View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by David Yerushalmi |
March 4th, 2006
The Wall Street Journal's editors must face this undeniable truth: Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization.
The Wall Street Journal has begun a momentous retreat. Unfortunately, the editorial writers for that bastion of free market conservatism are just not quite up to admitting it, or put more collegially, they haven’t yet recognized it as such. Thus, in its editorial of February 27, 2006, the editors ask by way of a challenge “amid some recent wringing of hands” about newly formed democracies in the Middle East “succumb[ing] to illiberal temptations:” if the argument is that democracy-building is not the best solution to win the war on terror, “does someone have a better idea?”
It is clear to those who have followed the Journal’s path that the question posed was intended rhetorically. The reason is not because these are stubborn or arrogant men and women who pose questions stylistically, as if to say that once they have staked out their position all discussion effectively ends. Rather, what we see in this literary style is an implicit admission that anyone who begins the intellectual journey from the starting point that the highest good is modern, liberal (i.e., free market) democracy, all else is meaningless commentary. In other words, if one’s grounding is not the preservation of America and its national existence, but rather the “policy” that a rights-based, libertarianism is a panacea for the ills of the world, to contemplate anything but democratic nation-building even in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary is futile. And, of course, the Journal is correct in this.
In effect we have fully answered the editors’ challenge and deserve the prize. But, lest we be accused of being a bit too cute, let’s examine in more detail the retreat to which we point. The high ground from which the Journal editors begin their retreat is modern, rights-based, democracy. For the Journal, while America’s constitutional republic is by far the greatest example of such democracies, it holds no monopoly. The call of liberty, limited government, the freedom to do as one pleases (as long as the exercise of such freedom doesn’t illegally restrain another’s freedom to do likewise), open borders to pursue free trade and amass wealth, these are the positions staked out over the years by New York’s high-brow business paper. All in all, pretty innocuous, or so it seems.
The problem, however, is that the Journal wishes to convert these libertarian policies into some kind of human order of being. The Journal’s editors actually envision America’s greatness not in its national existence and its peoplehood, but in a kind of crafted liberal, democratic ontology. For the Journal, what makes America great is not what is unique to America, but a state of nature that demands that man live in a politico-economic order that recognizes no absolute good or truth other than the individual’s own personal choices unbounded. America is great, goes this logic, because it conforms best to human nature, which is to say that man has no nature but the desire to make choices freely. All else, his Christian faith, his unadulterated patriotism and national pride, his understanding that his country, not his neighbor’s, is uniquely blessed, are at best historical remnants of quaint Old World beliefs and at worst dangerous opinions that blind man to the truth that there is no truth.
Of course, what the Journal has done is to miss the fact that America’s greatness, its call to liberty and dignity, its constitution, is a unique product of its founding national make-up. A unique Judeo-Christian consciousness, coupled with an undaunted spirit, unfailing work ethic, and abundant kindness, resulted in the greatest modern republic the world has seen. Our politico-economic system works, to the extent it hasn’t been warped by ideologues, because America works. We have survived revolutions, slavery, civil war, world wars, depression, impeachments, natural disasters, and domestic and international terror not because we are a liberal democracy but because we are America. Is that national chauvinism? You bet it is.
From the Journal’s high ground, which we now suspect is not high at all, the paper’s Weltanschauung comes into focus. Thus, a mere 17 days after 9-11, the Journal published an op-ed by a college law professor who wanted to tell us that Islam is really not such a bad religion. If you look hard enough into its history, you will find the Murji’tes, the Mu’tazilites, al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, all reasonable West-like voices of rationalism, tolerance and enlightenment. All of this is nonsense of course, because none of these “voices” or “traditions,” if in fact they were rational or tolerant even in their day, ever came close to defining Islam or surviving to this day. They died childless and homeless as it were. But, we turn to the bottom line of that essay, typically in Journal commentaries literally the bottom line, and we find:
It is not for us in the West, of course, to define what “true” Islam is, especially when Muslims dispute it among themselves. But we can all stand against evil, and we can oppose an evil that Islam itself experienced and turned away from in its early days. More important, we can begin to appreciate the varied voices that Islamic civilization offers to the world.
Just reading this makes one wonder what in the world the editors were thinking about after 9-11. Who is this “we?” Were “we” to all sit in a candle-lit room, “the West” and poor, confounded “Islam,” and chant meditative hymns until we discovered who the hell Islam is? America was attacked by Muslims. Almost universally, Muslims everywhere, the world over praised bin Laden. Of course, the political leaders of those Arab dictatorships that sell us oil consoled us, but as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times likes to say, the Arab Street was quite content to see America burn. There is only one “we” of import here: America. That is the “we” we Americans should be concerned about.
But almost equally absurd is this professor’s suggestion that there is some “Islamic civilization” that has “turned away” from evil. Islamic civilization has turned away from what few moments of civilized behavior it has manifested for now hundreds of years and has done so without looking back. There are no varied voices of Islam. It is true that Islam is a fractured religion, but not so fractured that it finds itself incapable of preaching institutionally the hatred of America and the West, and the need for the Ummah to find dignity through jihad. And, for every liberal Muslim college professor who would like to limit the meaning of jihad to some intra-Arab, personal struggle against one’s evil inclinations, there are 100 a'immah or preachers teaching relentlessly consistent jihad, war with real weapons against real kufar or infidels. For those confused by the rhetoric of the Elites that true Islam seeks to live in peace with Christians and Jews as People of the Book, such a peace comes at a price: total submission to Islam, its law and its leaders. As Hamas has said, the Christians that now live in the Palestinian territories will be allowed to stay if they agree to the status of dhimmi, which, in addition to total submission, includes a special head tax.
Having attempted to deny the fact of 9-11 and the uniqueness of a worldwide terror only pursued by Islam and in ways uniquely suited to Islam, the Journal was forced again earlier this month, on February 11, to deal with the “clash of civilizations” apparent in the cartoon mess. This particular editorial appears after several editorial page efforts to “explain” the Hamas victory in a way to excuse democracy and human nature for its failure to ignite the Arab soul. We were assured that democracy would win out. So, in typical fashion we turn to the February 11 editorial’s bottom line, again literally so:
There’s a lesson in this for those who would have us believe that what this cartoon conflagration represents is a conflict of civilizations. There is a conflict all right, not between civilizations, but within one, and it pits those who would make Islam barbaric and those who would keep it civilized. In that struggle, the heirs of Socrates and the heirs of al-Farabi must make common cause.
Where exactly do the Journal editors discover a conflict within Islam? True, Muslims are slaughtering one another in Iraq and tyrannizing one another in almost every Arab dictatorship in the world to some degree or another, but the conflict is not over some ontological or theological disagreement, but political power. Even the battle raging between the Shia and the Sunni elements in Iraq is a battle over power and oil, not the correct interpretation of the Koran. Every single major Islamic institution that is not simply a propaganda arm of the political leadership rejects narrow nationalism (just like the Journal). But Muslims, clearly preferring the duty of Jihad to conquer the dar al-Kufr (House or Nation of Infidels), are inclined as well to make their “political power” struggles matters of warfare.
One final point about the Journal’s pleas to the descendants of Socrates and al-Farabi. I will leave aside it was democrats who falsely accused Socrates of offending the multiculturalism of his day, and for that he was forced to drink hemlock and die. The Journal missed the genuine comparison. On the Muslim side, al-Farabi was the right choice only in the sense that he had no impact on Islam at all. His influence, like that of Socrates and the Philosophers Plato and Aristotle, was on Western religion; Judeo-Christianity. Thus, al-Farabi had a far greater impact on Jewish thought than he ever had on Islamic theology because the great Jewish codifier and philosopher Maimonides learned much of what he knew of Aristotle’s philosophy through the writings of al-Farabi. As for the Greek Philosophers, their influence was directly on the early Church. The Journal “missed” this, the genuine point in the case of al-Farabi (and Socrates), for the same reason it misses the “better idea” than its own: a shallow democratist-libertarianism cure-all for the Muslim world (and much else). The point about Islam is it produces Muslims according to teachings of domination, men with many wives, and families with traditions of war and violence all within a vision of life, Islam, that praises war and a world state. Al-Farabi, as far as we know, died a bachelor, recoiled from Islam, and admired Aristotle. In a word, he did not “reproduce” in any sense as a Muslim. So the point the Journal missed, publishing a post-9/11 commentary representative of it, is this: Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization. The Journal is obliged to state so transparent a truth, most all to ask what is it that compels Western elites so relentlessly to resist facing this truth about Islam.
So it is we return to the Journal’s editorial of February 27. Let us be straightforward in the face of the empirical evidence that Muslims require us to treat them as we treated our enemies in World War II. If the nation-building in Europe and Japan was good it had something to do with the prior defeat and surrender of these peoples. Total submission. Without that, nothing else matters. When you have an enemy bent on your destruction, you must face that enemy and recognize that it is a war that does not end until one or the other is vanquished. Completely. That is especially important in the case of Islamic enemies whose very raison d’etre is to conquer dar al-Kufr. Israel’s tack with the Palestinians, like that of America’s in Iraq or Afghanistan, has been to deny this Muslim intent. Certainly Israel is being destroyed by this, by the Israel-U.S. peace process. America’s similar approach is not less misguided, or less dangerous, than Israel’s.
Insofar as the editors of the Journal are so smitten with the social sciences, it is interesting to note that two of the most respected historical scholars of the post-World War II American-led recovery in Europe and Japan, respectively, Professors Charles S. Maier of Harvard University and John W. Dower of MIT, both concluded at a colloquium at MIT on March 7, 2005, that two important factors that led to the peaceful and successful democratization after the war were: (1) the war was long and so totally devastating to the people of Japan and Germany with massive, unremitting bombardment of civilian centers that there was simply no will or physical ability to fight further; (2) Germans, but also the Japanese did not inherently reject Western democratic principles.
The short answer for our friends at the Journal: American forces, and by implication Israeli, British, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish, German, and Danish, need to totally vanquish the Islamic terrorists. War is hell for a reason. The reason is men facing terrorist destruction more explicit than ever came from Japan or Germany are bound to fight enemies if they are to survive. The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies. So your question, does anyone have a “better answer” is this answer.
dyerushalmi@saneworks.us
Visit their website at: http://www.saneworks.us
Responses to "Does Someone Have a Better Idea?"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
No one could say it any better or with greater clarity. This should be required reading for everyone who fails to recognize that there is a war going on, and that to lose that war means no less than destruction of the entirety of Western Civilization.
Those people who are so supremely interested in the rights of women, minorities and homosexuals should be the first running to the defense of the West. The fact that they do not is perhaps showing their true colors.
Comment by Steven Laib | March 4, 2006
I've only one small quibble with the article, and I have to admit that I've made the same mistake when discussing this same subject. The introduction says that "Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization." This statement is not correct. If we were talking about civilization vs. civilization, then we wouldn't have a war on our hands.
What we have here is Western Civilization at war with Muslim barbarity.
During the Dark Ages in Europe there were many a young European intellectual who traveled to Muslim lands in order to further their education. There were many subjects, particularly in the sciences, that were not taught, not even discussed openly, in Europe at the time, unless of course you were willing to take the chance of being burned at the stake for heresy.
That's right. At one time, Islam represented open mindedness and learning.
Islam however has descended into howling barbarism over the last millennia while Christianity has climbed out of the same state.
We can play the PC game, and try to avoid to the distasteful facts, but in the end, what we have here is a civilization struggling to survive against barbarians storming the gate.
Comment by Mike McGill | March 4, 2006
I think this is nonsense (at least the first few paragraphs, where i stopped). I have met many muslims in my lfe who are not jihadists, and, unless the entire American military is lying, our soldiers are meeting many of the same in Iraq. There is value in reminding people how difficult and serious this war is, but that is the only value in this article.
Comment by jeff murphy | March 6, 2006
In response to Jeff Murphy's comment: Mr. Murphy has confused nice people who happen to be Muslims (at some level of observance or commitment) with Islam. There were also many many very nice Germans and Japanese, including Nazis and Japanese Imperialists. Do you argue that Nazi Germany and Germans were not our enemy? Or the Japanese? Islam is even more dangerous because as a creed to live, die by, and murder for, it is exacting. That out of 1.2 billion Moslems you can find even millions of decent simple folk who just want a better life does not answer the evil of Islam. Mr. Murphy, apply the commonsense test: would you rather be an American visiting a country overrun with devout Christians or devout Muslims?
Comment by David Yerushalmi | March 6, 2006
well, whenever you get a religion that claims a monopoly of the truth, and furthermore posits a methodology of attaining blissful immortality based on some sort of spiritual contract rather than a moral/ethical way of living, that furthermore posits suspiciously dire consequences for failure to believe (especially from a suposedly omniscient/all compassionate deity), and that finally exhorts its followers to proselytize their beliefs to all others, you have a recipe for disaster…
oops, i think i just described christianity as well as islam! look at the history - they are both blood stained. and what scares me every bit as much as the violent islamist apocalypse fantasizing barbarians are the medievalist christian apocalypse fantasizing hypocrites who make up the electoral shock troops of our country's neoconservative overlords. ever hear of "self fulfilling prophesy"? both faiths, with many kinder exceptional subgroups, pretend to universality, but only in their desire to convert, through persuasion both gentle and coercive, EVERYONE WHO DARES NOT SHARE THEIR BELIEFS. in this way niether are truly universal, and when taken literally are both a menace to all who do not share their tenets.
at least judaism is an honestly intolerant, non proselytizing, faith based not on belief but on, ironically enough, in light of the hideous evil perpetrated on jews throughout the ages by christian, muslim, and nihilist alike, genetic inheritance…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
I'm sorry but I fail to make much sense of Mr. IbbleBabble's point. Equating Christianity to Islam by the fact that both Muslims and Christians "proselytize" is like equating Jack Russell terriers with grizzly bears because they are both furry mammals with black noses.
I've had a few Christians come by my house vainly hoping to enlighten me with a pamphlets and invitations to come to church, but so far as I have observed, Christian zeal stops somewhere short of suicide bombers, and beheading recalcitrant infidels.
Of course, organized Christianity's past does indeed include many sorry episodes. But Ibble Babble seems incapable of distinguishing between the events a millennium in the past with the events of yesterday and this morning.
Ibble Babble should be ashamed of himself.
Comment by DG Tonn | March 7, 2006
ibbleblibble IS ashamed of himself for many things, but most assuredly NOT for lying…
"our christian governmental institutions should be fumigated of non christians"
"unsuccessful efforts at conversion should be followed by extermination"
ah, dear brother pat robertson…so christian of you.
how about bosnia? this millenia, brother
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
"this millenia"
well, technically not…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
lord protect me from your followers!!!
actually the incidences of christian slaughter of non christians, or percieved heretics, ended in most of the world with the witch trials, the last of which occured, if memory is correct, in the early 18th century, but for all practical purposes ceased in the 17th…
until very recently, and even now limited mainly to red state intelujunt duhzine amurucuh, the history of western (yes, christian) civilization has been a continual march AWAY from medievalist superstition and literalist interpretation of scripture. but open your ears and listen to the semi-mindless hate mongering spewing fort from the fundyvangelist right these days.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
oops - what was i thiking!? how about the pogroms of pre-communist russia? greedy, supersticious, mobs of good russian orthodox bigots rampaging through jewish quarters on rumors of dark hebrew rites of christian baby sacrificing, slaughtering all jews whose houses they could ransack? until the cowards reached the jewish butcher quarters where they got almost as good as they gave, the anatomy of higher order animals not being too terribly different than that of humans…gee, why is that?
oh oh - how about the nazis? ok, admitedly they themselves were satanic (in all but name and official practice) nihilists, but there sure were a lot of christians, including christian clergy, throughout europe, gleefully supporting their slaughter of the jews…guiding them to hiding places and rejoicing in the lord's lust for non-christian blood…
oh yeah, and which religious symbol has stood burning at every open kkk meeting and in the front yards of dehumanized fellow christians whose skins were a little too dark, whose lips a bit full, and hair just too woolly? in the 20's, the kkk was a standard and integral part of fundyvangelist churches across the country.
gimme a little time, maybe i'll recall a few more…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
The rantings of this individual are of course made in the context of a country founded by Christians, made strong mostly by Christians, and defended mostly by Christians. Jews, especially those who take their Jewishness seriously, thank G-d every day for this country, the Christians who welcomed us in the main, and understand that it will be the Christians who will keep it this way.
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | March 7, 2006
mr. yerushalmi,
the truth is not ranting. if it is unpleasant, it is still the truth.
is america great because it was settled by christians, or because it was settled by christians (and a few jews, and a very few others) who understood the inherent dangers of their faith, having been not too far removed historically from such events, who determined to separate church and state, precisely because of this?
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 8, 2006
furthermore, until the isreali situation changed things, islamic civilization was, in general, far kinder to jews than christiandom EVER was. i can offer examples of both, but you know i tell the truth here.
if you fear the unpleasant possibilities of not telling american christians how wonderful they are, i understand.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 8, 2006
Against my better judgement I will respond finally. It is a common myth that Jews suffered more under Christians in Europe and in the Slavic nations than under Moslems. But it is false. For a brief period, in the 10th Century that might have been so but not beyond.
But more to the point, your failure to recognize the fact of our historical founding: this country was predicated upon Christian morality, theology and practice at its founding. All one need do is read the founding charters of the colonies, the early states, the churches they "established" and the political platforms. Your phobia of things Christian is unbecoming, but my admiration is anything but a respect for this nation's national purpose. As a Jew who was born here, lived many years in Israel among Arabs (and Sephardic Jews who lived in Arab society for hundreds of years), I can say with certainly that you have confused fact with fiction, truth with opinion. Provide evidence of a single Arab state in any time period including today that permits non-Moslems the freedom to live and worship that this country offered at its founding or any time thereafter. When you have done that, then we might have a rational discussion.
DY
Comment by David Yerushalmi | March 8, 2006
DY
no moslem state that i have ever heard of has ever shown the kind of religious tolerance the modern united states, nor any modern christian european country has (fascist period aside). notice i reserve my (well founded) suspicion not for ALL denominations of christianity, but for those whose tolerance is least. i am niether christian, jewish nor muslim. my "phobia"? i have lived amongst christians of a very intolerant stripe for many years. when they revel in fictional suffering of non christians, attempt to force their mythology into public education at the expense of science, and outright call for acts of violence against non christians (which for some christian FANATICS, an ever growing group, it seems, includes mainline presbyterians, methodists, episcopals, etc), i would be stupid to not listen, to not speak up. your confidence in human nature in general is not born out by history, and i would question your minimalist assessment of christian tolerance in terms of scope and time.
but in medieval times, many moslem states most certainly did show more tolerance to jews than many christian states, and not just in a brief period of the 10th century. i will renew my inquiry, but i am no ignorant yahoo, sir, ranting at mirages. if your seeming infatuation with evangelist and fundamentalist christianity is a result of those denomination's support of isreal, well, good for you. but if you try to tell me there is not a growing number of medievalist cromwellian types in our own country, whose fanatic demeanor and intolerance to those who do not share their beliefs is something that should be of concer for all but them (and perhaps as a result of the modern peculiarities of their belif, you), i must wonder if your acceptance by these types has clouded your vision in terms of what they say, and support…
beyond all historical evidence (and i do question some of your claims), here it is again.
literalist christian interpretation and why it is dangerous to those who do not share it…
to get to heaven, must accept jesus as personal savior (although i understand your friends may have allowed you, as a result of your genetic heritage, a seat there too - though i wonder what they say behind your back). not good works, not moral life. failure to do this results in eternal suffering - period. faithful required by faith to proselytize. now u can tell me about how new testament says dont do this, dont do that, in terms of how to treat fellow man, but i will tell you a bit about human nature that should be the most simple, obvious, product of reason and logic…if i believe that above, what is not ultimately acceptable, up to and including murder (again in faith that emphasizes FAITH, not WORKS) to assure that those i love are not led astray, and that those doomed are led to "true" faith, even if through coercion?
let me say that although not a christian, i appreciate the beautiful aspects of the religion, fully acknowledge all the good that has resulted from christian thought and action (such as abolition of slavery, for example), and have many very good friends who are christians, although most are my friends because they belong to very tolerant and decent denominations (and are themselves considered, therefore, non christians by those about whom i speak) - those who belong to less tolerant versions either do not want to be my friend if i do not share their faith, or are so insultingly, condescendingly, obnoxious in their attempts to proselytize, then demonize when such fails, that i find their company most unpleasant.
now you can say "see! you are the nut. you are the intolerant one!" but my friend, i will not change my faith, and when others plainly bear me ill will because of this, to the point of making public statements of their desire to either force me to join/shut up, or downright "fumigate" me, I SIT UP AND LISTEN. humility is not stupidity. love of peace does not mean one ignores threats. when people proclaim their desire to do me harm, i assume they intend to do me harm and respond to protect myself and those whom i view as my precious fellows.
again, mr. yerushalmi, to disagree with you is not to rant.
our constitution was largely written by free thinking men whose christianity bore little resmblence to the modern fundyvangelist. they were about 225 years nearer the witch hunts, cromwellian usurpation and repressive theocracy of england, the 30 years war, the catholic inquisition, and all other manner of christian intolerance, superstition and bloodshed. for this reason they understood the need for, and specifically included within our constitution, a separation of church and state, an ideal up to which we have yet to live.
am i saying christianity is worse than islam in the areas i discussed above? no, in general, it is not. i find islam, especially modern islam, to be less tolerant and more violence prone. but i know that christianity, as evinced by the record of history, is quite capable of such sentiment and practice as well.
how many bloody holy wars have been waged by buddhists, taoists, hindus (or jews, for that matter)? how many by christians and moslems?
have you ever heard of an obscure chinese philosopher named mo tzu? his great proposition, after a life as a mercenary general, was that particularism is the root of all evil, universalism its opposite. i see literal interpretations of both christianity and islam as universalist only in their desires to universally convert all. i see in their shared apocalyptic mythology the dangerous potential of self fulfilling, self destructive prophesy, the most dangerous threat to the world today. yes, the muslims are by and large the more barbaric, but do not underestimate the irrationality and potential bloodlust of fanatic christian sects and beliefs.
i once was debating a young fundyvangelist woman. she said to me, "how can you worship a fat man who does not love god?" i answered, "how can you worship a god that does not love a fat man?"
i do not wish to impose my faith on anyone else, but niether do i wish other's imposed upon me. many christians wish to do exactly this, to do so through the various levels of government in this country, and, if such is not possible, much worse to me and to all others they consider not them.
perhaps you should not respond further, if you see nothing but irrational ranting in what i say.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 8, 2006
correction - "minimalist assessment of christian INTOLERANCE"
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 8, 2006
As an agnostic, I'm not here to defend Christians, but with what is happening in the world right now, blaming Christians is akin to blaming cotton growers for 11 years old dressing like prostitutes!
The USA did not go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq because Pat Robertson told it to or because of Christian beliefs, on the other hand the attack of 9/11 and all the acts of horror from terrorists before and ever since 9/11 are in the name of Islam.
Islam is at war more with modernity - with the modern world that is the west - more than it is at war with Christianity.
Who cares what a religion or another has done 10 centuries ago?
Does anyone really believe admitting Christianity at one point in history was worse than Islam will stop the terrorists from beheading innocents?
Pat Robertson does not tell the USA where and when they should send their troops.
And I don't care how many "bad" or " extreme" Christians live in the USA, they are still a minority and the USA did not go to war for or because of them.
Some say that who ever compares the other to Nazis has lost the debate, well I say who ever mentions Pat Robertson has lost the debate.
Comment by Anonymous256 | March 9, 2006
That would be you iblle,
you mentioned Pat Robertson,
you lost.
Comment by Anonymous256 | March 9, 2006
"As an agnostic, I’m not here to defend Christians, but with what is happening in the world right now, blaming Christians is akin to blaming cotton growers for 11 years old dressing like prostitutes!"
where did i blame christians for whats happening in the world right now? i'm trying to find it, but perhaps you are seeing something hidden that i cannot.
"Islam is at war more with modernity - with the modern world"
again, very similar to fundyvangelists - inteluhjunt duhzine
"Who cares what a religion or another has done 10 centuries ago?"
yeah - i pretty much left my critique of christianity off 1000 years ago. lets see…2006 minus 2006 (last time the klan held a rally with a burning cross somewhere) = 1000 years - yeah, thats 10 centuries…well, ok, probably way too fringe to count….uh russian pogroms, 2006 minus (guessing here) 1905 = wow - your right! 10 centuries! ok, so if thats not enough, i'll skip the witch trials stuff, and go strait to the 30 years war…uh 2006 minus 1660 = damn…got me again! 10 centuries! i just dont understand this intelujunt duhzine math! of course for some people, 10 years may as well be ten centuries because things that happened in the past never get repeated later.
"And I don’t care how many “bad” or ” extreme” Christians live in the USA, they are still a minority and the USA did not go to war for or because of them."
yeah - according to history, small determined minorities never impact much less sieze control of their countries, the bolsheviks, NAZIS, and roundheads all were not minorities, right? oops, i broke anoymous's rule of argument! AND those things all happened 10 centuries ago!
"Some say that who ever compares the other to Nazis has lost the debate, well I say who ever mentions Pat Robertson has lost the debate."
well, since i've already lost my debate with you, according to your undisputable authority, might as well point out how so many germans prior to hitler's siezure of power (10 centuries ago) poo poo'd the idea that the NAZIS would ever really do all those things they said they would. it was simply unimaginable that the good christian people of germany would allow such. unthinkable!
if we just keep telling ourselveles how wonderful we are, we will never do anthing bad, nothing bad will ever happen to us. being utterly convinced of one's infallibility has always been the best way to avoid iniquity. cant argue with your cast iron logic…pride, of course is the virtue, humility the vice, right?
if you really want to see how stupid my analysis is, please check out my response to the "sinisterism" piece here….ooooh sinisterism…sounds so…sinister…..
that said, NAZI NAZI NAZI - HITLER HITLER HITLER
there, now that i have lost all arguments, kind of takes the pressure off me….whew!
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
by the way, anonymous, i'm glad the intelujunt duhzine folks have found such a razor sharpe wit of an intellectual champion from among the agnostics…they sure need it.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
How about I phrase this in the style of 'Forrest Gump'.
Nazis are as Nazis do.
So what was it that the Nazis did? They invaded other countries without provocation. They imprisoned people who resisted them without trial, and they tortured people suspected of resisting them.
Again, Nazis are as Nazis do.
Or is it just that Germans are 'bad' people and Americans are 'good'.
You do not make the rules here Anonymous256, or should I say Burt.
Comment by Max Godwin | March 16, 2006
After reading all this babble I was starting to see christians: . a threat as credible as the muslims. then I remembered: I am one. Whew. I'm not so frightened.
Comment by parsimonious mom | March 23, 2006