Lewis starts out good, condemning our self-abasement and ridiculous historic revisionism about the Crusades, etc. - (I liked the observation that when Muslims raided Europe it was called a raid, but when Europe returned the favour, it was called imperialism) - but then he devolves into selective history, wishful thinking and appeasement.

As great as he claims the Turks were in granting minority rights, they also slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians in the last century. And that wasn't the first time.

And,

"But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle."

What about passive jihad and it's constant manipulation of our freedoms?

While terrorist lobby groups like CAIR, use our freedoms and laws against us; while collectively they use our freedoms to constantly agitate for the implementation of their barbaric laws, customs and privileges; and while second generation, Canadian born Muslims plan terrorist attacks on our soil - I don't see freedom being any hope at all.

Once the majority finally sees exactly how alien and toxic their ideology is. That it doesn't just give permission for the most barbaric acts against non-Muslims, but commands them - there will only be one conclusion. End immigration, outlaw Islam, and contain it wherever it is - until they either kill themselves off or become civilized human beings.

Best Line, IMHO

"For some in Europe, their hatreds apparently outweigh their loyalties."

I forgot to mention that as much as Lewis appreciates so-called Muslim tolerance in Turkey and Spain, they were in fact the imperialist occupiers of conquered lands. The indigenous people, such as Christians, Jews, Armenians, Zorastrians, etc, became the forced minorities, subject to dhimmitude and jiyza.

So his conclusions of modern western intolerance, such as not allowing sharia and special status privilege to Muslim immigrants, has no comparable meaning.

Judeo-Christian, bah. So-called Christians hyphenating their Christianity are doing the same as those they criticize who hyphenate their nationality.

You're either a Christian or you are not. There's no in between.

If you want to slay the dragon, first be sure you aren't contributing to it's welfare.

Since Kate's inviting the media to look at themselves, here's some absolute dreck that appears in a recent editorial in the Mississauga News (A Torstar company):

Within Muslim circles, many are concerned their faith is being distorted, twisted into a radical political movement that bears little resemblance to the peaceful messages contained within the Qur'an.

What messages would those be?

Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan
- Koran 4:76

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [zakat], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
- Koran 9:5

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messanger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
- Koran 9:29

Islam has 1400 years of being a radical political movement. The words of the Koran have inspired Muslims to spread evil and misery around the globe. How could a supposedly educated editorial writer, someone who likely believes themself to be above the blogosphere fray, write such utter nonsense?

A far more insightful look at Islam than anything Lewis spoke about:

Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.

Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.

Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.

The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.

Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi

Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.

Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

I think that Lewis's analysis ignores the basic components of a society - its demographics, population and economy. Lewis focuses only on the ideology but ignores the root causes of that ideology.

In my view, Islam arose in the 7th century as a social response to an economic change; namely, the increased population and settlement mode of economy in the ME.

When the Romans moved into the ME, they brought security, irrigation, roads, markets, a currency, stability. This promoted an increased and settled population. The ideologies of the time were Judaism and paganism, which are both non-expansionist. Judaism is hereditary, paganism is locally relevant.

But the population explosion and economic switch to settled agriculture required an ideology of collaboration, neighbourliness and peace. Something to prevent old tribal jealousies, enable collaboration and exchange, etc. That was Christianity, which developed, in my view, to support and enable this mode of life. It is expansionist but not by force, you enter the ideology by choice. And it is not kin based and hereditary but 'neighbour-based'.

Islam is a sociopolitical and economic ideology based around a completely different economy. Pastoral nomadism, which involves the herding of animals (camels, cattle, sheep, goats). This economy requires a large landbase, much of which is vacant for long months in order to regenerate. The women are separated often from the men who are out with the animals, and thus, are guarded and secluded.

Islam developed as a reaction to the expansion of agriculture in the ME, which saw a gradual appropriation of their pastoral lands taken for settlements and permanent crops. Islam is not a collaborative ideology, but a warrior one - for its goal is to maintain its land base and increase it - all by force.

The imperialist expansion of Islam is rooted in that original ideology. The ME, turned back from imperialism by the West, remained relatively stable until the World Wars. Its economy was primitive - local peasant agriculture, medium size population, stable, no outside contact.

Politically it remained tribal - which means that authority is hereditary and elite rather than civic. Ideologically, Islam is about a forced and forceful maintenance of an old way of life - without change. Therefore, it rejects the individual, rejects reason, thought, questions, debate, dissent.

The World Wars brought industrialism to the ME. But, the ME remained 'stuck in the 7th c' of tribalism. And, within Islam and its rejection of reason, it had no ability in itself, to change itself. Note that Islam hasn't had a scientific thought since its inception; it can't; it rejects science, reason, analysis.

So, its primitive tribalism became entrenched, with oil funding military dictatorships of one elite tribe - with the rest of the population left out of any vital economic and political participation. At the same time, you have an exploding population a mov't from rural to urban - and these people have no power in their nation.

The result - is Islamic fascism, a pathological reaction to this inability to change. Its focus is on a 'return to original purity', which is seen as an evangelistic and almost apocalyptic way out of the morass. Again, the morass is due to the inability of the ME to develop a middle class, to empower their own people. Industrialism brought the fruits of technology, but didn't allow the ME population any entrance to developing it.

Islamic fascism won't work, because the Islam that it promotes rejects reason and thought. The population base of the ME is now too large for a tribal mode of governance (small governing class dominant over a passive population). It requires a middle class.

As for the West, it has to stop enabling Islam operating as a parasite on the Western economies, via welfare, multiculturalism, etc. Lewis is right with his outline of the West's hesitance in rejecting a non-participatory population. Setting up identity groups with special entitlements is a rejection of the civic mode of gov't developed by the West to enable adaptive change.

Islam has to reform itself, to enable thought, reason, questions, dissent. This is extremely difficult to do - but, a population that rejects science - becomes parasitic. Can this be sustained? No. Lewis considers that their expanding population is important. My point is that a parasitic population reaches a point when the host cannot support it. Will the host collapse as well? I doubt it.

My point is that Islam is in a crisis; it has to reform itself to enable reason and individualism. The West went through the same crisis in 1200 to 1500. I suspect that it will be a faster process within Islam but it is equally traumatic on all.

I am no historian, but I thought I would make a couple of points anyway.

First, I have read Pope John Paul II's apology.
It is an apology for all errors and sins the Church has committed in many areas over 2000 years. Yes it is extraordinary because the Church has never done this before.

The Pope did directly apologize to the Jewish People. He then apologizes for sins committed against all other religions and cultures (this would imply sins against the Muslims during the Crusades and the Inquisition but this would also include sins against the Mayans, Buddhists, etc.). He did not apologize for the Crusades themselves. I think that Mr. Lewis misunderstands the intent of the apology and probably because of cultural and religous differences. Therefore I think it is a poor example of multiculturism - using our current secular definition - but it is an example of constructive engagement.

Second, the ending points about freedom are very apt and this is why it is so important to plant democracy in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and as Mr. Lewis infers it is an education and an education in democracy takes time.

Judeo-Christian, bah.

Whoa there hoss.

I take your point, but there is a perfectly accurate sense of "Judeo-Christian", as in culture. Of course that may not apply to right-thinking Trudeaupeans, whose multi-culti is only about 40 years old.

Bernard Lewis, of course, is bang on. But what do we do?

Another Lewis, John, offers us two options. One we have already embarked upon, the other will make the allies (the Left) of our enemies (Islam--NOT just radical Islam) flip out and froth at the mouth. But at this point it is theonly option for victory, otherwise, prepare for defeat everyone.

w3.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

Maybe try reading Hugh Fitzgerald's comments on the "great man" over at jihadwatch, triggered by this lecture by the "world's greatest living authority on Islam".

I think of Lewis as a demi-apologist as indicated by Irwin Daisy above with regard to the "tolerance" nonsense. [read: Bat Ye'or].

Lewis is on record for claiming that antisemitism was introduced into the muslim world by Europeans. Even the most casual familiarity with the Koran makes that claim laughable. (the trees and rocks calling out, oh muslim, there is a jew hiding behind me, come and kill him).

Moroever, he was avidly supportive of the Oslo "peace process" which anyone with even a modicum of street smarts should have seen as a sham -- a Trojan horse which inserted jihadism into Gaza and the West Bank.

ET: Are you aware of the new controversy about the grade 12 text books in the Palestinian Authority. They now teach that it is a religious duty to destroy Israel, so your claim that it has nothing to do with Islam is no longer justifiable, if it ever was.

In 2005, Ontario came close to allowing Muslims the right to establish Shariah-based tribunals.

" ..Premier Dalton McGuinty said today Ontario will reject the use of Shariah law and will move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce.

His announcement comes after hundreds of demonstrators around the world this week protested a proposal [former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd] to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes." CBC.

I wonder what McGuinty was really thinking ??

After reading Lewis' speech I offer thanks to Irwin, Matt and ET for each holding the mirror at a slightly different angle to reflect the complexities of understanding Islam. My instincts tell me things will get worse in the Western World before they get better. I fear that now more than ever. Next I will read Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior. A friend recently told me "It (the book) has given me the courage to identify my position and then go on from there."

me no dhimmi- you are changing the subject. And, I stand by my claim that the basic Israel-Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, to focus causality of the conflict on Islam is a neat way to sweep under the rug the real causes of taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements.

I also stand by my claim that it has been sabotaged by Islamic fundamentalism, who are using that situation as a front for Islamic fascism.

Now, back to Lewis. I disagree with Lewis's analysis because he ignores the population and economic variables in the development of Islam and in modern Islamic fascism. He completely ignores the political infrastructure of Islam which operates as a tribal rather than civic mode.

He ignores the nature of Islam as a 'frozen ideology' set up to enable and continue one particular economic mode (tribal pastoral nomadism) when it was under threat by an expansionist agriculturalism.

And, he ignores the conflict caused within Islam by its inability to change, and its answering development of fascism by the frozen political mode - which prevents the emergence of a middle class.

Lewis' focus only on the ideology is a superficial analysis.

The experience of India in the last 500 years may be of use.

India used to be 100% Hindu, right up to Afghanistan. Then the Muslims started invading the area which is now Pakistan ad the Punjab.

As we know, the Sikhs come from the Punjab. The Sikh religion is basically the response of Hindus to one too many Muslim atrocities. Their religious symbol is two swords crossed over a halberd.

One may learn much from history. There's lots of Sikhs here in Canada now, maybe we can learn from them the best ways to handle Muslims.

Then again, Canada has been known to go forth and kick ass when required, presently there's a bunch of Taliban killers learning to run away when they see a maple leaf shoulder patch.

We just have to decide what we want. Do we want our kids to be able to walk to school, or do we want the situation they have in Israel with armored school buses?

E.T., "will the host collapse as well? I doubt it". Don't be too sure. Much of medicine and the survival of humans, from a medical perspective, has been to fortify the strengths of the host(human) and use the weakness of the parasite to render it harmless. But what if we, in the medical community, were to undertake programs designed to facilitate the parasite, and usurpe the strength of the host?

First, the pope should never Apologize for the Crusades, the Crusades were nothing more then the defensive of Christianity; out to recapture the Holy land from the Muslims. Subsequent crusaders prevented Christianity itself from being wiped out. How many revisionists understand that Christendom was pushed into small pockets that almost fell to the onslaughts of the Muslim armies. Without the Crusades, and the Crusaders, this planet would of turned out much differently, and I for one prefer living with a bible than a Koran.

I agree with many of your observations ET, however, I don't believe reform is possible in Islam. Far too much of it is nonsense, which is being exposed as the rest of the world becomes more familiar with its prophet and teachings.

Perhaps as the Muslim world becomes more educated the completely fallicious nature at the foundation of Islam will be the destruction of it as a legitimate spiritual faith.

Even referring to Islam as one of the three great 'Abrahamic' faiths is fallicious. Hagar was an Egyptian, not a nomadic Arab, as Mohammad was. Neither was Mohammad a Jew, as all prophets prior to Mohammad and as referrenced in the Quran were. Therefore one would have to accept Mohammad's claim to being a prophet as an unreasonable exception to the rule. There is absolutely no legitimate connection, hereditary or otherwise, between the Torah, the NT and the false testimony of Mohammad.

Not to mention the altogether laughable logic of it's founder.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 007, Book 071, Number 621

The Prophet said, "Fever is from the heat of Hell, so abate fever with water."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 008, Book 082, Number 830

Narrated Abu Huraira: "A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "My wife has delivered a black child." The Prophet said to him, "Have you camels?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet said, "What color are they?" He replied, "They are red." The Prophet further asked, "Are any of them gray in color?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet asked him, "Whence did that grayness come?" He said, "I think it descended from the camel's ancestors." Then the Prophet said (to him), "Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the color from his ancestors."

ahih Bukhari Volume 001, Book 004, Number 139

Narrated 'Abbas bin Tamim: My uncle asked Allah's Apostle about a person who imagined to have passed wind during the prayer. Allah' Apostle replied: "He should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something."

The 'scholarly' Hadiths are full of such nonsense.

Reform in Islam is not possible, without rejecting a psychopathic prophet, who wrote a self-serving political manifesto, otherwise known as the Quran. And if that were the case, there'd be no reason for Islam to continue to exist.

al-lea- impossible. A parasite can't live without a host. Weaken the host and the parasite can't live. Equally, strengthen the host and its immune system will attack the parasite.

So, the West must strengthen the host. That means that it rejects parasitism, which means it rejects the welfare state, identity politics and multiculturalism. It promotes a civic mode where it defines all its population as equal individual members of the nation. Not as members of a subgroup with special rules applicable only to that group. But, as collaborating members of the civic nation.

Again, I think it's important to consider that Islamism rejects reason, proof, empiricism and science. Our global population is too large to live without a rigorous and dynamic science. Therefore, Islam cannot support a large population on its own.

What must be done, in my view, is to reject multiculturalism and identity politics, promote a civic society in the West - and in the ME, promote democracy and the dev't of a middle class.

I beleive this, in Kate's post, to be so telling;

"..The Islamic radicals have even been able to find some allies in Europe."
"..They have a left-wing appeal to the anti-U.S. elements in Europe, for whom they have so-to-speak replaced the Soviets."

Think Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong, Stephane Dion, David Suzuki.

Patrick Moore wrote this in 1994.

" ..Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.", Dr. Patrick Moore.

Perhaps it is not a stretch to think there is an Islam-Kyoto-Religion connection in the fight against the West's way of life ??

ET - while I agree with your followup comments, parasites can, and often do, kill their hosts. It's why they've evolved with life cycles that include stages outside the host and the capacity to move on to new ones.

"But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you."

Interesting, but limited, analysis, ending in this piece of wishful thinking. Analyzing and hypothesizing won't make radical Islam go away. All the mental gymnastics our so called "intellectuals" perform to "explain" the "two solitudes" of Islam vs Christianity, and why they don't love us, will do nothing to alleviate the situation as it now stands.

We've become a generation of armchair quarterbacks, with a very small portion of our people actually willing to do something. Multiculturalism has weakened our society to the point where most don't appreciate our freedoms, and have no idea how we arrived at this point.

We are weak, Islam is strong, and becoming stronger every time an Islamic child is born in the care of our free health care system. They'll conquer us from within, in a few years, it shouldn't be too hard.

We need leaders who would be called "Fascist" by our intellectual classes. Leaders who will take the necessary, and not necessarily nice, actions. And no, I'm not talking about death camps or a nuclear holocaust, just a much stricter immigration policy, deportation, assimilation rather than multiculturalism, and strong and highly intolerant military and justice systems.

I take your point, but there is a perfectly accurate sense of "Judeo-Christian", as in culture.

Perhaps you could elucidate on the "Judeo" part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn't come from Judah.

Death of an individual host is not of concern, and carries little biological weight. It is the health of the population of hosts that the dynamics of survival depend on... There is nothing in the "rules of survivability" that say that the health of the host be of quality or plentitude - only that enough nourishment is provided that the parasite may live long and prosper...[insert winking icon here].

Seems that the Pope must know how to order books from amazon.com .. how else could he have got his hands on a copy of "America Alone", by Mark Steyn.

"VATICAN CITY (AP) - Europe appears to be losing faith in its own future, Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday, warning against "dangerous individualism" on a continent where many people are having fewer children."
"One must unfortunately note that Europe seems to be going down a road which could lead it to take its leave from history," the pontiff told bishops in Rome for ceremonies to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, a major step toward the creation of today's European Union."

"Benedict said he was concerned about Europe's "demographic profile"—though he did not describe the trends that have alarmed the continent for decades."

"In countries like Italy, where many married couples have one or no children, the population is expected to shrink dramatically in a generation or two unless fertility rates quickly increase."

However, Associated Press did not elaborate on which ethnic group is having all the children in France;

"France had more babies in 2006 than in any year in the last quarter- century, capping a decade of rising fertility that has bucked Europe's graying trend. Its fertility rate in 2006 was 2.0 children per woman." AP

//www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O2N9U80&show_article=1

I have just finished "America Alone" and Mark Steyn has written, IMHO, one of the most brilliant books I have read on the state of our western world. The impact of demographics, punishing socialism and the coming Muslim peril. A must read.

In a recent discussion a friend wondered why the Muslims seemed to be so advanced in many disciplines, medicine, mathematics and so on. Mark explains that the Muslim culture shuts down any progress in society so as Mohammed unified the warring tribes he unintentionally cut off a prime source of revenue, fighting each other and stealing each other's stuff. So Mohammed allowed the presence of non-Muslims in their land as they were charged a poll tax or jizya to remain non-Muslim and thereby provided a revenue stream. They also provided a source of weapons and technology from non-muslim countries. When Islam conquered infidel territory it set in motion a massive transfer of wealth to the Muslims plus the ensuing taxation - or from the productive part of society to the non-productive, a prototype welfare society. When people today talk up Islam and the great innovations and rich culture of its heyday they forget that even at its height Muslims were never more that a minority in the Muslim world, and they were in large part living off the energy of others. This still exists today as Muslim Malaysia owes its dynamism to their non-Muslim Chinese countrymen.

Eventually almost all Muslim societies tended toward an economic dead end as an ever-shrinking infidel base eventually wises up, either they move away or convert to avoid paying the jizya. This drove the Muslim expansion into new lands. Once they were stopped by the Franks in Europe in the Battle of Tours in 732 AD by Charles Martel, which was the Arab high water in Europe but they stayed in control of diminishing parts of Spain until 1492, they were forced to retreat back to their ancestral lands in Africa and the middle east where they languish today, producing nothing. You will also hear from Muslims that they have always been tolerant of Christians and Jews living among them, we know it was because they needed their money!

Unfortunately because of oil we, the infidels, still send our jizya to the Muslims, which they use to fund Muslim religious schools here in another invasion of the west. Through our declining birth rate and their high one they might succeed this time. Imagine the whole western world under the dead culture of the Muslims, scary thought.

To Ol hoss who stated: "Perhaps you could elucidate on the "Judeo" part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn't come from Judah"

I qualify as an ordinary person (ie make no academic claims) I recently read Thomas Cahill's book "Gifts of the Jews." It's part of his Hinges of History Series. Very readible, it answers your question very well. Available at most libraries.

The history of islam indicates the obvious, you don't have to be a bloody scholar to figure that out. I also know one other thing, an academic solution never seems to materialize when your head is between your feet.

Ol hoss:

Judeo-Christian is a proper concept. Both the Judeo and Christian religions rely on the same Bible. Both Christians and Jews follow the teachings of the Old Testament.

Jesus was a Jew and He preached from the OT. The Jewish leaders of His time rejected Him but many Jewish people became His followers. Christians believe, as the Bible teaches, that the nation of Israel will eventually come to recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

ol hoss: "Perhaps you could elucidate on the 'Judeo' part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn't come from Judah."

Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is a Jew and that his lineage is from "the Root of Jesse." As a course I took at St. Paul University many years ago also made clear, there is no Christianity without Judaism.

Christianity didn't spring full and upright from the ground. Its precursor is the Jewish faith. Afterall, as I said above, Jesus was a Jew, as were his mother and father and grandparents, etc.--take a look at the geneology at the beginning of The Gospel According to Matthew--and all of the disciples. Christian services always include a reading from the Old Testament and the Psalms. Read Hebrews if you want more elucidation on the part of the Jewish people in the history of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the 'founder' of the Christian faith, is the fulfillment of the Judaic law not outside of it.

John Paul II put it very well when he described the Jewish people as Christians' elder brothers and sisters in the faith.

Our laws, then, are founded on both traditions: Judaism and Christianity, one of which--Christianity--does not exist as separate from the other. Separate Christianity from its Judaic Root and you don't have the Christian faith.

I hope this helps, ol hoss.

An article with some meat in it. Though I didn't agree with all he said it still illuminated the gulf of understanding between Islam’s religious political views compared to ours. The incompatibility of one culture to fit into another because of the inflexible & barbaric laws of the other directed at world conquest in the name of a psudo- religion, all wolf, pretending to be a sheep.

He also gave a clue as to how vicious this war between East versus West has been & why it always has been even before Christianity. As thermopile with the later marathon battles affirms. Does anyone think Democracy or Republicanism would have survived Persian control of Europe?

The East was ingrained in Despotism. From god Kings of Mesopotamia to Assyrian killing squads.

Anyhow the biggest worry should be among Women. For they have the most to lose as this article fits nicely into this post as a REAL world series of events as the forces of totalitarianism continue to appeasement towards Islam.

Men in the West believe in individual freedom with personnel liberty

Men in the East believe the community is all pervasive in the disguise of religion. Men as individuals are not important, only their submission.

Its reflective religiously as well. While one recognizes one can be secular & that God is a Personnel being.

In Islam God is unknowable , distant & all has already been decreed without change. God is not personnel.

In the West natural law is both appreciated by religious as well as none religious people. No concept of that at all in Islam . All are slaves to different degree’s.

Just my opinion.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/03/25/3828492-sun.html

""""Indeed, to focus causality of the conflict on Islam is a neat way to sweep under the rug the real causes of taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements. """""

taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements

my take on that statement would be , that the Arabs that took legal (documented) possession of the land, starting around 1890 till about 1948, and sold it to immagrating jews, were th ones that "stole" the land from the arabs (palistinians) that occupied and worked the land. Thus bought land is compensated for land.

and occupation and "illegal" settlements is highly subjective and open to interpretation of the terms used

dmorris: Your call for action is what is needed. We can pontificate until hell freezes over but action is all that counts.
As Mark Steyn points out in America Alone, this is really the Left's struggle. It's the Gays and the Feminists who have the most to loose in this fight. Us Right Wingers can simply go along to get along with the Muslim Fanatics.
The action that has to be taken for starters is to become politically active and persuade the Left that there is a common cause as the Reform Party managed to do to a limited extent.
We have to nominate politicians with backbone in our EDA associations and eliminate redundant political parties. The young have to get involved.

There is a polarization taking place in the West - a grand, sweeping vector. There are those in the West that don't believe Islam is an existential threat, and there are those that do. It's not much more complicated than that. It's not as though we've had ambiguous statements from radical Islam on its intent.

This is not like some argument over whether we should spend our own money, or have our state do it for us. This is different. We're not arguing whether I should keep $50 of every $100 I earn or whether it should be $52 or $48. All of that is moot if radical Islam succeeds in its agenda.

Those that perceive this threat and see it for what it is, grow in frustration with those who are in denial.

This will not be a persistent state of affairs, though, as I have every confidence that day by day, radical Islam will eventually convince even the most obstinate western denier that it's time to put a stop to their imperialism, as there seems to be no humane bounds to their tactics. Converting is the other option, I suppose.

I will die first.

Europe isn't worth saving. We made that mistake twice (3 times if you count the cold war separately).

I don't think we'll do it again. They're not educable.

There is no room in a conflict free world for ANY faith-based religions supported by non thinking hoardes whose only agenda is to impose their religious and political doctrines on others. In order for humanity to survive a better,, compassionate NON-RELIGIOUS solution will have to be found.

Lewis is a smart man and though I’m far from qualified to seriously critique him (or his critics), he makes some good sense. The parts that resonated most for me were summed up near the end:

Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. They have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration producing major population changes, which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries.

Whatever the importance of past struggles and present foes, the West’s single biggest threat is internal. The mushy, postmodern, multi-culti, pacifist, anti-humanity, anti-globalist, eco-loopy, need I say ‘socialist’, lib/left has made huge inroads in the West. If we don’t wither completely away on our own, our enemies, either the barbarians or our more ideologically robust adversaries or both, will finish the job.

As for the mini-debate, started by ol hoss, on the meaning of “Judeo-Christian”, some think it has great importance. See Dennis Prager’s essay, for example.

Afterall, as I said above, Jesus was a Jew, as were his mother and father and grandparents, etc.--take a look at the geneology at the beginning of The Gospel According to Matthew--

You're looking at the wrong Gospel if you want to find the geneology of Jesus. Luke 3 is Jesus' geneology. Matthew 1 is Joseph's geneology. Obviously Joseph was not Jesus' father.

Jesus is half King line (Judah) and half Levite (Priest), as Luke 3 shows.

Jesus Christ, the 'founder' of the Christian faith, is the fulfillment of the Judaic law not outside of it.

Funny, I've heard of Mosaic Law, never Judaic Law. And Moses was of the tribe of Levi.

In order for humanity to survive a better,, compassionate NON-RELIGIOUS solution will have to be found.

Oh, you mean like communism. That was a real winner. As have been all other man-made solutions.

From Dennis Prager's Biblical illiteracy;

"For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt."

LOL, only Judah left Egypt? What about the other tribes?

OT I suppose, but ET, your persistence with "illegal occupation" and "taking land" without compensation is ahistorial nonsense.

Are you aware that Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalsm in 1948. Only a single country, Pakistan, recognized the annexation. For this reason UN 242 called for the withdrawal from territories not "THE territories" (the French mistranslated). While it is not acceptable to take territory as a result of war, the situation here was that the territory had been previously illegally annexed by Jordan.

As to compensation: also nonsense. The Jews did not "take the land" and remember about 800,000+ Jews were also driven out of Arab lands, also without compensation. If I'm not mistaken, Israel has indedd offered compensation but most Arabs have refused to apply due to advice from surrounding Arab countries.

The Arab countries created the refugee crisis with it multi-country aggression in 1948 and even encouraged Palestinian Arabs to leave until the slaughter cakewak was done.

We will never win against the jihad if educated people like yourself refuse to see Islam as the source. Read some Wallid Phares -- Future Jihad -- and see that this is one of the biggest problems we face: the failure to name the enemy which, again, is Islam, and NOT hijacked islam but re-awkened Islam. You have a terrible blind spot here I'm afraid.

ET,

Agree with you. Palestinian nationahood has nothing to do with Islam. The push for Palestine was really led by leftist secular nationalists that rejected religous authority.

Arafat, being the chameleon that he followed to pay lip service to Islam after it was clear that he needed to maintain his power and money flow.

For Bin Laden, it is a convenient excuse. ISrael could disappear tomorrow and Bin Laden would still be trying rebuild the Calipahate Morroco to Pakistan....from Vienna to Yemen.

And who says he would stop there.

Some background on the "American" Enterprise Institute can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

mediamatters.org/items/200502170003

Triumphalism feeds on itself, what we need is not a triumphalist answer but a competent one. Tackling the IRA was a good example of how to deal with immigrant terrorists.

"Whatever the importance of past struggles and present foes, the West’s single biggest threat is internal. The mushy, postmodern, multi-culti, pacifist, anti-humanity, anti-globalist, eco-loopy, need I say ‘socialist’, lib/left has made huge inroads in the West."

Yet we're more prosperous and safe than we ever have been before.

"...great innovations and rich culture of its heyday..."

Algebra and zero were inventions of the Assyrians/Mesopotamians, some 1500 years prior to Mo coming along and regardless of the thief naming Algebra after himself. So-called Islamic philosophy was later proven to be Greek, despite the fact Muslims cunningly translated the original texts to Arabic before destroying them. Islamic mysticism? Jewish. Islamic architecture? Byzantine.

They invented nothing, but pilfered everything. As is typical of a cult of brigands, theives and merchant-slavers.

How could anybody believe that tribes of desert nomads having created nothing other than tents and camel raids, create such wonderful things in so short a time? Creation is something the Arab mind is quite incapable of.

Furthermore, if there was this so-called 'golden age' of Islam in Adalusia, how did it so utterly fail, with Islam then devolving to the point where they can hardly feed themselves in the 21st century?

Islamic "invention and rich culture" is a complete and utter fabrication.

Well, ol hoss. I'm glad you're onside at least by checking out the Judeo-Christian Scriptures yourself!

Matthew 1:1 says, however, "An account of the geneology of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. I am no Biblical scholar, but I suspect that this geneology is important in the Royal linkage of Jesus to a King of the Jewish people, David, and to Abraham, the founding father/Partriarch of the Jewish Nation.

It would appear that both geneologies are the same, with Matthew's beginning with Abraham and working forward to Jesus, whereas Luke's begins with Jesus, "the son (as was thought) of Joseph...Isaac, son of Abraham" and so on back to "Adam, son of God."

Anyway, it's clear that Judaism and Christianity are intimately connected.

Canada has an easy and simple answer if its citizens have the will. Stop its policy of "open" immigration immediately.
No more immigrants unless they have a falue to Canada, they speak the language {no ESL classes} they have money or a profession.
Practically all scientists say the globe has to reduce its human population, it has doubled in my lifetime and is expected to grow by 50% more in the next 42 years. In the vain attempt to feed this multitude we are killing the rain and boreal oxygen giving forests and spraying carbon clouds all over.
Canada has a chance to avoid the trap if we stop immigration-our biggest population builder, now. It is primarily boomers, developers, fast food operators with cheap labour, and politicians ["their" immigrants vote for them] Who want more people. Vancouver is on the cusp of being unliveable, now unaffordable, and it is only to cities that immigrants go.
Only plains and valleys can hold people. Most of Canada is a desert as far as living is concerned.

Apparently very few of you get the point of this at all.

Without realizing it, your debate of "finer points" represents the overblown academic cricle-jerk of the Western world who in the face of an external threat are frozen into inaction. All you folks are capable of is debate and splitting hairs. Meanwhile, the West continues to decay and Islam gains the upper hand.

Keep jacking off as long as you like. But all that proves is that you have indeed learned nothing from history. Matters of history were all resovled by action, not debate. The opportunity for actions slips by with each passing day and the pressure builds and builds. There will come a day when the US has had enough and Hellfire will literally rain down upon Tehran. You can wring your hands and debate "root causes" all you like.

That's right, keep the useless pointless bullshit flowing from your keyboards to further prove my point.

The day for action will come and be unavoidable. Will you be ready? Undoubtedly, no.

"The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut were confirmed by Mogadishu. "Hit them, and they'll run."

Or More precisely;" kill just one of them a day and their media will win the war for us".

There seems to be a rather farcical myth being created about how the British dealt with the IRA. Yes, there was endless talk and negotiation of a sort, but all the time there was a campaign aimed at killing them if necessary. And the IRA knew it, and that made the negotiations meaningful.
I suppose that's the approach jose was talking about....

Doug, I'm not sure I would have put it exactly the way you have, but I am in agreement with you.

I think it's good that people with the educational background to be of service help illuminate our perspective. However, I think that today action is what is required.

I think extreme limitations on immigration are very important for both our countries.

Some of the reasons people are not having children in the West like they once did are the diminishment of the quality of life, the cognitive dissonance created by too many voices, and the heavy hand of taxation and regulation from government.

Maybe if we had a clear identity unconfused by multiculturalism, a safe and secure possibility because of robust militaries, and governments that would not overstep their bounds, people would have a better reason to raise larger families.

ol hoss, I'm content to reject the religions that are presently trying to kill us.

Thanks for posting this on my birthday. I will read the lecture, being that I am:

a) Very concerned about radical Islam;
b) Just finished America Alone by Mark Steyn
c) Read Atlas Shrugs daily, and...
d) Have your blog also on my personalized Google home page.

Keep up the sorties - you ARE a great Canadian Kate!!!

"We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly."

Correct. Give the man a cigar

NO Ol Hoss....Communionism is NOT the answer....seems like compassion would clearly rule it out (along with a million other things)....but religion has had its chance and has failed many times over...largely due to humanity being easily suckered into believing falsehoods and fairy tales...when people begin thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what is "good" , then we might see some beneficial results for life in general.....I'm not holding my breath though

I've read the lecture. My .02: Maybe the solution is immigration quotas + bluntly say that sharia law is simply unacceptable and incompatable with Western Civilization.

Doug

ahmen!!

Doug

amen!!

I'm just bloody thrilled to read every post, following the reading of the link. Good on you Kate for opening the doors to discussion of that which threatens the lives of our children and grandchildren and even threatens the very existence of Canada itself.

For the record: Islam is not a religion, it is an evil death cult that seeks to kill or enslave every human on earth.

Nasty beasts.

Thank God we've currently go PMSH at the helm.

Pat

rampant consumerism and secular narcissim has resulted in what JPII called "the culture of death"; Benedict agrees:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paPopeSat20PopeEU&show_article=1&cat=world&catnum=2
As Steyn wrote, the jihad need only wait for us to expire on our own.

My point about a parastic economy is that it always requires a host economy. Islam has, not once in its entire history, invented any new technology. As irwin daisy points out, it borrows, transcribes and copies, but it doesn't innovate.

I disagree with irwin daisy when he states that 'creation is something the arab mind is quite incapable of'. There's no such thing, biologically or even psychologically, as an Arab mind. There IS an Islamic ideology, however, and creation is completely rejected in that ideology.

An organism that cannot innovate or adapt but must live off other organisms that can - becomes dependent on this more capable organism. A parasitic organism/society (Islam) will try to bond the Host society to it, and thus actually enslave the Host society. That's 'dhimmitude'. But, the Host society must retain its innovative capacities - otherwise, both the Host and Parasite die.

My point is that the West must stop political correctness, multiculturalism and so on, and insist on a civic society, ie, a secular society.

Me No Dhimmi - I disagree completely with both your view of Israel-Palestine. I stand by my claim that that situation is based on Israeli rejection of compensation, rejection of Palestinian nationhood, the occupation and the illegal settlements. I also reject your opinion of myself!

ol hoss - religions are 'man-made'. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in god; a religion is an ideological system developed by humans. I've explained my view of how Christianity and Islam emerged.

I don't believe that a nuclear attack as suggested by Doug is the answer. That won't deal with the problem of Islamic fascism, which is rooted in tribalism in the ME. The answer is democracy in the ME and a complete rejection of multiculturalism in the West, an insistence on assimilation and collaboration, an insistence on a civic society for all, with no identity groups or systems.

The Islamic ideology cannot become dominant in our world because it is economically and scientifically dysfunctional - ie - useless. It can't operate an industrial world; it can't innovate; it can't develop new technologies; it can't support even our current global population.

valster, you say "...religion has had its chance and has failed many times over." Well, no. That's not true.

Most people who have either rejected religion or are in the process of rejecting it have never practised a religion. Most people I know who castigate Christianity and say it's past its sell-by date, have never been practising Christians. They've rejected it out of hand, without having tried it.

So who's to be found wanting: faith/religion or those who refuse to get involved?

This attitude reminds me of my kids when they were small and would refuse to eat a certain food because "I don't like it," when they hadn't even tried it. It's OK for little kids to be illogical like this, but it's a great disappointment when supposedly intelligent adults indulge in this kind of illogic.

Funny thing been around the block...most people I know have come from a religious back ground and have seen it for what it is....controlling AND full of illogical concepts....concocted by humans to control other humans...do a little "logical" research of your own on the religion of your choice and talk to me later....but in my opinion the farthest thing from true spirituality is religion....any religion....some people here want to keep Islam out....fine ...throw all the rest of the religions out too

On topic , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98wlKZ- , sums a lot this discussion up nicely . From AoS HQ , this aft .

ET: I have a high opinion of you "yourself". I just feel that you have a poor understanding of this conflict.

In Islam when territory becomes part of dar al Islam it must remain so for all time. They (or at least the elites) have never wanted a side-by-side state -- that is now proven to all but the most wilfully blind. You are forgiven for once believing in "land for peace" like the "great man" himself, Bernard Lewis. But if are truly a scientist you must also believe the empiricial evidence, which is "land for jihad" (Lebanon 2000, Gaza 2005).

What they want is a unitary state with, at the very best, Jews as jizya-paying dhimmis.

I will also strongly state once again that the new PA textbooks teach children that it is a religious duty to desire the destruction of Israel.

What would that religion be? Scientology?

You're right on an awful lot of stuff. Dead wrong on this issue.

Suggestion: try reading some of Richard Landes' "Fiskings" at Augean Stables. He's got a lovely one up now on the brilliant money man Soros who alas is a moron on this subject.

"some people here want to keep Islam out....fine ...throw all the rest of the religions out too"

A non-sequitur based on moral equivalence, having no basis in logic, reality or history.

You should take your own advice and "do a little "logical" research of your own," before involving the rest of us in witnessing your spectacle of ignorance on this thread.

mnd,

you are correct that is strict interpretations of Islam that once Mulsim land then always Muslim land....but that applies to half od Spain and all the way up to Vienna. And yes thats what the radicals, like OBL want to recreate.

However, the israeli palestinian issue viewed through the prism of Islam doesnt yield a clear view. You could get rid of Islam tomorrow and Palestinians would still be wanting land back and you could get rid of Israel tomorrow and radical Islam wouldnt lose any of its fervour, they'll just move on to the next excuse, just like US troops leaving the holy land (Saudi) didnt stop the fervour...

Lewis is right in pointing out that the west and Europe in particular need to recognize the issue they face. A little belief in their own institutions and values will lead them to make the right decisions.

There is some ugly stuff coming. Speaking with friends in Italy they speak that many many of their friends refer to themselves as Fascists. In their sense theymean Italian nationalists and they are anti immigrant. There will be a resurgence of European nationalism, but it will be outwardly directed not internal European dircetced.

I dont advocate it but I do tink there will be mass expulsions from Europe before 2020.

valster, I believe that you're quite incorrect when you say, "but religion has had its chance and has failed many times over". What "religion" would that be?

The Judeo-Christian dispensation--though far from perfect (nothing to do with humans ever has been)--has bequeathed untold riches of thought, infrastructure--health, education, rule of law--and action to countries all over the world, not to mention, the tangible good being done, as I type, by Christian relief agencies, which can be found, in profusion--again--all over the world.

Secular doctrines, such as communism in the 20th century, have not only caused untold suffering, including the murder of millions of innocent people and the desecration of natural resources, but have also been short lived. What good have such doctrines passed on?

Compare this with 2000 years of ACTION in the intellectual, spiritual, medical, educational, and legal life of Western society, as well as the legacy of freedom and justice which remains. (For how long, though, as the secular state, via the jackboots of its Human Rights [sic] Commissions and permissive courts, spends the West's Judeo-Christian moral capital--apparently, with your misdirected and short-sighted approval?)

(Re the Judeo-Christain legacy in the West: I just saw Amazing Grace--not a great movie, but Wilberforce, a committed Christian, was a great man, as was John Newton.)

valster, are you the product of the Canadian public education system of the past few decades? I've seen the textbooks: short on facts and very l---o---n---g on blatant propaganda. I suggest you read the Dennis Prager article, the link of which is provided above.

I also suggest that you park your prejudices somewhere, assimilate a few more facts, and broaden your horizons.

All the best.

ol hoss - religions are 'man-made'.

Yes, they are. Christianity isn't a religion, it's reality. But, as reality eludes leftists, so it also eludes those who live by their own imperfect reasoning.

To paraphrase Isaiah 32:8, the liberal devises liberal things, and by liberal things shall he stand. I would add, "or fall".

...when people begin thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what is "good" , then we might see some beneficial results for life in general.....

Ah, you want a new religion based on what is "good". Your definition of "good", anyway.

Lookout, I agree with your very fine comments, but perhaps one should credit the Judeo-Christian CULTURE?? (based on the J-C religion)
To re-state that: the religion begat the culture which begat all those characteristics and accomplishments.

Thanks, Jeannette.

I'd say, though, that Western "culture"--good word--has all the "characteristics and accomplishments" it has because they're inherent in the faiths which "begat" Western culture.

The chicken and egg question? The religion came first. The cultural benefits came after.

And, right back to the problems the West is now facing: if we're unable to understand, be proud of, and protect our cultural heritage--based on two great faiths--we're gonners.

We need to smarten up--soon.

The discussion still sticks on the point that is often made that Islam is a Religion and as such is taboo to attack. It is not a religion, it is primarily a manifesto for the subjication of the worlds population and the enslavement of all those it does not kill.

Enslavement is either the formal enslavement or the Conversion by Conquest mode. Either way, enslavement is the result.

Why this grotesque evil is not recognized for what it is, is beyond me and I guess that brings about the obvious question.

How do we get the information out, nationally, and internationally, about what we are dealing with?

The split second these evil creatures get a nuclear bomb they will have hoardes of the "I love death" goon squad lined up for the honour of killing thousands of innocent men, women and children.

I read a piece last week that the radicals in Islam are our friends. At first I was taken aback but when I read further I understood. The radicals are the ones that think that the Islamist movement is evil. Mohammid would approve of the bombing of children and the beheading of school girls. Only the radicals oppose it.

Any great ideas on how to spread the word?

daisy...call me ignorant if you like, but judging from some of the comments by so called learned religionists, I want no part of your predjucial meanderings, and if someone has to tell you what is compassoniate and good, then truly feel sorry for youI

What a great thread, thanks Kate for providing what never occurs within the MSM, the best minds converging on a subject. And MSM folks, if you are just passing through, notice that you aren't one of them.

I'm at a loss of anything to say that hasn't already been said except that our biggest enemy outside of the obvious are the lefty slobs that insidiously want us all leveled to slave status because of their own self-loathing attitudes.

Perhaps you could elucidate on the "Judeo" part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn't come from Judah.

Try here , here and here.

Thank you Kate.

WOW !! I read Kate's post twice. Also read all the comments, carefuly . Twice.

In decades, I have NEVER, EVER seen anything as enlightening as this come out of the major Canadian media. Never.

Seems that there are many kinds parasites in the world. Parasites can be the most persistant, dishonest, innovative, biased, host-destroying, economy destroying forms of life.

Mostly, parasites will get away with whatever the host allows.

Parasites are tenatious because they have no choice. They cannot make it on their own and so will fight to the end using every tactic they can think of. Even scams. Even docu-dramas. And cults.

Perhaps it is the slack-assed host that is the real problem.

I have to mirror B.Hoax Aware's post.

Thanks Kate, a very informative time.

Pat

One factor, not mentioned, that is also rising up in the world is radical, fundamentalist Christianity. In Africa, Latin America and certain places in Asia it is growing faster than the birthrate. In some places like Ethiopia and Nigeria and Tanzania it clashes directly with Islam and often prevails. One example was witnessed by friend travelling Ethiopia, who saw several mosques that had been converted to churches. The hardest ground for this new re-energized Christian faith is the secular west.
Europe and N.America may realize too late that what they so proudly resist in the name of humanistic atheism may be their best chance at preventing Islam from taking over their lands, their sons and their daughters.

valster, it was 12 hours ago that I responded to what I consider your really ignorant and insulting comment about religion. I took some time and effort to write my post. Are you there?

Your comment about religion was provocative in the extreme: I'm sure that was your purpose. I don't think it's polite of you to cut and run.

I agree with everyone else here who's disgusted by the complacency and willful ignorance of far too many Westerners, largely of the "gliberal" persuasion, who mock their own cultural heritage, as oppressive and parochial while--astonishingly--kowtowing to a primitive faith system which makes our shortcomings look like virtues! What idiots!

I've even got friends in that category: one, a conservationist, Green party, pro-abortion feminist--who'll have nothing to do with my suggestion that the two positions are somewhat contradictory--who considers herself the soul of compassion, says "So what!" when I suggest that the present demographic situation in the West could well mean burqas for our granddaughters. "So what!" Now, isn't that altruistic? Altogether contradictory and ignorant as well! All her most cherished ideals, including "choice" for women will be obliterated under a Muslim dispensation. But, no, she says, most Muslims are fine people and sharia will not happen. Proof? Hey, liberals don't need such triflings. When I point out that it doesn't take a whole lot of fanatics to deep six our freedoms and way of life, she just sniffs.

Then we drop it. It's sometimes hard to be friends with someone who refuses to entertain facts: I've often been ready to forward threads from here but realize that seeds of truth can't bloom in the stony ground of a closed mind. And isn't it the height of irony that lefties pride thwemselves on their "tolerance" while looking down their noses--always--at us "backward, kneejerk" rednecks. This smug and very dangerous leftie mindset disgusts me.

Thank God for Kate and others like her!

"as you are preparing to direct that well practiced sneer and cleverly worded dismissiveness towards those policy makers with whom you have ideological differences"

As if that doesn't happen here every day, by both the host and guests. Sigh.

I think it's fairly obvious that the lefties aren't any help at all in our war on Islam, and it's high time we took decisive action and to hell with their bellyaching. Because of where the pendulum rests in the partisan political climate, Canada is in a great position to take the lead in this area, especially if Stephen Harper can pull off a parliamentary majority.

Michelle Malkin made a compelling case for Japanese internment in WWII, and it's high time we did the same with Muslims for the duration of this war. We have no idea where their loyalties lie, and we can't take chances. It would be a great educational opportunity too - not just an internment, but also an internship. We all know they will never be real Canadians, but at least we can teach them to be good global citizens. This will never happen in the U.S. with the rats in power, nor in Europe which is already too far gone. We have to set an example for the world.

As someone else said, the anti globalization left makes common cause with the Islamists. Suicide bombers arent condemed because they are seen as just very committed to the same cause, so no questions about tactics because the goals are shared.

The media is trying to see itself as neutral...which drives them to "see the other side" no matter how unreasonable it is, giving the illusion of fair debate between equally legitimate sides of a question. I dont want the media to be propganda arms of any government but I do expect them to use their god given critical faculties to evaluate and legitimately criticize suicide bombers, oppressive cultures etc etc. There was no issue doing that to the existing structure in North America and Europe in the last 30 years so why would one take a step backward and not use those same thoughts when evaluating the Islamists.

Your heritage and your rights disappear if you let it.

While the niqab controversy in Quebec is overblown there is a legitimate question....when is the requirement for identification satisfied.

Western society has a history of female head coverings but not face coverings (except for wedding day, which used to be a religous ceremony)

And in fact, Western civilization has always associated a covered face with deception and violence (terroritst, IRA, bank robber etc etc)

The underlying issue is legitimate identification, to ensure no fraud and legitimacy of the system, the symptom is a clash of cultural values on the covering of a face.

Honestly, I dont see why the face has to be covered, and this isnt saudi....so uncover your face so it can be matched to your Passport. If I wore a ski mask to vote they would ask me to take it off, same issue. And no it is not up to the government to supply an apprpropriate number of females to view. Dont like it, dont vote its your choice.....darn it choice, thats another Western value isnt it?

"The authenticity of these prophetic letters is doubted, but the message is clear and authentic in the sense that it does represent the long dominant view of the Islamic world."

In other words, Lewis is pulling a Dan Rather "fake but accurate" routine.

Lewis isnt the one using them necessarily....he is pointing to them becasue there are those within Islam who use them, Lewis is pointing out that their authenticity is under some doubt but still being used nonetheless.

Rather was making up evidence to prove a point. Lewis is pointing to evidence that others use.

It would be the equivalent of saying

"There are those on the left in the United States who point to the contradictions in GWB's life prior to being president. In particular his willingness to committ the US miliarily. Many on the left questin Bush's military service, even those these documents were shown to inathentic, Iraq war opponents pointed to documents that highlighted Bush's incomplete National Guard service as evidence of this contradiction.

While the documents were false their use highlights the strain of oppsosition that GWB faced."

So I dont think Lewis was using the documents out of context, only using them to point to strains of Islam that are more radical and may be based on false documentation

lookout...read "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris......P.S. and I'm NOT a "leftie"......(but not a religious rightie either)

Feeling embarrassed by my earlier off-topic comments, I re-read the speech (I had read it before this thread and had therefore not read it before my comments).

It is excellent in many aspects, but I maintain that if you re-read the last couple pages very carefully you will see that he is retailing an infamous trope in referring to Islamic "tolerance" and comparing it to the lack of "tolerance" in modern western nations as per his Muslim friend who complained about our not accepting polygamy while they accepted our monogamy -- without comment.

Bat Ye'or suggests extreme caution about even using the word "tolerance" because in this context it is utterly meaningless. As she points out western islam apologists often refer to islamic "tolerance" of minorities while failing to point out that they were originally massive majorities which were whittled down to near zero through Islamic "tolerance".

That is the fatal error (I hope error) of Bernard Lewis. And note also that the speech is utterly bereft of solutions to our out of control Muslim immigration AND foreign Wahhabi financing of political subversion in western countries.

I will repeat my earlier assertion: he is a demi-apologist. I just don't trust him.

As I continue to read this worthwhile thread it occurs to me that no-one is answering the question, often asked, sometimes implied, how do we actually protect ourselves? Immigration policies and legislated assimilation are mentioned, and rightly so. Both are valid responses IMHO. But really, that isn’t going to make the problem go away, somewhere over there in the Islamist stew hatred and terrorism are simmering and will continue to boil over at our peril.
We in the civilized West, both the Right and the Left, would rather learn the lessons of the past and negotiate away our differences. No-one in the West believes that the sacrifice of generation of young men, and now women, is the preferred action. The discussion on this thread has made it abundantly clear that the Islamists are not going to stop until they succeed and that means succeed where we live, in Europe and North America. This is not about the Muslim world.
So like it or not we have to fight. God! We have to send young people to war again! And so we have. And we will shed tears for them for the rest of our lives. But there is no choice. We fight the Islamists there or we fight them here, but sadly there is no negotiating with evil. It seems that most of those on the Right have accepted this reality already and it is our friends on the Left who are restraining, thus prolonging this battle. Fortunately within our own culture we can talk, and blog, without creating a civil war, until the Left realizes that there is no choice but to pick up arms and defend themselves. It’s a harsh reality and it scares me.

Valster,

Bigotry, pedophilia, thievery, mass-murder, slavery, deception, war, political supremacy and imperialism are foundational to the Quran and Mohammad's life example.

Regardless of what men have done in Christ's name, these acts are not commanded, condoned or foundational to the NT, or Christ's life example. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.

If you were informed, you'd know your equivalency argument is the playground of fools, idiots and cowards. Otherwise known as the left.

daisy...glad to see you have such an open mind on the subject....not.....it's not hard to detemine who the bigot is...

Jeanette,

It has been posited that the reason there hasn't been another strike on US soil is because Mecca is targeted.

If Mecca was annihilated, all mosques would be un-oriented, one of the five pillars of their faith would be forever gone, not to mention the birthplace of their so-called religion.

The larger result would be absolute confusion in the Islamic world. Then anger. Then?

Those in glass houses.

Apart from that - the end of immigration from Islamic countries, hate crime laws specifically targeting Muslims, the monitoring and closing down of extremist mosques and schools, the deportation of extremist imams and islamists, the end of Saudi funding of wahhabiist education, the migratory and economic containment of Islamic dominated countries, and finally finding and developing an alternate fuel source.

None of this is impossible, However, sadly, it will probably take another major attack in NA to create this kind of change.

valster,

Rather than continuing to parade your ignorance, prove me wrong.

Because I'm no fan of religion (including Islam) you call me ignorant?... I'm sorry, but that sort of closed- minded tirade makes you the ignorant one...read Sam Harris' book and have a nice day ya' hear

Bernard Lewis is once and again correct in his comments and illustrations. The western worlds preoccupation with the failed thought process of " Progressivisim" it's indeed the "Liberalism" of the western democracies, the freedoms we all experience daily that are the attraction the radical aspects of Islam exploit. Lewis's points how in the middle east these freedoms are not allotted to these same radicals as so readily as in the west. Combined with the reduction in Europeans own demographics ( falling birth rates, read Mark Steyn's wonderful America Alone) spell disaster for the eurocentric mindset, population and way of life. Lewis's words, thought's and "careful reading" of historical events should have readers of this blog do exactly that, a careful reading of his words, all his words. The wonderful line "They indeed have the fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking" should have the obtuse lot in the Torstar /CBC world scratching their collective heads in bewilderment.

lookout....read Harris yet?...When you're done try "Farewell to God" by Charles Templeton

Valster, Irwin Daisy is correctin his comments.

And as for Sam Harris and his tome?

Well, *Islamonline*, the radical Muslim website, actually featured him and did a review of his work.

The proleme with Sam Harris is that most of his anti-religious invective is reserved for Christians. Seeing that, radical Muslims have more or less embraced the guy and are using his writings, namely his frequent denunciations of Christianity, to further the casue of Islam and wahabbism.

If Islam could be compared to 19th century missionaries in Africa, Sam Harris is the local guide, wielding the machete and clearing a jungle path so that the colonisers have better access.

Or again, think of a schoolboy erasing the blackboard, but only so that newly arrived theocrats can re-write the religious script on a blank slate.

Islam loves western secularists because they clear the ground for the erection of a sharia legal system, and secularists do so by presenting our traditional Judeo-Christian world-view as old, retrograde and repressive.

No sooner is the void created than it is filled by Islam.

One more thing, Valster. I wrote a polite and thoughtful letter to Mr Harris, explained in the clearest and most concise language the mechanics of this process, and even provided links to several concrete examples to prove my point.

And I've yet to hear BOO from this courageous defender of secularism.....

The more secularism is pushed and promoted, the faster radical Islam rushes in occupy the abandonned religious terrain.

John...you obviously haven't read the book...especially chapter four

The antidote to militant Islam is rising up in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is a vibrant, living Christian faith. It is by and large non-militant and peaceable. True believers lay down their lives for others, just like their Lord and Saviour. It is the only hope this world has of counteracting Islam. We turn the tide, not with guns but with love. We win their hearts. Humanism hasn't got a hope.

Sam Harris on the basis of his book:

"According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen—the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves—socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency..."

Assumption and conjecture cannot build an argument in a court of law, or anywhere else for that matter. Not to mention his tirade as being selectively focused, disregarding the other proven factually dangerous religious and political ideologies. The proper definition for that is bigotry. Was he buggered by a priest?

It is actually far more factual to rely on what the commandments are in the Bible to figure out what Christians think, rather than blind assumptions. Ie: Love thy neighbour as thyself. Any true Christian is not looking forward to their neighbour and countrymen being annihilated. That would be against Christ's commandment, wouldn't it? Furthermore, based on historical fact, I imagine a Christian is the least likely to create this "fireball" he conjures up.

On the other hand, I've known more than a few ecofreaks, anarchists, raving socialists and communists in my time who would want nothing better than thermo-nuclear war, cosmic disaster, or natural disaster to end half the life on this planet.

And on the other-other hand, Islamists will continue to plan ongoing disasters and mass murder in order to bring the rest of the world (dar el Harb) into submission (dar el Islam), as commanded in the Quran and by Mohammads life example. Afterall, the Kaffr is only worth 1/10th and happens to be the son of monkeys and pigs.

If this is the basis of your moral equivalence 'theory' you are as shallow and simple-minded as the author, who has an obvious axe to grind.

Thank you daisy... your rant has more than justified the reason why there is and always should be a distinct separation between church and state in western society.

Thanks, irwin daisy and John P. for your reasonable and well reasoned rebuttals to valster's meanderings.

Rather than bother to respond to the case I made, this person says I should read a book: on what authority? And, from what I've learned about this Harris fellow's sophistry, he'd be the last person to persuade me. E.g., His apparent definition of a Christian describes a person I've never met, despite a lifetime of chuch going. (It would be akin to suggesting that Michael Jackson is a typical African American.)

valster needs to persuasively--that would include intelligently--ARGUE his/her case, rather than merely assert it, which just doesn't cut it. (How about specifically referencing and responding to what I actually said?)

I too share your fear of Islam....but I also have a great deal of concern with the religious right...especially when it refuses to follow some of the religious doctrine it preaches....love thy neighbor ...I'm sorry I'm not up to your debating standards but I am willing to read opposing views...you should try it....If you can't stomach Harris, try Templeton's Farewell to God....He was once the second most popular evangalist in North America...with no ax to grind

valster, I appreciate your moderate tone. And I agree that it's a concern when "the religious right"--all of them?--fails to love "its" neighbour. However, I've been treated with a serious lack of loving behaviour by the "religious--just about anything goes--left". I actually now belong to another denomination.

I honestly think your worries about "the religious right" are seriously out of proportion and based on stereotypes and prejudice. Whatever the failings of this group, I don't believe they're more egregious than those of most other religionists: e.g., except for a minuscule number of generally deranged individuals, who kill abortionists--and their actions are altogether rejected by the community--they don't tend to brutally murder people all over the world with whom they disagree. In fact, you'll find that many orthodox Christians are out and about around the world serving others, often at great personal sacrifice.

Re entertaining opposing opinions: I'm an expert. The CBC, Globe and Mail and most of the MSM have bombarded me for DECADES with their parochial, bigoted, and one-sided views on topics of concern to me. I have no respect for their preening, propaganda, and put downs. And I'm afraid I can't read a book every time I participate in a thread.

Have a good day.

No need to fear Islam if we had stuck to principle and not appeased evil as when Secretary Wineberger canceled Reagan*s order to hit Hizballah for the killing of 241 Marine peacekeepers in 1983 Lebanon.

Carter, confusing state with individual, turned the other cheek over and over again, appeasing evil and allowing Hizballah and al Qaeda to gain momentum. Clinton continued the appeasment.

The Liberal left must realize that turning the other cheek would not have halted Hitler and it clearly will not delay Iran*s power hungry islamofascists.

Liberals will hopefully realize that a force who plans to place Nuclear devices in major cities and then demand surrender, is a force that has to be deterred. = TG

"I also have a great deal of concern with the religious right...especially when it refuses to follow some of the religious doctrine it preaches....love thy neighbor"

valster, please back up this contention.
Nobody but you seems to understand what you are talking about.
When did the religous right refuse to love thy neighbour.
Do you have any direct evidence other than your "feelings" to support this smear.

After making my post this morning, I read an article by Fr Raymond De Souza in the National Post. It was entitled "From religious roots, the birth of social conscience". In it, he discusses the role of the devout Christian, Wm Wilberforce, who was instrumental in the abolition of slavery BECAUSE he was a Christian.

Backing up my and richfisher's challenge to valster, Fr De Souza writes, "What has changed since Wilberforce's day? The progressive left seems to think that secularism is the necessary condition for social progress, and that religion is a retrograde force allied against the poor, the weak and the powerless. This is an argument that needs to be made, not merely asserted [as valster has done], and doing so [making a cogent anti-religion argument] runs against the clear weight of history."

Amen.