No Worse Friend, No Better Enemy
The day before a number of bombs were detonated in Nigerian churches on Christmas day, Mark Steyn wrote that the West seemed studiously oblivious to one of the great ethnic cleansings of the instant: the destruction of Christians across the world by Islamists.
On this Christmas Eve, one of the great unreported stories throughout what we used to call Christendom is the persecution of Christians around the world. In Egypt, the “Arab Spring” is going so swimmingly that Copts are already fleeing Egypt and, for those Christians that remain, Midnight Mass has to be held in the daylight for security reasons. In Iraq, midnight services have been canceled entirely for fear of bloodshed, part of the remorseless de-Christianizing that has been going on, quite shamefully, under an American imperium.
Not merely the media but Christian leaders in the west seem to be embarrassed by behavior that doesn’t conform to their dimwitted sappiness about “Facebook Revolutions”. It took a Jew to deliver this line:When Lord Sacks, chief rabbi in England, rose in the House of Lords to speak about the persecution of Christians, he quoted Martin Luther King. “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Lord Sacks is mostly right. But it is the "friend" part he has gotten wrong. It is not Christianity's "friends" who are silent because they are not friends. The Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda are, whatever their faults, entirely candid about what they are. It is the "caring West" that is treacherous. Save for the convenience of being able to misrepresent itself as "Christian" and thereby apologize on behalf of the victims to the perpetrators, the cultural leadership of the West has long stopped being anything but the Marxists to which they converted decades ago.
The Ottawa Citizen notes that with such 'friends' who needs enemies?:
Fraser Nelson asked all the pertinent questions about the indifference displayed by the British Foreign Office to the persecution of Christians (along with other minorities) in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria; indeed, throughout the Middle East. Why do our diplomats refuse even to raise the issue with their counterparts in these countries?
The same could be asked of most western foreign ministries. Germany is an exception, and apparently Angela Merkel has, to her credit, interceded discreetly but forcefully to get some restrictions lifted on Catholics in Turkey. If Canada is doing something, it is even more discreet.
But of course, formal restrictions on Christian life and worship in Muslim countries - which would be considered outrageous if they were applied to Muslims in any western country - are endemic. They vary not so much in content, as in enforcement, and as a rule, become heavier when any society is in convulsion, lighter when it is not. In other words, Christians, formerly Jews (before their general exodus, when Israel was founded), and other minorities such as Shia Muslims in Sunni lands, are accustomed to becoming scapegoats when things having nothing to do with them go wrong.
Frankly, Western Marxism has entered into an alliance with Islamism everywhere. Under the banner of multiculturalism, under the cover of "hate speech", under the constant apologia of political correctness, it hopes to use Islam as a battering ram to destroy the last remnants of its domestic opposition. They are in a "united front" with Islam to destroy the Near Enemy.
In this calculus, the Far Friends -- if friends they be -- count for little. Middle Eastern and African Christians are collateral damage. Not just Christians, one might add, but animists and Buddhists and Hindus, and Jains -- you name it -- as well.
Boko Haram, is a Muslim sect in Nigeria that seeks the strict implementation of Islamic law across the country. ...The term "Boko Haram" comes from the Hausa word boko meaning "Animist, western or otherwise non-Islamic education" and the Arabic word haram figuratively meaning "sin" (literally, "forbidden"). ... Boko Haram opposes not only Western education, but Western culture and modern science as well. The group also forbids the wearing of shirts and pants and the act of voting in elections. In its view, the Nigerian state is run by non-believers.
It makes a good deal of tactical sense from the Marxist viewpoint to regard the "enemy of the enemy is my friend". But there is no advantage whatsoever among those in the crosshairs of Marxism not to recognize this. The "I am caring" routine just suppresses the gag reaction to the poisoned Kool-Aid. Through this process of speaking on your behalf the caring and concerned they smoothed the way for a Victory Mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero; turned an Islamist attack on soldiers at Fort Hood into a "workplace" incident; how they have made it a hate speech crime everywhere to offend certain cultural sensitivities. They did it in the name of being friend to "Christian" and the advocate of caring beliefs.
And while people may have no choice about getting it rammed down their throats by main force they owe it to themselves to recognize it for the scam that it is. Just the latest version of Jim Jones' magic potion.
Will there be "Western" governments which will match Israel's dispatch of medical teams to Nigeria? Or would there be more which would denounce the act as inflammatory, divisive and a slander on a great creed of peace?
There are likely to be those who will argue that Israel is sending relief for their own political ends. Doubtless it is, but it is because they perceive it as being in their own interest to help the Nigerian Christians, something which many Western politicans cannot say about themselves.
And that is a shame. For there are many nonviolent and peaceful ways in which the evil which killed people across Nigeria on Christmas Day may be fought. One of them is using words to name it. The other is sending material relief to its victims. Still another is to open the doors to those it persecutes. None of these partake of war. None of these harm a hair on the head of al-Qaeda or Boko Haram.
How likely is it that any of these will be done by those who profess to be Christianity's friends? Very little likelihood because in the end, the Left would finish up naming itself. But the remaining Christians probably would not mind an open declaration of hostility. If the Left is going to do the deed, they might have the decency to do it face to face rather than from behind.