“My topic this evening is Europe and Islam”

Religion Of Submission 107 Comments

This is the only link you’ll be getting from me today – The 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, by Bernard Lewis.

Again, Europe counterattacked, this time more successfully and more rapidly. They succeeded in recovering Russia and the Balkan Peninsula, and in advancing further into the Islamic lands, chasing their former rulers whence they had come. For this phase of European counterattack, a new term was invented: imperialism. When the peoples of Asia and Africa invaded Europe, this was not imperialism. When Europe attacked Asia and Africa, it was.
This European counterattack began a new phase which brought the European attack into the very heart of the Middle East. In our own time, we have seen the end of the resulting domination.
Osama bin Laden, in some very interesting proclamations and declarations, has this to say about the war in Afghanistan which, you will remember, led to the defeat and retreat of the Red Army and the collapse of the Soviet Union. We tend to see that as a Western victory, more specifically an American victory, in the Cold War against the Soviets. For Osama bin Laden, it was nothing of the kind. It is a Muslim victory in a jihad. If one looks at what happened in Afghanistan and what followed, this is, I think one must say, a not implausible interpretation.
As Osama bin Laden saw it, Islam had reached the ultimate humiliation in this long struggle after World War I, when the last of the great Muslim empires–the Ottoman Empire–was broken up and most of its territories divided between the victorious allies; when the caliphate was suppressed and abolished, and the last caliph driven into exile. This seemed to be the lowest point in Muslim history. From there they went upwards.
In his perception, the millennial struggle between the true believers and the unbelievers had gone through successive phases, in which the latter were led by the various imperial European powers that had succeeded the Romans in the leadership of the world of the infidels–the Christian Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the British and French and Russian empires. In this final phase, he says, the world of the infidels was divided and disputed between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In his perception, the Muslims have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be an easy matter.

I chose that exerpt, but it is by no means the most important passage.
Now, a personal note to a particular segment of the readership here:
My logfiles inform me that a large number of media and those involved formally in Canadian politics visit this site. I am fully aware that some of you have perceptions of SDA best described as “sneering dismissiveness”.
I don’t really care about that.
What I do care about is that you read the link from beginning to end.
And that in the future, as you are preparing to direct that well practiced sneer and cleverly worded dismissiveness towards those policy makers with whom you have ideological differences – policy makers, who in many cases, have long understood the grave challenges facing the “secular values” that you so loudly purport to defend – that you first think long, and think hard, about just whose interests you are preparing to undermine.

Here is another more recent example of multiculturalism. On October 8, 2002–I insist on giving the date because you may want to look it up–the then French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who I am told is a staunch Roman Catholic, was making a speech in the French National Assembly and talking about the situation in Iraq. Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he remarked that one of Saddam Hussein’s heroes was his compatriot Saladin, who came from the same Iraqi town of Tikrit. In case the members of the Assembly were not aware of Saladin’s identity, M. Raffarin explained to them that it was he who was able “to defeat the Crusaders and liberate Jerusalem.” Yes. When a French prime minister describes Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem from the largely French Crusaders as an act of liberation, this would seem to indicate a rather extreme case of realignment of loyalties.
I was told this, and I didn’t believe it. So I checked it in the parliamentary record. When M. Raffarin used the word “liberate,” a member–the name was not given–called out, “Libérer?” He just went straight on. That was the only interruption, and as far as I was aware there was no comment afterwards.

I’ll be back tomorrow.

107 Replies to ““My topic this evening is Europe and Islam””

  1. Doug, I’m not sure I would have put it exactly the way you have, but I am in agreement with you.
    I think it’s good that people with the educational background to be of service help illuminate our perspective. However, I think that today action is what is required.
    I think extreme limitations on immigration are very important for both our countries.
    Some of the reasons people are not having children in the West like they once did are the diminishment of the quality of life, the cognitive dissonance created by too many voices, and the heavy hand of taxation and regulation from government.
    Maybe if we had a clear identity unconfused by multiculturalism, a safe and secure possibility because of robust militaries, and governments that would not overstep their bounds, people would have a better reason to raise larger families.
    ol hoss, I’m content to reject the religions that are presently trying to kill us.

  2. Thanks for posting this on my birthday. I will read the lecture, being that I am:
    a) Very concerned about radical Islam;
    b) Just finished America Alone by Mark Steyn
    c) Read Atlas Shrugs daily, and…
    d) Have your blog also on my personalized Google home page.
    Keep up the sorties – you ARE a great Canadian Kate!!!

  3. “We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly.”
    Correct. Give the man a cigar

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

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

  8. I’m just bloody thrilled to read every post, following the reading of the link. Good on you Kate for opening the doors to discussion of that which threatens the lives of our children and grandchildren and even threatens the very existence of Canada itself.
    For the record: Islam is not a religion, it is an evil death cult that seeks to kill or enslave every human on earth.
    Nasty beasts.
    Thank God we’ve currently go PMSH at the helm.
    Pat

  10. My point about a parastic economy is that it always requires a host economy. Islam has, not once in its entire history, invented any new technology. As irwin daisy points out, it borrows, transcribes and copies, but it doesn’t innovate.
    I disagree with irwin daisy when he states that ‘creation is something the arab mind is quite incapable of’. There’s no such thing, biologically or even psychologically, as an Arab mind. There IS an Islamic ideology, however, and creation is completely rejected in that ideology.
    An organism that cannot innovate or adapt but must live off other organisms that can – becomes dependent on this more capable organism. A parasitic organism/society (Islam) will try to bond the Host society to it, and thus actually enslave the Host society. That’s ‘dhimmitude’. But, the Host society must retain its innovative capacities – otherwise, both the Host and Parasite die.
    My point is that the West must stop political correctness, multiculturalism and so on, and insist on a civic society, ie, a secular society.
    Me No Dhimmi – I disagree completely with both your view of Israel-Palestine. I stand by my claim that that situation is based on Israeli rejection of compensation, rejection of Palestinian nationhood, the occupation and the illegal settlements. I also reject your opinion of myself!
    ol hoss – religions are ‘man-made’. I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe in god; a religion is an ideological system developed by humans. I’ve explained my view of how Christianity and Islam emerged.
    I don’t believe that a nuclear attack as suggested by Doug is the answer. That won’t deal with the problem of Islamic fascism, which is rooted in tribalism in the ME. The answer is democracy in the ME and a complete rejection of multiculturalism in the West, an insistence on assimilation and collaboration, an insistence on a civic society for all, with no identity groups or systems.
    The Islamic ideology cannot become dominant in our world because it is economically and scientifically dysfunctional – ie – useless. It can’t operate an industrial world; it can’t innovate; it can’t develop new technologies; it can’t support even our current global population.

  11. valster, you say “…religion has had its chance and has failed many times over.” Well, no. That’s not true.
    Most people who have either rejected religion or are in the process of rejecting it have never practised a religion. Most people I know who castigate Christianity and say it’s past its sell-by date, have never been practising Christians. They’ve rejected it out of hand, without having tried it.
    So who’s to be found wanting: faith/religion or those who refuse to get involved?
    This attitude reminds me of my kids when they were small and would refuse to eat a certain food because “I don’t like it,” when they hadn’t even tried it. It’s OK for little kids to be illogical like this, but it’s a great disappointment when supposedly intelligent adults indulge in this kind of illogic.

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

  14. ET: I have a high opinion of you “yourself”. I just feel that you have a poor understanding of this conflict.
    In Islam when territory becomes part of dar al Islam it must remain so for all time. They (or at least the elites) have never wanted a side-by-side state — that is now proven to all but the most wilfully blind. You are forgiven for once believing in “land for peace” like the “great man” himself, Bernard Lewis. But if are truly a scientist you must also believe the empiricial evidence, which is “land for jihad” (Lebanon 2000, Gaza 2005).
    What they want is a unitary state with, at the very best, Jews as jizya-paying dhimmis.
    I will also strongly state once again that the new PA textbooks teach children that it is a religious duty to desire the destruction of Israel.
    What would that religion be? Scientology?
    You’re right on an awful lot of stuff. Dead wrong on this issue.
    Suggestion: try reading some of Richard Landes’ “Fiskings” at Augean Stables. He’s got a lovely one up now on the brilliant money man Soros who alas is a moron on this subject.

  15. “some people here want to keep Islam out….fine …throw all the rest of the religions out too”
    A non-sequitur based on moral equivalence, having no basis in logic, reality or history.
    You should take your own advice and “do a little “logical” research of your own,” before involving the rest of us in witnessing your spectacle of ignorance on this thread.

  16. mnd,
    you are correct that is strict interpretations of Islam that once Mulsim land then always Muslim land….but that applies to half od Spain and all the way up to Vienna. And yes thats what the radicals, like OBL want to recreate.
    However, the israeli palestinian issue viewed through the prism of Islam doesnt yield a clear view. You could get rid of Islam tomorrow and Palestinians would still be wanting land back and you could get rid of Israel tomorrow and radical Islam wouldnt lose any of its fervour, they’ll just move on to the next excuse, just like US troops leaving the holy land (Saudi) didnt stop the fervour…
    Lewis is right in pointing out that the west and Europe in particular need to recognize the issue they face. A little belief in their own institutions and values will lead them to make the right decisions.
    There is some ugly stuff coming. Speaking with friends in Italy they speak that many many of their friends refer to themselves as Fascists. In their sense theymean Italian nationalists and they are anti immigrant. There will be a resurgence of European nationalism, but it will be outwardly directed not internal European dircetced.
    I dont advocate it but I do tink there will be mass expulsions from Europe before 2020.

  17. valster, I believe that you’re quite incorrect when you say, “but religion has had its chance and has failed many times over”. What “religion” would that be?
    The Judeo-Christian dispensation–though far from perfect (nothing to do with humans ever has been)–has bequeathed untold riches of thought, infrastructure–health, education, rule of law–and action to countries all over the world, not to mention, the tangible good being done, as I type, by Christian relief agencies, which can be found, in profusion–again–all over the world.
    Secular doctrines, such as communism in the 20th century, have not only caused untold suffering, including the murder of millions of innocent people and the desecration of natural resources, but have also been short lived. What good have such doctrines passed on?
    Compare this with 2000 years of ACTION in the intellectual, spiritual, medical, educational, and legal life of Western society, as well as the legacy of freedom and justice which remains. (For how long, though, as the secular state, via the jackboots of its Human Rights [sic] Commissions and permissive courts, spends the West’s Judeo-Christian moral capital–apparently, with your misdirected and short-sighted approval?)
    (Re the Judeo-Christain legacy in the West: I just saw Amazing Grace–not a great movie, but Wilberforce, a committed Christian, was a great man, as was John Newton.)
    valster, are you the product of the Canadian public education system of the past few decades? I’ve seen the textbooks: short on facts and very l—o—n—g on blatant propaganda. I suggest you read the Dennis Prager article, the link of which is provided above.
    I also suggest that you park your prejudices somewhere, assimilate a few more facts, and broaden your horizons.
    All the best.

  18. ol hoss – religions are ‘man-made’.
    Yes, they are. Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s reality. But, as reality eludes leftists, so it also eludes those who live by their own imperfect reasoning.
    To paraphrase Isaiah 32:8, the liberal devises liberal things, and by liberal things shall he stand. I would add, “or fall”.

  19. …when people begin thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what is “good” , then we might see some beneficial results for life in general…..
    Ah, you want a new religion based on what is “good”. Your definition of “good”, anyway.

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

  21. Thanks, Jeannette.
    I’d say, though, that Western “culture”–good word–has all the “characteristics and accomplishments” it has because they’re inherent in the faiths which “begat” Western culture.
    The chicken and egg question? The religion came first. The cultural benefits came after.
    And, right back to the problems the West is now facing: if we’re unable to understand, be proud of, and protect our cultural heritage–based on two great faiths–we’re gonners.
    We need to smarten up–soon.

  22. The discussion still sticks on the point that is often made that Islam is a Religion and as such is taboo to attack. It is not a religion, it is primarily a manifesto for the subjication of the worlds population and the enslavement of all those it does not kill.
    Enslavement is either the formal enslavement or the Conversion by Conquest mode. Either way, enslavement is the result.
    Why this grotesque evil is not recognized for what it is, is beyond me and I guess that brings about the obvious question.
    How do we get the information out, nationally, and internationally, about what we are dealing with?
    The split second these evil creatures get a nuclear bomb they will have hoardes of the “I love death” goon squad lined up for the honour of killing thousands of innocent men, women and children.
    I read a piece last week that the radicals in Islam are our friends. At first I was taken aback but when I read further I understood. The radicals are the ones that think that the Islamist movement is evil. Mohammid would approve of the bombing of children and the beheading of school girls. Only the radicals oppose it.
    Any great ideas on how to spread the word?

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

  24. What a great thread, thanks Kate for providing what never occurs within the MSM, the best minds converging on a subject. And MSM folks, if you are just passing through, notice that you aren’t one of them.
    I’m at a loss of anything to say that hasn’t already been said except that our biggest enemy outside of the obvious are the lefty slobs that insidiously want us all leveled to slave status because of their own self-loathing attitudes.

  27. WOW !! I read Kate’s post twice. Also read all the comments, carefuly . Twice.
    In decades, I have NEVER, EVER seen anything as enlightening as this come out of the major Canadian media. Never.
    Seems that there are many kinds parasites in the world. Parasites can be the most persistant, dishonest, innovative, biased, host-destroying, economy destroying forms of life.
    Mostly, parasites will get away with whatever the host allows.
    Parasites are tenatious because they have no choice. They cannot make it on their own and so will fight to the end using every tactic they can think of. Even scams. Even docu-dramas. And cults.
    Perhaps it is the slack-assed host that is the real problem.

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

  30. valster, it was 12 hours ago that I responded to what I consider your really ignorant and insulting comment about religion. I took some time and effort to write my post. Are you there?
    Your comment about religion was provocative in the extreme: I’m sure that was your purpose. I don’t think it’s polite of you to cut and run.
    I agree with everyone else here who’s disgusted by the complacency and willful ignorance of far too many Westerners, largely of the “gliberal” persuasion, who mock their own cultural heritage, as oppressive and parochial while–astonishingly–kowtowing to a primitive faith system which makes our shortcomings look like virtues! What idiots!
    I’ve even got friends in that category: one, a conservationist, Green party, pro-abortion feminist–who’ll have nothing to do with my suggestion that the two positions are somewhat contradictory–who considers herself the soul of compassion, says “So what!” when I suggest that the present demographic situation in the West could well mean burqas for our granddaughters. “So what!” Now, isn’t that altruistic? Altogether contradictory and ignorant as well! All her most cherished ideals, including “choice” for women will be obliterated under a Muslim dispensation. But, no, she says, most Muslims are fine people and sharia will not happen. Proof? Hey, liberals don’t need such triflings. When I point out that it doesn’t take a whole lot of fanatics to deep six our freedoms and way of life, she just sniffs.
    Then we drop it. It’s sometimes hard to be friends with someone who refuses to entertain facts: I’ve often been ready to forward threads from here but realize that seeds of truth can’t bloom in the stony ground of a closed mind. And isn’t it the height of irony that lefties pride thwemselves on their “tolerance” while looking down their noses–always–at us “backward, kneejerk” rednecks. This smug and very dangerous leftie mindset disgusts me.
    Thank God for Kate and others like her!

  31. “as you are preparing to direct that well practiced sneer and cleverly worded dismissiveness towards those policy makers with whom you have ideological differences”
    As if that doesn’t happen here every day, by both the host and guests. Sigh.

  32. I think it’s fairly obvious that the lefties aren’t any help at all in our war on Islam, and it’s high time we took decisive action and to hell with their bellyaching. Because of where the pendulum rests in the partisan political climate, Canada is in a great position to take the lead in this area, especially if Stephen Harper can pull off a parliamentary majority.
    Michelle Malkin made a compelling case for Japanese internment in WWII, and it’s high time we did the same with Muslims for the duration of this war. We have no idea where their loyalties lie, and we can’t take chances. It would be a great educational opportunity too – not just an internment, but also an internship. We all know they will never be real Canadians, but at least we can teach them to be good global citizens. This will never happen in the U.S. with the rats in power, nor in Europe which is already too far gone. We have to set an example for the world.

  33. As someone else said, the anti globalization left makes common cause with the Islamists. Suicide bombers arent condemed because they are seen as just very committed to the same cause, so no questions about tactics because the goals are shared.
    The media is trying to see itself as neutral…which drives them to “see the other side” no matter how unreasonable it is, giving the illusion of fair debate between equally legitimate sides of a question. I dont want the media to be propganda arms of any government but I do expect them to use their god given critical faculties to evaluate and legitimately criticize suicide bombers, oppressive cultures etc etc. There was no issue doing that to the existing structure in North America and Europe in the last 30 years so why would one take a step backward and not use those same thoughts when evaluating the Islamists.
    Your heritage and your rights disappear if you let it.
    While the niqab controversy in Quebec is overblown there is a legitimate question….when is the requirement for identification satisfied.
    Western society has a history of female head coverings but not face coverings (except for wedding day, which used to be a religous ceremony)
    And in fact, Western civilization has always associated a covered face with deception and violence (terroritst, IRA, bank robber etc etc)
    The underlying issue is legitimate identification, to ensure no fraud and legitimacy of the system, the symptom is a clash of cultural values on the covering of a face.
    Honestly, I dont see why the face has to be covered, and this isnt saudi….so uncover your face so it can be matched to your Passport. If I wore a ski mask to vote they would ask me to take it off, same issue. And no it is not up to the government to supply an apprpropriate number of females to view. Dont like it, dont vote its your choice…..darn it choice, thats another Western value isnt it?

  34. “The authenticity of these prophetic letters is doubted, but the message is clear and authentic in the sense that it does represent the long dominant view of the Islamic world.”
    In other words, Lewis is pulling a Dan Rather “fake but accurate” routine.

  35. Lewis isnt the one using them necessarily….he is pointing to them becasue there are those within Islam who use them, Lewis is pointing out that their authenticity is under some doubt but still being used nonetheless.
    Rather was making up evidence to prove a point. Lewis is pointing to evidence that others use.
    It would be the equivalent of saying
    “There are those on the left in the United States who point to the contradictions in GWB’s life prior to being president. In particular his willingness to committ the US miliarily. Many on the left questin Bush’s military service, even those these documents were shown to inathentic, Iraq war opponents pointed to documents that highlighted Bush’s incomplete National Guard service as evidence of this contradiction.
    While the documents were false their use highlights the strain of oppsosition that GWB faced.”
    So I dont think Lewis was using the documents out of context, only using them to point to strains of Islam that are more radical and may be based on false documentation

  36. lookout…read “The End Of Faith” by Sam Harris……P.S. and I’m NOT a “leftie”……(but not a religious rightie either)

  37. Feeling embarrassed by my earlier off-topic comments, I re-read the speech (I had read it before this thread and had therefore not read it before my comments).
    It is excellent in many aspects, but I maintain that if you re-read the last couple pages very carefully you will see that he is retailing an infamous trope in referring to Islamic “tolerance” and comparing it to the lack of “tolerance” in modern western nations as per his Muslim friend who complained about our not accepting polygamy while they accepted our monogamy — without comment.
    Bat Ye’or suggests extreme caution about even using the word “tolerance” because in this context it is utterly meaningless. As she points out western islam apologists often refer to islamic “tolerance” of minorities while failing to point out that they were originally massive majorities which were whittled down to near zero through Islamic “tolerance”.
    That is the fatal error (I hope error) of Bernard Lewis. And note also that the speech is utterly bereft of solutions to our out of control Muslim immigration AND foreign Wahhabi financing of political subversion in western countries.
    I will repeat my earlier assertion: he is a demi-apologist. I just don’t trust him.

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

  39. Valster,
    Bigotry, pedophilia, thievery, mass-murder, slavery, deception, war, political supremacy and imperialism are foundational to the Quran and Mohammad’s life example.
    Regardless of what men have done in Christ’s name, these acts are not commanded, condoned or foundational to the NT, or Christ’s life example. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.
    If you were informed, you’d know your equivalency argument is the playground of fools, idiots and cowards. Otherwise known as the left.

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

  41. Jeanette,
    It has been posited that the reason there hasn’t been another strike on US soil is because Mecca is targeted.
    If Mecca was annihilated, all mosques would be un-oriented, one of the five pillars of their faith would be forever gone, not to mention the birthplace of their so-called religion.
    The larger result would be absolute confusion in the Islamic world. Then anger. Then?
    Those in glass houses.
    Apart from that – the end of immigration from Islamic countries, hate crime laws specifically targeting Muslims, the monitoring and closing down of extremist mosques and schools, the deportation of extremist imams and islamists, the end of Saudi funding of wahhabiist education, the migratory and economic containment of Islamic dominated countries, and finally finding and developing an alternate fuel source.
    None of this is impossible, However, sadly, it will probably take another major attack in NA to create this kind of change.

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

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

  45. lookout….read Harris yet?…When you’re done try “Farewell to God” by Charles Templeton

  46. Valster, Irwin Daisy is correctin his comments.
    And as for Sam Harris and his tome?
    Well, *Islamonline*, the radical Muslim website, actually featured him and did a review of his work.
    The proleme with Sam Harris is that most of his anti-religious invective is reserved for Christians. Seeing that, radical Muslims have more or less embraced the guy and are using his writings, namely his frequent denunciations of Christianity, to further the casue of Islam and wahabbism.
    If Islam could be compared to 19th century missionaries in Africa, Sam Harris is the local guide, wielding the machete and clearing a jungle path so that the colonisers have better access.
    Or again, think of a schoolboy erasing the blackboard, but only so that newly arrived theocrats can re-write the religious script on a blank slate.
    Islam loves western secularists because they clear the ground for the erection of a sharia legal system, and secularists do so by presenting our traditional Judeo-Christian world-view as old, retrograde and repressive.
    No sooner is the void created than it is filled by Islam.

  47. One more thing, Valster. I wrote a polite and thoughtful letter to Mr Harris, explained in the clearest and most concise language the mechanics of this process, and even provided links to several concrete examples to prove my point.
    And I’ve yet to hear BOO from this courageous defender of secularism…..
    The more secularism is pushed and promoted, the faster radical Islam rushes in occupy the abandonned religious terrain.

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

  50. Sam Harris on the basis of his book:
    “According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen—the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves—socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency…”
    Assumption and conjecture cannot build an argument in a court of law, or anywhere else for that matter. Not to mention his tirade as being selectively focused, disregarding the other proven factually dangerous religious and political ideologies. The proper definition for that is bigotry. Was he buggered by a priest?
    It is actually far more factual to rely on what the commandments are in the Bible to figure out what Christians think, rather than blind assumptions. Ie: Love thy neighbour as thyself. Any true Christian is not looking forward to their neighbour and countrymen being annihilated. That would be against Christ’s commandment, wouldn’t it? Furthermore, based on historical fact, I imagine a Christian is the least likely to create this “fireball” he conjures up.
    On the other hand, I’ve known more than a few ecofreaks, anarchists, raving socialists and communists in my time who would want nothing better than thermo-nuclear war, cosmic disaster, or natural disaster to end half the life on this planet.
    And on the other-other hand, Islamists will continue to plan ongoing disasters and mass murder in order to bring the rest of the world (dar el Harb) into submission (dar el Islam), as commanded in the Quran and by Mohammads life example. Afterall, the Kaffr is only worth 1/10th and happens to be the son of monkeys and pigs.
    If this is the basis of your moral equivalence ‘theory’ you are as shallow and simple-minded as the author, who has an obvious axe to grind.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation