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.
Thank you daisy… your rant has more than justified the reason why there is and always should be a distinct separation between church and state in western society.
Thanks, irwin daisy and John P. for your reasonable and well reasoned rebuttals to valster’s meanderings.
Rather than bother to respond to the case I made, this person says I should read a book: on what authority? And, from what I’ve learned about this Harris fellow’s sophistry, he’d be the last person to persuade me. E.g., His apparent definition of a Christian describes a person I’ve never met, despite a lifetime of chuch going. (It would be akin to suggesting that Michael Jackson is a typical African American.)
valster needs to persuasively–that would include intelligently–ARGUE his/her case, rather than merely assert it, which just doesn’t cut it. (How about specifically referencing and responding to what I actually said?)
I too share your fear of Islam….but I also have a great deal of concern with the religious right…especially when it refuses to follow some of the religious doctrine it preaches….love thy neighbor …I’m sorry I’m not up to your debating standards but I am willing to read opposing views…you should try it….If you can’t stomach Harris, try Templeton’s Farewell to God….He was once the second most popular evangalist in North America…with no ax to grind
valster, I appreciate your moderate tone. And I agree that it’s a concern when “the religious right”–all of them?–fails to love “its” neighbour. However, I’ve been treated with a serious lack of loving behaviour by the “religious–just about anything goes–left”. I actually now belong to another denomination.
I honestly think your worries about “the religious right” are seriously out of proportion and based on stereotypes and prejudice. Whatever the failings of this group, I don’t believe they’re more egregious than those of most other religionists: e.g., except for a minuscule number of generally deranged individuals, who kill abortionists–and their actions are altogether rejected by the community–they don’t tend to brutally murder people all over the world with whom they disagree. In fact, you’ll find that many orthodox Christians are out and about around the world serving others, often at great personal sacrifice.
Re entertaining opposing opinions: I’m an expert. The CBC, Globe and Mail and most of the MSM have bombarded me for DECADES with their parochial, bigoted, and one-sided views on topics of concern to me. I have no respect for their preening, propaganda, and put downs. And I’m afraid I can’t read a book every time I participate in a thread.
Have a good day.
No need to fear Islam if we had stuck to principle and not appeased evil as when Secretary Wineberger canceled Reagan*s order to hit Hizballah for the killing of 241 Marine peacekeepers in 1983 Lebanon.
Carter, confusing state with individual, turned the other cheek over and over again, appeasing evil and allowing Hizballah and al Qaeda to gain momentum. Clinton continued the appeasment.
The Liberal left must realize that turning the other cheek would not have halted Hitler and it clearly will not delay Iran*s power hungry islamofascists.
Liberals will hopefully realize that a force who plans to place Nuclear devices in major cities and then demand surrender, is a force that has to be deterred. = TG
“I also have a great deal of concern with the religious right…especially when it refuses to follow some of the religious doctrine it preaches….love thy neighbor”
valster, please back up this contention.
Nobody but you seems to understand what you are talking about.
When did the religous right refuse to love thy neighbour.
Do you have any direct evidence other than your “feelings” to support this smear.
After making my post this morning, I read an article by Fr Raymond De Souza in the National Post. It was entitled “From religious roots, the birth of social conscience”. In it, he discusses the role of the devout Christian, Wm Wilberforce, who was instrumental in the abolition of slavery BECAUSE he was a Christian.
Backing up my and richfisher’s challenge to valster, Fr De Souza writes, “What has changed since Wilberforce’s day? The progressive left seems to think that secularism is the necessary condition for social progress, and that religion is a retrograde force allied against the poor, the weak and the powerless. This is an argument that needs to be made, not merely asserted [as valster has done], and doing so [making a cogent anti-religion argument] runs against the clear weight of history.”
Amen.