’ran,” as you erroneously stated in your third paragraph. Check the book again – you’ll see. So, some “Westerners” DO have “a clue” with what to do with the “Q” and the “apostrophe.” And, “ahadith” is the plural when referring to the “Traditions” of Mohammed.
“That same irreligious person, reading Spencer’s book, will likewise be startled by the author’s assertion that medieval and early-modern Roman Catholicism breathes the very spirit of rationality, and was the seed-bed from which modern science grew”
Hm.. I am unreligious and atheist, but after having read a few scholarly books on European history I think Spencer’s view is correct.
Muslims behave destructively BECAUSE of Mohammed’s teachings. Christians do so IN SPITE OF what Christ taught. That should settle it.
Compared to the mental climate pre-9/11,now we’re starting to get someplace. Before the battle begins we need (1) to know the enemy (2) to develop a firm, all inclusive, convincing ideology. It’s fascinating for this old timer to see the best of the Western mind go to work again when it is threatened. Go! Americans Go!
I believe Mr. Derbyshire is confusing true Christians from the liberal/leftist churches.
Wow, that was a lot of wasted words by Mr. Derbyshire. Never let it be said that newfound atheists will miss an opportunity to declare universal religious moral equivalence in order to criticize religious faith in totality.
Quite frankly, I couldn’t get past the irreligious tone of Derb’s “review”. He seems to agree with Spencer that Islam currently is a much bigger threat than all other religious ideologies. He agrees that globalism has lead to the recent spread of Muslims to traditional western Judeo-Christian societies, with a moratorium on further Islamic immigration deemed as a neccessary step in his opinion.
Am I missing something here? Does Derbyshire really not like the book for any reason other than it touts Christian superiority, a heinous crime in and of itself, to him and his ilk?
As previously noted by others on this thread, Derbyshire has unwittingly supported Spencer’s position in his book, but refutes it solely on the grounds that it is based on religious principles, something John just does not like.
Derbyshire is wise to trust Spencer’s scholarship, being that he never opened, nor cared to open, the Qur’an at all it appears. When one writes such a peripheral review of an imporatant book like the one by Robert Spencer, one would be prudent to let the novocaine wear off first.
Wow…this guy is full of hate for America, the President and his staff, Christians, Jews, and just about everyone except Muslims and apparently the Japanese.
It must be easy to write book reviews with unsubstantiated rhetoric and falsities…the only good news is he admits the in the current day, Islam is far worse than any other religion – admitting the problem is the first step towards fully recognizing and resolving the problem. Of course he doesn’t offer any solutions just as he accuses Spencer…although Spencer has offered many in other forums.
“Magical thinking.” Wish I’d come up with that during many years of wasting my youth in basically pointless discussions of religion. I won’t be reading Spencer’s book, only because I have concluded that the subject itself is irrational and all rather a bit silly. I’ve also learned that what I say here will not change the imbedded magical thinking of one religious believer. Some, I suppose, will even pray for me. I don’t mind.
Robert KKK Spencer is a classic American bigot who is maintaining America’s dismal history of prejudice against minorities as he attacks Islam and Muslims relentlessly.
Somehow Robert Spencer has forgotten the history of Christianity: Two thousand years of anti-semitism which lead directly to the Holocaust, centuries of religious warfare which compelled a lot of religious minorities to cross a dangerous ocean in order to enjoy religious freedom in the New World, the conquest and colonialism which exterminated about 90% of the Native population of North and South America, a century of technological warfare which killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, and the ultimate act of terrorism ever committed by humankind (the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Some religion of peace you have there, Robert Spencer!
I am astonished by all of these ignorant bigots who talk so ominously about the treat of Islam who also seem to have forgotten recent history. as recently as 1989 the United States of America had an official military policy of Mutually Assurred Destruction which would have led to the incineration of at least 100 million humans instantly should a nuclear war against the Soviet Union ever begin.
Nuclear bombs were designed for genocide from the very beginning. America did not assemble an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear weapons for the sake of peace & love & flowers. Americans were willing & able to kill millions of Soviets (and their children) so that America would somehow “win” the nuclear war.
Americans are not so peaceful as they seem, either. Have you checked the crime statistics for American violence? Thousands of Americans are killed by Americans every year. Americans own over 100 million guns, some out of fear and some with lethal intent.
Americans also are responsible for killing over 100,000 Iraqis. When an American bomb falls upon an Iraqi house it doesn’t discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, the terrorist and the newborn infant.
Robert Spencer’s followers don’t mind Muslims dying by the thousands, they are eager to kill millions more. Where’s the Christian love among these warmongering bigots?
Robert KKK Spencer is a classic bloodthirsty American bigot warmonger. He doesn’t want peace between Islam and Christianity. He wants to provoke a fight to the death between these two religions.
God help us all if these bigots ever gain political power over the USA. George W. Bush is an evil man but at least he had the common sense to declare that America wasn’t at war with Islam after 9/11. America’s bigots better learn how to distinguish the guilty from the innocent, the dangerous from the harmful, and the enemy from the ally.
Dave Mathews: Being that you feel the excesses of history are such obvious examples of ‘Christian’ violence, I’m sure you will have no trouble locating quotes where they were performed specifically in the name of the Christian religion, rather than international politics.
From John’s article above:
John
What exactly are the scholarly purposes for which you’d allow any Muslims in? The AQ Khan type of scholarship? Or the Edward Said type?
I do like your suggestion about bribing Muslim citizens to leave, and making their lives unbearable if they don’t. That’s really creative for cases where deportation can’t work.
Hello Infidel,
> I do like your suggestion about bribing Muslim citizens to leave, and making their lives unbearable if they don’t.
What sort of insane fool would trample upon the Constitution in order to commit this act of violence against American Muslims?
You people need to wake up:
Islam did not attack America on 9/11.
But you people do provide a good explanation for why the Muslims of Iraq decided that they needed to fight against their American occupiers. If they listened to people such as Robert Spencer and like-minded bigots they would know that they needed to drive out the Americans before the Americans committed genocide against them.
If the Muslims must leave America, the Americans ought to leave the Persian Gulf and never return. The Muslims should stop supplying Americans with oil and therefore provide America no excuse for any more wars of aggression against the Middle East.
The United States of America has murdered over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Yet you people claim that Islam is the religion of violence. America murdered 2,000,000 Vietnamese, and yet you people imagine that America is the peace-loving nation.
The United States has plenty of blood on its own hands. Your desire to commit violence against the Muslims is merely another episode in America’s long history of violence & oppression & persecution of minorities.
We need more courageous conservatives like Derb to take off their kid gloves when dealing with religious people of all stripes.
Obviously Islam poses some kind of threat to us now, but we should not, on that account, allow all these cowardly Christians (superstition is cowardly) to use Islam-bashing as a way to feel good about themselves.
Islam’s extreme monotheism places significant obstacles in the way of science. Allah’s sovereignty is conceived as so uncompromising that it is nearly impossible for Muslims to speak of Allah “obeying laws” or anything else but himself. He is a sort of absolute despot. And since Muslims do not consider the cosmos to be in any strong sense independent of Allah’s will, it has been difficult for Islamic culture to look at the cosmos as obeying law. How then to birth a scientific culture? Everything that happens is supposed to be due to Allah’s absolute and arbitrary fiat, not to predictable law. Thus in response to the Judeo-Christian tradition’s tendency to ascribe non-arbitrary, lawful patterns to the divine, Muslims have historically complained that Allah is “unfettered,” not bound by any laws. This is also bound up with the way ethics and morality, in Islam, are not so much uncoverable by considering any non-arbitrary, lawful, or natural morality. One cannot as a strict Muslim look to one’s direct experience of inner conscience and of the world, in order to test the morality of an action. In Islam, morality is exemplified by whatever “Allah,” chose to direct Muhammad to do. Unfortunately, this leads many, not all Muslims, to define as “good” and “moral” not only whatever good Muhammad may have done, but also the evils he did: assassinating critics, torturing and executing prisoners, commanding his followers to spread Islamic law everywhere by force, deception and persuasion, and so on.
Re; David Mathews,
Here is a textbook example of someone who has been forced-fed years of liberalism, global multiculturalism and political correctness.
He was kind enough to sneak away from the daily Kos and come here to label Robert Spencer a Klansman.
He then proceeds to drop Christianity and Islam from the discussion altogether, focusing solely on the tired, old, “America is evil” dogma…*yawns
Ironically, this clown probably lives under the freedoms and protection of the US Constitution right here in America.
I’d prefer to have these bigots gain control of power in the US over the possibility of you getting any other job with more responsibility than the “head fry guy” at Mickey D’s.
Back to the intellectual cesspool with you, Davey.
Hello Scott,
> Obviously Islam poses some kind of threat to us now …
What is wrong with you people?
1.3 billion people did not attack the United States on 9/11. Muhammed did not attack America on 9/11. The Qur’an did not attack America on 9/11. America’s Muslim citizens did not attack Amrica on 9/11. The religion of Islam did not attack America on 9/11.
To blame Islam for 9/11 is about as insane as blaming Christianity for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Christians dropped nuclear bombs on Hirohima and Nagsaki. Christianity did not.
You people need to draw a distinction otherwise you will draw yourself into an unnecessary war with a religion rather than confront your true enemy … which happens to be a radical, unpopular extremist whose failure to find friends in the mainstream Islamic world has forced him to live in caves on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
To attack America’s Muslims as an act of vengeance for Osama’s evil act is not merely unjust … it is positively stupid.
America’s Muslims are harmless people. They are good people. The are upstanding citizens. They are beautiful people. They are lovely women and cute children.
I will protect these people from Christian fundamentalist bigots today, tomorrow and foroever. If the Christians cannot live at peace with the Muslims they should take their small minds and 19th century morality back to Europe.
I will not endure anyone drawing America into a religious civil war. You people better live at peace with your neighbors or you people will find yourself very unwelcome in America very quickly.
Radical Christians are just as insane and dangerous and intolerant as radical Islamists.
God save us from the religious!
“He has been poring over Islamic texts for decades, and can quote chapter and verse from the Koran (which he annoyingly spells “Qu’ran,” [sic] as if any western reader has a clue what to do with that “Q” and that apostrophe),”
It is Qur’an. Not “Qu’ran” Please quote correctly in the future. It may be a small detail, but if you cannot get this type of detail correct, the review becomes highly suspect.
“Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.”
“All that we know for sure about history and its great tides is that people here behaved like this, while people there behaved like that. Why? What were the determinants?”
A person who says, “Whatever the facts,” is usually a person who either knows precious few, or who disregards facts that are “inconvenient,” or both. In any case, the reviewer admits he has not read the Qur’an. In what way is he qualified to review Robert Spencer’s book?
Rather than see “we,” he should stick to the first person singular.
The fact that there are differing theories does not mean that we know nothing. His argument is the heart and soul of relativism. He might as well just say that he knows nothing.
“Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception;”
I am fairly certain that Mr. Derbyshire has confused Mary’s own birth with the birth of her son. This indicates that in addition to not reading the Qur’an, he is also quite ignorant about Christian theology. So again I ask this question; In what way is he qualified to review this book?
I believe that Mr. Derbyshire’s ramblings to be a parody of the intellectually ignorant. Unfortunately, he probably meant every word of what he wrote.
Hello Treah,
> “In Islam, morality is exemplified by whatever “Allah,” chose to direct Muhammad to do. Unfortunately, this leads many, not all Muslims, to define as “good” and “moral” not only whatever good Muhammad may have done, but also the evils he did: assassinating critics, torturing and executing prisoners, commanding his followers to spread Islamic law everywhere by force, deception and persuasion, and so on.”
Is that so?
Now woul you kindly explain how America’s tolerant, peace-loving Christians enslaved the Africans and treated such people as property, oppressing and killing them at will?
Would you also kindly explain how the Christians of the North and the Christians of the South were able to kill each other at such a horrendous rate that over 600,000 died in the Civil War?
Would you kindly explain how the ciivlized, Christian people of Germany could hate the Jews so much that they consented to the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of other minorities?
Would you kindly explain how America’s peace-loving Christians could drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how these same Christians might justify dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina?
***
Islam isn’t half as violent as Christianity. Robert Spencer’s lies notwithstanding.
Have you heard what atheists say about the Bible and Jesus Christ on a daily basis?
It is easy enough to spread lies and bigotry and prejudice. You should read the writings of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. These people hate Islam but they also hate Christianity.
So you people are treading on dangerous ground. The crimes that you want to commit against Muslims might eventually fall upon your own head.
All of this discussion about the merits of the different religions is irrelevant. The point is muslims are not going to stop trying to establish a world caliphate under total sharia law until we either defeat them or they succeed. We(non-muslims) have a choice to make, and it is beginning to look like we have already made it. Prayer mats and burqas anyone?
The extraordinary ignorance of Robert KKK Spencer’s followers are on display on his blog. According to one uneducated bigot:
“Christ asked us to love our Enemys. I do not recall him telling us to invite them over for Dinner and Drinks.”
( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017857.php#comments )
Have you read the Parable of the Good Samaritan, sir?
These ignorant, barely literate Christians obviously have never read their Bible.
Now here is what your Bible teaches you, bigots:
“‘But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
(Romans 12:20-21)
If Paul’s command doesn’t pass muster for the uneducated, illiterate followers of Robert KKK Spencer, I have nother source of authority: Jesus Christ. The person whom you claim to love but blaspheme with your words of hatred and violence against the Muslims.
What Would Jesus Do? Listen carefully to your God and obey: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you …” (Matthew 5:43-44).
Robert KKK Spencer would have the Christians hate Islam and kill the Muslims. Robert KKK Spencer is like a jihadists (or a crusader) for the genocidal nuclear-armed Christian fundamentalists of the West.
Robet KKK Spencer would have Europe commit another Holocaust, this time against the Muslims instead of the Jews.
Robert KKK Spencer is a man filled with hate and irrational fear who encourages his ignorant, illiterate followers to seek a violent solution to the world’s problems. His followers have expressed genocidal urges often enough and explicitly enough to reveal their true nature.
When Robert Spencer speaks about Christ and Christianity, his words are blasphemy. Jesus doesn’t need any praise from those who would use Him as a motivation for hate, prejudice and perpetual warfare.
If you love Jesus, love your neighbor. If you love Jeuss, love and protect the Muslims from violent American extremists would would destroy the constitution in order to deprive Americans of their religious freedom.
God save us from the religious!
Hello Charles Stone,
> “The point is muslims are not going to stop trying to establish a world caliphate under total sharia law until we either defeat them or they succeed. We(non-muslims) have a choice to make, and it is beginning to look like we have already made it.”
Please. Are you so ignorant? Are you filled with irrational fear?
If so, you are an ideal follower of Mr. Robert Spencer.
Okay, Charles, what do you propose the West should do about these world-dominating Muslims?
Would you like for the West to kill them all?
Or would you oppress the Muslims and deprive them of their civil rights?
***
Islam did not attack America on 9/11.
You people aren’t educated enough to know your enemies, are you?
Instead of solving the problem you would plunge the world into another global religious war.
Hey David,
Your answer to what the West should do against the growing threat of forced Islamic expansion would be to show them pictures of baby elephants??
Has anyone seen this lunatic’s webpage? That, coupled with the incessant name-calling of ignorance and bigotry and referring to Robert Spencer as a klansman, is more than enough reason to not be taken seriously at all about anything he says.
David says:
“What is wrong with you people?
1.3 billion people did not attack the United States on 9/11. Muhammed did not attack America on 9/11…The religion of Islam did not attack America on 9/11.”
I am not aware of anyone else claiming this in the discussion. This would seem to me to be a classic straw-man argument. The President of the United States made this very clear in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks by his visits to Islamic centers, and his outreach to Islamic scholars, imams, and social workers.
David would seem, here, to wish to convince us that we THINK that Islam attacked us, but no one here seems to think so: because it is a preposterous projection that intelligent people here — in a thread of discussion and critique which is almost unprecedented in my experience for showing so much intelligence! — do not hold.
What we do hold, however, in some cases is that we understand the ideology of the actual persons who carried out the attack. This is well understood.
Furthermore, as our Islamic adversaries have been so considerate as to provide in exhaustive detail in order to educate us, all that they believe and think, we understand (a) their motives; (b) their belief system; (c) their criticism of Western values, society, and politics; and (d) their long term goals.
The “lament over the corruption of the world” is an abject anxiety mechanism often exhibited by disaffected youth, intellectuals, and cynics. It’s unanswerable, as no end of evidence is available from thousands of years of recorded history, mankind having taken so much effort to document its weaknesses, sociopathies, and pathologies.
Moving away from this all too common “release” of certain despairing types, who see themselves (perhaps rightly!) as the inheritors of the ugliness of human history, I’d suggest that the rational, balanced, and practical people who don’t cave in to this self-defeat and misery are the ones most likely to get us out of it, and to improve the situation. (That includes Muslims, too.)
Obviously, the most dangerous person on these Comments is “David Mathews.” He knows only one word – bigot – which he’s repeated about 50 times so far in his rage-filled comments.
Hey Dave – How ’bout expanding your vocabulary a bit? A definition of “bigot’ is “zealot” and it seems to me you are filled with a lot of rage-fueled zeal. Why don’t you calm down on your bigotry a bit, Mr Mathews?
To equate Robert Spencer with “KKK” only shows how utterly and completely ignorant you are. Basically, the only person that scares me on these Comments is YOU – Hey, take a chill pill and learn some new words from your community college text, eh?
LOOK OUT! Taking bets on Dave Mathews calling me a bigot and a KKK! A very nasty Commenter, isn’t he?
Oh, Spencer’s “illiterate followers!” LOL! Don’t you know it was Mohammed who was illiterate, Angry Dave?
If not Islam, then who were we attacked by on 9-11, poverty? Bin Laden claimes the 9-11 attacks and described the hijackers as the “Magnificent 19″ of Islam. Mohammed (note the name) Atta had a Master’s Degree in urban planning. Did he have no employment prospects? Or perhaps you think that the attacks were all part of some dark plot by Dick Cheney? Obviously, you have not read or followed developments in radical Islam in the past 60 years and Sayid Qtub abd Hassan El Banna. As Solzhenitsyn said, Stalinism was “communism done by experts.” In the same way, Salafi Islam is the real Islam. “Moderate” Muslims are auto-wish fulfillment for the declining West. We have been fighting Islam for 1,000 years. We just do not think so because there was a “cease fire” for the past 150 years. Remember the Barbary Pirates? Ireland was raided by Muslims for Christian slaves as recently as 1800. As Bob Wright says, we do not want to engage in self-fulfilling prophesies, but the problem is that we have to deny reality to avoid it.
Hello Darcy,
I would love to calm down. Robert Spencer and his followers need to calm down their rhetoric against Islam.
You people need to make peace with your neighbors, including your neighbors who happen to live in Iraq.
If you are a Christian, you must love your neighbors, including your neighbors who are Muslim.
If you are an American, you must recognize that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights protect Muslims just as much as they protect you.
If you are a Christian, you must recognize that your religion has committed many abhorrent acts of violence in its history, more acts of violence than the Muslims.
People must learn to accept that on a planet with 6.6 billion people there must exist differences of race, culture, ethnicity, religion, philosophy, lifestyle, language and character.
The Muslims just just as much a “Right to Live” as you. Don’t attack them. Don’t spread hate and irrational fear against them. Don’t advocate warfare and nuclear genocide against them.
If you people actually displayed Christian love towards the Muslims I would never have any cause to call any of you a bigot.
Well, Christians, are you going to behave like Christians? Or will you continue to spread hatred, violence and warfare?
Hello Joseph,
> If not Islam, then who were we attacked by on 9-11, poverty?
Osama Bin Laden attacked America on 9/11. Not Islam.
Just as America dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. Christianity didn’t drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Why would Jesus ever drop a nuclear bomb on the Christians of Nagasaki?
See … this is the distinction that you people fail to make. Any lunatic can start a war, but those who love peace will live peacefully and they will not spread hatred against an entire religion.
Are you a Christian?
If so, why aren’t you behaving like a Christian?
Someone please get David Mathews his collection of Gramsci’s writings and a box of tissues.
Dave, if I believed in a God, I’d pray that It spare us from ignorant, quivering, dhimmi quislings like you.
If you believe what your saying you’re brainless, and if you don’t you’re either gutless or a dangerous propagandist.
We report, you decide.
Wow. David Mathews only used the word “bigot” once in his reply to me! Congratulations, Dave, you appear a bit more intelligent, now.
But, just a bit.
BTW, “bigot” is not synonymous with “hate.”
And, Christians have a right to defend themselves. The bombs were dropped in WW2 for a reason, Dave. And, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s the MOHAMMEDANS who are “spreading hatred, violence, and warfare.” Or, has 9/11 escaped your sieve-like memory? And, the over 9,000 subsequent global attacks against others by Mohammedans? Incidentally, it’s the ARABS who are committing genocide against the Sudanese Christian Africans.
We’re not talking about ancient history – we’re talking about RIGHT NOW. (Mohammedans also committed violent acts in ancient history, so you have no argument there. Mohammed was a vicious Warlord who had thousands of Jewish and Christian males beheaded).
Hello Ralph,
I need not worry about you and your kind.
You know that bigots are a minority in the United States?
I see plenty of American Muslims every day. They are loved by their neighbors. Americans will protect the Muslims from any 21st century manifestation of the KKK spirit among America’s radical Christian jihadists.
You won’t win this battle, Ralph. If you are unhappy to live in a tolerant nation, why don’t you move back to Europe?
LOL! “Christian jihadists!” What “Christian jihadists?” I don’t see any Christians committing Terrorist attacks against others!
You still just don’t get that your chronic usage of “bigot” and “KKK” makes you look like a bloomin’ idiot, do you, Mr. Mathews?
“Christian jihadists!” LOL!
Response to David Matthews:
The U. S. Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither is Christianity, properly understood. Yes, we killed many Christians when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. This was a regretable fact, but necessary to end the war. My father was on his way to fight in the Pacific when the bomb was dropped. The Pentagon had ordered 500,000 Purple Hearts for the invasion. I am glad that the bomb was dropped. Believe it our not, it certainly saved American lives and probably saved Japanese lives as well. President Truman was afraid that he would be impeached if he left soldiers be slaughtered in an invasion of Japan when he had a bomb and did not use use it. Are you proposing that our only response to attacks from Islam should be pacifistic? Do you have children? Are you prepared to see you grandchildren live under Sharia? Look at Europe, which is quickly dhimmifying. We may not even last until your grandchildren are of age at the rate we are going. Perhaps you think that life as a dhimmi under Islam would be okay since Christians are “people of the Book”? Frankly, I think we owe the Serbs an apology.
Hello Darcy,
Dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina is a terrorist act, isn’t it?
Just as dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts which were (in fact) more of a message to the Soviet Union than to the Japanese.
Yes, Darcy, you & yours are Christian jihadists. You people would kill Muslim civilians in order to advance your political cause.
Hello Joseph,
> Are you proposing that our only response to attacks from Islam should be pacifistic? Do you have children? Are you prepared to see you grandchildren live under Sharia? Look at Europe, which is quickly dhimmifying. We may not even last until your grandchildren are of age at the rate we are going. Perhaps you think that life as a dhimmi under Islam would be okay since Christians are “people of the Book”?
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but here it goes again:
Islam did not attack America on 9/11.
And:
No, I would not have any Americans live under Sharia, nor would I have them live under to oppressive 19th-century morals of fundamentalist Christianity.
Finally:
Those who would not want Islam imposed upon them should not seek to impose Christianity (or Americanism) upon the people of the Middle East.
…
Joseph, do you follow the Bible? Do you follow the teachings of Christ?
What does Jesus teach you about how you should treat a Muslim and 1.3 billion Muslims?
Does Jesus command that you love these people?
Didn’t Jesus die for the Muslims, too? So why would you attack and oppress them?
Dave “I know you are but what am I” Matthews~
“You people need to make peace with your neighbors, including your neighbors who happen to live in Iraq.”
Stick your head back in the sand mumbling peace to yourself the whole way. When Jesus said, to turn the other cheek, he was assuming it was still attached to your neck and not hacked off with a scimitar. With Islam, that’s not a given. If you are feeling so warm and fuzzy toward them, why don’t you start with the whole “making friends” and move to any Sharia ruled country. Get back to us and let us know how it goes.
I have not propose attacking Mecca and Medina. I cannot imagine anything that would enrage worldwide Islam more (aside from being unjust). I do not favor any kind of attack on Cairo or Rabat or any Muslim city. I do love Muslims and do not feel that Christianity should be imposed on anyone. Jesus said, knock and the door will be opened. There is no compulsion in Christianity; in fact, Christianity is the antitithis of compulsion because it REQUIRES each individual’s internal assent. I do not call for a Christian “jihad.” All such arguments are “straw men.” I would suggest that atheists and agnostics should dread the triumph of Islam because they will NOT be tolerated in Islamic state. They will be considered to be “casting corruption upon the Earth.” Read what the Qu’ran says about the treatment of such disbelievers. You seem to think tha Christianity requires a pacifistic response to every attack. I do not agree. The church has had a “just war” doctrine for hundreds of years. The only alternative to conflict is complete separation. We must separate ourselves from the Islamic world so it is not a threat to our very continued existence. This is distasteful to us, but necessary. Good intentions are not enough. Already we see a September 11 demonstration being banned in Brussels and a Muslim parade being scheduled for New York, incredibly, for September 9, two days before the anniversary. What an “in your face” statement of contempt by Islam.
Hello KL,
Ironic that you would say all those evil things about Islam at the same time that the United States is engaged in an aggressive war and occupation of Iraq.
Anyhow, KL, if what you are saying is true, I must ask you a question:
If Christianity is so peaceful how is it possible that Europe erupted into the global wars of the 20th century?
If Christianity is so peaceful, how did the Christians justify oppressing, enslaving and killing the Africans as if they were mere property?
If Christianity is so peaceful, how is it at all possible that the Christians have acquired 10,000 nuclear weapons?
sir,
an excellent review, indeed saying many things that need to be said rather more loudly in todays world.
i find few issues with spencers books but i find his direction and thinking somewhat short ,as if he does fear censure for his views. possibly a wise thing today.
Games Muslims Play
One of the most addicting emotions we can have is one of self-righteous outrage. You don’t even have to be “right” to have self-righteousness. Almost everyone has played this game of moral outrage at one time or another. When little Johnny, age 5 breaks a flower vase in the living room, his Mom might hear it and come in to say, “Who broke this vase?” Johnny, knowing from the tone of her voice, that he is in big trouble says, “The doggie did it.” Since the dog has been outside for an hour, she spanks him and says, “I will not have a child lie to me.”
Dr. Berne, in his book, in his book GAMES PEOPLE PLAY calls this game “Now I’ve Got You, You SonOfABitch.” It’s not that Johnny just broke a vase, but he is set up to be guilty of a worse crime. “Now I’ve Got You, You Lied To Me, Like All Men Lie, Like Your Father Lied. Etc.”… He was forced into lying about it. While he’s getting a spanking, he’s saying to himself… “Wait a minute, how did we get here? I broke a vase and here I am getting spanked for lying?”
The emotion of moral outrage is very addicting to immature people. I’m saying that jihad-prone people are not that clever. It’s easier to push the situation to make little Johnny even MORE WRONG than to lovingly and wisely say, “Oh, did you break the vase, let’s clean it up before you hurt yourself.”
Liberals love to play “Now I’ve Got You, You SonOfABitch” too. They slap a “FREE TIBET” bumper sticker on their car and prove they care more than you do. They don’t do anything more than “care”. But they feel self-righteousness. If we would go in with guns ablazing to “free Tibet” they would change bumper stickers to say “War Is Not The Answer.” More self-righteousness.
Muslims play “Now I’ve Got You…” also… There is no difference between the Mom spanking little Johnny and Jihad. (Except for the bloodletting.)
Is it possible to train Muslims to stop the Jihad game and instead of killing the infidel to help us all clean up the mess? I think not. For, according to Jihad thinking, infidels are the mess.
Maturity, is always a process of “thinking about our thoughts.” If we don’t know why we think the way we do, we will never allow ourselves to have another thought. We train our minds to think in a certain way. And if you are upset, as Jihadis seem to be, you have to do three things at the same time to be so pissed off…
1. You have to overlook the good. There is so much good in the world. And there is so much good that infidels have done. We build the skyscrapers they love to destroy. We build the assault weapons they love to use. They use Israeli guns, Russian guns and American guns. We build the technology to pump the oil out of their grounds and turn it into gasoline. Do they have a problem with all that? Do they have the courtesy to say “Thank You” before decapitating someone who has directly or indirectly bless their life? Overlooking the good is a Jihad thing to do.
2. You have to Focus On The Bad. Yes, we have Paris Hilton. And I guess that’s bad. And there are gay pride marches with those awful tutus. (I do wish those guys would wear a suit if they want to be taken seriously.) But focusing on the bad is necessary if you’re going to play the game of Jihad.
3. And finally, you have to Exaggerate The Importance Of The Bad. This is a vital element of proper Jihad. You can’t just say “Oh, those silly American Crusaders.” No. You’ve got to be insulted all out of proportion, to rampage and murder innocent by-standers when a cartoon appears, when a dictator (Sadaam) is toppled, or when your behavior is challenged. You’ve got to “feel” like a woman, that this slight, is intolerable. I could argue that Jihadis are behaving very much like a scorned female. Remember, “feelings” are not necessarily facts. If you FEEL something is true, your feeling does not make it true. You can feel that the moon is made of cheese, but it does not make it so. You need to gather all of the facts. All of them. Not just the “fact” that moon is the same color as some cheese. If you cull out a few facts to make you hate Jews and Christians, you’re still being a girly Muslim. Of course you can find a few facts… that might annoy you about infidels… but you MUST exaggerate those few facts in order to conduct your beloved, bloodletting jihad.
Remember Jihad boy, you must do all three of these things AT THE SAME TIME in order to make yourself miserable enough to play the game of “Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch”… or as you call it: jihad.
aggressive war and occupation of Iraq. (WRONG–THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARMED MEN FIGHTING EACH OTHER AND THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS ON PLANES AND WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY IE. IRAQ UNDER SADDAM)
If Christianity is so peaceful how is it possible that Europe erupted into the global wars of the 20th century(NOT SURE BUT I THINK HITLER HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT. BTW, IF YOU’D READ SPENCER’S BOOK YOU’D FIND INTERESTING THE PART ABOUT HITLER’S WAFFEN SS IN BOSNIA)
If Christianity is so peaceful, how did the Christians justify oppressing, enslaving and killing the Africans as if they were mere property? (BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS WERE RAIDING THE AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND SELLING THEM TO EUROPEANS. CHRISTIANITY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENDING SLAVERY…WILLBURFORCE RING A BELL? AGAIN, YOU MIGHT FIND SPENCER’S BOOK HELPFUL HERE)
If Christianity is so peaceful, how is it at all possible that the Christians have acquired 10,000 nuclear weapons (AGAIN THIS HAD TO DO WITH SOMETHING CALLED WORLD WAR II. IT WAS STARTED BY A MAN NAMED HITLER. WE CREATED THE NUCLEAR BOMB TO STOP HIS WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE). AGAIN, NOTICE THE KEY WORD~INNOCENT.
The essential nature of Islam goes right back to the Qu’ran and the life of the Prophet, who is considered the ideal man. There is no “moderate” Muslim; there are only those Muslims who are more serious and less serious about their religion. The problem is that there has already been a Reformation in Islam. Sayid Qtub and Hassan el Banna have alreay roused the Muslim world for a return to the Islam of the time of the Prophet, fueled by Western oil money. They really want to return to the seventh Century — women veiled and rule by imams. Science is considered blasphemy because the idea of “natural law” is rejected as a limitation on the powers of Allah, who is not the same god that Christians pray to. If you doubt this, read the Qu’ran and glimpse the mercurial nature of Allah, who can lead the faithful to Perdition, if he wills. God may be good, but in Islam he does not HAVE to be. He is sovereign and can do what he wants, including lie.
It seems to me that this has turned into the all too well known Christians defend yourselves theme.Which Christians are all happy to do.
The question is can we say the same for Islam and muslims?
When Christianity comes under the debate microscope how does it react compared to that wee little bit of questioning the Islamic world has had to endure?What is the normal outcome of such questioning of Islam?
Japan was mentioned in the scrutinizing of Roberts Book.I believe it was to the words that they do not allow muslims to immigrate in large numbers.Could this be because they understand after thier own history of being ruled and enslaved by a mad man they recognize what Islam truly is? Are they maybe smarter than us westerners?Or are we to feel bad inside for the nukes we dropped ending an endless war? One can always hear the muslims belly aching for thier own little state within thier host countries.How many states within states are allowed to occur in the Islamic lands? Are these states within states allowed to rule themselves by thier own laws and beliefs?How does Israel fare in this endevour?Most other religions are banned to the darkness of thier basements to enjoy that which makes them whole and places like saudi arabia barely allows it even in the basement.Like i have said i have yet to read Roberts New Book but knowing Roberts work this won’t be a book about Christians superiority as much as it will be to prove the wickedness that Islam wishes to impose upon the world.Kieth Ellison himself says that he can’t see where in his holy book,the same as all other muslims,the verses and belief sytems found by those “few extremists”.To me an infedel this is taqiya at it’s finest.Because i can see no other way to interpret kill all the jews and non muslims and make Islam superior throughout all the world till allah and allah alone is called God.Allah is NOT the same God christians believe and have faith in.To say so gives the intention that i would believe that muhammad was the last and final prophet and that is words erase all those before it (of Jesus’s words)The whole modern question for all believers and non believers should be what it is that Islam offers the world,because in the Islamic world there is nothing else to offer but Islam and it being all encompassing,religious,political and everyday acts….even on how to go to the rest room.The trap is and always has been that Islam has raged a religious war on the world while the free world has always fought using the values of free men and women.These freedoms even our enemy,thier words not mine,enjoy to use against us for the empowerment of the Arabic agenda.When a free man or woman is hounded down by calls of racism,islamophobic and bigotry that means the Islamic mindset can go no further into proving what they are saying to be true.I visit many web sites and one of the most bcommon arguements people seem to be stuck on is the one with Aisha,muhammads 9yr old wife whom he had sex with.The muslims wriggle and squirm trying like crazy to convince Infedels that what they know to be true is in fact not the way it is.(there is not much to argue about the topic because it’s pretty much cut and dried)which then turns into calls of racism and bigotry and islamophobic.
Mr.Derbyshires opinion to Roberts book is a case in point with the troubles i personaly see today and that is to set ones self into the safe and charted territories of making the Christians defend themselves while avoiding the battle grounds that is questioning of Islam and it’s prophet and it’s God.
I look forward to the day,if ever, when all those putting Christianity and other true religions of peace under the microscope for causing the worlds woes actually turn to Islam if for no other reason than because the same old wonders and questions as to why many many of those woes still curse the world after all the changing and accomodating the earlier stated religions have made to make this a better world.
A common mistake made is that the goings on of the west today are under the flag of christianity and not that of people who love freedom to be Christians ,jews,budhists or what have you,even muslim.
“You will know them from thier fruits”, what are the seeds to the trees that bear the fruits?
The christians seed is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”,the golden rule,forgive and forget.
The islamic seed “Commit upon them with equal injustice that they have commited upon you,an eye for an eye,revenge.
I remind everyone here we were the ones attacked.We were attacked by those who wish to erase our freedoms to be humans and replace it to become slaves.The three most obvious JIHADS they are using are those of Al Qaeda and thier like,CAIR and immigration.
Perhaps a shift is needed for a change and Islam the politics can start to be scrutinized because isn’t this the desires of Islam today? To impose thier political ideals in thier own little middle east within the west and other host countries? Will the call to “inner struggle”,Jihad,then lead to the desire for a greater voice and more and superior power because Islam demands it for all the world?
“Just as America dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. Christianity didn’t drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ”
“If Christianity is so peaceful how is it possible that Europe erupted into the global wars of the 20th century?”
Dear Dave, I am very confused. In your first statement you strongly imply that Christianity was not responsible for WWII. In your second statement you strongly imply that Christianity was responsible. Which statement do you really believe? Or perhaps you have yet to make up your mind.
Hello KL,
> “WE CREATED THE NUCLEAR BOMB TO STOP HIS WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE”
Irony of all ironies.
Didn’t the nuclear bombs kill innocent people — women, children, pregnant mothers with living fetuses in their bellies — when they fell upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Didn’t then nuclear bomb kill Japan’s Christian community at Nagasaki?
Didn’t the Americans aim their nuclear bomb at the Christian church located in Nagasaki?
***
You people are so hypocritical in your approach to the Muslims. You claim to follow a religion of peace and love while you preach hatred, bitterness and violence against the Muslims.
You people care eager to commit genocide against the Muslims, aren’t you?
Hello plato,
> “Dear Dave, I am very confused. In your first statement you strongly imply that Christianity was not responsible for WWII. In your second statement you strongly imply that Christianity was responsible. Which statement do you really believe? Or perhaps you have yet to make up your mind.”
In the first place, I am judging Christianity by the standards by which I judge a religion for the crimes of its followers.
In the second place, I am judging Christianity by the standards by which you judge a religion and its followers.
***
If Islam is responsible for 9/11, Christianity is responsible for Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
vs.
If Christianity is not responsible for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Islam is not responsible for 9/11.
Tell me your morality and we will begin judging religions.
re: “You won’t win this battle, Ralph.”
And what battle would that be Dave? You’re hardly in a position to lecture about winning anything. Clinging to a demented political philosophy that people flee everywhere it’s been implemented to defend a religious philosophy you don’t understand (or perhaps you do understand, too well) is hardly awe inspiring. So pardon me if I don’t panic.
re: “If you are unhappy to live in a tolerant nation, why don’t you move back to Europe?”
Wow Dave, that’s pretty racist and intolerant stuff. But, I guess if you’re going to be ignorant of history and blind to reality, you might as well be a racist too, huh? From your writing I see you have a certain fascination with all things KKK. You a little more familiar with the KKK than you’d like us to think, eh?
Oh yeah, Dave, I’m not from Europe.
Good luck trying to dumb down the U.S., I see you’ll need it.
Davey boy wrtote:
“If Islam is responsible for 9/11, Christianity is responsible for Hiroshima & Nagasaki.”
vs.
“If Christianity is not responsible for Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Islam is not responsible for 9/11.”
While I agree that Davey boy is suffering from a mental conundrum as he blames Christianity in one post and American Christians in the other, his absolute cause and effect of 9/11 comparative to WWII is fallacious.
First off, let us not forget that the US entered WWII officially after being attacked by the Japanese. Secondly, I offer a challenge to Davey boy to find a Christian text that encouraged the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also offer him the opportunity that the director of the bombings was acting from a specifically Christian principle that he held…Hogwask is what that is.
In contrast, the 9/11 hijackers were not at war with the US. They attacked specific symbolic civilian targets and their impetus was not to end a conflict as it was with the US in WWII. When they shouted Allahu Akbar right before impact, they were definately acting on a direct Islamic principle. The Qur’an is ripe full of rules and protocols for war and deception….issues conspicuously missing from the canonical Christian texts.
But hey, Davey boy, don’t let any facts get in the way of your dementia-ridden rant against the US.
You are exactly the type of “religious moral equivalence” useful idiot that Robert refers to in his book.
“In the second place, I am judging Christianity by the standards by which you judge a religion and its followers.”
Dear Dave, I thank-you for your clarification. However, I strenuously reject your characterization “you” as it has no factual basis. I do not blame Islam for 9-11 and I have made no statement of any kind at this blog. In fact I have never judged any religion or its followers based on one group’s interpretation. Others may believe this, but I do not! You have a very bad habit of assuming far too much.
I am sick or hearing about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. More people were killed in the first fire raid on Tokyo than at Hiroshima. Japanese civiliams (estimated at 100,000) killed themselves (women and children among them) to avoid capture by the Americans. The leaders in Washington thought that it would be even worse invading the Japanese home islands. Japanese suicide squads(of civiliams) were being organized and trained in Japan. The Japanese civiliams were being organized to resist to the death (with sharpened sticks) Americans armed with machine guns. The atomic bombs, fortunately, put an end to this by shocking the emperor. Even then the military leaders attempted a coup. The Japanese were asked to “endure that which cannot be endured.” Defeat. The bomb would have been dropped on Berlin, but was not ready until after the fall of Nazi Germany. How many American solders and how many Japanese civilians should have died needlessly to satisfy your pacifist beliefs? If the individual expresses compelling feelings of conscience, we admire his pacificism. But if the nation adopts such pacificism, which is not required by Christianity, it will gain not respect, but instead death. Is that what you want? Where do you get the ideal that Christianity requires pacifism?
If you want to die as a martyr, that is your business. Just don’t tell me that my Christianity requires such pacifism or that I should stand by quietly while my wife or chindren are put to death. Note that I am not calling for genocide against Muslims. I am only asking for a clear-eyed view of the threat. Christianity does not require mass suicide. Do you think that your Christianity requires conversion to Islam rather than resistance? What about dhimmitude? The Qur’an only gives you three choices: conversion, dhimmitude with payment of the jizya tax, or death. Choose one. There is no other choice. We are kidding ourselves to think there is.
Hello All,
I hate to break the bad news to you, but your hatred & prejudice & bigotry represent a minority viewpoint even within Christianity itself:
The War Machine in America
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8915498373535505208
The Rev. Dr. George F. Regas is Rector Emeritus of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California and Executive Director of the Regas … all ¬ª Institute. As a spiritual progressive who believes passionately that religious communities must stop blessing war and violence, Regas examines the war machine and American exceptionalism that fuels much of the U.S. foreign policy today.
You people should post the above video on Robert Spencer’s blog. Those people there need to hear a real Christian preach.
But Robert Spencer would never allow a pacifist, peaceful, love-your-neighbor-and-especially-your-enemy type sermon from a Christian.
Robert Spencer’s audience is rabid Christian fundamentalist jihadists and their allies.
You people need to learn Christianity. If you fail to practice Christianity, Christianity will have no choice except to crush your movement as it has destroyed previous manifestations of evil among the American people.
The battle is not between Islam and Christianity. Instead, in America peace-loving Christians must struggle politically against the bigoted warmongers of hate-Christianity.
The peace-lovers are going to win this battle, too.
Hello Joseph,
> I am sick or hearing about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. More people were killed in the first fire raid on Tokyo than at Hiroshima. Japanese civiliams (estimated at 100,000)…
You are a terrorist, Joseph.
You approve of the mass murder of over 100,000 civilians.
What sort of morality is this, sir?
What sort of blood-soaked religion do you follow?
I knew that there were genocidal lunatics who followed Robert Spencer. I am just astonished by their willingness to explcitly declare their genocidal urges.
How many Muslim civilians do you want to kill, Joseph?
Would you kill 1,000,000 Muslim civilians?
Would you murder 1,000,000,000 Muslim civilians?
The Christian jihadists who engaged in nuclear war back in 1945 wish to engage in nuclear war again today. Robert Spencer’s “Protocols of Islam” inspires the Christian jihadists to commit a terrorist act against the Muslims.
God save us from His own wayward followers! May Jesus have mercy on your bloody soul, Joseph!
David Mathews, Dude,
Irony of all ironies. The nuclear bomb was dropped during a time of war.
If you can’t tell the difference between violence perpetrated during a time of war to end a war (ie. the Nuclear Bomb) and violence perpetrated during a spring-like September morning on the way to the coffee machine in Tower One, or on thousands of innocent villagers in Saddam’s soccer stadium.
If you can’t tell the difference between water boarding and having ones face taken off with a piano wire or better yet, the old screw driver to the eye technique.
If you can’t tell the difference between the tyrannical Allah versus the loving forgiveness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Then, dude, I can’t help you.
You seem like a smart guy. Just think you have your whole life to figure this one out. I’m sure that when you go to your reward, as we all must, there will certainly be someone there ready to help explain the differences between these things. All I can say is, good luck with it.
Hello Ralph,
> Oh yeah, Dave, I’m not from Europe.
I don’t care where you are from, Ralph.
If you cannot stand Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and are not willing to live in nation which has millions of beautiful Muslim citizens …
Leave America. Go away.
You can go back to your home country or go to Mars. I don’t care.
Just go.
If you are violent Christian jihadists and you want to engage in war with the Muslims, take yourself to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and have your war.
Just don’t drag the rest of the world into your crusade.
Bigots are a minority in the United States of America. I am a tolerant sort of person but my tolerance for the Christian jihadists is wearing thin. If you people want to set up your intolerant Christian kingdom go somewhere else and do it.
But the United States of America isn’t going to become an officially fundamentalist-Christian nation which oppresses Muslims, Mexicans and Homosexuals.
You people have already lost this battle. If you don’t love America as it is, leave. Don’t come back, either.
God help Jesus’ hate-filled followers. You people blaspheme God every time you attempt to worship Him. God doesn’t listen to the prayers of Christian bigots and warmongers.
Hello KL,
> The nuclear bomb was dropped during a time of war.
What sort of bloody morality do you follow, KL?
Osama declared war on the United States long before 9/11.
9/11 was an act of war.
You have exonerated Osama with your argument. If it is acceptable to kill 100,000 civilians in a time of war, certainly it is also acceptable to kill 3,000 civilians in a time of war.
But … If it is evil to kill 3,000 civilians, it is also evil to kill 100,000 civilians.
If your Christianity allows a Hiroshima to occur Jesus wasted His time on the cross!
Let me see if I get this right. You say to “love it or leave it” if anyone opposes pacificism. You call anyone who does not believe that Christianity requires absolute pacificism is a “bitot” and a “terrorist.” Funny, I do not recall slitting anyone’s throat today. I wonder if you are REALLY a Christian. You obviously know little of history, and the “just war” doctrine seems a mystery to you. Are you a Muslim provocateur? Do you realize that John Derbyshire is a self-admitted pagan who believes that we should follow the “more rubble/less trouble” rule in dealing with Muslims? I agree that Christianity requres us to be “harmless as doves,” but Jesus said for us to be as “wise as serpents” too. Christianity forbids suicide. You must resist, if only to help others. If I were you, I would hesitate to adopt a posture of moral superiority when it is likely to lead only to death. As hard as it may be for you to admit it, even the Japanese have admitted — the defense minister only last month — that the atomic bombs probably saved lives, including Japanese ones. You have not contradicted one thing that I have said about Islam — so much for “bigotry,” unless it is “bigotry” to speak umcomfortable truths.
People, it’s become quite obvious that “David Mathews” is either demented or has a very, very low IQ.
So, perhaps we should just pity him and not respond anymore to his ridiculous and insane and ignorant rants.
It’s YOU who needs to leave America, Mr. Mathews, since you apparently have no interest in protecting it. Go and live as a Dhimmi under sharia law in a Mohammedan country. Goodbye!
You will fit in well with the Islamic Jihadists since you, apparently, are an American one.
Re: “I don’t care where you are from, Ralph. ….Leave America. Go away. … Don’t come back, either.”
Dave, sounds to me like you’re having a little problem with freedom of speech, and engaging in hate speech. Let me suggest some diversity training.
re: “I am a tolerant sort of person”
Oh, we can see that!
re: “but my tolerance for the Christian jihadists is wearing thin.”
Yup, and they’re everywhere, aren’t they? Killing thousands of innocents are the streets everyday. Those heartless bastards. Maybe you should think about leaving the country.
re: “You people blaspheme God every time you attempt to worship Him.”
Hey, I’m feeling oppressed… you “you peopled” me. Ouch, how about being a little more sensitive to my poor, lost soul.
I guess you didn’t catch it from my first post, but I don’t believe in god either… but I have to admit, I like the fact that Christians and Jews aren’t compelled to kill me by their beliefs. But I guess that’s just one of the annoying little idiosyncrasies of Islam. So, Mohamodd-Bin-Mathews I think I’ll just hang around their camp.
And good luck on your whole world domination thing, you’re going to need it.
Mr. Matthews,
Speaking as a minister, I would have to be suspect of your knowledge of Christianity and her tenets.
Did Christ instruct us to “turn the other cheek”? Of course He did, as well as give our shirts if our cloaks were taken, and to go the second mile.
All of this can be read in Matthew’s Gospel starting around Chapter 5.
May I now introduce you to the REST of the Bible?
For instance, you will note that Peter has been carrying a sword. When Malchus’ ear was cut off, Jesus healed the wound, but then told Peter to put the sword away. Note, He told Peter to “put it away”, NOT to “drop the sword and never touch it again”. Jesus knew that swords were for protection in that time (ironic as who could have possibly harmed them at the time, which makes the point all the more clear), and was such, a necessity.
Jesus also spoke about caring for one another, especially your family (“If a son asks for a loaf, who would give him a stone?”), and friends.
Finally, in the first 3/4′s of the Bible that we know as the Old Testament, we read of those who were commanded to go and kill an enemy, and did not fulfill the commandments completely. Saul is a wonderful example. He lost his entire kingship over “just saving some stuff”. You may read about it in 1 Kings.
Perhaps you are not comfortable with a God that protects His People? Why would not any parent wish to protect those that are His?
Or perhaps, you are an agnostic/atheist. In which case, having taught many classes dealing with psychology and relationships, I can tell you by both knowledge and experience that just because we are loving and kind to another person, does NOT mean that said person will reciprocate those feelings and attitudes. The Islamic Terrorists attacked because they sought something in their afterlife, and the “honor” it would bring their names. At the heart was avarice and greed – “blessed by Allah himself”.
A strong counterpoint to the tenets of “love thy neighbor”. We, as Christians, are to seek peace whenever possible, but we are also responsible to the welfare of our families, friends, and countrymen, and, if necessary, destroy those threats when all other options have been exhausted. That is not anger or avarice, it is simply being good parents, spouses, and countrymen.
Hey Matthews where you get your figures?
As far as I know the vast majority of the people killed in Iraq have been killed by Muslims from various nations, not Americans or other coalition members.
On the general point of Robert Spencer – he is the most effective anti-Jihadists on the internet today. But he does come at the problem from a partisan Christian perspective.
An Islamist might fairly point out that in the last century non-Islamist cultures – Christian, democrat, Communist, Nazi etc – were responsible for maybe 100 million deaths. Islam caused very few deaths.
I think we need to oppose Islam – or more specifically Shariah (since personal devotion to Islam is not really an issue) – in a spirit of some humility. But that doesn’t mean we shoudl be anything less than militant in our opposition to Shariah.
Matthews claims:
Islam did not attack America on 9/11
Of course it did.
Islam is the common thread that runs through all modern terrorism. Arabs are Islamic; Persians are Islamic. Iraq is Islamic; Iran is Islamic. The Bali bombers are Islamic. The people who sawed off Dan Pearl’s head were Islamic. Osama bin Laden was Islamic. Hamas is Islamic. Fatah is Islamic.
They’re all Islamic.
Where are the Christian terrorists? Where are the Buddhist terrorists? Where are the Pagan terrorists? Where are the Agnostic terrorists?
Mr Matthews’ CAIR-type denials won’t fly here. The fact is, Islam is at the root of modern terrorism. The Roman censor Cato stated the only practical remedy:
ISLAM DELENDA EST!
It is a good review (Robert Spencer seems to like it too). I am looking forward to Robert’s response.
The intellectual level of this thread can be measured by an assumption that John never read Koran and response to Dave.
One who prefers a visit to a dentist to reading Koran HAVE READ Koran.
The notion of accusing John to be ignorant deserves contempt and nothing else.
To go into lengthy discussions with Dave is to be on level with him. None he posted here deserves a reply.
I have not read Robert’s book yet. Amazon is very slow with deliveries. I ordered “The Trough About Muhammad” 3 months ago and still waiting.
I am worried about the last book. Even the title implies that “my religion is better then yours”. Every time an atheist speaks of Christianity, all those “believers” are up in arms.
None of the points made by John were discussed.
My congratulations to John on the very first sensible review of Robert’s book. It has been done with integrity, respect and knowledge.
It’s depressing that so many years after 9/11 Derbyshire still can’t be bothered to read an online Quran.
is this the same David Mathews? Hello davey…..is this you in 1997?………If any of these flaws are present in David Mathews, he might make a mistake in his teachings, his arguments and his assertions.(no sh!t dave) As I am David Mathews, and I desire that you learn a critical and skeptical attitude towards your authorities, I encourage you to question my own conclusions, my reasoning, and my evidences. You might find errors which I have missed, or you might possess knowledge relative to my own ignorance.(found lots & lots) Under no condition should you assume that David Mathews is teaching the truth, even if you respect him and trust his judgment.(no chance there, dave)
Knowing that David Mathews is fallible and prone to mistakes, I would like to challenge you to investigate your own self. “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Have you ever made an error in accepting false doctrine? Are you absolutely certain that you currently possess an absolute knowledge and understanding of the truth? Do you judge your neighbor by the same standard that you judge yourself? When you teach others, do you present yourself as a fallible human or as an infallible defender of truth?
Christians can make mistakes, and Christians have often taught error. Therefore, when you go about teaching the gospel and criticizing your neighbors, listen to your neighbors when they teach you and criticize you. “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” (Romans 2:21). Confess your faults and become conscious of your own fallibility. Search for the truth constantly, and honor your neighbor when you discover that he does have a knowledge of the truth. Respect the denominations for their own imperfect knowledge of the truth, and proclaim to the same that you will humbly teach them even while you possess an imperfect knowledge of the truth. Seek only to make your neighbor a follower of God and a lover of truth.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/example.htm
Could this be our same David Mathews??
Nicely done Roscoe.
I understand there is another uprising of Pentecostals in Uruguay, and the Methodist’s have just about taken Venezuela back for US Oil interests. Last month, nearly 2400 non Christian Unbelievers were killed by Southern Baptist who claim, because a Baptist church was started in LA in the 1950′s that it is Muslim lands.
Wait a minute. My mistake. It was 2274 dead bodies over the last two months and the same number as critically injured all caused in 17 countries claimed as owned by Islam. Apparently, Muslims did it not Baptists.
Although this point has been made this way before by people with greater understandings than I for certain, the presentation takes the point home regarding something I do know a lot about: Carrying and stacking dead bodies caused by supremicists.
Walk amongst the bodies and discover the point we are all making. That is, christians are not doing the killing and showing where their leader told them to do it for the advancement of the ideas he shared. Islam is doing just that. Well, at least you’ll be allowed by them to live for a while because you are helping their cause. I’m sure you’ll last longer than Spencer providing so good ole Dhimmi.
We need Violent Cult Legislation where these declarations Koran can be hammered out in court challenges to ascertain who says what and what’s the differences between what literature is endeared to cause death, control, slavery and horror. Logic doesn’t mean anything to cults. Thanks to Mr. Spencer for having the guts and skills (probably god given?) to take on both disasters, Islam and its bedfellows, the left.
Jesse Collins
Guys
David Matthews is a troll – avoid feeding him. I’m surprised there isn’t a moderator here to ban someone who obviously thinks that the US was the villain in WWII, and now.
For all his inane insults, Islam has more in common with Nazism than anything else does. Just read the similarities between Mein Kamph vs the Qur’an
The funniest part is when Mr. spencer calls for everyone to unite against Jihadists including..secular Muslims.
But anyone who reads JW knows that one of the main assertions there is that such people do not exist (apart from agressively anti-islamic apostates like Ali Sina)
Anyone who’s been reading Hugh Fitzgerald will tell you that 1) these people do not exist and 2) if they do exist there’s no way to tell if they’re lying or not (taqqiya nonsense) 3) even if they’re not lying there’s no way to be sure they wont become Jihadists over night 4) and in the unlikely chance that they are in fact the real deal, there’s no guarantee that their children will follow suit.
That leaves just one solution, getting rid of all non-christian middle-eastern populations in the west, every man, woman and child.
This is called forced deportation or ethnic cleansing
This my friends is very un-christian
JW is a hate site and Spencer and Hugh are hatemongers plain and simple.
Just to quote from the great review above:
“Or perhaps he thinks that the solution that obviously follows from all his painstaking exegeses is so radical that if he were to state it clearly, he would be cast out from the sphere of “acceptable” commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and “hate groups”"
This is Hugh’s job, in case some havent figured out what spencer is driving at, Hugh hammers the point home.
“It is a good review (Robert Spencer seems to like it too). I am looking forward to Robert’s response. The intellectual level of this thread can be measured by an assumption that John never read Koran and response to Dave.
One who prefers a visit to a dentist to reading Koran HAVE READ Koran.
The notion of accusing John to be ignorant deserves contempt and nothing else.
To go into lengthy discussions with Dave is to be on level with him. None he posted here deserves a reply.”
To Pong, I do not believe that it is sinking to anyone’s level to try and engage in reasonable debate, even with people such as David. In fact, people such as David need to be engaged. Their points need to be questioned and where possible refuted. It may well be impossible to change their position, but one may sway another who has yet to decide. The undecided, as well as the decided, need to hear such refutations. This is precisely what Socrates does in the Platonic dialogues.
Also, you are very correct in stating that people, such as me, have made an “assumption” that Mr. Derbyshire has not read the Qur’an. I admit that I have not seen an explicit statement, “I have never read the Qur’an.” However, when an English language person uses the expression, “I would rather do this than that,” the speaker is not stating that he/she has done the former. Typically, but certainly not always, it means that he/she has not done the former. Unless you have seen Mr. Derbyshire state that he has read the Qur’an, you are making a far greater assumption when you imply that he has. And remember, he misspells the word as “Qu’ran”. When someone makes a mistake like this while blogging, it is not an issue. However when one writes a major book review for an important media resource such as this one, it is disheartening.
“My congratulations to John on the very first sensible review of Robert’s book. It has been done with integrity, respect and knowledge.”
I wholeheartedly agree with you that this review was written with integrity and respect. I am just not certain about the depth of his knowledge. By the way, do you agree or do you disagree that Mr. Derbyshire has confused Mary’s birth with that of her son? This is not the kind of mistake that a knowledgeable writer would make.
Dave Matthews – No I am not ignorant. Those of us who choose to stick our heads in the sand and ingnore the words of people like Daniel Pipes, Paul Berman, Roger Scruton, Stephen Schwartz, Paul L. Williams, J. L. Menzes, as well as Mohammad himself, the words of the koran, Osama ben Laden and his followers are the ignorant ones. They will deserve what they eventually get.
Would I kill all the muslims and/or deny them their civil rights? That is exactly what they will do to us if they get the chance. What would you do to protect yourself? Before you answer that you should try to understand what it means when the koran tells them it is ok to lie and to decieve if it will further the cause of Islam.
I would at present be satisfied if Mr. Mathews simply answered what has already been directed at him by many voice.
There seem to be “ideas of reference” which prevent this, however…
“By the way, do you agree or do you disagree that Mr. Derbyshire has confused Mary’s birth with that of her son? This is not the kind of mistake that a knowledgeable writer would make.”
Patagonianplato.
I am not sure. He did not refer Immaculate Conception to Mary or Jesus. He just mentions it in line with Mohamed’s flying steed. If your assumption is correct, it is a serious mistake.
One can be a devoted Christian and ignorant about Christianity. For an atheist it is unforgivable.
Very insightful, informed comments as usual…err…mostly, I mean… on this e-zine. To recap the argument…
It is comforting at least to know both Christian and secularist know who their real enemy is these days. That’s a start. But then again, is disconcerting to watch them blame each other for that threat. While Spencer implicates leftist secularism for the enablement of violent Islam through “equivalency” doctrines and such, Derbyshire reacts by blaming Christianity (a la Gibbons, his co-antireligionist colleague of the 18th century), especially that pesky Sermon-on-the Mount thingy.
Oops, am I falling into equivalency myself, or can it possibly be that one worldview is right and the other (heavens forbid!)…wrong? As pointed out by other critics here, Derbyshire’s abject ignorance as to Islam, and also Christianity, and his unstated-but-obvious blind adherence to his own atheist creed seems to be at fault for skewing his view. Hence he falls into what seems to be the coomn pathology of the religiously anti-religionist- he will simply not look at religion as a cause and effect influence because it simply makes him and his primordial presumptions, uneasy.
Well, we all anxiously await what Spencer could possibly add to the already weighty Derbyshire criticisms here.
I am glad you guys had the patience to take old Davey boy apart.
Uh, Derb, it’s MAHONY.
I think that “David Mathews” is one and the same person as the “Rev.” Jim Sutter. See this link and this link. Jim Sutter uses the same kind of slander in the same way as David Mathews. And Jim Sutter is, according to Robert Spencer (as you’ll see if you follow the links I posted),
Would the Arabs have come surging out of their desert oases in the seventh century without the Prophet and his faith to inspire them?
Probably not.
Would Frankish knights have taken ship to recover the Holy Land, if they had not considered it Holy, only a lost province of the Roman Empire?
Almost certainly not. There were, after all, many lost provinces of the Roman Empire.
Would white Europeans have developed science and consensual democracy if they had been only white Europeans, not also Christians?
Tougher to answer. But if we assume that these things (science, democracy) were the products of a particular culture, then any major alteration to that culture raises at least the possibility that its output would also be different. I have to suspect here that Derb is not familiar with just how deeply European or Western culture is intertwined with Christianity. The two cannot be understood apart from each other. He takes a shot at certain modern Christians for failng to understand this, so it’s odd that he seems not to grasp it himself. I know that he is a believer in the importance of culture in the world and on the individual level.
Of course Derb has been affecting a deliberately contrarian aspect of late, so I think a good portion of what he says is simply a (successful) attempt to wind people up.
“To people who eschew such thinking-people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science…”
Employing the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science, can you explain your apparent belief that “the Crusades and the Galileo business” were morally wrong?
Well, at least the Derb is correct about what is needed for the West to do. We here in the US need to start cleaning up the Dearbornistan area , then move on to the next.
Re: Folks who’re commenting on Derb’s ignorance of Christianity:
Ignorance is measured relative to the types of arguments in which one must engage.
Derb is not ignorant of Christianity when engaged in a discussion of, merely, “What are the core tenets of Christianity, that is, of ‘Mere’ Christianity, shared by most Christians in most eras?”
As he was raised Anglican, I am sure he could acquit himself admirably in such a conversation, with few errata. For all I know, his upbringing alone might allow him to avoid ALL of the typical beginner’s errors (such as confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth).
But one must know one’s own limits.
In this conversation, being conversant with basic tenets does not fly. One must have put thought, a lot of reading from a lot of sources, and perhaps a modicum of sincere scholarship now and then, into one’s understanding of Christianity to speak comfortably on such topics.
And I gather Derb has never, or seldom, done so. No wonder then, that he sounds like an amateur; sounds ignorant. At this level, on these topics, he is!
An analogy with which Derb himself might identify: We are now no longer talking the basic arithmetic of Christianity; we are talking about non-finite set theory, or five dimensional matrices that do not commute, or some such thing.
A person who was merely raised Anglican, and then drifted away from faith with little or no thought, mostly following every iconoclast’s instinctual distrust of icons, is not going to be able to seriously participate in this kind of conversation. Imagine a person thinking he could talk upper-level Calculus merely because he was raised in a family who knew how to balance their checkbook!
But allow me to qualify: It only comes across as ignorance because the topics addressed are rather higher-level than those in a hypothetical “what are the core tenets” conversation. Perhaps ignorance is the wrong word. Perhaps we should just graciously allow that Ol’ John is “out of his league,” and doesn’t know it, but he’s a good fellow, otherwise.
And I think “graciously” is a word worth emphasizing, here. Grace is, if anything, one of the greatest hallmarks separating Christianity both from the Materialist, and the Islamist.
Derb,
I can’t take a thing you say seriously on the topic of religion when you let loose a howler like “Immaculate Conception.”
How embarrassing.
Re: “Magical Thinking”:
Unfortunately too few persons who adopt a philosophy follow that philosophy to its natural conclusion and exhibit the implications.
An example is the Solipsist who wonders aloud why his philosophy isn’t more popular amongst his peers. (If he were genuinely Solipsist through-and-through, he wouldn’t waste his time wishing his philosophy were better accepted among people whom he suspects don’t exist to begin with!)
Another example is the Materialist. He holds that the Materialist Working Assumption adopted by practitioners of the scientific method is not, in fact, a Working Assumption, but is an actual Axiom about reality.
Now in practice, the Materialist Working Assumption (MWA) is: “Every event in our universe of space and time is Caused by earlier events.” It (the MWA) might be extended as follows: “These earlier events were Caused by still earlier events, which were Caused by still earlier events, and so on, deterministically, right back to the Big Bang.” And, crossing the line from Working Assumption to Philosophical Dead Horse, a person might add on: “The Big Bang, then, is the Ultimate Cause, and all other events are mere spinoffs from it.”
Now the MWA is absolutely required for the scientific method to function. The scientific method requires us to generate falsifiable hypotheses in the form “given these prerequisite conditions, THIS is what I predict will result.” Christians like Gregor Mendel and Georges Lema√Ætre make use of the MWA every bit as much as their Materialist counterparts in the sciences. They know, as any working scientist must know, that it clutters up one’s hypotheses needlessly if one constantly qualifies as follows: “Given these prerequisite conditions, THIS is what I predict will result, provided that God does not miraculously intervene to produce other, necessarily unpredictable, results.”
The difference is that the Christian says this qualification is needless clutter because he knows that miracles of the seemingly nature-defying variety are rarities (his scriptures requiring him to acknowledge as canonical less than a score such flashy events over a period of several thousand years). Miraculous intervention is therefore vanishingly unlikely to occur during his experiment in such a way as to alter the results. (And perhaps he also suspects he knows God’s character reasonably well and is reasonably sure He is not a Loki intent on such mischief.)
Meanwhile, the Materialist says the qualification is needless because God doesn’t exist, or may exist but never does miracles. He has the luxury of proving his first assumption on the basis of his first assumption.
In either case, the MWA is perfectly valid working equipment for the scientist. Since experiments must be repeated, the Christian knows that should His Lord’s well-attested sense of humor, or more likely humanity’s even better-attested fallibility, result in a seemingly irrational result in one experiment, additional experiments will relegate that observation to the role of statistical outlier.
Now it is acknowledged by all that the scientific method, and therein the Materialist Working Assumption, have been by far the most successful tools of man for learning about his universe. Why not, then (asks the Materialist) take it as read that the Working Assumption is no Assumption but an Axiom, and apply it to all events, at all times, Monistically?
The answer is that the Axiom is falsifiable, and is already falsified by the Big Bang itself.
Put simply: If we strictly require that all events (Effects) be determined by earlier events (Causes) then the Big Bang is, by definition, Supernatural. Or at least, Non-Natural. For Time began with the Bang; no events preceded it, and it is therefore either Uncaused, or Caused by something outside of the normal chain of Cause-and-Effect which the Materialist names “Nature.”
The Materialist has traditionally groped for various ways to escape this conclusion, but for nigh-on a hundred years has done so unsuccessfully.
First, he tries to show that the universe had no moment of beginning, but has always been. Hubble was disgusted with his own findings (the expansion of the universe) though he had the honesty to report them; Einstein tried to fudge his equations with a cosmological constant to produce a steady-state universe which was more appealing to his mind; others propose a cyclical, perpetually expanding-and-contracting universe; M-Theorists posit collisions of M-Branes in higher-dimensional space (which must be assumed to be temporally eternal; otherwise we have not solved the problem but only moved it back a bit).
In each case the results fall apart as ingloriously as Tycho Brahe’s geocentric model. The only model matching our observations of the current entropy state of the universe, the current mass of the universe, the current distribution of matter in the universe, and the current behavior of matter, is “A Day Without Yesterday.” This is setting aside the purely philosophical problems of assuming the possibility of an actual (as opposed to conceptual) infinite regress of days prior to the current moment in time.
The second Materialist escape route is to show that the universe is non-deterministic. But, then, no protection against miracles. So, scratch that. It either must be relegated the quantum level, leaving the universe in aggregate as a deterministic system, or it must be allowed that “God plays dice with the universe…and sometimes throws the dice in places where we can’t see them.” And so, perhaps, weights the dice when He so desires.
The third Materialist escape route is to object that, after all, it’s not required that Causes always precede their Effects. But then, again, the protection against miracle vanishes. For God, or indeed Time Travel, is every bit as able to work His/its will upon the past from a vantage point in the future as in the present or past.
The fourth objection is simply to say that the Big Bang was merely Uncaused. “Give us this one Uncaused event,” says the Materialist, “and I can explain the remainder as Caused.” Very well. But given that one Uncaused event may occur, why not more? Is there a cosmic limit: One uncaused event per universe? Or may others occur later? And if they occur, do they not appear, to anyone’s senses, as miraculous?
The fifth objection may begins a bit sulkily. “Very well, then; the Universe is Caused, but it has a Cause outside our space-time. And you can’t name that Cause ‘God’ because its cause was a merely Material type of Cause, not a Personal type of Cause.”
Aye, but there’s the rub. What kind of Cause, and does it exist in anything like Time (if not ours), or not? If we posit a time-flow proceeding from another space-time to cause the Big Bang in ours, we have only pushed the problem farther away from ourselves, without solving it. We must assume, at a minimum, NO time-like dimension in whatever other frame of reference that “bled over” into our own to cause the Big Bang.
Which brings the Materialist to an embarrassing pass: As he makes a list of the attributes required for a Cause Of The Universe that can fulfill all observations of entropy and matter and energy and space and time, his list shapes up this way: The Cause must be Outside Our Universe. The Cause must submit to no Time-Like Framework itself, and must in essence be Eternal and Self-Existent. The Cause must be Powerful enough to intervene to cause “uncaused” events in our space-time, including the creation of our space-time altogether.
The Materialist’s List is now, in fact, coming very close to the list of the attributes of God held by Theists of the Judeo-Christian tradition for perhaps six thousand years. How annoying, to scale such a mountain, with such Herculean effort, only to find at the summit a passel of priggish philosophers and theologians who apparently took some easier route and have been resting comfortably there for an eon!
The truth is that Theists claim a Personal Cause; Materialists claim an Impersonal one, and the primary reason for the preference of the first side is that they claim to have experienced Personal Interaction with this Person; and the primary reason for the preference of the second side is that they claim to have had no such interaction, and find assertions of such interactions to be incredible. Whether the incredulity comes more from a sense that the claimants are liars or persons given to flights of fancy, or from a feeling of sour grapes at having apparently been left out of God’s clique, is something only they can determine.
Regardless, “Magical Thinking” of a particular sort is required if we are to believe everything the physicists tell us about our universe. The Universe came into being Caused by either an Eternal Powerful Something, or an Eternal Powerful Someone, outside it. And there is no particular protection against that Someone, or even that Something, interacting with our space-time again. All we can say is that such interactions are apparently rare enough to slip below the laboratory radar, with the notable exception of creation itself.
Which is all the Theists have ever been saying. So, where’s the controversy, then?
As a (much more brief) follow up to my earlier postings:
Derb seems to suggest that Christianity’s title as “Religion of Peace,” ascribed to it by Robert Spencer, is flawed or undeserved. To his credit, he doesn’t state that Christianity’s occasional forays into militancy (the Crusades) are the reason it doesn’t deserve the title. No conservative would be such a fool.
No, Derb is taking a different tack, I think. He is using the conservative axiom: “Weakness is inherently provocative.” If Christians are so nice, so tolerant, et cetera, then doesn’t that make Christianity the enabler of Islam’s barbarities? Perhaps the common identification of Christianity with muscular American self-confidence, and Secularism with limp-wristed European decline is mistaken. Perhaps it is Christianity’s legacy of love which infected Europe with its fatal desire not to offend the cannibals who dine upon it.
And I think he’s got a point, but only up to a point. He’s correct about the effect Christianity has had upon the West, but he’s incorrect to blame it on Christianity.
The plain fact is that there is no Virtue which can be used at all times, in all ways. Christianity teaches that Evil is not an absolute self-existent thing, but is only the result of something Good twisted to inappropriate use. The Manichees held otherwise, but Christianity answered them definitively, showing the Devil as a fallen angel — not God’s opposite, but Michael’s.
Christianity also teaches that the world, and humanity, are fallen and require the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit, voluntarily accepted by individuals through their free choice, to educate and empower the human mind and emotions. Without this guidance, say the saints and the church fathers, we perpetually over-play one Virtue and under-play another, and evil can result even out of our attempts at good.
Thus the evangelist (good) becomes the frothing street-corner raving lunatic pursuing his fixed idea (twisted good). Thus the giver of alms (good) becomes the author of the welfare state (twisted good). Thus the man who seeks to feed his family through wise business dealings (good) becomes the sharpster, the fraud, or the purveyor of unhealthy goods sold by advertisements which play upon the fears and vices, rather than the virtues, of the buyer (twisted good).
In each case, attention to the prodding of the Holy Spirit, or the words of Scripture — in short, a well-maintained set of communication lines with the Almighty — would have been sufficient to prevent the well-intentioned person from spinning off the rails into twisted virtue. The better angels of our natures may only remain so by remaining attentive to God; else they become demons.
So Derbyshire gives Europe, and America too, a smack across the face for their inattentiveness to the pressing danger of Militant Islam. (“All this respect for minorities,” says he, “that you’ve inherited from your Christian ethics, will be the death of you!”)
So it shall. It is a virtue misplaced; it has become a demon. But any other virtue would have done the same, or may yet do the same. Will love of country (a virtue) yet produce another Nazi Germany? Or love of peace (another virtue) and a desire to preserve unique cultural artifacts such as buildings and paintings (virtuous enough, I suppose) produce another Vichy France? Or an enthusiasm for equality, fraternity, and liberty (virtuous sentiments all) produce more of the massacres and social deconstruction of earlier French history?
The solution, though, is not an absence of Christianity; it is the return of it. Christianity is a little different from the paganism of the Romans, or of the Greeks, or of the Carthaginians. Each of these lived, rose to a certain height, and then died, in its turn, and lies under the dust which signifies historical irrelevance. They were purely mortal. Christianity is a little different in that it grows old, old, old, apparently dies off among some generation too jaded with it to take it seriously, and then…surprise! Arises, the following Sunday Morning, after a brief period of occlusion, to be trumpeted fervently by the very children of the generation which lay the stone on its grave. Revivals and Great Awakenings and Reformations and such are a part of her nature.
And were the former lands of Christendom to become the current lands of Christendom, not by some advance of Papal Soldiery but by a movement of individuals to turn their hearts back to the God who alone can tell them when to be Merciful, and when Just; when to be Meek, and when Courageous; when to welcome the stranger and when to defend the family; when to Love tenderly, and when to Love fiercely…WELL! Then there should be no concern about tolerance being taken to suicidal extremes.
Ultimately the fate of Europe and America lies in the hearts of the individuals who occupy their borders. Will they return to Christianity; that is, return to the Living Christ who alone can advise them when they are wielding a virtue too much, or not enough?
Or will they remember a few of the virtues of the civilization which the Church gave them, but not the God who educated them in these virtues? If so, they will deify these virtues, so as to replace the Living God they no longer accept with a mute idol named Thou Shalt Be Generally Tolerant.
And *that*, of course, can be beaten by Militant Muslims. Hell, it can be beaten by Militant Emo Listeners, Militant Celebrity Watchers, or Militant Atkins Dieters. Because it is a shell around a dead heart, and any sufficiently large mass of unthinking humanity can manage to desecrate a corpse.
Re: R.C.’s Re: “Magical Thinking”:
Excuse me, but is it not what _Deists_ have ever been saying?
Aren’t Theists a bit more particular about the specifics of God’s manifestations here and now (or yesterday) and His partaking in current events?
Christian NT even says He actually walked the Earth – in the Flesh. Seems to me controversial enough – a far cry from the abstract Deist concept of Him Being There — and Ever, as per the OT name Will/Is/Was — which concept actually looks very comparable with the scientific picture you’ve painted.
Of course we could say Future is already created and God is all of the however locally-deterministic Universe – All that Was, Is and ever Will Be. Now that’s a concept to contemplate!
Infidel Pride: Umm, Edward Said was Christian, not Muslim, jackass! What was that sound: oh, your head just exploded?
Used in the Socratic sense, the word “ignorance” has no pejorative connotation whatsoever. It is very unfortunate that common usage has turned it into an insult -beleidigung – insulto, etc. I was able to convince precious few of this in graduate school. I believe that both Socrates and Plato would define it as simply “lack of knowledge.” (Don’t worry, I will not begin a discussion of the word, knowledge, here.) I know of no one, including myself, who is not ignorant about any number of subjects. In fact, Socrates knew only one thing for certain. He knew enough to know that he was ignorant. The reviewer has yet to reach this point.
All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking.
Mr. Derbyshire, with all due respect, you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
The word translated most often in the New Testament as “faith” is the Greek word “pistis”. It is not a word of common usage; in fact, it is a word used only in making specific rhetorical arguments (outside of the NT the most notorious use of the word “pistis” comes from Aristotle. Quintiallian also used the word in rhetorical arguments.)
When used as a noun, pistis is transliterated as “forensic proof”. When used as a verb, the transliteration is “trust based on proof or prior trustworthiness”. In short, Mr. Derbyshire, Biblical “Faith” is based on evidence.
This is why such an appeal to signs and wonders – miracles, if you will – is made by the NT writers, who were either eyewitnesses to said miracles or, in the case of Luke, interviewed eyewitnesses. The Gospels were written within the lifetimes of those who, were the accounts false or delusional, could have refuted them. It is important to note that the first clear denial of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts doesn’t occur until 300 years after they had been in circulation.
As Christian apologist James Patrick Holding wrote (concerning Acts 2:22-36):
Peter’s primary appeal here was threefold: He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus; he appealed to the empty tomb, and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy. In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence — or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs. (Itallics in original.)
The fact that in the last 150+ years the definition of Biblical faith in large part due to the work of Hume and misinterpretations of Kierkegaard does nothing to change the central point that what you and other atheist/agnostic commentators, such as Harris, Dawkins, Carrier etc., define as “faith” is a straw man argument about as valid as Al Gore’s climate change tripe.
You, as a conservative, should know better. Please try to stop offering up made up drivel and patting yourself on the back for how clever you are. You are better than that, sir.
Deal with the evidence.
Sincerely,
Tom Bryant
Religious Studies major
Clemson University
Wow. It was interesting hearing you all argue with David Matthews and pretty much argue yourselves to the point where you were disagreeing with Spencer’s book. Now I have not read Spencer’s latest book, but from what I know about Spencer’s writings, he was probably arguing that Christianity is fundamentally a peace loving religion and that Islam is not.
Now what you all argue is that Christianity does allow violence in certain cases of defending one’s self/nation. Well, if this is the case, then Islam and Christianity are not really that different when it comes to violence, and thus you all who argued that Christianity allows violence refute Mr. Spencer’s thesis. EVERY religion can be misinterpreted to condone any type of action and that sadly is what is happening in Islam today. However, it still does happen in Christianity too. How many times have Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and their followers call for the bombing of Iran in the name of religion? These are the same people who openly supported attacking Iraq. And for what? We weren’t defending ourselves. Iraq never attacked the US and didn’t have biological and chemical weapons! (And they never would have if our Christian President Reagan did not give them to Iraq.)And these people say they follow Christ’s teachings of peace? Now that is Christianity in today’s world, not even touching on history!
People always say that the history of the Middle East is one of bloodshed and violence. Which granted it is. But is it more violent than Europe until recently? Violence committed in the name of religion was extremely prevalent throughout Europe. Against non-believers and infidels as they were called in the Christian West. Jews and Muslims were forced to convert, were killed, or forced to flee when Christian Spain took over Al-Andalusia. Not to mention the great amounts of violence between Catholics and Protestants. Before that even, there was the Crusades, which were the ultimate expression of Christian sanctioned violence and aggression against both Muslims and other non-European Christians. Also, Christian nations went on a world-wide expedition of spreading Christianity and “civilization” through colonial exploits. All because they believed that their Western, Christian values were superior to the rest of the world.
The atomic bombs and fire bombings in Japan were acts of terrorism. They were operations specifically targeting civilians. Those bombings killed more innocent people than Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist organization have killed and probably will ever kill. Moreover, the Japanese were about to surrender and the atomic bombs were dropped as a power play against the Soviets. But yet America is the peace-loving country? The American economy is based on the vast military industrial complex and war. Without war and the need for weapons millions of people would loose their jobs and Americans would loose a lot of money. That sounds like good incentive to work for peace to me!
Anyways, my point is that Muslims and Muslim nations are not any more prone to committing violence than Christian people or nations. Spencer’s thoughts are based on a hatred and fear of Muslims which he is quickly spreading throughout the US. I wonder how many people who read his book will actually meet Muslims and learn the truth as opposed to reading his drivel.
I’m a huge fan of Robert Spencer, so I followed a link from LGF to read the review….. not very sustantial in my opinion, BUT the conmments have been FANTASTIC!!
I especially found the insane rantings of “David Matthews” to be a shining example of Moonbat Psychosis….. And I must say, it was actually quite exhaustive trying to follow his “arguments”. BTW, I counted 17 posts for him, over a span of 4.5+ hours (it must be exhausting just to be David Matthews). But the responses, not only to the substance of the review, but also to the lunacy of Matthews were brilliant!! AND KUDOS to ROSCOE!! Roscoe really hammered David Matthews…. “Hello numbskull”. As they say, “the internet is forever” and Roscoe’s finding and posting of the 1997 David Matthews essays (which appear to be more or less coherent) was beautiful…. at this moment, I’m wiping a small tear from my right eye.
Like it or no, Mr. Derbyshires 21st paragraph sums up my argument. Look, I like Mr. Spencer, he seems a decent man & I do like reading his books. It’s just that, well, along with the “midwifery” of science (what!?) & that 21st paragraph of the essay…you are a fibber if you tell me that there is not an infantilization in Mr. Spencers arguments. Oh, I understand writing for the broadest audience and all, but c’mon!
“My God’s better than your God” bs. Grow up, Christians!
.. a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions?
This is the most “on-point” argument Derbyshire offers, and it’s surprising how little response it has drawn. Hopefully Spencer will address it in some detail in his reply.
Derbyshire has it right when is suggests that non-Muslim nations protect themslves from Muslims who share NOTHING of our values. See my proposal at: http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html
Hello Everyone,
I leave for several days and look at all the fireworks!
You people are really good at praising yourself.
But the facts still remain the same:
The United States of America dropped nuclear bombs the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 150,000 civilians in the process and leaving an equal number to suffer horrendously from injuries and radiation poisoning.
Will anyone argue that the above acts constitute the behavior of a peace-loving Christian nation?
Or … does America have a license to kill as many foreign civilians as it wishes?
The West is losing the war against Islamic imperialism because of people like David Mathews. I wish he would swap citizenship with me….. I go and live in the Christians world and he, here
For Geoff re:Matthews
Just a smidgen:
Elie Wiesel answering a question with respect to who committed the Jewish Holocaust: ‘All the killers were Christian. The Nazi system was the consequence of a movement of ideas and followed a strict logic; it did not arise in a void but had its roots deep in a tradition that prophesied it, prepared for it, and brought it to maturity. That tradition was inseparable from the past of Christian, civilized Europe.’
Cotton Mather compared them to Satan and called it God’s work – and God’s will – to
slaughter the heathen savages who stood in the way of Christianity.
As he aimed his howitzers on an encampment of unarmed Indians at Sand Creek, Colorado, in 1864, an army colonel named John Chivington, who had once said that the
lives of Indian children should not be spared because “nits make lice,”
told his officers: “I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians.”
The Ustashe regime of Croatia committed genocide against Serbs, Jews and Gypsies during World War II. They also mass murdered other political opponents. Mile Budak, the Minister for Education & Culture, said in July 1941 that “The basis for the Ustashe movement is religion. For minorities such as the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies, we have three million bullets. We will kill a part of the Serbs. Others we will deport, and the rest we will force to accept the Roman Catholic Religion. Thus the new Croatia will be rid of all Serbs in its midst in order to be 100% Catholic within 10 years.”
…a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist who had turned to nationalism and religious hatred to gain power. He began by inflaming long-standing tensions between Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims in the independent provence of Kosovo…(b)y now, over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, “the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s.”
A BARNA Research poll shows that evangelical Christians are the least likely group to help AIDS victims in Africa-less than 3 percent said they would financially help a Christian organization minister to an AIDS orphan. Why? Death is the ultimate penalty for sin; we shed few tears for those whose death comes more quickly than most as a consequence of sexual sin.
David Mathews:
Well, I suppose the rightness or wrongness of Hiroshima/Nagasaki depends on the overall impact on the free will of individuals, with all individuals being considered equal.
Death impedes the free will of individuals more than most or all other things. So, making a very rough moral calculation, and leaving out smaller considerations which probably don’t affect the outcome, one should probably conclude: If by these attacks, which caused 300,000 liberty-ending or liberty-limiting casualties, the liberties and lives of more than 300,000 persons (U.S. military, Japanese military, and civilians) were saved, then it was the morally correct thing to do.
However, this is an uncertain calculation if the numbers are particularly close. If it was a comparison between 300,000 killed and maimed if the bombs are dropped, versus 300,050 killed and maimed otherwise, I would be inclined to think that the bombs were better off not dropped.
This would especially be true if the 300,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely civilian, but the 300,050 slain without the atomic bombs were largely military (Japanese and American). In such circumstances, it might be moral to trade the lives of 600,000 military, or even 900,000 military, to avoid 300,000 civilian deaths. The moral requirement for preferring military targets over civilian is truly that profound, that it might merit a 3-to-1 ratio of conversion, when trading lives for lives.
So, was the use of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the morally correct decision? I don’t know; I can only articulate what seem to me to be sane standards, and then look up the actual numbers after the fact, in the interest of not biasing my judgment.
So. Having articulated such a standard (vague though it may be), perhaps one of you can give me the real numbers:
As far as the decision-makers in the U.S. knew, how many U.S. servicemen, U.S. civilians, Japanese servicemen, and Japanese civilians, would have been killed had the U.S. not used atomic weapons, and still pressed the war to total victory?
And, assuming the numbers of dead and wounded given above for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were correct, what percentage were civilians, and what percentage military?
Mitigating factor: What percentage of the civilians could simply not avoid being hit unintentionally using the “dumb bomb” technology of that day, if military targets were to be bombed? (I must add this last factor in because our moral choices are limited to what we can actually do, not to what we wish we could do. If a total victory over Japan would have required eliminating the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki — or comparable targets elsewhere — and if eliminating these targets could only plausibly be done from the air either with nukes or conventional bombs, then is there much/any chance that the conventional bombs would have destroyed fewer civilians than the atomic ones? How many fewer?)
Jane:
Assuming God exists, then the various representations of Him (or, Them!) are far too radically different for some of them to not be more accurate than others.
The differences are just too profound. And, please note, that some of those differences involve obvious moral superiority. The Baal Hammon of the Carthaginians required children sacrificed in fire before his altar by tens of thousands annually; I think all agree that Yahweh, and Allah, and the nonexistent deity of Materialists, are morally superior to that.
So, physician, heal thyself: Take your own advice, and engage in mature discourse. Any adult willing to contemplate the topic without submitting his/her intellectual honesty to a fetish of multicultural pablum must acknowledge that some views of God are necessarily superior to others. Once that fact is courageously and honestly faced, the next logical (if uncomfortable) question is: Which is superior, which is inferior?
In addressing that question, some arguments (and arguers) are comparatively mindless, some well-reasoned. Moreover, which is which is often occluded by the fact that the well-reasoned arguments are not always well articulated!
We have a mix of all of the above in this thread. The best practice, perhaps, is to ignore the more mindless ones and engage the well-reasoned ones.
And that would be a truly, respectably, adult conversation.
“I leave for several days and look at all the fireworks!”
You people are really good at praising yourself.
But the facts still remain the same:
The United States of America dropped nuclear bombs the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 150,000 civilians in the process and leaving an equal number to suffer horrendously from injuries and radiation poisoning.
Will anyone argue that the above acts constitute the behavior of a peace-loving Christian nation?
Or … does America have a license to kill as many foreign civilians as it wishes?
Aug 23, 2007 02:48
Your question is ,has been and always will be ludicrous.What you aim to imply is that we should all hate ourselves.Then and now.And probably continue to do so.
You want us to say that we Christians nuked Japan in the name of Jesus Christ.
It ain’t happening
In laymans terms 300,000 civilians programmed and brainwashed into killing any and all including themselves.To keep millions more from being killed.
You would rather of had the millions suffer?
I respect you asking if what we think and do as christians is right.Thats a lesson from God,to question.
A lesson Islam does not offer.
Too much time is being wasted on what we christians are doing right and not looking at Islam to see if what they do and offer is right.
You see we have a whole different entity that you want to blame or should blame,if thats what you are looking to land.
You are stranded in those safe and chartered waters of christianity is to blame,and you like it there all safe.
Have you ever thought what it would have been like if Japan had those nukes?
Mr. Mathews you are one of those who deserves your share of the blame because you are helping islam to hide.You do not call it to account.Because Mr Mathews islam is not blameless.
Islam in all it’s moderate forms still can’t allow other people or even any of it’s own the simple right to choose.Those who do choose are those whose cultures and identities have been erased and replaced.Generational muslims.
You are stuck on what you feel to be a crime,by the U.S., but you fail to see crimes that are in line with those that caused us to drop the nukes in the first place.
Mr.Mathews what of the crime islam commits by teaching thier children to die and to kill and to die in the act of killing,suicide?
What Mr.Mathews fuels the hate? Is it U.S. or western policy?Or is it what they are taught? They think the same thing as you do,it’s your fault.
They are taught it is their religious duty,by grown ups,to kill and die and this is all thier worth.We hear this too much Mr.Mathews.
To attack America is to attack all religions and ethnicity.To attack any islamic country you attack muslims.Because islam is all there is.No matter what you think or hear about all the “freely”practicing religions in it’s orbit.
Islam is all encompassing.We do not attack Islam as a religion on religion war.It is seen that way because no body talks about islam the politics,or are they?
The answer Mr.Mathews is no it was not christian like to drop nukes on Japan,but Mr.Mathews was it the right thing to do?
I doubt that you will find too many people proud about the fact we dropped those nukes but i’ll bet you will find millions and millions more now that are glad they were.
At least once we cleanse them of being self loathers like you Mr.Mathews.
Put your oars back into the waters and start rowing Mr.Mathews there is a lot more water to be explored.
By the way you accuse others of self praising but you come back later to ask the same question?
Seeking praise Mr.Mathews or some dope you wish to feel larger than?
You sit in your boat stranded and afraid to get your oars wet praising the circling sharks.
gavroche :
“The funniest part is when Mr. spencer calls for everyone to unite against Jihadists including..secular Muslims.
But anyone who reads JW knows that one of the main assertions there is that such people do not exist (apart from agressively anti-islamic apostates like Ali Sina)
Anyone who’s been reading Hugh Fitzgerald will tell you that 1) these people do not exist and 2) if they do exist there’s no way to tell if they’re lying or not (taqqiya nonsense) 3) even if they’re not lying there’s no way to be sure they wont become Jihadists over night 4) and in the unlikely chance that they are in fact the real deal, there’s no guarantee that their children will follow suit.”
So if he had said there are no secular muslims he would have been a racist,bigot and islamophobe.But since he included secular muslims,which he believes do exist,he is still held to the fire?
Some replies to your points in my own opinion.
1)Whether or not secular muslims exist.They do exist but they are pretty silent and the threat of death and the acts of murder carried out against them is pretty afective in keeping it that way.
2) Taqiya.Muslims are raised to emulate muhammad.Lieing to further islam or to protect muslims in a time of war was okayed by muhammad.I don’t worry so much about the lieing as enemies will lie to one another i would rather focus on the fact that islam is commited to ever lasting war until the world is won.Taqiya is a fact.
3) Even if they aren’t lieing then there is no way to be sure they won’t become jihadists over night.
The more propaganda islam spews the more radicl “normal “muslims become.Add that radicalization with what they are taught from birth ,to hate and to kill and to kill themselves,it’s not a far jaunt.Over night ,a day a week or month.
4) If there are secular muslims theres no guarantee that thier children will follow suit.
There is a chance they won’t follow suit when the incitement runs ramapnt in thier mosques and schools.These schools funded by the governments where terrorism is vibrant.
If the western education is to be taylored to fit immigrants as to not offend them then we not only deprive our own children of a correct and awakening history then we fail those who should be made to see the errors of thier nations ways as well as thier positive.
People are so stuck on what the west has or is doing wrong that nobody is looking at what the islamic world is doing.
The west has never claimed to not have errored.But islam is forever waving and pointing the finger.
Like i have said many times you can self loath all you want but don’t try to bring others who have faught thier way out of that hooey down that path with you.
I will also add that you disgrace yourself and lose points on your character for denouncing ex muslims.These people who lived islam first hand.These people who offer an insight into what all others are trying like hell to discover…what is the problem.
People somehow manage to shrug off the sentence of death for leaving islam,ensuring it remains over a billion strong,which it isn’t.People gloss over the fact that islam rages at the west about it’s slavery history while jedi mind tricking them away from the very chains of slaves they hold in thier hands.
Islam runs around hollering innocent people are being killed and nobody stops to ask what thier definition of innocent people are.It’s muslims and muslims only,thats thier definition.
There are practicing muslims who say out loud that if the U.S. was smart they would ask every single muslim to leave,even himself.
It’s time to start asking questions about islam.Ask them about that which sustains them,what is the air they breathe?
Lets put on our protective gear and get our fire extenguishers out and start asking questions of islam.
To question it is to be seen as insulting it.Are we forever to be doomed to not ask about it or are we just supposed to quietly go into the night and wake up tomorrow with our hands tied.
Pick your topic,religion,politics or everyday life,its all islam all the time.
I look around and see the non religious people who have only the agenda of getting rid of religion all together.Thank America for that right to do so.
i will restate that Chrtianity hasn’t been steering the American ship for quite some time ,but islam HAS been steering the islamic pirate ship for centuries.
What do we teach our children and what do they teach thiers.
It’s really simple.Lets just all get real.
To all Islam apologists and “Islam is peaceful” lunatics: consider these “peaceful” events brought to us by Islam.
1) Bali bombings
2) Beslan massacre
3) Ethnic cleansing, murder and rape of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus)
4) Destruction of ancient Bamiyan Buddha statues
5) Mumbai train bombings
6) London tube bombings
7) Madrid train bombings
8) Riots in France
on and on….
Islam is vile, murderous, and a cult of thugs, period.
Funny how Derbyshire’s oh-so-healthy, rational, and safe Japan and Japanese culture should have been utterly wiped off the map in WWII with a vengance, or at the very least seriously compromised and changed, ethinically, forever….were it not for us Americans and our silly Christian values like forgiveness and tolerance. Funny thing that.
TO RC, I am including a small portion of a paper I wrote two decades ago. I also am including a few resources should you desire to delve more deeply. The estimates of potential allied casualties vary tremendously. However, one question that is rarely asked, is: How many more Japanese, civilian and military, would have died if the bomb had not shocked the Japanese into surrendering? This number would have been well above 300,000, and quite possibly over one million. I was happy to see you posit it.
More recent publications have made the argument that the Japanese were about to surrender and did not need the impetus of atomic bombs. All of the original resource material that I used led me to conclude that they were not on the verge of surrendering. This is what American policy makers concluded. One needs to carefully scrutinize the Japanese response to the Potsdam Ultimatum. Then add to this 4 years experience of suicide before surrender. I do not see how American policy makers could have come to any other conclusion. A side note: The original target list included Kyoto. It was removed from the list because of its cultural significance.
There were three different invasion plans submitted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan that was finally accepted was an attack on Southern Kyushu, followed by an invasion of the Tokyo plain. Estimates of casualties differ tremendously. The Joint War Plans Center estimated casualties at 40,000 dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing. (1)
Secretary of War Stimson writes that he “was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties to American forces alone.” (2)
Truman says that “General Marshal told me that it might cost half a million American lives.” (3)
1. Bernstein, A Postwar Myth, p. 39.
2. Stimson, The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb, p. 102.
3. Truman, Year of Decisions, p. 417.
Bernstein, B.J., ‘A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June/July 1986.
Compton, K.T., “If The Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used”, Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1946.
Stimson, H.L., “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb”, Harper’s Magazine, Feb. 1947.
Alperovitz, G., Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1965.
Feis, H., Between War and Peace, Princeton,, New Jersey, 1960.
Feis, H., Churchill. Roosevelt. Stalin, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957.
Feis, H., The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War Two, Princeton, New Jersey, 1966.
Mandelbaum, M., The Nuclear Revolution, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Morrison, E.E., Turmoil and Tradition, Boston, 1960.
Smith, G., American Diplomacy During the Second World War
1941-1945, Yale University, 1965.
Truman, H.S., Mr. Citizen, Random House, 1960.
Truman, H.S., Of f The Record, New York, 1980.
Truman, H.S., Year Of Decisions, New York, 1955.
Derb makes interesting points as usual, but also engages in a little magical arguing here. Quite frankly, I find wave-particle duality as “magical” as the idea of the Immaculate Conception (especially given research a few years back that suggested it would be possible to cause ovum to fertilize without spermatozoa, not to mention some of the other oddities of the animal kingdom). Rare, well yes, but Derb is smart enough to know that miracles aren’t “magic,” they are the supreme being applying themselves in the physical realm. If there is a metaphysical God (and I’m a believer in the Christian one) then the idea of an Immaculate Conception or a host of other miracles is not nutty at all. In fact, the hangup the irreligious have is not with virgin births and miraculous foodstuffs, but with the idea of forces and energies that go beyond human ken to measure and analyze. It’s the idea of a God and power that is capable of ursurping the physical status quo that the irreligious have a problem with it. However, test-tube babies and genetic foodstuffs demonstrate that that status quo is more complex than the irreligious have to be willing to admit to focus on such details. The simple thing is that Derb is struggling to get out of his world-view as much as he claims Spencer is.
The interesting thing is that this was sort of the same problem religious people had with science back in the day…that the concepts introduced (or reintroduced in this case) don’t fit their basic perceptions of how things appear to be.
Hello Everyone,
This is a pointless argument because it is impossible to dislodge bigotry from a bigot.
I take great comfort in the knowledge that Ronbert Spencer caters to a very small audience of uneducated bigots and therefore you people cannot possibly accomplish any of the violence you wish you accomplish.
This is a battle that you cannot win.
HIGHLY recommend “The Bible from Cover to Cover” by Peter J. Brancazio:
http://thebiblefromcovertocover.com
Also very relevant to this conversation:
Beyond Conservatism: Freedom in a Godless Future
http://kejda.net/2008/03/17/beyond-conservatism-freedom-in-a-godless-future/
May be this blogs greatest read around
This may be this blogs best blog post online!!!