Islamists Know a Western Civilization Secret: ‘Progress’ Makes Religion Decline
The answer is that it is far less strong than outside observers may think. The year is 2010, not 1517 when Martin Luther proclaimed his revolt against the Catholic Church and could in full confidence believe his reform would strengthen Christianity, as it arguably did for several centuries. Can Muslims believe the equivalent of that idea today?
It is 2010, not the 1820s or 1830s when Strauss and Paulus could believe that a thorough critical inquiry into Christianity would preserve its hegemony in European society. Can Muslims believe the equivalent of that idea today?
Islam suffers not due to any military or economic aggression of the West, but from the pervasiveness of apparently Western — but really more generically modern — ideas. For the great majority of believing Muslims, any serious reform of their religion is risky, probably too risky, to undertake and still expect the patient will survive.
While one can argue that certain internal structures and basic beliefs of Islam block reform, a fourteenth-century observer could have made such a case for Christianity as well. Based on a contemporary reading of the scriptures and holy books, my Medieval predecessor could have argued that it was impossible for any believing Christian to accept a dramatic shift in his religion, including a tolerance toward political and cultural secularism.
Yes, it happened. But it happened at a time and in a context when the clergy and the pious could often believe that modernization and reform would in no way undermine their institutions and faith. That is not possible for Islam in the twenty-first century when we have all seen the example of the West.
To refer to a totally different analogy for the moment, consider the fate of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev, as the country’s leader, tried to reform Communism in order, he thought, to save it. Instead, the USSR fell apart. The Russian people (and certainly Moscow’s former subject nations) are better off, but try telling that to a convinced Communist who enjoyed power and privileges under the old system.
Here, then, is the paradox. Only massive social change, secularizing intellectuals, open debate, a critical examination of the most basic religious beliefs, a transformation of the role of women, and similar things can open up a modern society in Muslim-majority societies. Yet it is understandable that the 2010 Muslim would see as suicide what the 1517 or 1835 Christian saw as a glorious future in which science and religion would be mutually reinforcing.
Conversely, to dig in, kill the critics, raise the walls higher, try to shut out (or severely constrain) modernity, and demagogically stoke the fires of jihad really is a logical response for those who want to preserve their religion and society as it has existed for centuries.
Perhaps they will fail due to opposition or to historical inevitability, but such forces carried on the battle for centuries in the West, arguably with fascism (which of course had its neo-pagan side) being the last effort. There are many in the Muslim-majority world ready to die trying, and there’s no reason they can’t draw the process out for centuries of time and make it wade through rivers of blood to get to the other side.
Comparing any movement within Islam to the Protestant Reformation is ludicrous.
First, the Protestant Reformation sought to clean up the corruption that existed in the Catholic Church at that time, and to return Christianity closer to its original form.
In case you hadn’t noticed, what is often referred to as “Radical Islam” is really only a return to the original form of Islam as practiced by Mohamed.
This IS their reformation.
They are clearly winning their jihad against Western Civilization. They have NO motive to reform in order to please us.
Islam cannot be ‘reformed’ in the light of Western concepts of humanity and freedom. Were that so, it would no longer be Islam. For its psychopathic and cruel misogyny alone, Islam is an abomination and worthy only of extinction.
Islam was, is and will be a serial murderer of entire cultures and peoples – if we in the West continue to allow it, to abase ourselves before it. This is what Islam has done throughout its entire 1400 year history.
The author isn’t comparing reforming Islam to the Protestant movements.
He is simply saying that the people who control Islam today have to be aware that many past efforts to reform (or modernize) religions or ideologies have resulted in the unexpected consequence of destroying the host or changing it far more than the reformers would have liked. So with this knowledge in hand, the liklihood of it happening in Islam is low.
Seems to me that is a powerful insight, and a useful one. Idiot liberals waiting on moderate Muslims are going to have a long wait.
Idiot liberals waiting on moderate Muslims are going to have a long wait.
This depends on what you mean by “long.” Cultural WMDs (democracy, jeans, iPods, Britney Spears, etc.) are already doing their magic in Iran; the Iranian youth aren’t in serious lockstep with the mullahs that run everything. The more modern a country is (politically and technologically), the more it’s suceptible to that which is progressive.
Do we expect to see more progressive muslims overnight? No.
I’ve always thought the Iraq campaign was about fundamental sea change in the area rather than the WMD’s that were offered as the excuse. Yeah Saddam’s a bad guy. So what. Not our problem. At least not in the immediate sense of ‘we need to protect ourselves.’ But in the long game Saddam was both problem and opportunity — problem in being a trouble maker and opportunity to transform a muslim country quickly to democracy with his removal. Assuming Bush’s gambit works, he will have done in a quarter to a half century what centuries of tradition etc has failed to do: Iraq will be a successful democracy, getting richer and better, not a threat to the area, and this won’t escape the notice of neighbours. Once democracy takes root, it tends to spread. Enforced progressivism.
Had GW Bush *not* invaded Iraq, the long game would be interminably long. Good thing for everyone Saddam was more ambitious than smart. All hail GW Bush, the unsung visionary leader, whose lasting contributions to the world are barely detectable in this era due to our selective myopia.
I aree with much of what you say but also hark back to the author of the piece above.
There could well be some progress in Iran and Iraq, but the Mullah’s are going to fight it for the reason’s stated. Of course, the Soviet Union looked solid until the very end, so there may be more hope than I’m giving credit for.
Thanks also for your point about the Iraq invasion having an element of ‘breaking the mold’ in the Middle East. It think so as well, but you just don’t hear it said much.
Comparing the Reformation to “what is needed” with Islam is misleading at best. The Reformation was a fundamentalist phenomenon, as is today’s resurgence of Islam.
The author’s idea that “progress” weakens religion isn’t really correct either. What weakened religion in the West was the idea that science obviated the need for a god. There has yet to be a significant impact on religion from twentieth century physics. It will strengthen religion, not weaken it.
I still think you miss the author’s point, which is (as I read it anyway) that the Mullah’s will look for lessons in the past, and easily conclude that loosening their grip on the religion will set forces in motion to diminish their own control and change the religion in uncontrollable ways.
He is only using the Reformation as an example, not comparing it to the current state of Islam.
Let’s start with the basics: men are as good as they have to be, and as bad as they can get away with. For 99% of people, weakening religion is simply a neat way of allowing themselves to misbehave more often and to be badder when they are. For the 1% of truly defective people who came up with all the great historic heresies, and, finally, with the great heresy known as the Enlightenment, Looking back over recorded history, it’s obvious that no human society, anywhere, at any time, has been atheistic. Only the most supreme fool can decide that that is just a coincidence. The examples we have in the 20th century of destroyed societies with imposed totalitarian governments and imposed atheism, have set all the records for mass murder — leaving the NAZIs far behind. Modern brain science is pretty close to being to explain this, but you don’t need explanation to validate observation. Humans are social animals and societies function in accordance with innate structures. These structures are created by rules, traditions, etiquette. Religions form are basic part of this social structure, but the rules have to conform to innate human behaviors. Communism won’t work because humans will not share their own stuff with other humans. Wacko communes based on free sex or no sex won’t work either. Innate human behaviors mandate sexual pair-bonding, with some cheating possible, but not unrestricted. Societies that try to impose behaviors which are not naturally human will dis-integrate, literally. The social structures which people can imagine are almost limitless. Those that will ‘work’ must follow Human Nature, or disappear quickly. It’s analogous to genetic mutations: they occur constantly, and 99+% are immediately fatal and disappear without a trace. That darned reactionary Nature is just not progressive. Right now, we’re seeing the attempt to field a co-ed, fruitcake military. It won’t work, but the Leftists behind this don’t want an effective American military, so that’s okay. Becauses normal human males find pederasty disgusting, we can be sure that shortly combat units will either be all-gay or no-gay; a combination (known as unit cohesion) is not a possibility. Interesting that the Leftists who constantly parade their no-nonsense scientific nostrums, beleive that male and female differences, which are physical, inherited, genetically determined, are nothing more than social constructs that can be eliminated by education. Believing that Jesus walked on water is much more rationale than believing the differences between men and women are taught (and why are the same differences taught everywhere and always, and by women).
Protestanism is a corrupt version of Christianity. If you don’t believe a Papist then ask an Orthodox theologian. At some point you have to confront the truth.
Religious reformations do not produce societal change. Societal change, specifically economic change, produces religious reformation.
With sufficient economic freedom, men will be too busy making money to spend time at the mosque. Daughters will be sent to school because it will enable them to provide their parents with a comfortable retirement. Business will provide the sense of personal success that Islam promised, but didn’t deliver.
People who drive Mercedes and vacation in the south of France don’t dream of martyrdom.
Hmmm. Didn’t I see some photo’s of the Bin Laden family on vacation in Europe (Switzerland, I think)?
You are mistaking wealth for economic freedom.
Religious extremism fills a psychological need for a sense of meaning and pride. Wealth can not substitute to fill that void, but the achievement of wealth often can. If you feel that you are a failure in life and are ashamed, winning the lottery will not give you a sense of personal pride. Hard work that results in wealth can be a source of pride in accomplishment.
This is why the oil wealth of the gulf has increased religious extremism. Riches fall from the sky, but it comes with no pride in accomplishment. Therefore attainment of wealth is discredited as an option for personal fulfillment and people turn to religious fundamentalism as the only remaining option.
As for the case of the Scottish doctors; this is the danger of a class centric society. When economic success is not rewarded with increased social standing, people will turn to other means. This is why Muslim Americans are less radical than European Muslims of equal wealth. In America, hard work is rewarded with increased social prestige.
The common theme is that it is not the wealth itself that inhibits religious extremism, but the psychological and social effects of attaining it that matter.
When you are proud of your accomplishments, and you have the admiration of your society, you will not need martyrdom. Economics is only a convenient arena for that success.
I am unconvinced. Too many data points, Maj Hasan, the Somali teen in Oregon, to name two, cut across your plot line. I agree that oil wealth is a curse to a society and that subversion of meritocracy can cause damage. Its just that they are neither necessary or sufficient to fit the facts.
You’re right Robert. Oil over there is like heroin. You feel really good but have done nothing to deserve that feeling. In the case of the middle east, the result has been overweening arrogance based on nothing.
But those in the Middle East who drive Mercedes and BMWs do it for honour. It helps not trying to compare an honour/shame culture with a Western culture.
This is plain wrong. For example, remember the Scottish doctors?
Seriously! How many doctors, engineers and trustfund babies need to blow themselves up before we name the enemy – islam.
The arguments concerning the push-pull of so-called secular society and religion will draw false positives, because they are based on false understanding of the terms. Religion IS societal, and “secular society” is not the technocracy people might think, but hedonistic, and something most conservatives, and most people who’ve any sort of common-sense regarding family resist [not meant to be rhetorical].
You probably mean that economic/technical development cuts the path and religion follows along, right? But this is to say correlation is causation, since it is possible the church, or religions necessarily take a back seat to the development of luxury in society a priori for whatever reasons. Could be that Religion doesn’t want to have dirt on its hands for altering the earth, and just be nanny. In that way, when economics fail or technology plateaus Religion will be their as innocent as ever. With all the answers.
Kevin, the cult of cool is the biggest religion in the world today among young people. Wherever Facebook and Lady Gaga penetrate Islam we will see it fall from within in 2 generations. There’s nothing like a rebel without a cause to destroy a civilization. Tech induces secularism and that secularism disdains the idea of angels or gods.
You must be assuming that people bow down to technology when it becomes regular? The ones I see doing that mainly are Liberals. So I guess, you’re right that those who bow down to technology will be wearing meat helmets.
As for Islamists, they are extremely aware about ensuring the next generation is well immersed in its beliefs. These are people who are very old school, old testament people; more old school than the Amish in doctrine (but this is not to say old school means more in the right). Didn’t you hear about the blind girl who had to have a seeing-eye pony? Technology is no promise to “reform” Islam or any religion. Technology is the water pipers, the steal girders, the air conditioning and refrigeration. It strengthens institutions.
You think Lady Gaga and the rest of those nimrods aren’t pushing a religion of their own? Humanism, Gaia worshipers, sun worshipers, illuminati… even satan worshipers. The so-called irreligious will not prevail, albeit they normally are de facto earth worhsipers. Humans are made in the image of God, and that means, by default, they seek worship.
P.S. Which is why teaching Evolution and Humanism in public schools is state endorsed religion. There is no scientifically deduced neutral ground. Naturalist Origins science essentially says that Man’s guesses about the past are to be regarded as material truths, absolutes that must not be questioned.
All I can say is what GK Chesterton said, “”Take away God and the government becomes the god.” Fits for Islam, too, as their religion is the government…
That was all I had to read to dismiss the rest of this article. The writer does not understand how religious faith differs from other forms of mentation, and seeks to construct a clash where none need exist.
Material progress does correlate with the diminution of the influence of religion on a society, but not because the two are incompatible. Rather, it’s because the pleasures of temporal existence, and the pursuit thereof, are competitors for our time and attention. It takes an effort of will to preserve a space for religious faith, for the contemplation of mysteries insoluble by finite Man, and for the praise and worship appropriately given to a loving God — He who has given us a lawful universe we can gradually comprehend and master.
Rubin’s contention is a version of the Richard Dawkins / Daniel Dennett / Sam Harris attack on faith, and falls before the very same counter-arguments.
It is fun to love, and having an invisible friend does make it easier.
Well said, Mr. Porretto.
A true understanding of science and awe of the galaxies is bound to weaken religious power.
Even those who continue, in the face of a 14,5 billion year old universe, to believe in a personal creator have difficulty accepting the tenets of a infallible church (mosque/synagogue).
This is one of the truly magnificent and valuable aspects of science – it does away with the need for superstition and deprives the prions of power!
True, if you want to call orthodox Christianity superstition, then go right ahead. However, thinking people that have more than a brief knowledge of history or are aware that the Vatican has its own observatory know differently.
Many scientists have come to faith precisely because of the beauty/truth/wonder of the cosmos.
Nature can indeed cause a secular person to become religious. A colleague I once worked with told me that he had been dismssive of religion until he took a course in biology (or anatomy, I can’t remember which) at university. He said that seeing the intricacy of the eye convinced him that God DOES exist because no such structure could just happen randomly.
He actively explored his family’s ancestral religion and by the time I worked with him a few years later, he was very devout. Unfortunately, his family’s religion was Islam. He’s the only Muslim I’ve met so far that actually struck me as someone who would be willing to commit acts of terrorism for his religion. He didn’t actually do anything inappropriate as far as I know but his anger over what was happening to his co-religionists at the hands of the Americans and their allies was pretty plain.
…..”…He didn’t actually do anything inappropriate as far as I know but his anger over what was happening to his co-religionists at the hands of the Americans and their allies was pretty plain.”
….such anger just demonstrates to me that your colleague is just ignoring the very idea that Islamic terrorists ( i.e.,his co-religionists) have brought (whatever unspecified here) such acts from us Americans on themselves. It seems such Islamic rank rationalization is capable of just about any twisting.
The term “Orwellian” has been used often to explain these thought processes, so forgive me if I use it yet again here. It’s trite to ask, but has your colleague admitted to himself that the murder and mayhem in New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania in 2001 was caused by his co-religionists?
I’ll add, lastly, that I think that any comparison of Luther’s disgust with his Roman Catholic masters with any perceived Islamic unrest is invalid. I see no parallels.
To me, that seems akin to placing the North and South Poles side by side.
Henry Reardon;
Was he upset at what was being done to Muslims by other Muslims, given that their biggest killers are their co-religionists?
To back up the comment above about scientists and God: I was reading earlier this year about a physist who qualified his find as finding God’s big toe…. ( I can’t remember exactly the whole story, it had to do with Quantum or mecahnical physics, go to Fox news and search for God’s big Toe and physics?)
Actually I find that awe at the scale of the galaxies and the universe produces just the opposite effect, at least for me.
Gsw;
Magical molecules that can self assemble into people over millions of years are no wackier than Adam and Eve, Queztacoatl, or stacked up turtles.
We’s all gotz religion.
Once again, the point is entirely missed.
There will be no reformation in Islam; Islam was the Reformation of an Orthodox Christianity that had lost its soul in its ever-finer slicing of Christological questions. There will be no reformation in Islam; Islam has already splintered and mutated unrecognizably (aside from the multitude of Shi’ite sects, check out the history and nature of the Mu’tazilite/Ash’arite debate). There will be no reformation in Islam; it is the religion of the dead Magian civilization that began with Constantine the Great and ended with the deposition of the last Osmanli khalif by Atatürk, and is no more capable of change than that corpse itself is.
Too bad Islam is not as monolithic as was the Soviet Union. These days, the most popular (and notorious) muslim is Osama Bin Laden. Any reformer would need to be willing to kill him before moving on.
Monotheistic, like Christianity, Islamic societies have never fully embraced Western scientific principles and methods-thus failing to mature in any meaningful manner. This might be due to the flaws in philospical tenets, theocratic oppression, or both. I fear Islamic reform will only come after terrible suffering, mostly brought upon it by its own action.
An English handbill from the Napoleonic era encouraged Britons to “Fear God! Then fear nothing!” We might do as well.
I think the time is up, unfortunately, for Islam to reform. The only way for us in the West to save ourselves is to eliminate the threat.
If the Muslims living in the West can’t stand their adopted countries, there is not much hope for reform, which would indeed be against Islam. The Muslim invaders in every Western nation have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to integrate. That should send the message to the leaders of infidels.
Yesterday’s Austrian Times run a story about http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-11-29/28753/Yodelling_offends_praying_Muslims,_say_judges
Is there anything in the West that does not offend Muslims?
I’m not so sure the Russian people are better off either.
>”I think the time is up, unfortunately, for Islam to reform. The only way for us in the West to save ourselves is to eliminate the threat.”Is there anything in the West that does not offend Muslims?”<
Everything in human life offends Muslims!!! Examples of this are seen everyday all over the world. This is what they are taught from the age of five or six and they carry it all through their life practicing it.
>”I think the time is up, unfortunately, for Islam to reform. The only way for us in the West to save ourselves is to eliminate the threat.<"
Tim, I agree with you totally. Islam cannot be reformed by Muslims. Only we can we force them to change but then Islam does not remain Islam. This criminal mafia like ideology has to be eliminated for the good of mankind. No ifs and buts!!!
So, Muslims don’t like people yodelling while they are trying to pray?
I remember some acquaintances in my university residence having similar sentiments about one of their fellow students. He was a Muslim and prayed five times a day and did so in a very audible manner. His first prayer session each day was quite early in the morning at a time when his fellow students were mostly still sleeping. They clearly would have loved it if he would have prayed silently rather than expressing his faith so audibly. As far as I could tell though, their wishes were not solicited or considered.
Thank you, Tim Ackerman. I’ll paste (repeat) here what you said to develop this, in particular, a bit further……
…”If the Muslims living in the West can’t stand their adopted countries, there is not much hope for reform, which would indeed be against Islam. The Muslim invaders in every Western nation have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to integrate. That should send the message to the leaders of infidels.”
I think this represents huge, unacknowledged hypocrisies among Muslims/Islamists here in America. They’re ensconced over here for personal reasons of financial security, or… for the satisfaction of pursuing particular career opportunities unavailable in Islamic controlled countries.
And, they take out American Passport applications after becoming U.S. “citizens”…note quotes…to visit “back home”. Hence, they’re straddling two cultures.
Then, alas, some of their adolescent male children become terrorist candidates, using their newly minted United States passports to travel back to West/Central Asia for terrorism instruction to be exercised upon return the United States.
This summary of such rhythmic conduct is not only combining American “materialism” with their faith, it is an ever present threat to America.
This is only the overt aspect of our Islamic/Muslim enemy; more insidious and un-emphasized so far is Muslim/Islamic “Lawfare”, using our freedoms here as openings for the Islamic/Muslim camel’s nose under our tent flaps.
The hypocrisy is this dual life….yet claiming to remain Muslim/Islamic….hence they are a Fifth Column here in my America. I want all of them out of here.
Excellent analysis Mr. Rubin but me thinks you have opened a huge can of worms.
I’m not certain this article is entirely accurate. Before the reformation, the biggest source of progress was happening under Islamic civilization who were not suffering from a decline in religion or religiosity. Secular attitudes that were developed in a western civilization came about due to oppressive attitudes by religious institutions which created more and more liberal takes on religion until it allowed total secularism to be created as an accepted path in life (as opposed to being a part of the religion on paper only or a total outlaw). This occurred because Christianity is also not a religion of action, but belief. This is much easier to reform than a religion that moderates your daily life and controls all of your actions. Judaism as well would possibly never have reformed if it had not been forced upon them so forcefully by the Christians running the reformation.
There is certainly a large amount of grumbling amongst some of the Islamic masses about the actions of their leaders, but for now that is not enough to force a reformation. Obedience to authority is very strong in their current ethnic culture, and fear of the extremists helps keep the status quo. A modern Muslim Martin Luther would not last very long in the street, much less if dealing with the authorities.
The Protestant reformers and revolutionaries based their revolts on scripture. John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther were inspired by the Bible, supported translations into common languages, and encouraged lay people to read it.
What makes a similar reform Islamic movement impossible is the content of the Koran. Reformers who based their teachings and actions on the Koran include the Wahhabists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda. I don’t think this is the reform we are looking for.
If the Koran and the Hadith are translated into the common languages, and read by the Lay people, all decent people would reject the murderous tyrant Mohammed as a madman
The “original arabic only” scam keeps the lay people in the dark.
The Mullahs and extremists are the proper, correct, documentable true faithful followers of the “only” Islam there is…the others are lying or duped.
Islam in general has successfully resisted modernization for centuries through oppression, expulsion, arrest and imprisonment, and outright murder. There are many Islamic liberals and reformists, most of whom live in and operate out of Western countries, but only very few who dare to preach liberalism and reform and still reside in Islamic nations. And those few face a daily and real threat of imprisonment, exile, and even the possibility of being killed for their beliefs.
All of this was true of the Soviet reformers but it wasn’t until the Soviet system began to openly and obviously fail to deliver the goods that the refomers ideas had any chance of success.
Islam, unreformed and unrepentent, is doing quite well thank you very much even though it is creating a huge generation of young men and women thoroughly unprepared and unready for employment, education, or even living in a modern and technological world.
Perhaps Islam will fail and fall and perhaps it won’t, but there are so many billions of Moslems now, that Islam could as they say, end up being the last man standing among the religions and civilizations.
An interesting topic but I think the approach misses some fundamentals. For instance, the Declaration of Independence can be considered the political statement of our ages. It life-affirming and pro-reason. This has less to do with “Progress”, which is an effect, and more to do with “Freedom and Individual Rights”, which are the cause and precondition of progress.
The right to pursue your life and, thus, the right to exercise your judgment are ideas which were originated in the western world. By recognizing these rights, which are fundamental preconditions of living as a human being in society, and structuring our governments accordingly to prevent the arbitrary use of force, we opened the door the to key to progress: man’s mind.
The tenets of Islam stand fundamentally against individual judgment and self-interest. It is not progress as such that they stand against. It is our whole way of life. And their most totalitarian exponents have been shown that naked physical force works, in Iran. This is the idea that needs to be discredited by meeting their force with war until we achieve an unconditional surrender.
I agree with the author’s premise. The Organization of Islamic States has been pushing since 1999 for a law to make criticism of Islam illegal. There is widespread belief, even in western societies that criticism of religious beliefs should be off limits. We have a melding of vacuous political correctness and Islamic intolerance.
In a free society no topic can be off limits. Islam is not just a religion but an imperialist, supremacist, totalitarian ideology. If we don’t open it up to the light of day it will conquer us.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.
In March 2010, Pakistan again brought forward a resolution entitled “Combating defamation of religions” on behalf of the OIC.[2]
Mattei, speaking on behalf of the European Union, argued that the “concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression.”[2] Eileen Donahoe, the US ambassador, also rejected the resolution. She said, “We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the ‘defamation of religions’ concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world.”[2]
The UNHRC passed the resolution on 25 March 2010 with 20 members voting in favour; 17 members voting against; 8 abstaining; and 2 absent.
They can also observe how the Fundamentalist Christian churches and Orthodox Jewish synagogues are doing, in contradistinction to the “Mainline” (Progressive really) churches and the Reform and Conservative synagogues.
Religion that agrees entirely with modernity is fated to be a drop in the ocean of modernity. The future of religious belief looks neomedieval, just like Frank Herbert depicted it in his most famous book series.
A frightening situation. My guess is that true catholic, evangelical or fundamental Christianity is far from expired. Some say (given Africa and other parts of the southern hemisphere) that Christianity is actually the world’s fastest growing religion. Significant portions of the US hold or may retreat to their faith.
Which means that deep currents are being roiled by the Western elite’s globalization program. It would be nice to see some analysis here of what their motivation and thinking is. If they set off the Islamic host, what will be the world’s reaction? Are the goals (if they are not merely accidental) worth the risk?
I think an analogy exists in the US Civil War. We had two distinct cultures colliding on the avenue of westward progress. The contention over slavery is downplayed by some historians but I think it was fundamental. Slavery was anathema to the deeply Protestant culture of the North while it was an economic lynch pin of the South. The fight was bitter with the South fighting on well after its prospects for victory were gone. Few wars ever took such a toll, percentage-wise, of the military age male population. There are still reverberations to be seen in the US society and politics today.
Well, state- enforced religion is dying on the vine. That’s not particularly news. deToq himself noted it.
I would say, though, that the state- enforced Lutheranism of the northern countries has contributed to their solidity and stability and uniformity. Their problem is that there is now a fairly large splinter of people not aware and not in agreement with this particular catechism. Whether or not one remains active in the church as an adult, the things one is taught, the way the tree is bent, if you will, determines how one goes about thinking about everything. Our family attends a Lutheran church in the US. I was raised fundamentalist Baptist, and I must say, how I think about things is very different than how other people in the church think, and is even different than how my children approach things and thoughts.
That really, is why I was initially against BHO as pres. I read the NYTimes article when it came out- I had a subscription- and his saying that he had been schooled in a madrassah in indonesia– when one is under stress, one remembers bits of this and that- I want the president of the USA to have the same flotsam as most americans- proverbs, psalms, bits of the old and new testament- george washington crossing the delaware, the declaration of independence- bits of the gettysburg address- dressing up like pilgrims and indians in construction paper costumes, at Thanksgiving-
And, well, there are books coming out challenging and correcting and debating the liberal critique of the bible. With two thousand years, a century of debate isn’t that long.
I think any place that bets on monarchies and rigid heirarchies is going to have problems breaking out all over in every sort of way.
The current mullahs might not want a modernization program, but would they rather have empty mosques? We dig up temples all the time, to old religions that make no sense to us. the priests were probably fat and happy, right up to the end.
ari
There are, to say the least, some problems with your article. To begin with, your analysis of the effects of modernity on religion is dangerously reductionist and simplistic insofar as it appears to rely on the dubious assumptions that “religion” and reason are incompatible and that somehow this tension really only emerged in the context of modernity or the Enlightenment. In the west the real question has revolved around the reason’s role WITHIN religion, more specifically, the Christian religion. The crux of the question is not whether reason and religion or more specifically, faith, are compatible for in the Christian tradition they have always been so – think of Paul speaking to the Athenians at the Aerepagus in Acts 17 or Augustine’s axiom fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) – but rather what role reason plays in an understanding of the world within which we live. The traditional Christian view of the world is that a loving and sovereign God created the world and created humanity in his image and revealed himself to us. Recognizing this, reason serves as a tool for coming to understand this more completely. Modernity’s appropriation of reason as the sole arbiter of knowledge and truth and thus the subversion of revelation as the primary source of authority is really what is at issue in the west. Thus reason itself is not really the problem so much as the divorce of reason from revelation as the source for both faith and knowledge (Kant’s definition of the Enlightenment).
Furthermore, certain elites within Islam don’t seem themselves to be really all that opposed to modernity. Otherwise, why do some leaders of Muslim countries seek the latest in missile and nuclear technology and Saudi Sheiks take over entire hospital floors at the best American hospitals whenever they need medical attention? The question of modernity’s relationship to Islam is not really one of reason and rationality (it was after all from the Muslims that the west was reintroduced to Greek philosophy in the 11th and 12th centuries) but one of authority and autonomy. Authority and autonomy, for the fundamentalist Muslim mind, can redound only to Allah and more specifically to the Koran and thus the muslim world appears now to be in large part captive to those who speak for Allah. The real issues for Islam and modernity are surely much more complex than all this but if you’re going to reduce modernity to reason, science, etc., it does not seem to me that the Islamic world has had any more difficulty using the tools of modernity for their own purposes than has the western world.
J wilco -
“It was after all from the Muslims that the west was reintroduced to Greek philosophy in the 11th and 12th centuries”
Operative word being RE-introduced…In other words, we thank them for showing us the superior intellect of a people who are not THEM
Than them for passing on wisdoms they could not comprehend, or employ, for themselves.
Mohammad would be SO proud!
Religion must stand for something, else it isn’t the true Word.
Instead, the West has fallen prey to rampant materialism: Gimmie my stuff, shop till you drop and just do it. Most don’t care how they get their stuff: lying, cheating, selling dope, gov’ment hand outs, or rigging the laws to your benefit.
Not only has the U.S. been hollowed out, so has its people.
So Ms PattyMOr,
Is Islam the answer as far as you’re concerned?
Nothing will ever change Islam and Muslims from the last 1400 years way of their practice of Islam. Expecting any kind of reform is only in foolish Western mind. To Muslims, Quran is Mo/allah’s words and these are immutable, are perfect, do not need any change, moreover these can’t be changed or else Muslims will be declared apostates and killed. If the west can understand only this much, it will stop dreaming of the so called “moderate” Muslims and Islam and the reform that it needs. Once you reform Islam, i.e., remove all those murderous Medina passages from Quran then there is nothing left in Islam to practice since most of the Meccan passages have been abrogated by the later Medina passages!!!
Only non-Muslims can force any change in Islam – Islam is not capable of reforming by itself!!
Very well said. I don’t know why so many Western intellectuals can’t grasp these very simple and obvious facts. I suppose that it is their insistence that all people are “people, just like you and me” no matter what beliefs have been instilled into some people since birth.
Either that or they are just too lazy to defend their own culture and beliefs, if they really have any beliefs.
“Only non-Muslims can force any change in Islam – Islam is not capable of reforming by itself!!” After observing this clash of civilizations since 9/11, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that there is nothing in Islam worthy of reforming. Rational Muslims who truly wish to join the modern world, should see that Islam is a very, very destructive way of life, especially for those who follow it, and leave their religion.
If they look about they will see that their lives, and the lives of their children would be improved by converting to virtually any other religion, or to no religion at all(I would prefer Christianity, but I have never heard of atheists being “radicalized” and attempting to blow up airplanes).
There is no hope for reforming Islam. The only hope for the West is to do everything possible to marginalize Islam.
Amen!! The West has to do everything to destroy this evil ideology from the face of this earth!!! Or else they will destroy us the human beings!!!
“The only hope for the West is to do everything possible to marginalize Islam.”
That, of course, is too late in Europe.
Read “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_discrimination/l33178_en.htm
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/time-that-is-given-us.html#more
“In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong “European Gendarmerie Force” would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.
As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU’s public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.”
One day, I’m afraid, we’re forced to slug it out with the Muslims.
I refuse to believe that Islam can’t be reformed. I believe that if enough moderate speaks up and engage in a critical analysis of Koran interpretation we moderate Muslims will be able to update Islam. Change take time and require patience but we can do it.
I started a blog:http://moderatemuslimspeaksout.blogspot.com
Even if the first few are declared infidel or killed, more moderate people will emerge and follow the quest.
But they also proclaimed that rationality or science did not undermine religion.
They don’t. Irreligion, however, undermines science and rationality. The response to things like global warming and Deepwater Horizon has been practically pagan. Ohhhh noooo. Gaia is angry!!! We must make sacrifices to appease her!!!! Ohhhh nooo, you may not build the nuclear power plant and make your life easier. Ohhh, my friend, the dam must be removed to appease the brother salmon. Fear not the wolf and mountain lion for they are not a threat. The counselor says you had a giant clown molest the children during a satanic ritual so must go to jail for 40 years because children never make those things up especially when we tell them what to say.
This type of thinking is neither Christian, scientific nor rational, but its become mainstream in modern America.
I believe that the forces of modern civilization will eventually do in Islam. The Western movies, music, advertising, and the chance to have 72 virgins without strapping on the dynamite vest will weaken the faithful. It may take a few generations, but it like fighting the erosion of wind and rain. Until then we are going need constant vigilance and a loaded gun within easy reach.
This article prompted this question. How can we get Progressivism to begin this same process of self examination and attempt to rectify its goals and beliefs with scientific reality? I realize that the average Progressive is no where as open minded or given to critical thought as your average Jihadist suicide bomber, but there is always hope.
Your unarticulated definition of religion is astonishing. Essentially, you seem to define the religious focus as irrational dogma, resting on faith and bereft of reason. You then pit ‘modernization’, or science, as not merely the opposite but as a necessary antithesis of religion.
Again – for you, religion is bereft of reason, and science is nothing but reason.
I’d suggest to you that you are wrong to separate faith and reason into two oppositional camps. [See Benedict’s Regensburg lecture 2006 on this).
However, the rejection of this split goes back as far as Plato and Aristotle. You are wrong to reject the existence of reason in both religion and science.
First, what does religion deal with? Its basic focus is on the metaphysical. This is an acknowledgment that material reality is not random and kinetic but operates according to normative laws of organization. Now, whether you analyze these laws as having their origin in God or Nature or Mind or…is not the point. What is at issue is a faith, based on reason, that randomness is not dominant but that order is dominant. This ‘order’ is amenable to the use of reason, and reason can be applied to both the metaphysical and the physical.
Faith in such a force-for-order exists within science as well as religion. If it didn’t exist in science…there would be no science, for what would be the point in searching for these rules about physical reality, if one did not believe that such exists?
Now, if you define religion as based on a belief in mythic events, miracles and such – then, you are indeed rejecting reason and moving into a realm where randomness, arbitrariness, irrationality are the dominant force, and only a megapower can intervene. Is this your definition of religion? It frankly is a primitive and simplistic outline. Its rejection of reason and thus, order, is a serious flaw.
What of the societal modes of life that grow up around the various religions of the world? They are cultural morals, political modes, even economic modes. They can be firmly held, and become irrational dogma. What do they have to do with religion? My own view is that there should be a clear and strong separation of the societal from the metaphysical. The former are derived from historical and local context; the latter is grounded in the exploration of reason.
Therefore, the societal and political dogmatic mores of a religion can be exposed to modern culture – and ought to be changed. So, for example, in Islam, women ought to be equal to men and allowed full political and economic roles and the rejection of reason ought to be removed from the definition of a ‘good Muslim’. In Christianity, at one time the cultural mode also denied the use of reason within the common population; it too changed.
Religion is not about myth; it’s about the acknowledgment of order and logic within the world. Faith in such is hardly irrational dogma.
Here is the problem with religion:
“First, what does religion deal with? Its basic focus is on the metaphysical. This is an acknowledgment that material reality is not random and kinetic but operates according to normative laws of organization. Now, whether you analyze these laws as having their origin in God or Nature or Mind or…is not the point. What is at issue is a faith, based on reason, that randomness is not dominant but that order is dominant. This ‘order’ is amenable to the use of reason, and reason can be applied to both the metaphysical and the physical.”
I think this may be the most convoluted, self-important assessment of religion I have ever read. It sounds like a freshman text book on “The World’s Religions” got tossed into a blender and when somebody lifted the lid before it stopped whirring these fragments popped out.
Why do conservatives feel so compelled to “sound smart?” I think I know. You spend so much time calling people elitist and complaining about higher education that you must imbue yourselves with the benefits of that which you disdain. You know, kinda like a chickenhawk who likes to spew stuff like “Hard to beat the AH-1 Cobra favored by the Air Cav.”
Meaningless.
The problem, Sensei, with your attempt at a rebuttal to my definition of religion, is that you provide only your conclusion (that the definition is meaningless) without also providing the reasons that led you to this conclusion. Get it? Reasons—>Conclusion.
Now, try again, and provide the reasons that led you to your conclusion. Do you know what a conclusion without reasons is? Meaningless. So, try again.
Our spokeschimp for spiral-eyed nuttiness, no-sensey, presents us with a classic example of what one might call ‘Wikipedia scholarship’. This usually amounts to an attempt to appear superior by presenting a hit-and-run, cut ‘n paste mash-up of meaningless quotes derived from Wikipedia lookups.
Now, Wikipedia can be a useful resource to those with a decent and ususally classical education. It’s never a good idea to use it as your sole point of reference; that’s become a very bad habit among the student population. And among snarky pretenders such as no-sensey. Sticks out like a sore thumb, too.
But Wikipedia is also an absolute foil to the marginally informed – or more to the point, those whose ‘education’ amounts to nothing more than a collection of leftist tropes combined with an overwhelming sense of self-loathing that compels them to post ignorant and non-sensical responses to adult conversations.
I’d advise no-sensey to up his dose of his psychotropics and sedatives.
The only thing I cutted-and-pasted was ETAB’s two-dollar description of a 50-cent argument. I suggest you take up your Wikipedia issue with him.
nicely done ETAB …I enjoy your posts.
not personally a believer in god or religion myself. the troll constantly tries to be clever and fails. sadly it thinks that conservativism and religion are linked.
regards
“Here is the problem with” lying.
“Meaningless.” Are all of your used and discarded names “Meaningless” too? Of course. Because you say so. Simple. Closed system.
“…that you must imbue yourselves with the benefits of that which you disdain.” Yeah, much like your activity on these pages.
What about being a serial Liar, Born sleazits Persons Galore. How about a Modern Liberal dissertation on the ethics and morality of falsifying one’s identity for the purpose of misdirection and to support serial dishonesty? Could it be that this lying makes Persons Galore “sound smart” to… its Funhouse Mirror?
If the purpose as stated by Born sleazits Persons Galore is to expose “hypocrisy”, and to “teach conservatives” something, then success is floating proudly in the Cesspool.
The exposure as a serial Liar has done just that. Pretending has its consequences, and one aspect is loss of self respect. When the exposure becomes clear, and the path that has been chosen is to continue with lies, and to pretend that truth is being peddled, then the Liar will continue on as if every new pronouncement starts from a clean slate, that past lies are nothing more than something that didn’t happen. “Meaningless”.
This is coupled with the notion that nobody really knows, and besides, murder one evidence is required, and besides, it can continue to fool itself, so why nor a bunch of “conseratards” who only need more of its lying to get it right.
You are looking at a trait that without question is universally deplored. Why would this be a choice? It’s easy, it suits an already false existence, draws attention, and, above all, it feels good.
The meaning of “success” here is the display of what one does not want to be. Quite a lesson. Notice the tenacity, the grip, how tightly this is held, the absolute negation of ethics, and yet the Persons Galore PJM rap is based on negating debate by falsifying, misdirecting and lying about what you are dealing with.
Such fun. “You know, kinda like a” moral serial Liar.
And the mil rap. Yet another nail. Clang!
Whatever.
I thought that the basis of ‘post-modern’ philosophy, to which you obviously subscribe, was that there are ‘many truths’ or that all points of view have validity. In fact you imply in your statement that no one can know, even with evidence, as to what is true or not. So, if there is no such thing as an absolute truth then there can be no such thing as an absolute lie. So calling someone a liar is nothing but vitriol to a true post-modern.
I myself am not of the post-modern belief system. I am an objective truth sort of person; truth is truth everything else is just opinion (which I thought was the purpose of ‘comment sites’). So I could be wrong about lies and post-modernism; but the way you state it sounds pretty dogmatic not very post-modern at all.
ione, why don’t you post with 30-??? different ID’s here in the comments section over a long period of time, never acknowledging that you are doing this, and further misdirect and falsify responses so as to obscure that you are doing this, using the names of others, all the while using political discussion simply to obscure and misdirect, and then look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that all others who comment in good faith here are less than you are. Post because you want attention and then let others know that that is your intention. And be consistent. Use the same riffs, same format, same cliched phrases but only change your ID.
Would you do that, and claim to be ethical?
That is being a Liar. No post modern B.S.
And further, let it reach a point to where you are consistently banned from posting, to where several PJM bloggers do not allow you to post except when you falsify who are, and then you maybe slip in a comment or two before it ends. Then change your ID and start over. Again.
Murder one evidence is not required. People can form their own conclusions about what is posted and why it is posted.
No, reality is objective and standards exist exclusive of human experience. Ayn Rand had it right. Check your premises. Stick around and observe. That is unless you are part of it.
Shamed into using paragraphs, eh? Congratulations. It’s a start. Next up? Word order. Followed by Making Sense, Originality, and then we’ll really bring it on home with Truth.
Ione, let me help you out with Mr. Lucky. He thinks you are me, or me am you, one of the two. He thinks everyone is I, or me, or you, us. It’s all very clear in his head. He just can’t seem to get it out.
“Let me start with the most obvious and unfortunate of your transgressions…”
“You people.”
The rock was turned over long ago. Watch the Born Liar sleazits Persons Galore scurry away from any logical explanation of “you people”. Watch the Liar deflect yet another time from its own lying life. Observe the lack any realization of owning up to its serial lying. Lying gets uncomfortable? Lay down a long so serious so lame, so seriously lame attempt to be “something”. Good dog Kyber. Sit. Speak.
Post on some of the other PJM blogs. You know, the PJM blogs that have your number. Prove a point, Liar. You, won’t you can’t. The raw sewage has been… rejected.
So, how many of “you people” are there, Persons Galore? Pray tell, Liar. The Kick Me sign does belong to “you people”. Self riveted to your ass. Karma.
Why not use somebody’s ID, or a new Soviet nuthouse rap, or something, anything to deflect Liar reality. Used and discarded. Like “Hail Rush. Go Sarah!” Use that anymore? Good of you to self censor. Behavior modification does work on the Freudian Dora.
Hey Liar, explain “you people. Use your “Courage and Intelligence”. Archives are wonderful. In a Liar’s case, revealing and…. All of your lying is there. Take a look “you people”. Anyone, anytime.
Notice any similarities with the “you people” in its own words rap, below? Notice the common theme? Notice the syntax, the wording, the length, and the rhythm? No, this is all some cosmic coincidence. Like lying in a Cesspool.
Tell who is you. Need more? It’s all there. Those damn PJM archives. Here’s that reminder again. Again. And again.
Squirm Liar. Explain. No, you’re gone now. You won’t be back for this one. Like usual.
14. Your Sensei
“You people need some new heroes.”
November 22, 2010 – 7:03 pm
29. Your Sensei
“What the hell is wrong with you people?”
November 22, 2010 – 8:06 am
7. Your Sensei
“Yeah, you people sure now how to pick em… ”
November 9, 2010 – 7:16 am
49. Your Sensei
“And you wonder why we hold you people in such low regard.”
November 6, 2010 – 7:20 am
Wow Really
It’s stunning how uninformed, arbitrary and gullible you people are.
October 20, 2010 – 4:14 pm
Betty Knows
You people are precisely what’s wrong with this country.
Carl
I swear, you people are beyond help.
August 14, 2010 – 12:39 pm
Praetorian
But the Constitution is a bit inconvenient for you people right?
July 29, 2010 – 6:18 pm
Praetorian
It’s gonna be a rough eight-years for you people (i.e. fascists).
July 3, 2010 – 8:46 pm
119. miriam rove
you people are mind bugling
June 22, 2010 – 2:05 pm
45. G Marks
You people are hilarious.
June 13, 2010 – 8:34 am
139. Principal Levine
One day, when you people finally regain your senses…
May 21, 2010 – 2:04 pm
20. sleazits
You people sure know how to pick your saviors.
January 30, 2010 – 9:58 am
“You people”. The tag of tags. Persons Galore? What? Where? Me…??? No, I’m as clean as Doris Day!
The Kick Me sign is looking like Mr. President’s poll numbers. Not that that really means anything, right Born sleazits?
Kicked, rolled, used and discarded. Yeah, it’s beginning to sound like one of those CW songs you so despise.
And another reminder or two -
sleazits
“You act like I’m trying to hide my identity,…”
Jan 28, 2010 – 3:06 pm
How about some more admissions?
sleazits
“35 and 84 are me, and I stand by them. The others are others.”
June 11, 2010 – 3:42 pm
And the classic “you people”.
39. Moho:
“…you people really do make me feel like an intellectual giant.”
Jan 8, 2010 – 5:38 pm
139. Moho
I could lie about it from here to next Thursday, what difference would it make?
Nov 4, 2009 – 8:01 pm
Not much difference Liar, not much.
Whatever.
Mr Lucky, Have you no life? Who in hell would go to the trouble of storing all this stuff and searching it for…whatever? I have seen some of your obsession when you have spit back some of my posts. Are you the cataloguer of crap around here? Such a role would make one wonder who YOU are….were one to spend time on such wonderings.
Hi D-White.
Well, from the D-White’s mind into text for all to see –
“Are you the cataloguer of crap around here?”
Yeah, there is a lot of “crap” in the Modern Liberal Cesspool. But you’re not there. You are not a Liar. Born sleazits Persons Galore is. Look at what it has been presented. Check the PJM archives.
Would you really want something like that “representing” the left center point of view? Would you violate a universal ethical requirement, and misidentify who you are simply to…??? Just check the comments by Persons Galore and draw your own conclusions.
It is dishonorable service to… Whatever…
Notice that there has been no response to the challenge. This has happened several times. A new ID will appear. And there is always redemption in the truth.
Ever do any programming? It’s quite simple.
Beyond that, North to Alaska!
Let me start with the most obvious and unfortunate of your transgressions, those of language. Phrases like “unarticulated definition” and “bereft of reason” are flapping red flags that what follows is equally mundane and overstated.
Now, to your “reasons.” You claim religion’s basic focus is the metaphysical. Wrong. The search for the ultimate nature of reality presumes that you don’t know the ultimate nature of reality. Religion assumes just the opposite – that the ultimate nature of reality is not only known but can be called upon for favor. The basic focus of religion is not metaphysical, it is spiritual – that which is not bound by science or laws.
Yes, religion is irrational because it requires no context or proof. You describe this as primitive and flawed (a description that offers no reason behind it, by the way.) In fact, it is myth that defines religion, enables religion, sustains religion. Creation stories. Tales of great floods. Symbols and parables and fantastical creatures descending in half-lit visitations. Without myth there is no religion. Fiction is the tool to describe that which does not exist.
With religion, the world, reality, the source and end of all things can be whatever you choose them to be – hardly the stuff created by normative laws of organization. If order is indeed dominant, it is the scientist who pursues knowledge of it, not the priest.
To suggest that a rationalist like Plato would find reason for universal truth or beauty is nothing more than an endorsement of his assumptions, which he utterly failed to prove. As have you. Ah, the irony of conviction. You’d be better off with Buber or Merton if you’re looking for reasoned religiosity.
You go on to suggest that science would not exist without faith. Wrong. It’s not faith the inspires scientific inquiry, it’s curiosity. Faith absolves the believer from all responsibility. Curiosity compels the scientist toward research and experimentation, no matter how brutal or bitter the results. Why do bad things happen to good people? The believer doesn’t know. The scientist doesn’t care.
Further, you conflate morals with politics and economics. No matter, because your idea that they evolve around but unrelated to religion neither asserts nor proves anything. I can assert that politics and economics are both false science based not on truth but on experiences shared by people trapped on a sliding scale of ignorance – our best guesses, accommodating, of course, our greed and lust and lesser angels. Nothing more.
Speaking of lesser angels, you contrive to indict with “ . . . in Islam, women ought to be equal to men and allowed full political and economic roles . . . “ I feel the same way about Mormons.
The “acknowledgment of order and logic within the world” is not about religion. It is in spite of religion
Hope that helped. Oh, I almost forgot . . . dog turd.
Again, sensai, you write only your opinions and they are bereft of reason. Oh- the fact that you don’t like or can’t understand that phrase is your problem.
Now, to claim that religion is not about the metaphysical but is about some force amenable to being ‘called up for favors’ is to anthropomorphize (another word you won’t understand?)the nature of the reality of order within the universe. The metaphysical realm, which I consider the realm of religion, is the rational exploration of ‘what is the nature of being and existence’ in their universal, i.e., ordered as well as their particular natures. (I’m referring to Aristotle here). Religion explores the relation between the universal and the particular.
As such, there is also a moral element to it, because that relation, that link between the universal (the basic ordering) and the particular existence suggests a connection that is not random but ‘might’ have a moral element to it. That is, does the particular express the universal in a positive manner?
And actually, religion does NOT infer that the ‘ultimate nature’ of reality can be known – but the opposite; it can’t be known. Science, by the way, says the same thing. Check out Godel’s Law.
Your opinion that religion is instead some agential Force that mortals can ‘dial up for favors’ is – ahhh – your opinion.
You’ll need a definition of ‘spiritual’ before I can comment on your claim that ‘religion is spiritual’.
No, religion is not about myths and stories; these have nothing to do with religion. You see, you can have both mythic and fictional tales about the historical existence of a people without any experience of religion. The two can and often do exist together in the same society; a society can have mythic tales about its history. And the people can have religious beliefs. The two are not correlated nor causal. Your error is to merge the two.
Religion is the rational exploration of the logical order of the world. It rests on a faith that there IS such an order. The key areas of this religious exploration are the reality of the universal order, which provides a continuity of order, and the reality of the particular individual unit which functions as a unique expression of that order…and how the two realms interact.
Faith is a vital necessity in science. Curiosity is a basic attribute of being human – and not just of science. The reason faith is a vital necessity is because science is searching for normative laws, and one must have faith that such laws exist.
Could you show me where I conflate morals with politics and economics? Morality is about the rules of behaviour that a people have towards others. Politics and economics are not a ‘false science’; they are not scientific at all; they are rational theories. Economics refers to how a population sustains itself via the production and marketing of goods and services. Politics refers to how a population governs itself and defines who has the governing authority within that collective. There isn’t a society in the world that has ever managed without an economy and without a political framework.
Oh, and why do you insert juvenile comments/insults into your posts? What are you trying to show about yourself?
Purely circular. Here, Ill illustrate . . .
‘Politics and economics are not a ‘false science’; they are not scientific at all”
Repeating of the same faulty logic does not move it toward proof. (Another truth you won’t understand.)
Perhaps what you refer to as ‘higher education’ is not higher just organized and not superlative at all. And perhaps what you and the current culture consider ‘elite’ is what people of another day called ‘new rich’ or ‘of the moment and not really quality at all. And perhaps Conservatives sound smart because they are. Because it is obvious that when progressives (not classic liberals) are challenged on anything they hurl insults instead of thoughtful responses.
Hey Simple,
Your cries of “its all so meaningless!” obviously come from your trauma the blackboard when the kids were laughing at your struggles to do the math….it will all subside if you just take it one step at at time…
His comments are clear if you take the “root” of the paragraph, which can me found here…
“…that randomness is NOT dominant, but that order IS dominant”.
I added the caps and comma to help.
See? Order from chaos…that’s what most religions believe…that the the universe is predictable…complicated? yes, but with a little effort, understandable in both its mechanical AND MORAL workings.
ETAB is a little advanced for you, I know, but try OK?
Take a deep breath and change your underwear honey.
Everything will be OK
There’s no confusion about what he asserts. What you’re missing is that it is wrong. Yelling it a little louder dons’t make it any more right.
Follow? (Of course you do, you’re a Fox News fan.)
Don’t bother with our favorite serial nihilist and ‘Wikipedia scholar’ non-sensey. He’s in way over his head in this discussion, and his attempts to appear clever are laughable (oooooh look! he said ‘Plato’ – such a smart guy).
Offer him a banana and he’ll go back to his tire swing for a while.
Wikipedia? Show me, please. Plato? I didn’t invoke that poseur, your friend ETAB did that. I don’t mind your references, but assign them to the right person. Perhaps you need some enabling technology to direct your scattergun thought process. Until then, a conservative like you has no right living in a free society.
Walking the fine line “being in the world but not of it” has been a challenge for Christianity since the beginning. However, it has been done. It is possible to respect science and still be a “man of faith”. Unfortunately, throughout history there have been those that have basically thrown up their hands and thrown out their belief in everything from “Christ walking on water” to the bodily resurrection. There have also been those that believed in fables that are not in the written text of the Bible and rejected common sense and science in their entirety. Maybe the path between these two extremes is what is called ‘the narrow path’.
As to what you call the ‘elite’ which you describe as ‘mostly atheist; my observation and friendship with such people has led me to a wholly different conclusion. These, mostly mainline protestants, are not atheist. They may not be what they would describe as ‘holy rollers’, but they are not atheist. The leaders of their churches, which they in general have very little control of, do not speak for the people in the pews who are the true lineage of their respective denominations. I have found these people to have a faith so deep in some cases that it is difficult for them to talk about it. So they are not ‘evangelical’, but they are not atheists. I do not know if what I described is the majority or the minority of these people nation wide, but I certainly wouldn’t paint them with the broad brush of atheism as you have.
As for Islam, you are most certainly right about their fears.
The irony is that science can explain how Jesus walked on water and verify that He rose from the dead. Walking on water can be explained by the fact that Jesus, being God, is master over entropy, which He demonstrated by reviving the dead, turning water into wine, multiplying food, etc. The same power that allowed Him to turn water into wine also allowed Him to command the water to freeze beneath His feat even though it was warm (this need not be the actual explanation of how He walked on water, but it is one possible explanation and therefore refutes the claim that what He did was impossible). Indeed, no physical law absolutely forbids the decrease in entropy- the Second Law of Thermodynamics is merely statistical, stating that it is exceedingly unlikely for entropy to decrease in a closed system.
Now for the Resurrection: the Shroud of Turin is photographic evidence verifying the Resurrection. The image was burned on, not made by human hands. It is also photographically negative. An X-ray flash occurring at the moment of the Resurrection would explain that image, whereas no natural explanation is consistent.
Humiliation on a worldwide scale may be one of the most effective ways to combat one of the most despicable, and ridiculous, religions the world has ever known….Islam. The Mormon Church, another ridiculous, and dangerous, religion only 150 years ago, has evolved nicely into modernity. But back then, the U.S Govt. resorted to placing their Church leaders in jail by the hundreds and threatened to confiscate their property (real estate) if they didn’t change. They changed. Meet these intellectual lightweights with a strong challenge (on all fronts) and they will eventually cave. Sooner the better. They’re killing lots of innocent people….. and their swaggering belligerence is more than I can stand.
This will never happen with Islam. NEVER. The Mormons did not resort to international violence and blackmail. Political correctness did not exist 150 years ago. Nor did the ACLU, CAIR, or the liberal media. Radical Islam is here to stay and unless we all start to grow up and throw off the shackles of being labeled racists, our granddaughters will all be wearing hijabs.
Toronto Girl,
You’re correct about the PC/ACLU/CAIR/ not being around back then. Their Liberal Media would have been conservative by today’s standards. But the Mormons were plenty violent. Ever heard of The Mountain Meadows Massacre? Obviously, there numbers were much smaller (between 30,000 and 40,000) back then. The Islamist threat is much greater. But the Mormon example is worth pondering. They were much more like Islam back then. They are much more a Christian religion today. The bulk of their change has occurred over the past 110 years… which is not that long a time to effect so much positive change.
In the long battle between belief and reason, light and darkness, it’s two steps forward and one step back. I found this on the web the other day. A letter from an ex-Muslim to a Baha’i. Quite germaine to the topic and well worth a read.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/bahai.htm
Religion MUST decline if we are to progress as individuals, societies or a civilization.
Religion is the root of all evil.
Religion enslaves the desperate and soothes the stupid.
Religion kills.
Religion steals.
Religion confuses.
Religion sucks.
“Religion MUST decline if we are to progress as individuals, societies or a civilization.”
=====
Does that mean that if the Islamic Paradises are to improve that they must abandon Islam or change it? Right now they are anything but modern.
funny …or sad that you don’t realize that you have just substituted progressivism for religion in your own case.
if you replace progressives where you have religion in your post it would be more accurate.
I know you think you are applying critical thinking …but you are failing at it.
No-sensey persists in demonstrating that this adult conversation is way, way over his head. Spiral-eyed crazy with hate for what he clearly does not understand isn’t an argument. Rather, it’s a ticket to the looney bin.
I’m guessing that by now you’ve already read # #22. Sorry, it’ll heal.
Did you post that before or after your last bong hit? So very hard to tell.
Here’s a banana. Now back to your tire swing…
or maybe “conservatives” . . . funny
Only SOME religions suck….
Jesus loves, all the time, forever, with no pre-conditions, even though you are a fool. Even though you call him names, he loves you anyway. All he wants is for you to be happy, healthy, and care for your fellow man. He wants you to be at peace with yourself. He would gladly suffer and die again, just to bring peace to your troubled heart.
That doesnt suck.
Allah hates you. All he wants is proof that you fear him, and he wants you to kill and steal in HIS name so more people will fear and submit to him.
That actually DOES suck
Next time, actually READ both books before you comment.
Call Him names? Where? Read both books? I’ve read all three.
The godless (atheists/communists) have a higher body count in a shorter period of time. (i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and yes, Hitler – national socialist!)
You have a right to believe as you wish, but human wisdom is foolishness to G-d the Father maker of heaven and earth who loved you so much came to lay down the words life so you can live.
Islam is the 2ed greatest lie Lucifer has given mankind. The first being you can be as G-d.
Allah, Hubal, or Sin does not exist, and can not hear or see. Mohammed loved a good murder, and rape. Those who follow Mohammad are the true follows of Islam.
Arm yourselves.
Indeed.
First, we will execute the Gaianist fanatics like Al Gore and Michael Moore.
Then, we will execute the Marxist fanatics like Billy Ayers and Ward Churchill.
Then, we will execute the Islamist fanatics Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Even if religion did all those things, in the place of religion, mankind finds even more outrageous ideas to replace it.
PJM is no longer a Conservative blogging site, it’s a libertarian/confused/suicidal/atheist jewish site.
Good luck to all, I’m out of here.
I beg your pardon?
Who are you, anyway? I’m here a lot and GHT seems rather foreign.
You’re out of here? Godspeed!
I think many Muslims cling to Islam & reject “modernity” because they can’t compete.
Unwilling and even unable to adapt to the so called “modern” world, they turn to Mohammed’s dalliances in the cave as the “immutable word of Allah”, which, if, in fact, immutable, can never be challenged or reformed.
So we’re left with 14 centuries of “interpretation” from self-proclaimed “holy men” with their own personal agendas and their own varying levels of enlightenment and non-enlightenment.
(A lot of the so called “scientific” premises in the Koran, how the universe and matter operate, are, of course, completely invalidated through discoveries in the intervening 14 centuries)
Unlike Your(non)Sense at #26 above, I have no vendetta against religion per se. I don’t have to believe or subscribe to any particular tenets to enjoy a good sermon and to enjoy singing hymns and camaraderie.
Europeans (and many Americans) seem to equate secularism with enlightenment and sophistication.
It’s a snobbish thing.
You may want to revisit the Max Weber thesis regarding the PWE (protestant work ethic) and the “irony of history,” religious folks working to achieve grace while paradoxically ushering in the end of heaven on earth with their capitalist good works. I don’t see Islam having a similar work ethic to produce the “industrial revolution.” Its basically parasitic, which means Islam is constantly in survival mode when not on the lesser jihad.
I remember reading an account of Stephen Hawking’s view of religion recently. If he was accurately summarized, he thought that if one posits the existence of gravity, then the entire universe as we know it can be explained by chance. Where gravity came from, or how one could take it or anything else as a cosmic axiom, of course, went begging. It’s amazing to witness the “gravitational pull” of Aristotle and Aquinas, even among moderns who believe they have achieved escape velocity!
Penetrating analysis usually produces deeply felt and reasoned responses.
I will be quoting this article and the comments on it for a long time. Kudos to all–advances in understanding of this most dangerous problem should be celebrated, and I will.
Great! Let’s all just wallow in religious self preservation and forget about advances in medicine, technology, transportation, science….while we resort to murder and oppression to make sure the protestant ideal is maintained. GHT # 28 above has the right idea. You people are crazy.
I think perhaps you are mischaracterizing the debate. It’s not really a question of steadfastly maintaining a static dogma but more a question of how to attend to the spiritual component of the human condition in the midst of generational changes to culture. In other words how (can?) do you throw out the bath water without losing the baby? It’s an intellectual conceit of secularism to assume that the baby is just as meaningless as the bath water. Observe the phenomenon of Islam taking root in Europe. In the enlightened and secular fabric of modern Europe, just the opposite should be occurring. The single biggest success factor of Islam’s growth in the West is the spiritual ground having been left fallow by secularism.
I’d commend Francis Poretto’s comment #3 on a definition of religion as an acceptance of a ‘lawful universe [that] we can gradually comprehend”. We use reason to comprehend this universe. As I said, whether this lawfulness has its origin in God, Nature, Mind or whatever..is not the point. The point is its lawfulness. As for ‘mastering this universe’, there, I’d hesitate; I think one must be careful and cautious of ‘hubris’, and the arrogance of considering man as master.
With regard to the nature of Islam, my own view is that it emerged in the 7th c, as an economic and societal reaction to the expanding agricultural settlement of that area, by Christian/Byzantine towns and farms. The Roman infrastructure of a regular water supply, roads and security, enabled a settled agricultural economy. This in turn increased the population and it began to spread into land areas previously used by pastoral nomadics. The Christian religion, it must be noted, is based on ‘getting along with others’ rather than with tribal isolation and hostility. So, a strong expansionist market economy developed.
Islam, if you read the texts, has little to say about religion and most of that is pure Judaic extrapolation. But it has a great deal to say about its economy and social structure. And it’s pure pastoral nomadism – with an insistence on male dominance (found in pastoral nomadism) and women and children hidden (from other tribes) in the camps. What was going on at the time was the takeover of the pastoral land base by the agricultural settlements.
What could be the result? The disappearance of the pastoral economy and social way of life by the possible integration of the people or more probably – the subservience of these pastorals…within the larger settlements.
So, to prevent this dissolution of their lifestyle, Islam emerged as a militant, violent reaction and insisted on its people attacking and killing all others. The later hadiths reinforce this violent militancy. Turn this economic and societal mode into dogma; declare that it’s ‘a religion’ – and you’ve set up a population mentally frozen.
As others have noted, with such a rejection of change by disabling the basic attribute of ‘being human’..the use of reason – Islam became dogma and froze itself. Its rejection of reason, of individualism, of questions, dissent etc – and, its insistence that this is a religious instruction to behave this way…sealed its people into slaves and set them up to be recipients of modernization rather than participants.
As others have also noted Islam is very ready to take the results of modernization – which include oil (which they were technologically unable to extract, process or use); all mechanical inventions; all medical innovations..and so on. Without the profits from oil, they’d be another Africa.
But Islamic Fascism – the current militancy – is due to the fact that the Middle East nations refuse to modernize the political and economic structures and enable a robust middle class to take power. Instead, the old tribalism, with an elite Ruler(s) over a powerless mass..is the norm. This lack of power within their own nation..is the basic cause of Islamic jihadism. Eventually, the ME states will have to modernize.
Religion? The fact of the metaphysical will always exist; the fact of order will always exist; the fact that we humans have the capacity for reason will always exist. Therefore, religion as an acceptance of all three, will always exist. Don’t confuse religion with superstition or myth. And don’t ignore the role of faith in science.
Thank you ETAB
and for saying it twice
reason and religion are not necessarily mutally exclusive
and beleiving in GOD does not prevent one from being reasonable or intellectual (maybe being Muslim does)
anyone who thinks he or she is smart must have at least considered the “big questions” (the metaphysical)
“But Islamic Fascism – the current militancy – is due to the fact that the Middle East nations refuse to modernize the political and economic structures and enable a robust middle class to take power. Instead, the old tribalism, with an elite Ruler(s) over a powerless mass..is the norm. This lack of power within their own nation..is the basic cause of Islamic jihadism. Eventually, the ME states will have to modernize.”
Sorry, I disagree with this. Too many doctors, engineers and children of rich folks have been playing jihadi.
I don’t think you understand the infrastructure of political tribalism. You can be a doctor, engineer, etc – and most of them are educated in the West – and yet, have no economic or political power in your own country.
The Middle East Islamic nations are tribal. A tribal political mode is hereditary, where one tribe/class/set has authority and the rest of the population – who may be doctors and engineers – have no economic or political authority.
This means that these nations are not democratic – which is a political mode that puts economic and political power in the hands of a middle class. A middle class is not hereditary; you move into (and out of) this class by virtue of merit not kin-relations. The ME nations refuse to empower and enable a middle class. Power remains in control of kin groups – and oil revenues enables these kin groups to repress anyone outside of the dominant kin group.
The repression of the population – and we’ve seen a recent example in Iran – by military measures, brutal police repression and a fundamentalist theology that represses all dissent, and half the population (women)…means that the anger at this lack of power is externalized. Against the West. Against the USA. Neither of which have anything to do with the maintenance of political tribalism in the ME.
The real fight is within these Islamic nations and their refusal to empower the majority of their population by enabling a middle class to develop and have political power. The real fight is about the tribalism of these nations and the dictatorship of the elite kin groups. That’s the cause of jihadism.
Mohammed, my friend, not any hoped for economic or political influence, is the cause of Jihad…
Dangerous wishful thinking to expect something “we could do” like money, resources, interaction, friendship, guidence, mentorship, etc etc will change their ways…
Several women who were raped and mutilated by Ted Bundy were very nice to him throughout their murders…praising his good looks, pretending to enjoy the “encounter”, saying they would certainly date him, and they should exchange phone numbers etc etc etc…
They ended up DEAD because, (are you ready?) thats WHO Ted Bundy WAS.
Islam is the same…nothing we can do to reason or befriend or otherwise render it harmless
Evil is what evil is.
No amount of rationaizing can make it go away.
Root,
Would you say that all Muslims are evil? Are there not many of them who would abhor Mohamed’s teachings if they were aware of them? I’ve read that more than a third of all Muslims are illiterate. Even more of them have never read the Koran. If this is true, many are relying upon the teachings of some Imam. I would think that many Muslims would be fairly easy to turn. I would agree that the soft approach is not working. But I would hate to kill many people who may have been our allies against the Jihadists if we had given them the chance.
By emphasizing faith, (that is, belief in a particular doctrine or mythology), over direct personal experience Christianity has painted itself into a corner. When the doctrines of the church appeared unbelievable in the light of observation and reason they crumbled. Buddhism, for example, has no such problem, not depending on belief to maintain a vivid spiritual awareness. How we might adapt to a more universal schematic in relation to our religious experience is of course difficult to plan intellectually. One of the failures of Christianity was to posit and opposition between the material and the spiritual. I think that science is in fact a form of religious expression when it investigates the nature of the universe.
Actually, I thought this discussion was over when scientists found “In the Beginning,” with the discovery of “The Big Bang!” Before that the church was pretty much saying the universe always was and was always there.
So, what was there BEFORE the big bang?
Nothing?
For how long?
How could THAT be?
Scientific theories are often as fantastically unbelievable as some religious concepts.
That’s right, Root. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any ‘thing’. Time did not exist, therefore, you can’t ask ‘for how long’. There wasn’t any ‘before’. I know, it sounds weird because we are used to thinking in linear time. But just try to imagine: No Time.
Wow. That’s so clear now. Thanks. No time. Sort of the opposite of yes time. That IS weird. I always thought that maybe there was just empty time. Or maybe a different kind of time. Maybe negative time. Backwards time? Oh, I don’t know, it makes my head hurt. I’m glad you know for sure, because that’s a load off, boy I’ll tell ya. So what about the other side of things? Does time end? Are we back to no time again? Does it loop back on itself? Start over? Has it happened before? Who killed JFK? Why Doesn’t Tarzan have a beard? Why no bullet proof pants? Tell me, oh blogger king.
Exactly my point, ETAB,
Many accepted settled “scientific theories” are beyond the rational comprehension of people who are accustomed to verifiable proof. They must be simply accepted on “faith” that the “experts” are correct.
The notion of a time without “time” is as EQUALLY and FANTASTICALLY absurd as God creating the universe in six days
Neither can be shown (beyond chalkboard gibberish between true believers) to be less plausible than the other.
The Pope is certain God exists…..The Astronomers are certain he does not. Neither can prove to me the other is wrong.
now look what you did to sense-less. he just got past the flat earth bit and now you want that he can have abstract reasoning. good luck with that.
get with it sleaz-it science is leaving you behind
The Big Bang Theory was actually written by a Catholic priest trying to imagine what the act of Creation must have looked like to an observer. It was not an attempt to form a secular creation myth, but rather to reconcile science with the Bible, as science says the Universe is expanding and the Bible says it had a beginning.
Barry,
I’ve read some of your articles in the past and found most thought provoking. I read this one twice and believe you are terribly misguided. And maybe after reading this, it is because I believe you worked off a false premise that all religions are basically the same, arriving at the same basic conclusions through a variety of paths. Islam can not be reformed because its very foundations are based on a lie.
Pure religion doesn’t fall with the advent of establishment, modernity and scientific discovery. It precedes it. The foundations of our own country tell us as much. Whatever argument one chooses to make about our Founding representatives and its constituency’s intent, whether Evangelical or Deist, they were an overwhelmingly religious people calling themselves Christian. They purposely created a secular document to guide and govern, not to separate God from government but believing the only path to truth is through free will and a personal relationship learned from God’s Word – not through the dictates of an earthly king. Our Constitution was a brilliant adaptation, I believe ordained by God, rendering into Caesar what is Caesar’s.
And as an Evangelical Christian, I don’t how you came to this conclusion:
I can only speak for myself, but my experience with Evangelical Churches has been to meet some of the most brilliant people on earth – doctors, engineers, researchers, attorneys, executives, and philosophers. Of course they don’t represent the entire congregation, but God doesn’t just preside over the intellects. Those I have listed may not be the power brokers of Washington or New York, they may not tour the lecture circuit. They are not a Sarah Palin sound alike that the media leads you to believe. That is not a knock on Ms. Palin – she is but one of millions of followers. Their sphere of influence may be small but the influence is profound, and thousands of small circles when added together become large circles.
I don’t know when or where this invalid conclusion of knowledge and Christianity being incompatible came about, but for many of us our learned knowledge and experiences only enhances our faith. I welcome technicians who open paths leading to new discovery. Those findings don’t challenge my faith – they enhance it. In medical school, I marveled at our genome, hints from God how He performed His miracles. Perhaps it made me feel somewhat inadequate in the presence of these brilliant people and the respect research and discovery, but woefully inadequate in the presence of the One who made it all possible.
You can call me naive, but I tell you with great assurance that there is a huge and silent majority that resides in this country that is neither impotent or inferior, and will not be swayed by popular humanist and secular dogma to adopt Christianity to meet modern culture. That is exactly the problem we face now.
Man is not sovereign over God and you can not reform a lie called Islam to make it more palatable.
If religion is man’s attempt to do God’s work it is probably a good thing if it atrophy’s.
The clerics were correct when they welcomed science on the basis that any pursuit of the truth is a good thing.
Jesus pointed out that one of the problems of the hypocrites at the time was that they had no love of the truth.
If God is not real there is no point in believing in Him, hey? Any belief system based on untruth is of no value.
Science has arrived at a point of partial knowledge but as the frontiers of ignorance are pushed back I expect we are in for some surprises. There would seem to be some untenable ground which it is committed to explore in the pursuit of knowledge.
One of these is: What existed before the ‘Big Bang’.
Some interesting theories to date but they all seem to chase their own tails in the attempt to be true?.
Personally I believe in the Lord Jesus because of my own experience.
It is highly doubtful that Islam will reform. But even if it did reform, it would be of no use.
Unless the Lord build the house; the builders, build in vain.
The so called decline of Christian faith is somewhat misleading. Keep in mind the elites, the MSM and the Hollywood Clebs are a tiny minority in the vast ocean of Christians.
This tiny group does grab the spotlight and most of the news coverage. They also impose their viewpoint as if ALL think and behave as they do. This is not true.
The looney left are just throwing sand in your eyes. Wake up and smell the coffee. The decline in belief is as manufactured as anything thing else in Tinseltown.
It is the culture of the Christians to tolerate the unbelievers in their giant midst, though they hope and pray for them to choose otherwise.
The spotlighted minority will not get that kind of treatment from their dearly beloved Islam. Wake up!
Mr. Rubin’s article is confusing and self-defeating on several points but I will just address the mischaracterization of the Protestant Reformation.
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others sought to re-form Christianity by looking back to the early church and to Scripture. They did not seek to alter Christianity to fit new scientific theories or philosophies. Instead they went to the source to “ad fonte” and based their beliefs on “sola scriptura.” They did not jettison parts of their Bible to science or reason. Nor would they have. The two acts or incomparable.
The way I see it, Islam doesn’t need to be reformed but separated out from having any say in government. In turn, those governments need to recognize all people as equal on all levels. That scenario is nowhere in the near future as things presently stand. Each Islamic country is very much its own polity and though they take cues from each other they are by no means as united as seems so from the outside. There is an exception to this: Israel and the West, particularly the United States. Muslims are united in their dislike for these governments.
By stupidly invading Iraq and eschewing the idea of divide and conquer as did Cortes, the U.S. took away the boogey man against which Islam could have vented their spleen, leaving only Iran. We in the West don’t want to conquer, but merely to have Islam have some in-fighting.
However, without putting an end to muslim immigration into the West, a successful hands off strategy will come to naught as the baby boom in the middle east will eventually overwhelm the West as immigration policies now stand. The Constitution’s of the West amount to little more than suicide pacts, standing along side political correctness that deems diversity and multiculturalism the obvious cure for endemic white racism.
With the Western polities obvious lack of understanding of such things as 160 million people in Nigeria and a Guatemala doubled in population since 1980, they have put an end to America and Europe whose people endured centuries of bloodshed to make a nice place to live. Suddenly, Western leaders turned their back on themselves and their cultures as sinful and lost the resolve that would maintain their now peaceful societies intact. Now, trouble is on the horizon and it is due solely to the birth rate of the least productive and most complaining peoples on the face of the earth.
Progress has not made Christianity decline, that has been done by government special interest groups and entertainment
In the 14th century many Christians had to be ready for change or there would not have been a reformation in the 16th centurary and it could not have happened without the power of the royal ruling class. The printing press certainly was used to convince the population. Christianity was not weakened by the reformation and it became the foundation of Western civilization.
Now we have the leadership in the West doing the opposite by destroying Christianity and Western civilization in a self inflicted weakening of the West.
Our own representation, judicial and educational systems has driven Christianity from the public view. Christianity has been denigrated by the movie industry over decades and weakened by liberal ministers.
While the main reason people shop in December to by gifts is Christmas, all we now hear is the holidays. Christmas music and decorations have been removed from the very stores selling Christmas gifts.
Judges, such as Judge Roy Moore, who have stood up for the constitution in the 10 Commandment case, have been punished. We have been told as Christians that all religions are equal. The so called separation of church and state liberals have been using to eliminate Christianity from existence, does not apply to Islam.
The fact is that anyone who believes that cannot claim belief in their own religion.
We do not have centuries to survive in dealing with radical Islam because they intend to take over the West by immigration and high birth rate and in our form of government the group with the largest population rules. And they will establish their rule when they have the numbers to do so.
The West has made the modern world under Christianity and the West’s decline is not because of its success or dominate religion but because of its leadership, lack of education and imposed restrictions.
A funny thing I find about about the supposed “watering down” of christian faith in the west is….
The fact that the basic beliefs of Jesus are now so solid as cultural foundations, we do not notice them anymore.
Honesty. Rule of law. Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Charity and responsibility for the poor, even to the point of self defeating welfare for the undeserving.
Unlimited forgiveness, even for the most arrogant, demanding and self destructive celebrities, traitors, child molesters, terrorists and murderers. (really, has anyone been executed in Europe lately? Or in the US where they die of OLD AGE on death row, no matter how heinous the crime?)
Constant apology for neeeding weapons and armies.
Endless “feel good” legislation to promote self esteem, hope, confidence, equality, fairness and decency.
These are “christian” beliefs of care and compassion, sometimes taken to extreme, but none the less christian in origin.
Islam however is the exact opposite.
Force. Domination. Violence.
No argument, no debate, no examination of ideas or ideals.
Forgiveness is weakness, peace is weakness.
Charitable and heartfelt concern for you fellow man regardless of his faith, is weakness.
All must submit, or die.
The Christian world may have dropped its beliefs in the “hokus-pokus” of parting seas, walking on water and the like, but the basics of preferential human interaction (fairness, compassion, mercy) are still at the core, universally recognized as the “right” aspirations to have, regardless of how short we fall from achievement.
Islam has nowhere to go. It cannot reform itself, because it is an evil system. Remove the “hokus pokus” of flying horses and washing feet, and all you have is blood, death and subjugation.
When we try to “liberalize” the muslim world with “democracies” and “human rights” and “mutual respect” what we are actually doing is “christianizing” them, making THEM more like US
Why we dont just admit it, speak the truth about that backward cult and get on with it, I’ll never understand.
Reformation of Islam is like saying “a better cancer”. Islam is the only heresy that got stronger over the centuries. The growth stopped at the end of the Ottoman Empire. It took nearly five centuries for them to change into a parasite of the West via oil revenues. The truth is that the time to reform Islam was about 100 years ago. Ataturk did a good job in his sphere but it did not go far enough.
Islam will fall fast soon because it has clay feet. Information will eventually destroy it. A religion that negates causality eventually has to provide an answer to all the interconnections we can plainly see in the observable universe.
Islam began to die when they renounced to follow Plato and Aristotle. “The Koran is enough” is a strong slogan but it makes them weak. They lost the technological race to the top because they did not want to deal with the facts. Kepler can be an astronomer and a Christian but Averroes cannot even understand the purpose and structure of a theater play.
That is essentially the weakness of Islam: the Christian is informed by faith that the Universe is subjected to reason and order. He sets to try to decode that order. Islam on the contrary sees everything happening fatalistically by the pure will of God: if the sun rises on the East every day for them there is no reason to expect the same thing to happen tomorrow. Who knows? Allah may decide to make the sun rise over the North Pole!
Islam set the stage for its own destruction when they abandoned reason and replaced it by force. The West developed the nuclear warhead by understanding the intricate ways of the atom’s nucleus. Islam developed the suicide bomber, a weapon that works as long as they can buy plastic explosives from the West.
Catino,
Very insightful, I agree with most everything except:
“Islam set the stage for its own destruction when they abandoned reason and replaced it by force.”
Islam was never about reason, it was always about force…its nothing but the capricious rantings of a pathological criminal seeking followers to feed his lust for murder and power…Its as disfunctional and self destructive as any street gang. That “dont diss me” attitude that makes them shoot EACHOTHER as much as their supposed enemies. Evil, pure and simple. A hollow failure that CANNOT EXIST without “enemies” to slaughter.
It was only later after much conquest they tried to put a “grown-up” face of a serious religion over it, a laughable facade easily disproven by the simplest of examination. Its a sham, always has been.
Your comparison to Nukes vs Suicide bombers is classic though, I will have to use it myself (and steal the credit too!)
Rubin’s analysis is marred by his cartoon version of history and his own superstitious beliefs.
He believes that all religions are alike and say the same things about man and the universe.
He believes that “religion” is a mere superstructure, and that its destruction means no more than taking the sprinkles off a cupcake. (In fact, in our case it is to cut off the Judeo-Christian branch on which our ordered liberty and concept of individuals rights and responsibilities rest.)
He believes that Holy Modernity miraculously sprang full-grown from the head of Zeus.
I could go on and on, but what truly distresses me is when these crude Faith-vs-Science types mention Nietzsche. Read him, Mr. Rubin. Hear him laugh uproariously at you, Mr. Last Man. Nietzsche understood the implications of the death of God. You haven’t the faintest clue.
The author’s thesis is too facile. In fact, there is no conflict between science and spirit, and those who profess otherwise understand neither of them. The degeneration of faith in the West has to do with the blandishments of materiality (materialism), not with any deficiency in spirituality. Those same forces will operate to diminish religiosity in Islamic countries as they become prosperous. Indeed, they already are operating in that fashion. So, the critical inquiry is not how Islam sees the experience of the west as a disincentive to religious reform, but how it sees the experience of the west as a disincentive to become materialistic (modern). For the moment, the Arab middle-east, and other Islamic cultures, are just about holding their own against the historical tide of materialism, although the tide is gaining on them. Their elites, however, long ago succumbed, just as the elites in the West. I’d say it is time for a worldwide spiritual revival, part of which could and should be the abandonment of medieval Islamic concepts and practices. But, then, if you are an atheist, perhaps you wouldn’t agree with that.
OK, but science, technology, and capitalism have brought us material wealth.
I am always amused by the propaganda tricks of the nihilists.
But this time the game has passed the limit of decency.
To say that the jihadists are “religious” and defend a “religion” is a vulgar attack against all religions.
In case the author of this column had not noticed, the core of “religion” is the Faith in God Who Is Infinite Love.
Maybe if our modern nihilists spent less time reading delirious modern books and spent more time trying to educate themselves, they wouldn’t need this kind of basic answer.
And, by the way, Christianity, in all its forms, Catholic and Reformed is growing all over the world.
And I don’t care at all if the “elites” (self-appointed and walled inside the houses of “power”) think that they know better.
The elites, as this column proves, are just ignorant.
I advise the Writer of this column to go and read some articles on my blog (especially the article about the concept of “origin”).
I apologize for the harsh tone, but saying that the throat cutters, the murderers and the terrorists are “religious” people is way too nihilist.
I am glad that my article stirred up so much interest. I want particularly to thank Proreason who understood my point.
Let me make it clear: I am not ignorant about the difference between religious faith and “reason.” I am not advocating the decline of religion. I am not saying that Islam will or will not or can or cannot be reformed. I am not equating the Protestant Reformation with developments within Islam. In fact my article is NOT about the Reformation at all but about post-Darwin developments in the late nineteenth into the twentieth century!
Nor does it matter why religion declined in the West. What’s important is that it did decline. And remember that we aren’t just talking about the United States here but mainly about Europe.
I am simply pointing out what Islamists and a lot of pious Muslims are saying: If we adapt modernity our religion will decline. Therefore, we must build a wall against modernity, an action that might require Islamist revolution and theologically-based regimes.
The liberal Muslim argument and any reform of Islam thus faces an additional obstacle that changes in Christianity to adopt to modernity did NOT face.
Barry
Youre still missing the main point, the gigantic elephant in the room.
Modern western society IS Christian at its core. Take away the smoke and incense, the robes and communion wafers, the way we expect to live, behave and be treated by others, is pretty solidly in line with what Jesus asks of us.
Reform or no reform, the “decline” youre talking about are the trappings and rituals…Christianity is enormously sucessful because it ENCOURAGES peace and prosperity, tolerance and forgiveness. Rebuilding Europe after the war, JAPAN being a staunch ally to us for 50 years, even after we NUKED them, thats a pretty Christian way of getting along, wouldnt you say?
Islam cannot reform itself because it is THE OPPOSITE of Christianity, it is the OPPOSITE of western belief. It is a cult of hate and conquest.
They dont see the “decline” in Christianity in the west, they see its dominating success, in all arenas and fields, and they have to destroy it. Because to “reform” means the west is better, it means to admit Mohammed WAS nothing but a contemptuous murderer, who offers nothing positive for the world.
And, having been duped into that cult, they would destroy the entire world rather than admit they were fooled by the Great Deciever.
A humilliation they will not accept, ever.
End of story
stating the obvious. islam can not stand up to any scrutiny and that is why it violently defends it’s tenets to be beyond debate.
if I were you I wouldn’t hope/wait for any miracle from islam.
regards
Mr. Malaise,
Exactly, sir!
I bow to the superior efficiency of words used to explain it so simply, so clearly.
Economy of force, and fire control discipline,
That is why you are a General, and I (was) a mere NCO.
General and Root,
Please indulge me for a brief few moments.
Had the PC Western Main Stream Media stood up when the Danish cartoons caused a ruckus, and encouraged their publishing in every Western News outlet, what do you think would have happened? I’d like to know how you two, and anyone else who cares to wade in, believe the result of such an action would have been.
the only thing islam frees is strength. a strong west would demoralize islam. the west is not protecting the cartoonist which also emboldens them.
islam is just resuming the battle that was subdued when the american marines went into Tripoli and stopped the barbary pirates who were “just practicing their jihadist rights”
the cartoons should have been published. it is our freedom at stake. the attacks will come regardless of if we do or don’t publish cartoons. …by not publishing we tell the islamic enemy that we fear them and they attack harder.
remember it isn’t all the “cartoons” that are attacked (in Iran there are all kinds of images of the prophet with escessive eyeliner I might add). there are people agitating the muslim communities . … those people you see screaming and rioting in the street don’t read newspapers and they do not watch our western TV. these are staged “astroturf” events.
I really think there aren’t that many (and it doesn’t take that many)who will take it the next step and kill some one …but they do it because someone else is pushing their buttons. it isn’t like a nut bar just woke up and decided to avenge the deranged prophet. there is always another deranged iman agitating.
Wayne,
They are indeed PC but they are not stupid. They KNOW Mohamadeens are vicious violent people, and to do so would have put their employees around the world into a credible threat of violence and death.
Notice there was no angry media backlash against the Death Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie what, 20 years ago now? Just a nervous chuckle about that Zany Ayatolla guy, and whew!, change the subject
Its just so much easier to appear “committed to freedom of expression” and not condemning the mocking Christianity with things like “Piss Christ” and “ants on Jesus”.
Media are cowardly “cocktail party” intellectuals, they dont want to end up like Daniel Pearle
Barry – You don’t seem to be considering the axioms within Islam and considering whether or not they SHOULD survive. Because a people define these axioms as ‘religious’ does not mean that they are and that they are functional either within a religion or within a society.
My view is that the Islamic religion developed as a militant reaction to an encroaching and increasing settled agricultural population that was taking over the land base of a pastoral people. Its agenda was to foster militancy. Now, how can this 7th century mindset survive in a 21st century global world where other peoples do not want to live within an ideology that rejects individualism, rejects reason, science, exploration of the material environment, free thought….and…politically, the equality of men and women and so on? None of these axioms, by the way, have anything to do with religion. They are cultural and societal. Defining them as religious is actually a travesty to the definition and function of religion – which deals with man’s relation with the metaphysical.
The question ought to be: Can a particular cultural mode of life, developed in the 7th c, function within the 21st century? Then, one can examine the cultural and social modes of behaviour – such as militancy, such as the inequality of men and women, the rejection of reason, science, the rejection of questions, individualism..the focus on passive acceptance, the focus on death rather than life…and ask oneself: Can or should such a mindset and behaviour function within the modern world?
ETAB,
Get a copy of the Koran…Read the Hadith…there was no encroachment of pastoral lands….Mohammads Uncle ran the pagan worship party, and evil Mo wanted to make some coin and bang some slave poon from the ritual.
He paid some Jews to tell him a few stories, then scammed his way to Warrior Chief with some two bit mysticism about being a Prophet.
There was no encroachment, HE was the one that stared moving aggressively onto other, prior, pre-existing settlements, clans, tribes and civilizations.
They all pre-dated him.
He was the “invader”, not the other way around.
I agree with the General,you missed the point. Islam cannot reform, at least not to the extent that it would be acceptable to the Western mind.
Reform is not on the table within Islam, so what point is there in discussing it. The only ones talking about the reform of Islam are the self-deluded elites in the West who are hoping against hope that Islam will reform itself so they wont have to actually defend their way of life.
If you don’t believe Islam can or will reform, what then is the point of discussing that option at all?
Since the seventh century, Islam has plainly shown itself to be a murderous and vile way of life. One might even say that “the science is settled”, and for that matter, has been for nearly fourteen centuries.
The real issue is not whether or not Islam will ever reform but what are we going to do to defend Western Civilization from the advance of Islam; and how are we going to advance the interests of Western Civilization.
Christianity constitutes the characteristics that you have descibed(fairness & altruism)combined with hocus pocus (God, afterlife, Jesus raising the dead, etc). If we take away the hocus pocus, Christianity merely becomes standard humanism. Ancient Stoics, Buddhists, Jains and others favored humanistic values (fairness & altruism) but combined it with different (and arguably less) hucus pocus. An ordinary American of average intelligence and education will have humanistic values and will self identify as a “Christian” and belive at least some of the hocus pocus. He will not self identify as an atheist, scientific realist, humanist, etc. In the future, Moslems will not self identify as either Christians or atheists, but they will be more humanistic and will have abandoned the worst parts of their religions just as modern Christians have done.
One missing point is survival of the secular society. Unlike religion, which gives people a vision bigger that life, secular society is focused on here and now. This not a good strategy of survival of the civilization. Eventually, secular societies are doomed.
The worrying signs are here: western societies got rid of children. This is the simplest way to make oneself better of “here and now.” Judging from the number of dogs and cats, the lack of children left a psychological vacuum. However, a much harder problem is coming: aging Europe. In the sixties when contraception and sexual revolution was in full swing, Europe thought it can import assimilating immigrants. Instead, the immigrants started building a system within the system. They are future-oriented, they have many children and they have political ideology to takeover.
This article swings and misses in my opinion. The Christian church may be perceived to have accommodated and compromised its internal Rigor, or appearance thereof, with the tides of higher quality Science, but this is Man’s perspective. The word “reformation” gives a false connotation to Martin Luther’s affect on Christianity. Could it not be said that he got the Christian church unstuck from it’s natural course? (“I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”… was Christ a reformer, or getting His religion unstuck?)
However, I must add, this is not to say that Evolutionary thinking is part of that corrected course, but more derailment. Christianity’s leadership to the world is being driven into the mud by Evolutionary beliefs, and another “reformation” is due to tow it out. Note, also, that God is not stuck in the mud, but Men mishandling the word of God.
Also, the author did mention it, but made little of the fact of Christians driving developments in science early on. Certainly, the implications are more telling. Christianity, ideally, gives license to examine the world, and to make the assumption that science can be used, BECAUSE God has made Creation ordered and consistent. This speaks of that natural course of Christianity.
Now Islam, it should not be compared to Christianity apart than that the two are religions, because they react differently to various stimuli. However, hypothetically, if it can be understood that Christianity was “reformed” from within, it would also be most likely that Islam must be reformed from within by people who understand Islam (if it’s possible). That is to suggest that this idea that the contemporary “enlightened” world drags religions along kicking and protesting is a proud delusion born from new-ageism.
The Bible speaks of the people of Ishmael, that he is a wild donkey of a man, constantly at odds with his neighbors. I will make a very unbold prediction: Islam will be at odds with any group not exactly like themselves until the end of the world.
Your observations are accurate but…
The logical but wrong thing to do is extrapolate from the present to the future. Immigrants are not future-oriented. They come for present-day relief from the awful societies they left. Yes, they have many children but as they westernize those numbers decrease. They do not have a political ideology to take over the west – the Islamsists have that and the immigrants to whom you refer are captive to them because we do not make it imperative that they refuse their demands.
Just as soon as the US arrives at a consensus on what it wants to protect and what it wants to support, then the policies that now allow immigrants to have their cake and eat it too will stop. They will have to be either for us or against us.
It is interesting how the fashionable impetus is always on “religion” to reform and to “get with the time”. Much can be said concerning the benefit of religion to mankind, even those Evolutionary biased thinkers would admit. Religion organizes, doesn’t it? Nevertheless, I would like to flip the tables. I would like Evolutionists to answer how the Theory of Evolution has done anything to make the world a better place. Anything!
concerning the choice that evangelicals shave to either shield their members or risk defection – this is stupid
the article was interesting and the writer seemed to know what he was saying until he got here
in fact evangelicals continue to boldly search for truth wherever it may lead because they know that ALL truth is God’s (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) truth
From this dumb comment I gather that this writer is one of the ones that is fearful of doing the same concerning evolution vs creation and many of the other important dividing debates between believers and non-believers
Good article. The strains of Christianity that have best resisted the siren call of Liberalism and secularism are those that have been uncompromising in their doctrines. Compare Mormonism and Evangelism to the mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S.; the latter have been hemorrhaging members since the 60s.
A lot of the decline comes from the top down; liberal ecclesiastical bureaucracies and bishops versus the fundamentally conservative laity. Muslims lack a central structure that can tinker with doctrine and liturgy. This is its main asset. A replication of folly of the 2nd Vatican Council would be unthinkable within Islam. It can’t happen.
JWilco wrote:
“There are, to say the least, some problems with your article. To begin with, your analysis of the effects of modernity on religion is dangerously reductionist and simplistic insofar as it appears to rely on the dubious assumptions that “religion” and reason are incompatible and that somehow this tension really only emerged in the context of modernity or the Enlightenment. In the west the real question has revolved around the reason’s role WITHIN religion, more specifically, the Christian religion. The crux of the question is not whether reason and religion or more specifically, faith, are compatible for in the Christian tradition they have always been so – think of Paul speaking to the Athenians at the Aerepagus in Acts 17 or Augustine’s axiom fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) – but rather what role reason plays in an understanding of the world within which we live. The traditional Christian view of the world is that a loving and sovereign God created the world and created humanity in his image and revealed himself to us. Recognizing this, reason serves as a tool for coming to understand this more completely. Modernity’s appropriation of reason as the sole arbiter of knowledge and truth and thus the subversion of revelation as the primary source of authority is really what is at issue in the west. Thus reason itself is not really the problem so much as the divorce of reason from revelation as the source for both faith and knowledge (Kant’s definition of the Enlightenment)…”
that’s good stuff right there, i’m stealing it, lol
so many well-thought out and logical rebuttals to Mr. Rubin’s article, maybe there is hope for this world, thank you all
Shoey,
Well thought out and logical are uniquely western Judeo Christian attributes….the only “hope for the world” is to continue that model….Islam is a threat to all well thought out and logical approaches to anything.
So freedom of speech does not help totalitarian theocracies? Who would’ve thunk it?
If progress makes a religion decline, then Islamic countries should be the most advanced since they have made no progress since Mohammad’s time.
The author only analyzes Western Christianity. I’d be curious to hear his comments about Eastern Orthodoxy and scientific advancement. Eastern Christianity is far less cerebral. Western Christianity focuses on developing Faith through understanding while Orthodoxy focuses on loosing one self in union to an ineffable Diety. I’m wondering if progress would affect Orthodoxy in the same manner.
Top 10 Things Overheard in the White House During Obama’s First Term
10. “What should I do next, Senior Chavez?”
9. “Does a royal cape come with the title “Anointed One”?
8.”Honestly, Barack! A teleprompter in the bedroom?”
7. “I’m not sure a Che Guevara wall flag in the Oval Office is a good idea, Mr. President.”
6. “Heads, we take over the auto industry. Tails, we nationalize the oil industry.”
5. “Apology list: Iraq –check. Saudi Arabia – check. Palestine – check. Syria…”
4. “Canada’s health care system is a perpetual money-sucking vortex that has resulted in bloated bureaucracy, demanding unions, longer wait times, and a steady exodus of their best and brightest professionals out of the country. Finally we’ve found the perfect template for Obamacare!”
3. “Sean Penn, line two.”
2. “Have they chosen someone to play me in the movie yet?”
1. “Did MSNBC and David Letterman get our “secret” message?
it is very likley true that Islam cannot be “reformed”
perhaps a more accurate way to describe what needs to happen – at least to try and affect the violent nature of the religion – is that power (saudi imams) and money (saudi royals) need to get behind some ideas that up to now have been considered heresies and promote a new and kindler, gentler islam
this would in effect, over time , declaw the lion
I believe that it has already started
it is very likley true that Islam cannot be “reformed”
perhaps a more accurate way to describe what needs to happen – at least to try and affect the violent nature of the religion – is that power (saudi imams) and money (saudi royals) need to get behind some ideas that up to now have been considered heresy and promote a new and improved, kinder, gentler islam
maybe Bush Sr could help them
this would in effect, over time , declaw the lion
I believe that it has already started
To believe that progress diminishes religion is absurd. Take any of them cave dwelling people and put them in a nice home. They would prefer the nice home. Mans own sheer arrogance, that he believes he has made all the comforts of home by his own will is when religion starts to decline. Stop trusting in our Creator and you will sink into the decline. No man has the right to tell another man how to live his own life. That is why the Creator, the Holy one lets us make our own choices and then be judged fairly, by the Holy!
With respect to Christianity you are conflating two completely separate movements. Luther’s movement moved Christianity away from (pagan) Catholicism and back to its scriptural roots. Luther proved from scripture that the Catholic religion was corrupt and heretical. This had nothing to do with “modernization” and did not ruin Christianity, it saved it in the West. (The East was fine, by the bye.) The later movement which sought to “modernize” Christianity was really nothing short of a rejection of it: the people you mention and others of their ilk simply did not believe the Bible. Period. But the churches provided a handy platform to teach their beliefs and wield power, so they kept up some appearances for that reason. Real Christians never rejected any teaching of the Bible and we have no problem living in the 21 century.
As to Islam, these two struggles, which in Christianity occurred centuries apart, are happening at the same time: some are trying to drag it back to its roots of mass murder and forced conversion; others are trying to use it as a platform to wield power and teach their own beliefs, which reject Islam’s history and teachings but, again, they must keep up some appearances for this purpose.
Most “intellectuals” and “elites” as you call them are agnostic or atheistic now because that is fashionable. I doubt many of them have ever given serious thought about God, or eternity, or have studied the scriptures with an open mind. They’re focused only on how they can prosper and gain power and friends here and now. Very sad. And they’re about as good at theology as they are at economics and geo-politics: most are also socialists or communists and think they can negotiate with the “radical” Islamists who are only still justifiably upset about the Crusades. Hm. Mighty fine intellects, those. Oh yeah, and cars and fireplaces are destroying the planet. ….. Remember when hair spray was destroying the Ozone layer? When are the “elites” going to bring that one back?! (Al, are you listening? Al? Has anyone seen Al lately?)