Well said Joe, thanks...

"Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?"

This one is quotable Joe.

It applies equally to the militant seculars who want to purge judeo-christian ethos from civil institutions and civil society....as it does militant Islamic theocracts.

Who'd have thought there was a convergence point for statist-atheism and militant theocracy?

Secular statist socialism or Fundamentalist Islamic Theocracy = State enforced theological intolerance...just 2 separate brands of it.

It explains why the fanatical atheists of the left can join forces with the intolerant theocrats of radical Islam...it is a common goal...deconstruction of western institutions fomented upon judeo-christian liberal democratic ideals...primary among them is the rule of law...they just hate the preamble of the Charter:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Judeo-Christian divinity ethos and the rule of law are indivisible in our culture...extremist deconstructionists know this.

Sorry, I'm not sure I have it right.

I'm having trouble keeping track.

Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site.

At one time I thought it was just a fun place where farmers could gather round to argue about which pickup truck is better or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you'd know)

The secularists do not merely suggest we hide our light under a bushel -- they demand it.

Fortunately our forefathers had the prescience to carve the scripture "He shall have dominion from sea to sea" in stone above our parliamentarians' heads, where they can't easily get at it.

At least until someone launches a human rights complaint.

Sheldon everyone should HATE the kind of moral revisionism expressed by the apeasers just as much as the irrationality of radical islam.

"Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site."

Wrong on all counts! Actually, this is a dedicated anti-Sheldon Levin site!

Thanks for weighing in!

Who - that's simple, the mediocre, that's who.

Those who would rather take than earn.

Whether it be money, power, fame, credibility, morality, etc. The script is always the same, the results always predictable.

Sheldon - Did you really just want this site to be about farmer's discussing pickups? Would that allow you to continue mocking farmers to all your intellectual friends? Does mocking farmers allow you to feel better, if so, then please have a few free mocks on me! Consider it a Christmas gift and I hope the New Year treats you better than this one obviously did.

Sheldon. perhaps you should refrain from commenting further until you've undergone some "keeping track" skill development.

Sheldon Levin:

Obviously it is a Web site that singes the feathers of stilted cultural marxists.

Sheldon, lad, you are going to have to do better than that to compete around here.

Ahelly sez:
"or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you'd know)"

Mass murderes are rank amateurs compared to statist socialist regimes when it comes to mass murder...300 million killed in the last century and counting, now that's effective mass murdering...stop sweating over the small change and keep an eye on the pros and you will be much safer. ;-)

I agree and don't agree with Joe's comments. I'm an atheist, so the religious attributes of a belief system (ie, metaphysical authority) are not, for me, relevant. What is relevant is Joe's call to reject a call for domination of any one belief system.

The Islamic belief system, which considers its views supreme and inviolate, is filled with the arrogance of a lack of humility. Joe's point (I think) is to reject their insistence and instead, stand by our own beliefs.

I agree; but I don't agree that the Islamic belief system can't be reformed and that we shouldn't call for its reform. Since it is, like any belief system, a man-made construct, then, we humans can change it.

It must be reformed. There is no option. How can we ignore over a billion people on this planet? The world no longer operates within isolate nations where contact takes months of travel by ship and land. Contact now is rapid. We can't ignore this global networking.

Yes, we have to stand firm in our own belief systems, whatever they may be. As an atheist, I opt for the primacy of reason, logic, science and a humble ethics. These are all, by the way, rejected by the Islamic belief system.

But, I think that we can't be silent; we have to confront Islamic belief systems and ask questions. It is vital to support our own belief systems, but, if we don't ask questions of the Islamic mindset, then, we are similar to them. They don't ask questions of us; they simply assert that their belief system is superior. How does that help?

What puzzles me, and I ask the question of those who insist that Islam cannot be reformed, is - how do you expect the planet to operate when you have a belief system held by over a billion people that rejects reason, science and equality? Instead of insisting on reform, what are you going to do? How are you going to interact in this global network?

Sheldon

Your pathetic outburst betrays your discomfort at hearing the truth.

"Which mental midget amongst us sits bestride the backs of giants and dares imagine, we are loftier than they?"

"Is this strictly an anti-Canadian blog, an anti-Muslim blog, or just a run of the mill hate site."

I think you have your answer Joe. Sheldon Levin.

ET, I think Joe has said what he means quite clearly.

Wether you agree with Joe that Islam can't be reformed or ET that it can, ET's question is quite valid : how do you interact in the world?

While compromise always sounds like a rational approach "for civilised people", it only works with two parties who are actually interested in an amenable settlement and who each have a firm, but flexible, belief/ethical structure.

This does NOT represent the situation that we are facing in the "western world" dealing with Islam, specifically radical Islam (but supported but the acquiesence of the moderates).

This has been said time and time again: they do not compromise their beliefs, they are not interested in reaching a compromise solution.

Give an inch and they will take a mile! This is not compromising, it is surrender!

If you belive in nothing or anything (that comes along), then surrender is the easy option.

As an atheist, I opt for the primacy of reason, logic, science and a humble ethics.

Ethics that are subject to revision.

Since it is, like any belief system, a man-made construct, then, we humans can change it.

In effect, no ethics at all.

"or how fast a mass murderer could reload his weapon (like you'd know)"

Actually Sheldon, most "mass murderers" are one of the two forms of totalitarian state socialism. Most don't reload their weapons because they are cowards who have their useful idiots do their killing for them.

I was going to mention that you are the useful idiot type but that would be incorrect. You aren't smart enough to be a useful idiot. You are a useless idiot. Not even a commie could make use of what little you have to offer.

I bet when you wrote your pathetic little condescending drive-by that you thought you were being clever. As is the case with the rest of your sad life, you are wrong.

As for the substance of your little rant, it clearly says more about you than us. I would put my education against yours any day of the week and would hazzard to guess you would fall in the bottom 1/3 of posters on this site.

Now go back to school.

I think sheldon needs it broke down into simplier terms.So he cant understand what it means.

Before you knock Islam, try understanding what would possess a Christian to join "Opus Dei." (Self flagellation etc.) How about baptismal rites in the "muddy waters of the Mississippi" that allegedly cleanse "the original sin."
One outrageous religious rite soes not cancel another. Merry Christmas, and make sure you leave milk and cookies under the tree for "Saint Nick." As for the Virgin Mary, I don't know--I never checked!!

Love

J. Jesus

Lol can i meant to say

Lol can i meant to say

ol hoss - your statement that because something can be changed, means that it doesn't exist (no ethics at all) doesn't make any sense.

Every society has a set of ethical values. To state that ethical behaviour can only exist if its axioms are unchanging means that we cannot improve ourselves as a people.

Pope Benedict's recent speech refers to a universal morality - a postulate that I accept. There IS such a thing as a common or universal human morality.

Now, if I'm living in a society that has an isolate set of morals specific only to itself, are you going to say that if I manage to get out of this isolation, and move into a morality that considers that all people are equal and all share the same basic human rights - that this action of mine means that I now have 'no ethics'?

ET,there is just one thing wrong with your argument about people reforming Islam and its what they have been using in Iraq.Get a room full of persuaders to talk to Islamists and send a boy in with sweetmeats and "BOOM"no more persuaders.Unless you have the stamina and resolve to keep sending people in to get killed YOU WILL LOSE!

It hurts to hear the truth but it can also serve as an awakening.
We've been surrendering and abandoning so many principles and traditions this successful Western Democracy was built on to APPEASE. It has been a Leftist creep aided by Multiculturalism and the Trudeau Charter.

Those who come here from Countries or States with whom we have no history should be offered our great freedoms, be expected to abide by our laws and contribute to the Country, not work against
it or contribute to any movements or terrorism in the places they left. We owe nobody anything more.
We certainly should NEVER abandon our founding principles.

ET Is correct that all theologies which command a set of laws be obeyed by it's adherents MUST be reformed if those laws are being misread or abused by the theocrats.

The Christian Church of Rome became a belligerent imperialist power cabal that ran theocratic wars and theocratic purges/tyrannies in it's Jurisdictions....that is until Chrisitian reformers like Martin Luther and others brought the Christian church back to the humanitarian liberal ethos expressed by Christ....apostasy of the old testament values which where filed with the same theocratic tyranny that radical Islam has never reformed...vengence, intolerance, cruel justice.

Islam is 800 years overdue for reformation...perhaps the influence of the reformed Christian ethos in the liberal democricies Muslims now populate can help them embrace humanitarian reform if their theological absolutism.

Related:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute where he referenced a book called ‘Troublesome Young Men’ which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain.

It's a very revealing book and a very powerful book because we tend to look backwards and we tend to overstate Churchill's role in that period. And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement
was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn't craven. Chamberlain had a very clear
vision of the world and he was very ruthless domestically. And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into they war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don't want to offend the German people.

The Chamberlain world view was one of the British omelet
sacrificing, if necessary, the individual British eggs. Even on the eve of World War II where most people knew war was upon them, the Chamberlain Brits were concerned about publishing anti-German stories fearing that they might offend the German people.

Sounds a lot like today? Huh? Chamberlain had the same problem we have today. He couldn’t bring himself to see that it was an ideology not a country or a people that was the enemy. We’re making the same mistake today by not embracing the concept of Islamo-fascism or Islamism as the enemy and not any one particular Muslim country or group.

And you read this book, and it makes you want to weep because,
interestingly, the younger Tories who were most opposed to appeasement were the combat veterans of World War I, who had lost all of their friends in the war but who understood that the failure of appeasement would result in a worse war and
that the longer you lied about reality, the greater the disaster.

And they were severly punished and isolated by Chamberlain and the Conservative machine, and as I read that, I realized that that's really where we are today. Our current problem is tragic. You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody pre pared to talk about the policy we need. Because we are told if you are for a strong America, you should back the Bush policy even if it's inadequate, and so you end up making an argument in favor of something that can't work. So your choice is to defend something which isn't working or to oppose it by being for an even weaker policy. So this is a catastrophe for this
country and a catastrophe for freedom around the world. Because we have refused to be honest about the scale of the problem.

Absolutely correct. Those that worship at the altar of pacifism will only bring down upon us all a terrible price for peace at any cost. Or to quote Robert Heinlein, “Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”

When will the pacifist ever learn that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.

Posted @ the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com

I see Sheldon has brought out the best in everyone. Whatever it was he was trying to gain by his comment he sure has succeded.

Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?

If you want to blame someone, blame those who teach one verse per Sunday, using that verse (often out of context) to illustrate some point of their own word, rather than God's Word.

How many lifetimes would it take, hearing one verse per Sunday, to hear God's Word?

Who was it decided we shall hide our lights under a bushel basket?

What light? It takes fuel to make a light. See above.

Paul said teaching salvation and baptism over and over to the saved is like re-crucifying Christ. Hebrews 6:6

Joes is saying that we only strengthen Islam when we deal in 'fear, loathing and ignorance'. Of ourselves? Of them? Of both?

I'm still asking the question, and so far, no-one that I've asked (irwin daisy and joe) have answered. How does one deal with the Islamic world, over a billion in population, if you reject the option of their reforming their ideology?

The world is now too small to be able to ignore their existence. Stopping all immigration (irwin daisy's suggestion) won't solve any problems. The world doesn't operate, any more, only in 'actual reality'. It also operates in 'virtual reality', ie, the actions and thoughts that affect us are no longer bound by spatial distance.

My point is that we have to insist on the viability, the validity of our own beliefs (democracy, civic secular society, equality of mean and women, reason and faith together)and reject any denigration of these axioms. BUT, we have to question and confront those who don't operate in this set of beliefs.

I don't see how we can stand by and not question or confront these beliefs. The very act of our standing up for our own beliefs must also be an action of questioning their beliefs.

The problem is that Islam will never universally reform to the "religion of peace" that some claim it to be.
When you try to change your countries laws to accomodate beliefs that break your laws its a quick road to destruction.
When a school teacher in an Islamic country names a teddy bear allah and can be, by local ethics, killed for it. Does not make it right or moral.

Yes, ol hoss, ethics are subject to change. What were the correct ethical positions on stem cell research or genetically-modified food 2000 years ago? Obviously there weren't any. Likewise, a couple of centuries ago, slavery and witch burnings were morally acceptable. Human knowledge advances and so does our moral beliefs.

Oh, ya, like Opus Dei is responsible for widespread, global acts of terror and honour killings.

Johnny J., if possible, try opening your very small mind: remember, if you gave yourself such a blasphemous (and juvenile, BTW) moniker in "Islam-land", your sorry head would be hacked off, live, on the Internet, with a blunt instrument.

Unless you have something worthwhile to say here--highly unlikely--why don't you just buzz off?

'Before you knock Islam, try understanding what would possess a Christian to join "Opus Dei." (Self flagellation etc.) How about baptismal rites in the "muddy waters of the Mississippi" that allegedly cleanse "the original sin." ' johnny insult to Jesus

Hey, jayjay. Tell us how self flagellation is equivalent to hanging gays by the hundreds in Iran. Explain to us how baptism in ANY kind of water is equivalent to blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren. Show us which religions are stoning people to death today (hint: there is ONLY one).

I could go on for hours, but I have work to get done around here. I was going to say that others would take up the task, but it just occurred to me that they are Ignoring you anyway, and probably quite right to do so.

I just loved how most of you handled twit Kevin's remarks. Well done.
I am with ET on this string. I am atheist but support Christian values. I don't feel any conflict.

Christian values accommodate freedom logic, reason and rule of law. So, I accommodate Christianity. We can get along.

I part trails where the supernal being part comes into play. Otherwise, it's all good.

I will always be able to find other Atheist with whom I disagree and I can tell you, that's pretty much most of them. I can also find some Christians with whom I disagree. What is important is that I don't want to kill any of either of them .. well, maybe one or two from time to time :0)

Again we should have the FREEDOM to differ on some things, yet work together for the greater good and real progress in this world.

Islam cannot think this way and therefore must either reform, or we must continue to fight them for our own sakes.

ET

The Qu'rans words and demands are the very words and demands of Allah to the slaves of Islam. Tell me who would dare rephrase them? As I said before, there is no central authority so there is no one qualified to speak for the ummah as a whole. If they had their Caliphate, the Caliph could manipulate minor things, but he cannot change the words of Allah.

The world has been operating as best it can with Islam for over 1400 years. Not many cultural groups have survived it's attentions without being severely hindered or even destroyed. The west is particularly disliked for being a surviving (and now dominant)thorn in their side.

How to "operate" or "interact" with Islam then? That is the dread question. The first thing necessary is to educate the non muslims about the burden that Islam lays on it's followers. These needful things for Islam are all supremacist in character and on many levels of intimidation and coercion and old fashioned murder. To publicly expose these things and make them general knowledge would go a long way itself. But that will soon be hate speech and banned, won't it?

I like the Spanish precedent of 1492 myself, but Islam will have to really kick us in the n*ts first to make that viable. So we are in some trouble already. Curtailing Muslim immigration would be helpful but that would make us "racist" wouldn't it?

Trying to answer you in a line or two has made me suddenly pessimistic. I don't think we can or will do anything positive to defend our country and culture until the most horrendous of shocks delivered by Islam turns us upside down. If no such shock is delivered we may well be demographically Islamic well before global warming does us in.

None of the options are pretty as far as I can see. It could degrade into torches and pitchforks before anything sensible is done.

Reminds me of the Jack Nicholson line:
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

The analogy of belling the cat seems reasonable in this situation.

Although I prefer to see it as a Pied Piper of Hamelin situation. Did anyone in Hamelin ever stop to ask how the rats got out of control in the first place? And just why are the Hamelinanians too week to deal with them on their own? Who will play the Piper and who will PAY?

It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I guess those who proclaim their atheism will have to wait and find themselves in a foxhole to know. When times are good, it is easy to be an atheist. I wonder how many atheists were in the concentration camps. There were some... commandants and guards, those who with no conscience could dispose of their fellow man, created in the likeness of God. There will come a day when there will be no more atheists. It is written "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment". We will all one day stand before the judge of every human soul and give account... this would seem to be the end of atheism.
"Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?"
Maranatha

ET,

No one said that Islam can't be reformed. The point was that it isn't our job. It's our job to reform ourselves and get our cultural mojo back. It's our job to defend ourselves and stop apologizing for our existence and way of life. We have to recognize our OWN rights, our own cultural value, and our own contribution to humanity and stop blaming ourselves for the actions of others.

Muslims and "fill in the blank here" are not bloody savages because of something WE did. Colonialism is foolish leftard's ideology for excusing the actions of non-westerners and their incivility.

You shouldn't get a pass for bad behavior just because you aren't white. That's a stupid leftard being racist while calling the rest of us racists. The irony of their position is lost on them.

Until we embrace our own society and deem ourselves worthy of defence, we aren't in the fight so aren't in a position to win it.

Islam and its values are irrelevant. We don't have to care what they think so long as they don't have the power to force it on us.

Exactly, WLMR.

The Church, in the West, had moved into a theocratic imperialist power with dictatorial powers over belief and behaviour. The West confronted this, and reformed. Islam hasn't done this. It has to.

I reject irwin daisy's suggestion, if I understand him, that the answer has to be allout war on the peoples of Islam. Are you seriously suggesting war against a billion people? Not only is that untenable, but, that won't reform the ideology!

I think that the ideology has to be confronted, as WLMR said, in our own countries, where we must refuse to accept their ideology as dominant over ours (our democracy, civic secular society, equality, focus on individual, reason and faith).

BUT, I think that we also have to contront this ideology on the international scene. We have to reject, openly and publicly, their rejection of human rights, their lack of equality of men and women, etc, etc.

Joe is a fine man and says all kinds of fine things, many with which I totally agree. However, I sometimes find his thinking somewhat one-dimensional. We are not just spiritual beings: we are INCARNATE, which immerses us in the dirty world of politics and all the hell that entails.

Here are two recent cross posts, when Joe and I were discussing this issue at the Coren/Mansur thread:

1) Joe writes, "Its not the Muslim's fault" and "We need to realize that the reason the Muslims act the way they do is because that is the nature of the Muslim faith."

Joe, this seems an awful lot like "The Devil made me do it" reasoning. Dumbing down too. If it's not the Muslims' fault, whose is it? It sounds very much like you're trying to posit an equivalency between Christian culture (waning though it is) when you talk about removing planks from our eyes first. Honestly, I don't think this quite applies in a situation where the Muslim fanatics have declared open warfare on the people of the West and our freedoms.

Perhaps we need to remove the planks from our PC blinded eyes and recognize the clear and present danger in our midst posed by a radicalized religion too many of whose adherents behave like toddlers with Uzis. Rather than pander to Muslim sensibilities even more, in hopes that appeasement will work—we both recognize it won't—I believe we need to get tough and let them know we’re not prepared to put up with their totally unacceptable behaviour. If they’re unwilling to comply with the standards of a free society, they are free to leave.

The elites of the West seem to be afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome: “a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed” (Wikipedia).

Our politically correct overlords actually identify with our sworn enemies and make excuses for them, as well as aiding and abetting them by allowing such a travesty as letting them use our own sense of fairness, our adherence to due process, and our resources against us, e.g., Human Rights (sic) cases, like the one against Mark Steyn. This is pathological! Many of us would like to see the HRCs radically reined in or abolished altogether. Many of us would like to see visible minorities treated the same as the rest of us in our everyday lives: no excuses to let them off the hook, and the ability to criticize their behaviour without being accused of racism and bigotry. (I don’t think these suggestions constitute “futile gnashing of teeth”.)

And, Joe, it sounds to me as if you’ve bought in to letting them off the hook. If not, just what are you thinking of when you say, "Its not the Muslim's fault" and “Right now all I read is futile gnashing of teeth instead of the steady strong answers we require to win this war.” What strong answers are you considering?

2) Thanks, Joe. Your message altogether resonates with a committed Christian. It's unfortunate, though, that the majority of Canadians, including Sunday-only Christians, don't fit this mold, nor do the majority of posters here.

So, as in "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" what is the body politic to do?
Christians, as Christians, will discern and pray--and pray and pray: a wise, fine, and powerful thing to do, praise God--and, as citizens, will try to discern a way forward in the temporal world of politics, which cannot be ignored: it's part of the reality we deal with.

I believe what you propose is altogether valid on the level of being a Christian. However, there is another dimension--the political--which, I believe, has a different set of priorities, which we also need to address.

More answers to your questions, Joe:

(From LGF) The ever-tolerant peace-lovers who frequent loony left sites such as Huffington Post and Democratic Underground react to the news of a small chemical explosion at Fox News headquarters.

* Who among us would have wept if Fox News HQ had been blown up? I can honestly say I wouldn’t’ve.

* We could only wish. Those hate-filled bigots should be taken off the air ASAP!

* Fox News being destroyed is one of the best things that could happen.

* If something happens to FOX News and one of those Bush enablers get’s [sic] hurt...who cares? How many have died because they helped this administration lie us into a war?

* [expletive deleted] Fox News..!

* oh yea good idea.... ****DIRTY BOMB, ...Let us Pray

* what a nice christmas present, i guess the whole sleazy enterprise going up in smoke would have been too much of a gift. well, it’s a start

* False flag! They probably did it themselves to generate news to them in a sympathetic light. I wonder who Michelle Malkin will want to round up into internment camps for this...

* Reichstag fire, anyone?

"We will all one day stand before the judge of every human soul and give account... this would seem to be the end of atheism.
"Who was it decided that the God of our fathers shall have no dominion over me?"
Maranatha"

Well Marantha, in my case, it was me. The beauty of FREEDOM is that one can decide for one's self ... right or wrong.

Apparently, you are one Christian I would find disagreeable and intolerant. Too bad.

Peace

Kate- I think I was quite on track, perhaps just not your track. It seems your readers sure know a lot about my political views, my education and where I live from my short comment. In the future I'll try to post only comments which reflect the views of this site, which there are quite a few. Hopefully I won't strike another nerve by putting my ideas in words.

marantha - I always dislike the use of the passive tense, eg, 'It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes'.

You see, that sentence doesn't tell us WHO made this statement. Furthermore, it implies universality of such a saying.

Your error, and it is a profound error, is to assume that an atheist has no conscience. That's nonsense. Read John West's post; I fully agree with his outline. I certainly have, I assure you, a deep ethical and moral perspective. It is based on reason; I don't need any metaphysical agency to tell me these basic axioms of morality.

To state that ethical behaviour can only exist if its axioms are unchanging means that we cannot improve ourselves as a people.

Ah, now you have ethics, and "improved ethics". Will the real ethics please stand up.

Funny thing religion.

It really is a chicken/egg argument.

Ask yourself this:

Is stealing and sleeping with your neighbour's wife wrong because it's in the bible or is it in the bible cause it's wrong?

If you haven't figured it out, ask yourself if you'd be killing, whoring and stealing all over town if you hadn't read your bible.

People can tell right from wrong all on their own. The bible just tells you what you should already know.

Well Sheldon, I had to convert Islam to marry my wife, I am also a gun owner, hope that’s confusing for you. By the way, all of the mass murderers, Hilter, Mao, Stalin, etc confiscated personally owned firearms prior to their mass murders.

Anyways, people need to stand up to Islam as it is being pushed onto us and onto Muslims. Most Muslims are decent folks trying to go about their lives, but they are taught from day one, to keep their heads down, don’t ask questions, go along with what your leaders and Imams tell you. This quiet acceptance is what fuels fundamental Islam, the quiet majority is in essence like the spouse of an abuser, they will rarely fight back, and will defend their abuser, even though it is purely illogical.
Muslim seem to have tunnel vision, when my devout brother inlaw found out I was not terribly religious he became very upset, I pointed out that I only became Muslim to abide by the laws of Malaysia (2 months of jail, caning and seizure of any children by the state) and was forced to do so. He said “There is no compulsion in Islam” I pointed out, that I can never renounce Islam and in any Muslim country I will always be subject to Sharia law and asked if he could renounce it, which of course he is not allowed to, so despite clear evidence that compulsion exists, they still cling to the belief it does not.
Also the only places that the “Brotherhood of Islam” can peacefully co-exist is in the West. All Muslim states suppress or punishes those that believe in the other types of Islam that are not state sanctioned, no Shia can preach in Malaysia without risking their life and liberty.

Islam as currently preached is the neighbourhood bully, we in the west better stand up to it, or be prepared to cower before it.

"I reject irwin daisy's suggestion, if I understand him, that the answer has to be allout war on the peoples of Islam. Are you seriously suggesting war against a billion people? Not only is that untenable, but, that won't reform the ideology!"

ET,

Why do you insist on lying? I never said that. You continue to debate by outright fabrication, or extrapolation of what I say. I can only assume that you find this necessary because your argument is weak.

From an earlier exchange with you, I said:

The application of reason creates apostates.

Islam can slowly, but surely be destroyed through exposure, criticism and shame. This seems to be what the Islamist leaders fear the most. They are furiously attempting to shut down free speech with regards to criticism of Islam in the west.

In the meantime, western countries would be wise to shut down immigration from Islamic theocracies and those countries practicing Sharia law in any form.

CSIS, for example, has said that they are overtaxed and underfunded, and cannot keep up with more Muslim immigration.

As well, why should citizen taxpayers fund immigrants that adhere to a hostile political ideology? Why should taxpayers fund more security and the incumbent hassles? Where's the benefit? There is none.

As well, applicable laws should be enforced against the political side of Islam, abhorent customs, and the preaching of hate in mosques and schools.

The Quran, Hadith and Sira should be examined as hate literature. And if found to be, the offending parts should be banned.

People like the murdering father of that girl should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and held up as an example. No quarter should be given.

We must not tolerate an intolerant ideology. That is madness.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 14, 2007 4:10 PM

ET

You reject your perception of Irwin's declaration for war on all things Islamic, then in the next sentence declare war (as Muslims would perceive it) on Islam yourself. You are insisting that Islam can be forced to listen to reason, reason would be the death of Islam and it will be resisted.

People can tell right from wrong all on their own. The bible just tells you what you should already know.

That's been working well. Do people also already know how not to do wrong? And how to free themselves of guilt attached to past wrongs?

Don't have time for a theoretical discussion but wanted to throw these two cents in. Judeo-Christian doctrines have basically created the "Western World" it has taken in excess over two thousand years to accomplish this. Two thousand years of change, adaptation, evolving. It has only been in the last two hundred years that women are on the verge of achieving equality in the west. We stopped burning heritics about six hundred years ago. We've come a long way and perhaps it all came about because we have been able to evolve our way of thinking about our beliefs. However Islam has not evolved because Islam forbids the freedom to interpert and evolve the books of the Koran. Muslims are steeped in the lifestyle of 1400 years ago, they are stuck in a bigone era and haven't been allowed to evolve, and are resentful of the west for a lifestyle that they have not made, and indeed are unwilling to make, the sacrifices that the west has made to attain our position in the world. Probably the latest step on the "Western" evolutionary ladder is a book called "The Pagan Christ", it was written a couple of years ago by a theologian, I think his name is Tom Harpur. This is an example of why "Western" society will eventually overcome all hardships because we, as a society, are allowed to think and speak freely and because of this ideas and ideals can flourish and spread.

Couldn't be. Intellectuals that support Joe's insight?

"Does Culture Play a Role in Poverty?"
Laina Farhat-Holzman, Ph.D.

A common view is that poverty is the fruit of colonialism and exploitation and the cure is to distribute the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. The World Bank states that countries, through enacting intelligent government policies, can soon bootstrap from backward to being developed. But one of America’s best economists, Robert J. Samuelson disagrees: culture, he says, is the main factor in determining wealth or poverty.

Lawrence Harrison of Tufts University agrees. By culture, he means the beliefs and practices that are learned and enforced, not intrinsic human ability, which does not differ from place to place. The United States is peopled by immigrants from hopelessly backward places who have thrived in this culture where they could not in their homelands.

Another economist, Gregory Clark, also agrees. In his book “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World,” he states that most of the world’s remaining poverty is pretty much permanent. Just pushing a policy of open markets, secure property rights, sound money, and anti-corruption does not mean that cultures hostile to these values will carry out such policies, and their plight has worsened over time. The gap between rich and poor nations in 1800 was a ratio of 4:1; today it is 50:1.

Clark notes that before 1800, most societies were stagnant and people lived much as did their ancestors in the Stone Age. Economic growth (and all the good things that have come with it) only began in England in 1800. Why England and why not China or Japan, both of which in 1800 were at the same level of development as England? The answer, he says, was the emergence of middle class values (hard work, sobriety, ingenuity, patience, and education). Max Weber (1864-1920), who wrote “Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic,” convincingly attributed this change to these Protestant values.

Historically, changing cultural habits is usually a bloody business. Most humans fear change, thinking the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. England’s culture changed during the deadly competition between the values of Catholicism and Protestantism. What people believed mattered to England’s rulers to the extent of executing those with the “wrong” set of beliefs. Protestantism, unlike the Catholicism of the day, promoted literacy; hard work as a virtue, not a curse; merchant (middle class) urban economy rather than aristocratic feudal agronomy; and, of course, industrialization.

It is unpopular today to recognize the salutary benefit of the right kind of religion in shaping a people, but it was demonstrated by England and its later colonies, particularly the United States. For centuries, it has been the teaching of parents that has produced children with these values, which became inbred even after church-going and religious domination declined. That is (at least until now) our prevailing culture.

But what of those countries dominated by tribal, religious, ideological or political practices that dislike the middle class values that we espouse? What happens to a country such as Saudi Arabia when oil money no longer fuels their semi-welfare theocracy? Where is the willingness to work with one's hands and the cultivation of literacy and talent from all citizens, male and female, to come from? When militant Islam dreams of a world dominated by them, in which all other cultures will (after conquest) support their idleness, where do modern values fit in?

China and Japan (and finally India) have demonstrated that they do not fear adopting modern Western values in developing their societies. They are succeeding, but the Muslim world and Sub-Sahara Africa are not. They eventually will learn this, but it will be a slow process – and undoubtedly bloody. Throwing money at it will not help.

'I think I was quite on track, perhaps just not your track.'~ sheldon

A series of false innuendos and insults was 'right on track'?

Your error, and it is a profound error, is to assume that an atheist has no conscience.

Of course atheists have a conscience. They just don't know what to do about it.

ET, I agree that Islam must reform...but the bigger question is how will it do so? How do you re-interpret the sections of the islamic texts that say death to infidels?

Christianity reformed itself because the text of the Bible WAS being misinterpreted and the text of the Bible preached tolerance, love, compassion and forgiveness. If the islamic texts do not teach the same tenets but demand "death to infidels", then it is unreformable.

Try as I might, I cannot make a tree to be a vegetable. The tree is unreformable. The tree can be made to take on a different shape or colour or other characteristics, but it cannot be made to be a vegetable. If you make a tree a vegetable, then it is no longer a tree.

That is like saying you want to reform Christians such that they do not believe in Christ. As soon as you do that, they are no longer Christians...you have to destroy their belief in their faith and their texts.

Show me how the passages in the Islamic texts have been misinterpreted and what the more correct (peaceful, tolerant) interpretation is and then you might be able to say that Islam can/must be reformed. Otherwise, your basic premise is incorrect...and the only choice is to destroy or contain the religion.

Atheist certainly do have a conscience. It could not be otherwise: the world has been awash in religion since long before fire was discovered. Anyone who is an atheist today, has been influenced their entire lives by religion. Just as people of Faith have been influenced in various ways by atheists.

If we ever meet a true atheistic society out in the Universe, I suspect they'll scare the beJesus out of the atheists we know. Not to mention, Us :P

"Do people also already know how not to do wrong?"

Er, if it isn't mine I don't take it... etc.

Religion helps those who are not able to "get it" on their own. I don't have that problem. It's not that I don't like religion, I just don't have a need for it in MY life. If it works for you, good.

ET,

I congratulate you on the obvious level of notoriety you have acheived on this site.
I have made similar statements regarding Islam to your own,only to be dismissed as some leftist and told to go home.
Please allow me to repeat a Michael Coren quote I posted a few threads back that I was subsequently attacked for.

"Only a bigot would argue that every Muslim was violent or opposed to Western freedom. But only a coward or a liar would argue that there was not a profound and deeply worrying link between conservative Islam and myriad acts of terror, intolerance and hysterical anger."

I congratulate you on having achieved a similarly balanced viewpoint.
The fact is,we are currently surrounded by legions of muslims in Canada.We had damn sure better learn how to help and motivate them to eliminate the radicalism in their midst,because the alternative is too ugly to even contemplate.

Think about it.

teddy,

Coren is correct. But a Muslim, good or bad, is not the root of the ideology. The ideology is.

It is the ideology as stated in their texts and literally, if not correctly, preached and taught that causes extremism. And will continue to do so, as it has for the last 1400 years.

Muslims must be forced to confront and rationally think about what their texts command them to do, without the lies and obfuscation. They must also judge the moral character of their prophet, in truth.

Eeyore,

And then what to do about the prophet that they are commanded to emulate?

What many fail to understand is that Islam is exactly the opposite of Christianity, in every way, including their prophets actions and words, as told in the Sira (bio of Mo) and Hadith (actions and words of Mo).

colin and warwick - very astute observations.

irwin daisy - please calm your instant anger. I said - IF I UNDERSTAND him correctly". Instead of reacting to this, and clarifying, you instantly accuse me of lying. Your post above, re Chamberlain, was in favour of war!

Blackbird answered my question, with the answer of educating us (and therefore, inadvertently Muslims). I think that's right but I think that we have to openly state to the Islamic nations and groups, that we reject their rejection of reason, equality, democracy, etc - and that in our nations, such beliefs cannot be the rule.

Irwin - are you serious? Who is going to examin the koran, hadith etc as 'hate literature'? You are setting up a bomb! It is the Muslims themselves who have to examine their texts. Not us. We can certainly read them and critique them, but our govt cannot 'examine them as hate literature'! That would be like Saudi Arabia or Iran examining the bible as hate literature.

As for stopping immigration, I think that's impossible, because it generalizes. It says that ALL people in X-country are unacceptable. What if they want to come here because they want freedom from such beliefs? Instead, we have to insist that any and all immigrants accept that in our country, we have non-negotiable axioms and that under no circumstances can these be rejected. This also means the end of multiculturalism and the Human rights Act.

antenor - I fully agree; the fact that the West has, as one of its basic axioms, the insistence on self-examination, the use of reason and debate -is why the West will triumph. BUT, multiculturalism and political correctness and the left - are threats to this vital base of western culture.

irwin daisy - your post on Harrison and Clark - was great! Exactly right.

eeyore - the Islamic people themselves must reform and reinterpret their religion. There are Islamic scholars who are now debating their texts and insisting that the Wahhabi and fundamentalist sects are wrong; that the translations are wrong, etc. There are some very good journals publishing this kind of work.

To borrow Reagan's debating line with Carter,

"There you go again, ET."

I don't know, "Jews, the sons of apes and pigs" (Qur'an: Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166), sounds like hate speech to me. Not you?

Er, if it isn't mine I don't take it... etc.

I wouldn't have wanted to be around you before you figured that out. Or were you born knowing that?

I am so glad that the Ontario which so many here seem delighted to bash still supports a Catholic school system.

Last night, I attended my daughters' school's Christmas celebration. There were the usual skits and songs - some of which were quite funny - but there was also a series of quite beautiful readings that reinforced the meaning of Christmas and the message of Jesus. I'm not ashamed to say this responsive reading brought tears to my eyes, as over 800 people of all different races but one faith repeated:

Where there are the hungy and homeless,
Let us give them food and shelter.
Where there are the sick and wounded,
Let us give them comfort and care.
Where there are the lost and lonely,
Let us give them friendship and company.
Where there is despair,
Let us give them hope.
Where there is sorrow,
Let us give them joy.
Where there is ignorance,
Let us give them the wisdom of Christ.

Let us do this in the name of God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

In Ontario's public school system, such a recitation would be unthinkable. My friends with kids in the public school say their bland "Winter Celebrations" are filled with skits and songs, but there's no mention at all of Christmas or Jesus. It's all good fun, but there's no emotion at all.

When my 11-year old saw the tears running down my cheek, she silently reached over and took my hand. That small, simple gesture spoke volumes to me, and it would never have occured at one of these value-free "Winter Celebrations". I'm grateful for that moment, and I will never forget it.

Merry Christmas to all.

lookout: An Excellent very DEFT post on Joe (yeah I remember those exchanges). Yes, Joe's seemingly a fine man with some fine rhetoric BUT ... a bit too sentimental for my palate.

I'm in the investment biz. There are short term and long term considerations. Joe is good on the long term. But we need tough, unsentimental, assertive short term action NOW. Immigration (if not ending Muslim immigration at least from countries that are clear state sponsors of islamofascism), free speech, severe restriction of foreign financing of mosques and university ME studies departments, student visas (35000 Saudi student visa in the US!). And etc.

As been around the block has pointed out elsewhere, recovering our cultural mojo (Warwick?) is a multi-generational project

ET: Interacting with a billion muslims? Not really! It's the Islamofascist vanguard we need to deal with -- CRUSH. That's a big but much smaller number. In The Black Book of Communistm I read that there were only a few thousand Bolshevik party members. Most Muslims are cultural muslims of identity with only the faintest notion of the details of Islam. Crush the vanguard and those Muslims will be fine.

Despite Joe's piety and pretty rhetoric, I find the phrase "It's not the Muslims' fault" deeply disturbing and, frankly Joe, DEPRESSING.

ET: I'm 105% with you on your restatement that ethics/morality do not require Godliness. I too consider myself an atheist and a man of high integrity, and there'll be no death bed or fox-hole conversion my end. And from your many fine and eloquent posts your morality and high ethcis ring loud and clear.

And if I didn't consider ol hoss a theocratic bore, I'd be angry. Interesting how differently I feel about some of our other devout Christian posters here, like lookout and been around the block whom I greatly admire and respect.

To: Lookout!! As I repeat "Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa," I am flagellating myself with a "Cat 'O nine tails." Does that satisfy your Christian ego!! You sick f$%?&

I once had an English professor who liked to say that one can't live in a Christian country, eat Christian bread and breathe Christian air without being in some sense a Christian. In a very different context, that is called the "anti-Semitism of things."

For those involved in the atheism vs. Christianity debate, may I offer this lighthearted look at "cultural Christianity" and the legacy of Christian civilisation?

Libby Purves, God rest you merry atheist

But the really fabulous news I mentioned is that Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against “cultural” Christianity and “Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else”. Which raises enough tantalising philosophical and ethical questions to keep us going till Christmas Eve...The point is that he obligingly raises the more general question of how the unbeliever, the half-believer and the ex-believer should treat the cultural heritage of Christianity, especially at Christmas.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article3065649.ece

This has been a pretty good conversation on here today. However the left could have contirbuted it's 2 cents worth and maybe we could have had something really positve come out of this even more so than what has already been accomplished.

Alas the left is represented by Sheldon and this Johnny J guy. If this is what passes for intellect on the left may God save us. These guys make Cherniak look like an intellectual giant and thats scary.

"Kate-.... It seems your readers sure know a lot about my political views, my education and where I live from my short comment."

* Yes, Sheldon, we at the anti-Sheldon Levin site know all about you!

"In the future I'll try to post only comments which reflect the views of this site."

*Thanks, that would go a long way and help a lot!

"Hopefully I won't strike another nerve by putting my ideas in words."

* Ouch! Got funny-bone elbow! Struck another nerve! Ouch!!!

"Your devoted admirer, Sheldon."

* OK, I made this last bit up.

Yes, that line forms on the right, Kate
Now that Sheldon's -- back in town !!!!

KevinB at 2pm: great quote. Our son's "Winterval" celebration at his public school consists of bland dirges extolling multiculturalism and multifaithism, including what I would loosely describe as "Gaiaism".

Suprisingly, the nativity police are usually not practioners of any mainstream faith. As any Jews, Muslims, or Hindus I have ever met have never mentioned having their faith "damaged" by hearing Christmas Carols in the local mall.

Most nativity police members are white, slightly angry, Canada born liberals with a vague grudge against Christian theology and culture. The "concern" for those of non-Christian faiths acting as a cover for their bigotry.

Kevin B., amen!

"Joes is saying that we only strengthen Islam when we deal in 'fear, loathing and ignorance'. Of ourselves? Of them? Of both?"
Posted by: ET at December 18, 2007 11:36 AM

ET...you usually post great arguments here,but when it comes to Islam and tribalism(which are one and the same in their brutality)you seem to lose it.
Do you know longer recognize satire when it involves your pet project of "reforming" Islam?They can only be "reformed" the same way as the Nazis and Imperial Japan were reformed. And please don't cite Russia.All the commies there and their supporters are now on the AGW bandwagon.Another wonderful commie/socialist one world government scheme.

Lookout~ I think you may have actually struck the one intelligent nerve jayjay had- now it's dead. tsk.

Here is the fable Joe mentioned that started all of this:

http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?1&BellingtheCat&&bellcat2.ram

justthinkin - I disagree.

Tribalism and Islam are not "the same in their brutality".

Tribalism in its basic form is exactly right, as a social, economic and political mode of organization for a no-growth medium size economy/population. The problem now is that the Islamic states have moved into industrialism, and their populations have exponentially increased. BUT - their leaders refused to allow the devt of a middle class and a civic mode of social/economic and political organization. So now, it's a dysfunctional, degenerate tribalism.

Islam was developed as an ideology supporting that original mode of tribalism, BUT, a mode that was at the time (7th c) extremely stressed, economically, by the expansion of the Byzantine settlements into tribal lands.

I think it helps to understand the economic, demographic and political reasons for the emergence of an ideology.

Nazism wasn't reformed. Ever. You can't reform fascism! It either exists or doesn't exist. Same with Islamic fascism (which is not the same as Islam). WWII effectively stopped fascist control of Europe.

Imperial Japan was different from Nazism. Imperial Japan was, like the ME, operating in an ancient tribal mode that was not suitable for a population moving into industrialism. The old guard was fighting to retain this old system. When the old guard lost, the emergence, finally, of a Japanese middle class enabled Japan to rapidly industrialize.

As for Russia, I don't see your point. But, Russia (and China) were in a similar problem; they were politically, economically and socially, operating in a peasant mode - unsuited to industrialism. The only way to rapidly transform a population from one ideology to another (peasant agriculture to industrial) is by force. By revolution.
The West took over 400 years to make this transition, and it was a vicious brutal 400 years.
How to do it in only one generation, 50 years? By even more force and violence - hence the communist revolutions.

Both Russia and China are now moving out of the utopianism of socialism, and into capitalism.

No, AGW is not a 'communist plot' of Russians. Or Chinese. But it most certainly is a socialist or communist ideology. These utopian ideologies will always be around, and we'll always have to fight them.

ET you should try reading the collected works of marx. you will discover that AGW is along with the take over of the education system just part and parcel of the Russian takeover of the planet.

"No, AGW is not a 'communist plot' of Russians. Or Chinese. But it most certainly is a socialist or communist ideology. These utopian ideologies will always be around, and we'll always have to fight them.

Posted by: ET at December 18, 2007 4:39 PM "

In part I agree with what you said.My point is,once the Berlin Wall came down,and Russia started moving towards democracy(although they are slowly sliding back to dictatorship under Putin),the socialists/communists had to hang their hat on some other one-world government,and AGW,thanks to useful idiots like Gore,Suziki,etc.,provided this platform for them.
We will always be fighting some form of one-world government,disguised under the term "Utopia".
As to tribalism vs Islamofascism,I see no difference. Total control no matter what the way.In other words,the "end justifies the means".

ET

You keep forgetting to post me those links that talk about "incursions of Byzantines into tribal lands" being the thrust behind Mohammeds construction of Islam...why is that?

There are large chunks in your knowledge of Islam that are just not right ET no matter how dismissive you are about that. It is a shame because you are incisive and insightful on some things and then it falls apart with factual error. Like I said earlier (and you seemed to agree to ) education about Mohammed and Islam are crucial to understanding, disarming and defeating Islam.

Me No Dhimmi - Thank you for your kind remarks, which I appreciate very much. I altogether respect your intelligence, goodwill, and knowledge.

Re Christianity: you, like many others here whom I respect, and John Mortimer (of Rumpole fame and beyond) appreciate the cultural and societal benefits of Christianity. However, the peace, order, rule of law, concept of equality, and good government of the West did not come at no cost. Think of people like William Wilberforce. (Jesus too!)

I remember exactly where I was when I read Mortimer’s praise of cultural Christianity, which he thinks is a very good thing for a just, well ordered society, while eschewing its substance. My husband and I were in our car on a sunny, snowy day out in the country. I said, “Listen to this,” and read Mortimer’s comments. I was really annoyed. “Freeloader!” I thought—and said!!

Please forgive me if it seems ungracious to bring this up, but, to be honest, to appreciate the fruits of Christianity while, as I said above, eschewing its substance, is a problem for me. (To be sure, much less of a problem than those who deny the centrality of Christianity to the fruits of the West.)

Practically, the large scale turning of our backs on our faith has made us a more selfish, “what my autonomous self wants is what I plan to get” people. It’s also made us both less willing to sacrifice, as well as able to discern what’s worth our sacrifice. We now have a whole set of generations who say, “Hell no. We won’t . . .” ’Won’t do much of anything other than what they see as benefiting themselves. G.K. Chesterton (may God bless him) wrote “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” He’s about right.

This is very bad news, when one considers the religious ardour of our Muslim opponents. As for the West, we’ve pretty well spent our moral capital—the Judeo-Christian dispensation—which has not only meant that we’ve become an increasingly crass and indulgent society, but one that has neither the will nor the guts to fight back. In his book, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis writes, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful.” What a precise—like a scalpel—description of our insipid, morally bankrupt, mult-culti, dumbed down pap of a culture.

MND, you’re certainly not one of the men without chests—by God’s grace (I believe!) and being around when there was considerably more moral capital in the societal bank—but the generations after you, living on the very edges of the civilized world—right here, in Canada, I’m not making this up!—are not so lucky. And, as we slide into barbarism and another dark age, neither are any of us.

(For anyone who thinks paganism beats out Christianity, check out the fine HBO series, “Rome”. The rituals and morals of this age, with its partisanship, immorality, and sudden, arbitrary death, by murder, just around the corner was an eye opener—and horrifying. The no-doubt agnostic makers of the series ADMITTED that it was centuries later that Christianity finally put a stop to the degradation and arbitrary and extreme violence regularly portrayed in the series.)

MND, I’ve said this not to offend, but to point out a sad paradox. Appreciating the fruits of the Judeo-Christian tradition is certainly better than not. However, how does it prop up the very foundation of a society, which now has termites of all kinds? This is a conundrum.

And I think that Joe's idea about Christianity is very fine, but soft-headed. I think we need soft hearts, but very hard heads. Even Jesus angrily threw the money lenders out of the temple.

lookout: Not offended in the slightest and in truth I can't refute your argument. In fact, it's an interior argument than runs though my fevered brain quite a lot of the time. Am I a free-loader? (that's a very good term that appeals to my economic mind!). And believe me I like your muscular Christianity vs. Joe's softheadedness!

In fact, I often wondered about, say, ET's uprbringing. Whether it too was Christian? And whether or not it's possible for her, or me, to disassociate our ethics/morals from that upbringing? Even Richard Dawkins, who apparently likes singing Christmans carols and approves of cultural Christianity.

I've mentioned this before -- and now's a good time to re-mention it -- when I listen to those great Bach masses and oratorios, I can't escape the sense that this highest of high art could not have come to fruition without belief in a higher power which some call God, some, like Vitruvius, call "existence".

Please forgive me if it seems ungracious to bring this up, but, to be honest, to appreciate the fruits of Christianity while, as I said above, eschewing its substance, is a problem for me.

They're followers who, like the Laodiceans, are neither hot nor cold. Merely lukewarm.

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Nazism wasn't reformed. Ever. You can't reform fascism! It either exists or doesn't exist. Same with Islamic fascism (which is not the same as Islam). WWII effectively stopped fascist control of Europe.

Yes it IS!
Women will yet save us from Islam. Muslim and ex-Muslim women!
Two very brave women Wafa Sultan and Ayann Hirsi Ali beg us -- from the heart and from heart-breaking experience -- to not add qualifiers to Islam -- moderate, extreme, policial, militant, fascistic, et al. They tell us that Islam is Islam, pure and simple. The fact that 10s of millions of Muslims are merely cultural muslims who don't know the details of their "religion", or who may not follow all its tenets -- like say lapsed Catholics -- matters not one wit. Islam is Islam. Islam is Fascism.

And as discussed many times before Islamofascists do nothing that is not commanded in the Koran/Hadith/Sira. Nothing.

stopped fascist control of Europe
CRUSHED IT. CRUSHED GERMANY. We didn't try to distinguish moderate Germans from extreme Germans. We crushed Nazism. We destroyed their morale. We made it a dreaded thing for all Germans. We made Germans regret that they ever heard of Nazism. We didn't do this in Iraq. We helped them install sharia law!

A man has been arrested in Kitchener for murdering the 74 year-old man that was delivering Chrisrmas cards. I am not 100% positive about this but from the sketch released and the fact that he has attacked another while yelling anti god sentiments,I think he may be from the 'religion of peace'. His name hasn't been released but don't be surprised if mohammed is one of them, The bastards,time to wake up Canada.

I am neither hot nor cold, Hoss, because I have a moral thermostat. I don't consider existence to be "higher power", MND, it just is. And I appreciate, Lookout, your sense of substance; while I don't subscribe to it, I am in favour of freedom of belief (except in self defense, of course).

My tradition is Judeo-Christian. I went to Catholic high school. There, we took a three year course, three hours a week, that was called Christian Doctrine, but should have been called comparative religion. We studied the histories of all religions.

I think all children should be well versed in comparative religion. Then, when they are adults, they can demarcate their own beliefs based on knowledge, not superstition. I don't subscribe to the diety concept. I do subscribe to many of the common humane traditions of many theologies, in particular Judeo-Christianity. As I've said before, I'm a-deist, not a-theist.

If anyone thinks I'm evil because of my rejection of the deity concept, that's their business (except in self defense, of course). Meanwhile, I will continue to try to live my life according to my understanding of the classic theological notions of good, whether you think I'm evil or not. Your opinion isn't that important to me.

"Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology."
-- Pope Benedict XVI

Further readings are available here: www.iep.utm.edu

Free - marx has nothing to do with AGW.

Blackbird - as I've said before, read the historical analyses of Patricia Crone and her references for the Byzantine incursion into tribal lands.

Lookout, I don't think that Christianity put an end to violence. I'd also suggest that you read works by such as Cicero - and Aristotle, for an understanding of just how rational, and moral, 'the pagans' were.

me no dhimmi - I agree with the magnificence os music - how about both Ave Maria's (Schubert and Bach)...but that doesn't lead me to a conclusion of 'god'. Just 'mind' or 'universal reason'.

And no, I don't agree that Islamic fascism is the same as Islam. Islam, in itself, requires reform and modernization. Islamic fascism must be defeated as must all fascisms.

Lookout. Very insightful post. As usual.

"They can only be "reformed" the same way as the Nazis and Imperial Japan were reformed."

The similarities to Shintoism. Good point, Justthinkin.

ET,

"So now, it's a dysfunctional, degenerate tribalism."

As opposed to a functional, degenerate tribalism, ie. the Uthman caliphate, the Ottoman empire, etc?

"I think it helps to understand the economic, demographic and political reasons for the emergence of an ideology."

Perhaps so. However, the "emergence" does not explain it's economic, patriotic and spiritual strength through the centuries and therefore does not offer anything of value in terms of what to do about it. In other words, so what?

"You can't reform fascism!"

Agreed.

"Same with Islamic fascism (which is not the same as Islam)."

That's a mighty backend statement. Now provide the evidence.

"Imperial Japan was, like the ME, operating in an ancient tribal mode that was not suitable for a population moving into industrialism."

Rubish. Japan was obviously highly industrialized and very advanced at the time. As stated earlier, Shintoism is very similar to Islam, including the use of the suicide bomber.

"When the old guard lost, the emergence, finally, of a Japanese middle class enabled Japan to rapidly industrialize."

How did they lose ET? And who was it that enabled their middle class? The fruits of which were certainly not spontaneous industrialization. They already had that.

"Like I said earlier (and you seemed to agree to ) education about Mohammed and Islam are crucial to understanding, disarming and defeating Islam."

BL@KBIRD has you cornered, ET. You have agreed that it is the ideology, rather than the demographic, economic and sociopolitical environment in which Islam emerged, non-argument you purport. You might also add 'spiritual' to your emergence explanation, for the little it matters.

This has not and is not happening in a petrie dish. Hundreds of millions have been killed directly because of the foundationally violent ideology of Islam.

MND, I can't tell you how relieved I am at your gracious response. I'm not surprised—you “get” my language!—but. . . Bless you, and I know you won't mind my saying that!! Phew . . .

There is no easy way out of this. One cannot legislate belief—God forbid—though our HRCs try. Faith is a gift: by grace, I've had a belief in Jesus all my life, that I've been aware. That is a mystery! Except for knowing my own weakness and need for grace, my Christian faith is far from easy or automatic: daily, I have all kinds of doubts about all kinds of things, and many obligations, which I believe are good for me—others too, I hope. The reality and sacrifice of Jesus is the truth that grounds me.

BTW, as I know you know, my faith does not include the false gospel of NICE. (Beautifully, in C.S. Lewis’s science fiction trilogy, this acronym for an evil utopian community stands for “National Institute of Coordinated Experiments”!)

So what connects us that may be a way forward? I think it is rationalism. And, when I see the state of the body politic in this 21st century, I believe I see far less common sense, knowledge, and thoughtfulness than we did in the West when Christianity had more influence.

Kyrie eleison.

Thank you, irwin daisy. I always appreciate your intelligent, knowledgeable, no-nonsense posts.

ET, I appreciate all kinds of things you say but you niggardliness towards Christianity is unattractive and ungracious in the extreme. E.g., I did not say, "Christianity put an end to violence". Be fair.

irwin daisy said:
Perhaps so. However, the "emergence" does not explain it's economic, patriotic and spiritual strength through the centuries and therefore does not offer anything of value in terms of what to do about it. In other words, so what?

Now there it is! Exactly what I thought after another fruitful exchange about Orientalism with ET but decided not to post out of a fear of appearing disingenuous.

And that I think is the nub of much of the debate on this issue. ET is a natural born scholar who aches to get to the bottom of things. Others are of a more practical bent -- more prosaic -- wanting to know how to deal with a clear and present danger for which a knowledge of ecology, agricultrue and ancient economics will be of no help for the grave task at hand.

ET: Music. Yeah, I know. But somehow I can't see Bach rising to those heights on a universal idea -- without a belief in a real personal God.

MND,

"CRUSHED IT. CRUSHED GERMANY. We didn't try to distinguish moderate Germans from extreme Germans. We crushed Nazism. We destroyed their morale. We made it a dreaded thing for all Germans. We made Germans regret that they ever heard of Nazism."

As Ghengis Khan did to the Muslims. Unfortunately, based on allah sanctified Islamic aggression, it may come to this again. I would rather that than live as a dhimmi. Do you not think that they actually mean, "we value death more than you value life?"

Vitruvius,

"I think all children should be well versed in comparative religion. Then, when they are adults, they can demarcate their own beliefs based on knowledge, not superstition. I don't subscribe to the diety concept. I do subscribe to many of the common humane traditions of many theologies, in particular Judeo-Christianity. As I've said before, I'm a-deist, not a-theist."

I completely agree with straight forward teaching of comparitive religion. But only if the studies are based on textual truth, rather than dualism, obfuscation and ficticious inculcation. For example, Islam does not mean peace.

From USC:

The root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true. Allah says in the Qur'an (translated):

[2:136] Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have surrendered. [Arabic "Muslimoon"]

As well, in Arabic 'Allah' does not mean God. Ilah means God. Allah is the name of the Islamic god. One of a pantheon of 365 traditional Arabic gods. Allah and Yahweh are not the same. Islam is not an Abrahamic faith.

Washington, Franklin, Jefferson were Diests. And from what has been witnessed, very moral characters (other than what was dug up and dated in the basement of Ben's former London 'Hellfire Club' abode, recently).

I, however, am of a gracefully experienced Christian point-of-view.

ET

The wiki notes on Patricia Crone are flagged with a neutrality suspected sign, further more she is a lone heretic among early Islamic historians for proposing the Byzantine incursion farce based on her interpretations alone. Why would you pick her as a source when she so clearly is out on a thin limb all by herself? Why not read the actual original sources instead of a rebel scholar with no backing? If she is your source for Islamic information I urge you to dig a little deeper almost anywhere else. Forgive my harping, I thought you were just being obtuse for your own reasons when the actual cause is poor background information. Did she attract you because she was a rebel female scholar?

lookout:
I may have mentioned this before. Went bolt upright reading F.A. Hayek's observation that religious belief goes well with free market economics for this reason: the market economy is far too complex for any man or committe of men to fully understand and therefore the vanity of central planning is eschewed. In other words the market works in "mysterious ways" as believers are wont to say of their God.

It was -- dare I say it -- an epiphany!

I have a feeling that the societal decay and corruption you cite may have be related to this observaton is some vague way.

ET,

As stated before, that makes two of you. You might acquiesce to the predominate point of view, based as it is on fact.

"The first sign of genius is contradiction." - Oscar Wilde

To be clear, Irwin, while I may be a-deist, I'm not anti-deist. So Frankin et al aren't a problem for me. Moreover, I know that I may be wrong (as MND mentions: too complex for any one...). That's why I try to not use my a-deism as an excuse for bad behaviour (to the best of my ability to figure out just what bad behaviour is). All the classic theology texts have internally conflicting advice on the details of good behaviour; it remains up to individual humans to make up their own minds on how to reconcile those descrepancies.

(PS: Here's Abraham Lincoln on matters of genius &c: "If we take habitual drunkards as a class, their heads and their hearts will bear an advantageous comparison with those of any other class. There seems ever to have been a proneness in the brilliant and warm-blooded to fall in to this vice. The demon of intemperance ever seems to have delighted in sucking the blood of genius and generosity." ;-)

Yes, re "religious belief goes well with free market economics for this reason: the market economy is far too complex for any man or committee of men to fully understand", MND, I think so. Epiphany: what we all need, over and over! (Thanks for that excellent quote and insight.)

Of course, Christians are mere mortals and full of piss, vinegar, and all kinds of other less than edifying things.

But, at base, authentic Christianity obliges us to bow before the One who created us, through love and by sheer grace. (In the light of human suffering and a whole lot of other anomalies, THAT is surely a mystery.)

As you imply, central planning is altogether blasphemy: arrogance and reductionism of the most crass kind.

Ah, so you can see where my problem is, Lookout. I believe that existence always was and always will be, ergo, there is no creation-event in my model. Nevertheless, I don't see how that metaphysical belief affects my moral model. After studing the options and my context, I find myself in favour of a moral model that is similar to yours and most of the other SDA regulars. That's one of the reasons we gather here, and put up with and even enjoy the squabbles between the libertarians and the puritans ;-)

Bless you, Vitruvius! (I really enjoy and respect your posts.) Yes, we share far more than we don't.

You say, "I don't see how that metaphysical belief affects my moral model. After studying the options and my context, I find myself in favour of a moral model that is similar to yours and most of the other SDA regulars". And, with sincere, due respect, where do you think that comes from? (It didn't rise, fully formed, from the head of some mythical goddess.) You say that you grew up and were educated as a Catholic.

Vitruvius, have you been in any public school classrooms lately? They're all under the anti-Christian dispensation. They're not very nice places to be. Among a multitude of other indignities and utter abuse, teachers can be, and are, lied about by the lowest common denominator and then can be, and are, banished, no due process. Really.

The kind of morals you seem to think are intrinsic, most definitely are not. Selfishness is easy and ingrained—I know, and try to resist it. Altruism is difficult: it needs to be taught, modelled (saints of all kinds are good for this), and reinforced. Secularism is a very poor teacher in this regard.

I head out tomorrow to a class with vipers. I'll have to watch my back. Part of my strategy is to be very up front: don't give them space to strike.

Kyrie eleison. Who ever thought it would come to this? Hmmm . . . Christians like G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Eliot, and C. S. Lewis. Where and who are such prophets today? (For one, Pope Benedict, I think.)

I think, Lookout, that the moral model I (we?) refer to comes from tens of thousands of years of human beings experimenting with various systems and methodologies of interaction, of which I think that, at least since the reformation and enlightenment, the Judeo-Christian model reflects the best-available practices based on a broad assesment of actual results (with due deference to various useful results from other theological formulations).

If you'll allow me to pick a semanitc nit, I don't think selfishess is a problem, indeed I think selfishness is the definition of life (but that's a separate essay). The problem, I think, is greed. Note that selfishness is not included in the list of seven deadly sins; greed is.

Thus we have the following results. At SDA, the prevailing moral opinion is (1) what's mine is mine, and (2) I should be generous with what's mine. That's selfish but good. On the other hand, our opposition holds that (1) what's yours is the collective's, and (2) the collective should decide what to do with what's yours. That's greedy and bad.

Pope John Paul II said, "The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism."

Now consider the following parallelism: The fundamental error of Islamism is anthropological in nature. Islamism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the theological organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the theological mechanism."

Vitruvius,

Agreed. Curiosity - or the individual's responsibility to search for an answer - unless, of course, they've not realized the question.

And a very good quote from Lincoln. Although, Churchill might've objected.

A thought: What inspired Mohammad is absolute genius.
To make immorality moral by holy writ, based on god's commands (a god only witnessed by one illiterate individual); who arbitrarily and singularly enjoined his belief to the dominate Judeo/Christian belief - In fact, making himself and his construct an evolution of the former and the "seal," is preposterous.

The moral of the story is quite a mystery, in and of itself.

Today we suffer from what some have called the "desacredization" of life.

Science is wonderful. It is good. It is enormously beneficial. It has also reshaped some of the fundamental ways in which life and life's value is perceived.

In Huston Smith's interesting book, Why Religion Matters, he traces a few concrete themes that are developments out of traditional, modern, and postmodern perceptions and descriptions of science:

1. In the traditional, religious view spirit is fundamental and matter derivative... Matter obtrudes in the sea of spirit only occasionally, like icebergs. The scientific world view turns this picture on its head. ...

2. In the religious world view [traditional and religious being used interchangeably] human beings are the less who are derived from the more.
Trailing clouds of glory, they carry within themselves traces of their noble origins. They are creatures of their creator, or (stated philosophically) emanations from the One that contains every perfection. ... Science reverses this etiology, positioning humanity as the more that has derived from the less. From a universe that was devoid of sentience at its start, life eventually emerged, and from its simplest form has advanced to the elevated stature that we human beings now enjoy. Nothing in science's universe is more intelligent than we are.

3. The traditional world view points toward a happy ending; the scientific world view does not.

Later on he mentions a couple of other specific points.

After making a big distinction between science and scientism, he says, "Scientism adds to science two corollaries, first that the scientific method is if not the only reliable method of getting a truth, then at least the most reliable method; and second, that the things that science deals with -- material entities -- are the most fundamental things that exist. These two corollaries are seldom voiced, for once they are brought to attention it is not difficult to see that they are arbitrary. Unsupported by facts, they are at best philosophical assumptions, and at worst merely opinions."

Our world view has been completely reoriented simply because science has been enormously successful at what it does. If Kirk and Spock beamed down to a planet and cured disease with penicillin that the witch doctors couldn't help with, the people would instantly want to worship Kirk and Spock's god.

Naturally they should have said thank you very much -- you have wonderful modalities for curing disease, but theologically our views have been constructed over millennia, and your effectiveness does not influence that.

The 'desacredization' of life.

One way that the traditionalists address this problem is as follows.

Human beings have the capapcity to fathom cosmic principles that exist in the universe.

Some human beings have the capacity to fathom higher and deeper levels of these principles than others. Therefore this is considered to be a hierarchical arrangement.

Those seers that cognize cosmic principles then attempt to explain this to society. And society then attempts to base culture on this high apprehension of cosmic principles.

So what happens when society gets to a place where it not only dismisses the seers, but it also doesn't even believe that cosmic principles exist?

You wind up in the world we live in today. A materialistic universe in which scientism and other forces have deconstructed the whole basis for the Traditionalist view of the universe. Relativistic epistemology then is the only relevant point of view that anyone can see. There is no cosmic principle. There is no heaven, there is no Nirvana, there is no Jesus, and whatever values you personally hold are separated from the realm of important fact which can only be validated from the point of view of the scientifc method.

'Not a lot I disagree with here, Vitruvius.

You say, ". . . the moral model I (we?) refer to comes from tens of thousands of years of human beings experimenting with various systems and methodologies of interaction, of which I think that, at least since the reformation and enlightenment, the Judeo-Christian model reflects the best-available practices based on a broad assessment of actual results".

It’s just that our society no longer believes this and the results are not encouraging.

(MND admits his conundrum here. Don’t you think that the secularization of our society is having a seriously deleterious effect? With due respect, I believe what you’re saying has traces of the dreadful theology of a childhood hymn we used to sing: “You in your small corner and I in mine.”)

I appreciate the parallel you draw between socialism and Islamism. But I fear that the West, with no strong moral base, is a sitting duck for all kinds of dhimmitude.

BTW, we’re already being dhimmied by our own PC overlords. We’re ripe for the picking.

Kyrie eleison.

ET

OUCH!!! Looking up more info on Patricia Crone. She doesn't think Mohammed lived at all. She says it was Jews calling their belief "Hagarism" who allied with Arabs to rescue the holy lands from the hands of the Byzantines!

Gentle scholars describe her belief as highly CONTROVERSIAL. Seems you are following a fruit cake ET for your knowledge of Islam.

Hagarenes and Jews invented Islam....(proto zionistas?)

Please don't quote her here anymore ET.

The 'desacredization' of life?

Summed up in the phrase: "To Hell with it."

But just when you reach a little bit 'beyond hope', you encounter the Divine.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Indeed, Irwin, Samuel Johnson said, "Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect," and Albert Einstein said, "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning".

Yet I doubt Churchill would have disagreed with Lincoln on that matter, after all Sir Winston did say "Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me". Of course he also said, "Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement".

On the matter of Mohammad's genius, I doubt that the texts are literally interpretable, therefore I think that any such genius is rather in the hands of the Machiavellian power-mongers who purport to interpret and enforce whatever happens to remain recorded of whatever translations have been made of whatever it was he actually originally said, assuming he actually existed.

And a quick note, Greg, wise scientists do not believe in scientism any more than wise humans believe in any form of ideological utopianism. The cosmos have principles ex vi termini, even if they're just the minimalist existence principles I prefer (or not). The study of those principles in detail is called, ta da: theology, which the Greeks originally refereed to as θεολογια, with the meaning: discourse on the gods and cosmology.

Stitched that up nicely, didn't I ;-)

"Stitched that up nicely, didn't I ;-)"

Yes, Vitruvius it's those cosmic tears in one's ontological Zeppelins that rip you up every time! :)

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Fortunately, Hans, I've got an axiological parachute.

Vitruvius: So you are a-deist? And all this time I thought you were a deist, which I gather is one who believes in God but a disinterested, non-interventionist one (I had to look it up). Right?

By the canonical definitions you note, MND, I'm a-deist, not a deist. But I may be wrong.

Sorry, I get carried away. For the record (from Wikipedia, yeah, yeah), "axiology, from the Greek axios (άξιος, value, worth), is the study of value or quality. It is often thought to include ethics and aesthetics -- philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value -- and sometimes it is held to lay the groundwork for these fields, and thus to be similar to value theory and meta-ethics".

Now we've been doin' a lot'a discoursing on ethics here in this thread, and we've branched into metaphysics, epistemology, reason, morals, &c. Yet I wonder how many people have recently reviewed just what Ethics and Morals mean. Here's a review from the introduction at www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm

"The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

"Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.

"Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.

"Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry."

So you can see how people can have largely similar moral models while still disagreeing on occasional meta, normative, or applied ethics. Remember: without semantics there is no communication.

'I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement".

As Nero alluded to, but had the prescience of mind to blame it on the Christians.

"I doubt that the texts are literally interpretable."

They're not. In fact, many (non-Islamic) scholars say that every fifth verse of the Quran is unintelligible. More importantly, the Quran is bereft of context without the Hadith. In fact, shariah and the five pillars, don't exist without the Sira and Hadith.

You lost me on your 11:46 PM post, Vitruvius. "language sets the bounderies of our world," Somebody said.

"Sleep sets the rest," I say. Adios.

One's language sets some boundaries on one's world.

Except, of course, when one is asleep. G'night Irwin.

And I should probably cash in my chips too.

Thanks, as always, for putting up with us Kate.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

There is hope for a internal review of the Koran. It was complied approx. 20 years after the death of the prophet by a committee made up of people who knew him or related to him. They collected oral and written copies of his passages and tried to assess which were the “correct” ones. Needless to say current issues of the times likely played a part in the selection. Also from my limited understanding Arabic is not a literal language, more poetic and metaphoric. Already there are many translations that differ, with some version more liberal than the others. Even those most Muslim are required to be able to recite the Koran in Arabic, they have little understanding of the nuances of the language and is more learning by rote than understanding. Given the above, under the correct conditions, the moderates within the religion have the tools to redirect the path of Islam, presently trying to do so will get you and your family very dead.