Here’s the second most important part of the whole exchange:
Derbyshire wrote:
Indeed, the secularists, with all theirfor standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Neither. If by “standing and fighting” you mean “writing witty essays with clever turns of phrase,” sure, Hitchens is great. But when it comes to real standing and real fighting – not just with words – who is going to shoulder arms and fight for the future of civilization, people who believe in an afterlife or people who believe that after you die, that’s it? The religious prepared to die for God. Are secularists prepared to die for secularism?
And here’s the most important part of the exchange:
John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught….
The followers of the Price of Peace are still here after 2,000 years, including periods of oppression, strife, and war far more dire than what we face at the present. Secularism/atheism as a national governing principle has been around a couple centuries at best, mostly with awful results.
The Church still stands after 2,000 years. How’d the French/Russian revolution work out?
