Saturday, August 26, 2006

Moderate vs. Radical

I’ve had enough of this crap!Within the Gates of Vienna there are moderate commenters and there are radical commenters. The former may have their differences with this blog’s hosts, but are willing to live and let live. The latter are so certain that their opinions represent The Truth that they are willing to pound them in repeatedly, as if the mere repetition would be enough to convince us apostates.

I’m referring to last night’s post about Islam as a virus. Here’s what one commenter (who shall remain anonymous) had to say:

Here we go again (hopefully, I will get a response this time)… What is the point of differentiating between “Islam” and “radical Islam”, thus giving the false impression that there exist versions of Islam that are not radical, and therefore obscuring the fact that it is Islam per se that is the problem, and not just one or more supposed variants of Islam?

Considering the purpose of this site (or, should I say, what I thought the purpose of this site was), this practice seems counter-productive, as it is, in effect, Islam apologism.

Indeed you will get a response this time. But first, a second from another commenter:

First I would like to say that while anon. is being quite harsh, I would have to agree with him/her. The average muslim DOES want us subjugated to dhimmitude and to overrun the world — he is just not ambitious enough to do it. The ‘variation’ of Islam, the exception to the norm, is the muslim who accepts the essentially masonic revolutionary ideals of freedom, tolerance, and secular government. Amongst the vast majority, the more ambitious muslims want to kill us, while the average muslim just wants us dead.

First of all, the point of differentiating between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is that the difference exists. The former want to kill all infidels who won’t convert; the latter may not like us, but are willing to live in an uneasy peace with non-Muslims. I mentioned “radical” Islam as the most virulent form of the Islamic virus; it is what directly threatens us.

If the wizardry of modern technology could develop a precision-guided weapon that would wipe out all radical Muslims, the remainder would be relatively harmless, and peace would become possible.

It may well be that the moderate remnant would eventually generate radicals in its midst, the way bad meat generates maggots. But we don’t know this for certain, and to advocate the extermination of millions of people based on the opinion that their peaceful behavior might someday endanger us is, to put it mildly, irresponsible.

It’s like the difference between Communism and EU Socialism. The former was deadly, and had to be hunted down and destroyed. However, as repugnant as EuSoc is, it is not something we could or should go to war over.

My gut feeling is that even if Islam has its radical organs surgically removed, it will continue to generate the memes that seek to destroy us, and that we will have to deal with it eventually. But my gut feeling is not enough to justify the extermination of millions of people who have hitherto been harmless.

It’s unfortunate that Gates of Vienna, in your view, lacks the requisite virtual testosterone to go whole hog and join the “Nuke the Ragheads” bandwagon. Fortunately, that’s why God created Blogger, and you are welcome to create your own forum to press home your opinions on the like-minded — who probably far outnumber those who agree with Dymphna and me.

As for your seconder: the fact that most Muslims do “want us subjugated to dhimmitude and to overrun the world — [they are] just not ambitious enough to do it” is not enough for me to advocate their extermination or forcible conversion. Many Hindus long for the day when the whole world is Hindu, but we are not going after the Hindus because of their feelings. Heck, I’m a Christian, and I would be happy if everyone in the world became Christian and acknowledged Jesus as their savior, but I can still accept and get along with people of different religions.

It’s not what people think, feel, or want. It’s not about their hatred of the infidel. It’s about how they act on their feelings and beliefs that should govern policy towards them. The behavior of Muslims who are trying to kill us right now is the issue, and that is what makes me designate them as “radical”.

I suspect that Islam itself, acting under the guidance of the Koran, may well keep generating homicidal maniacs who attempt to destroy civilization. When it becomes clear that this is the case, I will advocate the eradication of Islam itself.

But not before then.


shoprat said...

Jesus came to "seek and save the lost" and Muslims are amongst the lost He came to save. Everyone of them has a soul that could well wind up in Hell because they believed Mohammed instead of the Son of God. I have no desire to be the one who dispatches them to Hell. If we have to kill them, let's kill the most dangerous ones, the ones who actively threaten our lives and freedom, who will not listen to Jesus anyway and follow our Lord with the ones who will not try to kill us.

Apollo said...

"Many Hindus long for the day when the whole world is Hindu".

Who told u this? Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. Most Hindus would love it if the rest of the world just leaves them alone and does their stuff somewhere else.

p.s- Just countering a misconception before it takes root.

reliapundit said...


"Muslim Collaboration in the Holocaust"

I guess youmeant "radical islam".


You see, the root of radical Islam is the Koran, and the root problem for modernity/the West/human liberty is the Koran; the koran is a blueprint for jihad.

we must discredit the koran the way we discreditd Das kapitaql and Mein Kampf.

There is no such thing as a good nazi or a good commie.

All humanity deserves their innate, inalienable human rights.

All of opur brothers an sisters everywhee desrve to be free.

The fight to end jihadism is as basic to the inexorable progess of human liberty as was the end of slavery.

I know it is difficult to imagine a future without islam - because one BILLION people are trapped by its anti-humanitarian, misogynist, genocidal tenets.

But what traps them - what prevents them from seeing the Light and liberating themselves is a systemic ideologically based repression which uses terror at home, on other Muslims, and against the infidel.

Remember: the ihadist is raised in a muslim home: by a mother who is beaten with the blessings of the Koran, by a father who beats his wife with the blessings of the koran, in a family that conodones honor-killing.

It is in this muslim/koranic atmoshoere that jihadis are born, bred, raised - brainwashed.

the first step in eradicating this "virus" (if you insist on the silly metaphor/euphemism!) would be to shun all nations whixch allow misogynist behavior, polygamy, endogmay/forced marriage, and honor-killings.

shunned completely.

we should no more condone these anti-humane behaviors than condone slavery.

the root of these anti-humane behaviors in NOT "RADICAL Islam, but the Koran.

As Irshad Manji has said and written many time: binLaden is a literalist. IOW: the Koran literally/explicily calls for the types of things that binLaden does.

That's why I say we must eventually/ultimately consign Islam to the dustbin of history along with many other religions and ideologies.

But before we get to that point, we should isolate the muslim nations which allow thwe anti-humane practices I've specified above.

Families that respect women and raise children that respect women will raise fewer jihadis.

for more on the relation between misogyny and jihadism see my blog and THE AUTONOMIST.

all the best!

Baron Bodissey said...


I have met Hindus (American Hindu converts, mind you) who proselytize for their faith, albeit gently. Perhaps they have merely continued the Christian style from their earlier religion. Although some of them were Hindus who converted from Judaism.

Not all of them were Hare Krishna people, either. Based on my limited knowledge, they seemed to be mainstream Hindus.

Baron Bodissey said...


I agree that we must discredit the Koran. That's why I write these diatribes.

But it's a long way from discrediting the Koran to advocating extermination. That's a line I don't want to cross.

And the virus analogy is not "silly". The operation of complex systems, whether they are living cells, computer networks, or human cultures, can only be understood by analogy. They are too complex to be grasped directly by the mind.

When information replicates itself and spreads in a system, it is a virus, and not just an analogy. The process can be modeled and generalized, whether it occurs biologically, electronically, or in human societies.

I object to the term "silly".

Apollo said...


The word "Hindu" is a umbrella term which includes a huge diversity under it.hare krishna and other such organisations are Hindus if they call themselves so.there is no central authority in Hinduism or any dogma to say who is or who isn't a Hindu.

Many westerners do come to India and go to sadhus and sants like sai baba, mata amrita, puttaparthi etc... but i don't think they are actual converts to Hinduism. most just hang around for a while and return home and continue practising their own ancestral faiths.

but some like koenraad elst, kittel,francois gautier have become so well versed in Hindu scriptures, writings etc... that they can put many Hindus to shame with their scholarship.

But as far as i can tell proselytising might be an enterprise or policy of these individual organisations and not because of Hindu scriptures per se.

bordergal said...

"But my gut feeling is not enough to justify the extermination of millions of people who have hitherto been harmless".

Baron, what about all the "harmless" Germans and Japanese of WWII?

One does not have to be a front line fighter to support evil.

And the extermination argument is only one of several options, which also include isolation and containment.

Zerosumgame said...

Given that Islam is explicit in the unification of civil and religious society, and is also explicit in its calls for world Islamic conquest and in the subjugation of Christians and Jews as dhimmis (although now, Islamic hatred against Jews is so fanatical they probably just want to kill us all), it does not seem possible for a Muslim to be devout and peaceably co-exist with the West.

The difference is that the radicals will actually act on this belief, even if it results in worldwide nuclear war. The moderates believe it but don't act on it ut quietly support and sympathize with the radicals.

The ironic thing is that so much of the world -- Europe and Russia, for example -- will likely become part of the Umma within 50 years without their ever having to fire a shot. All they have to do is keep having large families while Westerners breed themselves (or unbreed themselves, as it were) out of existence.

Anonymous said...

The latter are so certain that their opinions represent The Truth that they are willing to pound them in repeatedly, as if the mere repetition would be enough to convince us apostates.

Please. As I pointed out to you earlier, the reason I have repeatedly asked you the same question is because you have repeatedly failed to answer it, so your characterization is unfair.

First of all, the point of differentiating between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is that the difference exists. The former want to kill all infidels who won’t convert; the latter may not like us, but are willing to live in an uneasy peace with non-Muslims.

You assert that there exist a "radical" and a "moderate" Islam, yet from your explanation, it seems that you are not actually talking about Islam, but in fact about Muslims.

I would have agreed with you if you had written that there are radical Muslims, who want to kill all infidels who won't convert, and that there are moderate Muslims, who may not like us, but are willing to live in an uneasy peace with non-Muslims. Yet this issue is not about Muslims, but about Islam.

What's important to keep in mind is that the existence of moderate Muslims does not prove the existence of moderate Islam.

If the wizardry of modern technology could develop a precision-guided weapon that would wipe out all radical Muslims, the remainder would be relatively harmless, and peace would become possible.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that you're right that the remainder would be relatively harmless. Why would they be harmless? Not because they would be Muslims who follow a moderate version of Islam (which does not, and cannot, exist), but because they are moderate in their practice of Islam. That is, they follow Islam to a considerably lesser extent than the true, righteous Muslims we commonly refer to as terrorists.

It may well be that the moderate remnant would eventually generate radicals in its midst, the way bad meat generates maggots.

Yes, and the reason for that would be that the "radicals" would resume (or commence) practice of true Islam, whereas the "moderates" would remain lax apostates.

But we don’t know this for certain, and to advocate the extermination of millions of people based on the opinion that their peaceful behavior might someday endanger us is, to put it mildly, irresponsible.

I have never argued that we should exterminate millions of Muslims, nor is it a logical consequence of my position, or, for that matter, a consequence of the non-existence of moderate Islam. Which is why I am puzzled why you repeatedly bring it up. As I've already said in an earlier post, I think the best policy is to contain Islam in dar al-Islam.

My gut feeling is that even if Islam has its radical organs surgically removed, it will continue to generate the memes that seek to destroy us, and that we will have to deal with it eventually.

What are those radical organs, exactly?

It’s unfortunate that Gates of Vienna, in your view, lacks the requisite virtual testosterone to go whole hog and join the “Nuke the Ragheads” bandwagon.

Right, so if this blog stopped utilizing Islam apologist jargon, the consequence would be that it would join the "Nuke the Ragheads" bandwagon? Ridiculous.

I suspect that Islam itself, acting under the guidance of the Koran, may well keep generating homicidal maniacs who attempt to destroy civilization. When it becomes clear that this is the case (...)

You mean 1400 years of history hasn't convinced you of this already?

PS: I would be grateful if you could include my answer above in your blog post, so that readers can more easily acess my answer to you. Thank you.

Profitsbeard said...


A "prophylactic zone" around Islam is more practical and humane than anything apocalyptic.

The jihadists have to go, and arms and intelligence will be needed to extirpate these tyrannical maniacs. Hopefully that will put the message forward to their less militant co-Muslims that we will neither fall for their "religion of peace" b.s. nor allow them to infiltrate and undermine the free world with an intolerant, misogynistic, terroristic cult.

Islam needs to be contained to those areas where Islam has already spread its imperialistic miasma. And hope that the influences filtering in from the more advance parts of the world slowly change their domgmatic adherence to a mindlocked creed founded by a pedophile warlord.

Cato said...

All this illustrates why I don't comment here any more. It's your blog, but it has been largely hijacked by extremist hatemongers. What's the point? You could write one post that would make their point and then sign off for good - Islam is evil, we are too weak to coexist with it - kill them all.

Anonymous (pbuh) said something about what he "thought this blog was about" - I think that's the problem. You need to be clear what it is you are about. If people don't like it, tough. Let them get their own blog or comment elsewhere. Telling you what you _must_ say or believe, after the second or third repetition, becomes rather pointless.

bordergal said...


That would be my preferred method. Unfortunately, unless there is a major shift in the political winds, I doubt it will be possible. Too many countries (Russia/China/etc) have too much to gain by aligning with the Islamists. The real world approach (as always) will end up being much messier and more deadly.

Cato, could you please explain to me how the presence of "moderate muslims" in Iran would keep Mr. A from destroying Israel (as promised) once he obtains nuclear weapons?

reliapundit said...


But you verge on committing the "is/as" fallacy, confalting how one thins resembles another IN A WAY with them being operatrively the same.

an whtehead caled this the fallacy of the misplaced concreteness.

radical iusma is not a perfverson of the koran, it is EXACTLY how islam originally spread from the arabian peninsula thropughout the world: BY THE USE OF TERROR.

as long a children are raised in the tnenets of the Koran and in homes which allow terrible anti-humane rights abuses - like misogyny and polygamy and endogamy/forced marriage and honor-killing - their will alwys be another generation of jihadis hellbent on the destruction of the West.

we do NOT have to9 exterminate all muslims.

we need to eradicate these misogynistic practices, and we can.

that will BEGIN to change the dynamics of muslim famulies and muslim society.

eventually no one will choose to remain in a "religion" whose fruits are dehumanizing brutality and poverty and ignorance.

i put religion in quotes because i think oslam is more a martial code than a religion.

all the best!

ZionistYoungster said...

Your friendly neighborhood Islam-Nazism equivalator digs out an old post from his blog ("'Digs an old post'?! Your blog isn't yet a month old!" Okayyyyy, you win...): How We Lost, How We Won (1930-1960)

The relevance is at the end of the post. I agree with Coulter's main sentiment, but Coulter's phrasing is so general (she is a sensationalist, after all) that the Libs had no trouble pouncing on her. When the Allies did the final and utmostly necessary action of denazification after 1945, they didn't line up Germans, say "Renounce Nazi ideology or die!" and then give them the choice at gunpoint. It was done through the medium of the classroom.

I posted back on IBLOGA about my ambivalence regarding the Radical/Moderate Muslim dichotomy. Mentally, it still stands. Operatively, it never made a difference: if there are moderate Muslims, it's clear they're deterred from speaking against radical Islam for the same reason they don't apostatize: the ever-peaceful reaction that would await them were they to do so. And that highlights the point I made on my blog post: it's imperative that the climate of fear in Muslim society be lifted, that all the jihadi Muslims be prevented, by force of infidel iron fist, from carrying out those injunctions of Islam that create that climate.

bordergal said...

If only the Muslims in Europe -- with their hearts focused on the Islamic world and their carry-on liquids poised for destruction in the West -- could behave like the well-educated, secular and Americanizing Muslims in the United States, no one would have to worry.

So runs the comforting media narrative that has developed around the approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, who are often portrayed as well-assimilated and willing to leave their religion and culture behind in pursuit of American values and lifestyle. But over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California -- and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.

"I know I don't have to fit in," she said. "I don't think Muslims have to assimilate.

bordergal said...

Oops, forgot to put excerpt from the Washington Post.

Much pap about how the west is making Muslims feel uncomfortable...however, if even a more liberal paper such as the WaPo is focusing in on Islamization as a trend, would seem we do have a problem.

David S. said...

Ok, I'd like to state that I never was endorsing 'islamocide', or whatever one would call it. I was merely trying to make the point that Islam carries within iit that seed of destruction which has led to terrorism. Obviously I WOULD like the spread of Islam to stop as soon as possible.

It is a simple fact that any religion can produce radicals and the militant. Christianity can and has, Judaism can and has. Islam is distinct from these in that it is still stuck in the mindset of 632 when the vast majority of people in other religions have changed their positions and accepted the principles I listed above. Can Islam, over time, under the right conditions, be molded into something that could exist peacefully with others? Yes - it hasn't yet, however.

On top of all this, I would like to state that I am, as I have said, a traditionalist Catholic. I am a bit of a 'radical' myself - these ideals of tolerance and freedom and such I do not accept on religious grounds unless it is necessary for the sake of peace (which, in our day, it most obviously would be). I desire a Catholic state; this concept is foreign and frightening to many people. The thing is, I desire to pursue such an ideal through peaceful means, and no situation in the world could get me to blow myself up to kill people.

I would also like to say, Baron, that I meant no disrespect by my earlier post; I just think that the distinction, while practical, can and does give many the wrong impression.

Beach Girl said...

Virus not silly analogy. Good on ya, Baron. Don't know much about viruses except the ones that beat me up occasionally and knock me on my arse. Would be nice if "radical" jihadists had a virus that killed the host. Something like those auto-immune system munching viruses. In a way they do have a virus, suicide bombers and all, just not enough of them go at the same time.

I don't want an apocalyptic end for 1.8 billion folks either. What is troubling to me is that I don't see anything in the "moderate" (which may well be our illusionary wish) muslim community in US that is speaking out against jihadists. Human nature being what it is, I believe that numbers tell the tale. In the Islamic dominated cities of US, the calls to prayers are heard five times a day ever day. That's one way to have property values go DOWN. But it also suggests how the 'moderates' would go if the jihadists win. Power controls and absolute power control absolutely. I love me car, don't want to wear a burka(sp). Caftans good.

To Profitsbeard, how do we contain Islam now when the "camel's nose is under the tent," so to speak? Deportation, end the H1 visas? I would stop the visas but that is me.

Enjoy your blog. Your comments about the Iranian Ministry investigating if Hezbollah followed procedural guidelines for use of weapons in civilian area made me laugh so hard nearly knocked my computer over and fell off my chair. Have the question, munitions used by Hezbollah legal but is Hezbollah?

Thanks for the humor. Gotta laugh sometimes.

Baron Bodissey said...

reliapundit --

I'm not using an "is/as fallacy". When I say virus, I mean virus. I'm writing about it from the point of view of a mathematician and systems analyst.

Information systems, whatever their reifying substrate, hold certain well-defined structures in common. If strings of information can cause their own replication in a system, then a virus can exist. I use analogies to further the understanding of this process, but the viruses within cultures are quite real.

It's like playing the Star-Spangled Banner on the kazoo, on the pipe organ, on a gramophone, and via digital media. Vastly different structures, but the same tune. None of them is an analogy of any of the others; they're all the same tune.

Beach Girl said...

Baron, with this post and La Nouvelle Peste, and a question as to the longevity of the Peste, I have a question. Been thinking about this a bit. With the illegal immigration in US overwhelming some areas and with the vast increase of adherents to Catholicism(re-enforcing the Protestants so to speak), could there come a day when the Gates of Vienna will be formed in US and a great battle ensue between Christianity and Islam? Admittedly, looking down the road a bit... And will Catholic South and Central America go easily into that good night?

Comment about "there goes the neighborhood" is a joke for anyone who wants to pounce on me for it.

KG said...

Seems to me that the distinction between moderate muslims and radicals is utterly pointless.
Islam is a vast reservoir which always has produced large numbers of killers, willing to commit any atrocity in the name of their "religion".
The tactic of trying to neutralize or exterminate just the ones who take the Koran literally is absurd--there will ALWAYS be far more murderers generated than we can track down and kill, from a pool so large.
But we can't possibly remove Islam, the breeding pond. So what to do?
I believe that the only rational approach--if Western civilisation is to survive, that is--will be to develop a deterrent so hideous, so savage that no muslim state will dare go to war.
Which leaves terrorist actions against Western targets from the muslim populations living in the West.
And the solution to that is to ban Islam.Allow no more mosques to be built and ban funding of any islamic organisation etc.
Drastic, but no more so than the way muslim countries treat Christianity.

richard everett said...

I am late in joining the discussion, since I usually don't comment, but I would like to add y two cents, FWIW.To wit, The analogy would more likely be to cancer, and our efforts to get rid of it without killing the patient (Islam in general) would seem to be the medically indicated direction. However, having said that, we have not, at this point, eradicated cancer. Further, when the cancer (radical Islam) overwhelms thebody, death occurs. So, you have a choice, kill the cancer, or lose the body (us).

Profitsbeard said...

Beach gal-

Sadly, we will have to wait for a 'greater-than-9/11' attack before more serious measures are "acceptable" and "adoptable".

The p.c. / morally-chaotic climate is now too pussyfootsie with peaceful-acting Islam to permit the basic self-defensive measures to come into effect.

The iron was hot from only the time between 9/12/01 and until the day it was declared that no WMD massive stockpiles were found.

We need to implement a strict policy of no more 'student', etc. visas being issued to anyone from 'terrorist supporting countries' (Saudia Arabia should have been on that blacklist on Sept. 12, 2001, along with Pakistan, and most other Sharia Law-leaning Muslim countries, as de facto sympathizers with the miltant Muslims and their murderous promotion of their world-domination-aimed "Ummah".) An intensive monitoring of all Islamic organizations (mosques/schools, et al) in the West, which show any signs of supporting terror groups, is essential.

(Not that the Koran isn't the real problem, but that central theocratically-complex mess will take great finesse to oppose- with a demand for 'Council of Trent' type text-revisionism work to be started by 'moderate Muslims'.)

I would deport all non-working, non-essential Muslims, from Saudi, etc.,tomorrow,as unneeded security risks (how many millions have been lost on the "no liquids" policy with airliners because of such in-house, utterly 5th column-type "guests"?)

But, we have to let the militant maniacs make the next move (bloody as it will be) before we "repatriate" the "cells" already here (acting openly, as "religious" organizations) without massive, p.c.-poisoned complications from our own sleepwalking citizenry.

The day is coming.

The Giant slumbers, but isn't totally numb.

Even if it seems so at times.

reliapundit said...

i rest my case; you have proved it far bnetter than me: you ascribe to a metaphor (an epitemological and/or heuristic tool) an ontological status.

which is a fallacy.

some things about radical islam are somewhat like a virus.

but far from all.

people CHOOSE tro become radicalized; they do not choose to become infected.

SURE: misogyny and domestic terror creates a DIATHESIS for this transofrmation, but it is not withour choice.

therefore, the analogy is of limited value.

admit it and move on.

if we want to wiun the GWOT we must kill all the jihadoterrorists and close down their madrassas and mosques and website and tv-stations and radio-staions and publishing/broadcasting of any sort.

we muist de-jihadize that domain as we denazified germany.

AND... we must end mkisogynistic practices which dehumanize women and the muslim hoime; we must end forced marriage, endogmay, polygamy and honmor-killings.

we CAN do this.

we must shgun all nations whicxh permit these practices. they must be shunned from any/all connections/benefits of ties with modernity/THE WEST.

between a hot war - overt and covert, and de-misogynizing, and democratizing... WE CAN DEFETA ISLAMISM.

come on, baron: JOIN US.

Baron Bodissey said...

reliapundit --

As I said on the other thread, I'm getting tired of all this arguing.

I think a culture is an information system, and subject to the same phenomena that occur in other information systems. Claude Shannon, Alan Turing, and all that.

Which means that viruses can form and spread within the system. It's not an analogy, it's a description of a real process that occurs within complex discrete stochastic systems.

Memes form. They replicate themselves. Malicious ones spread quickly and do damage. It happens in computers, living creatures, and within cultures.

That's it. If you don't agree, fine. I'm tired of explaining it. You're entitled to your opinion.

reliapundit said...

memes in the human mind do not replicate themselves.

this is a fact.

people choose to follow them, or choose not to.

there is no choice when a virus attacks your body or your computer.

admit you are wrong (and that it is a bad/imperfect-if-you-prefer analogy) - like an adult.

or remain wrong, and look silly.

your choice.


you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

it's a bad analogy. fact.

all the best!

Profitsbeard said...


I don't think anyone, much less Baron B. is trying to "embrace the moon in the water" (mistake the analogy for the reality). It's a lens ["virus" or "locust" or "mutation" or "cuckoo's egg"]. Lenses are not "bad". They are as effective as they are.

A polarizing filter gives a different vision than an infra-red.

We need prisms that expose the dark core of the Koran.

And the black heart of Mohammad.

(Notwithstanding all of his honeyed talk in the al-Qur'an of "compassion", the "prophet"'s gloating vendettas of unholy terrorism are far more instructive and revealing.)

We need methods to expose the potential deathshead beneath each veiled aspect of Islam to the broader willful somnambulists (worrying and wasting resources over the status of wanderer Pluto or... ).

Because of its endemic intolerance, Islamic Sharia Law needs to be totally unmasked. Along with its tyrannical meddlesomeness [which hand to wipe with, ad absurdum], 7th century grade cruelty [beheadings, stonings], its merciless crushing of doubt among its own people [from the very the firsat line of the Koran], and its Hatred Mission for all those outside the faith of Submission.

All of the hydra heads need to be spotlighted, broadcast widely, and debated and criticized openly by every field of knowledge, art, and science in the free world.

(And mocked when fitting.)

I would have remained cheerfully indifferent to Islam if their 'true believing' militants hadn't chosen terroristic violence as one of their eternal sacraments.

Instead of scratching B.'s "viral lens", throw out some focusings of your own.

Psychological, artistic, historical... each angle can help unwrap this tawdry enigma wrapped in a plagiarized riddle.

(With a motto apparently stolen from New Hampshire and warped beyond belief:)

Islam -shut up or die

Vince P said...

I take issue with a few of David S's comments.

Like him, I too would like the spread of Islam to stop asap and possibly be rolled back.

I disagree with his statement that any religion can produce radicals. That statement is is imprecise... I believe a better statement is any ideology can produce radicals, religion being no different than any other philosophy which allows one person to corrupt the mind of others.

The tenents of Christianty and Judiasm are not militant. They cannot be said to be anything like Islam. The abuses that were allowed to be associated with those two religions were not expressions of those religions of any degree. Islam's core tenets are violent, the instructions given to believers is violent. It is merely the worst kind of wishful thinking to think that somehow some magical process is going to cause these statements to not be violent.

The abuses which occurred under the banner of "Christendom" were the logical outcome of the solution you propose, your desire of a [Christian Denomination] State. When faith mixes with the State a terrible perversion occurs. Thus Jesus' core message at the beginning of his ministry.. Maintain a PERSONAL and PRIVATE relationship with God and do not let anyone come in between Him and you.

The current state of Christianity in Europe is a direct result of joining Church and State. The European States caused the greatest calamities in history in the 20th Century. The damage so great that Europe is now suicidal, the people have rejected their hertiage and their religion as their religion was in direct cohoots with their failed States. They have thrown the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater was filthy and the baby was submerged in it.

So please, strive for the obtainment of anything except a State religion.

David S. said...

Vince P --

I am surprised that it actually took this long for someone to take issue with my comments.

First of all, you are correct in your first statement: It would have been more precise to say any ideology can produce radicals.

Moreover, I would also second the notion that Islam is intrinsically intolerant and violent.

I do not, however, prescribe to your religious views and your interpretation of Scripture and the message of Christ. If you want to debate religion with me, feel free to e-mail me at I do not agree that State religion necessarily results in perversion, and I do believe that Christ fully intended for states to hold to His Doctrine.

We can all agree that states are by nature built upon a common worldview, a set of agreed-upon ideals which form the basis of law and government. The common worldview of America is that of the Enlightenment thinkers and their predecessors, most notably Locke. We, as a state, are intolerant of any view that does not accept these same moral standards, and rightly so; anyone who does not would clearly desire fundamental change in the government and country and therefore has great potential to be an enemy of the state. This is precisely the nature of our problem with Islam. Islam is a set of morals and values which are repulsive to us and to natural reasoning.

Moreover, to say that Christianity and Judaism are not by their nature and in their core texts violent at times and always intolerant is ridiculous. "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before Me." That is not tolerance. Moreover, in Mosaic Law (which Jews no longer follow and generally consider the necessary product of a barbaric age) things such as adultery, blasphemy and worship of other gods is clearly condemned, with the penalty being death. Christians fully believe that Christ is that same God Who commanded these things.

Judaism was a state religion for nearly its entire pre-Christian existence, and Christianity was from 300 AD to around 1800 AD. To say that a state religion is repugnant to these faiths or in contradiction with their beliefs is simply not true, not historical fact, and not what I believe.

I do not want to start another controversy on this discussion board however, and we are far off topic here, so if you or anyone else wishes to respond to this feel free to e-mail me.

Vince P said...

The violence I was referring to was in the context of this discussion, which is basically the problem of Muslim violence towards non-Muslims.

The law in the Torah was binding only on the Jews. It wasn't a model of what should be inflicted on all people universally. In Acts at the Council of Jerusalem it was declared that the Torah law never applied to Gentiles and wont be applied to converts to Christianty.

So the Law of the Torah and the commands of the Koran aren't similar.

As far as Tolerance goes, I never addressed that, but it's not a given that adherence to the first commandment automatically means that one must be violent.

I obey that one pretty easily and never had to resort to violence, so I'm sure others can as well.

One should be reminded that the Orthodox Jews were not the main proponants of Zionism in the 1800s/1900s... socialist Jews were. I've seen plenty of documentating stating the general opposition to the idea of a state by the religious community.

The near constant religious warfare in Europe from the 1400s to the 1700s and the resultant revolutionary crisises of the 1800s to the collapse of civilization in the early 1900s has manifestly demostrated what Europeans have come to think of Christianity because of the Churchs close association with the various realms and regimes.

A nation's character will be that of the sum of its individuals. Absolutely it would be great for all citizens to be living examples of Christian faith and indeed I think America has been the model of this since its inception and is a main factor of our success.

Render to God what is God's.. your faith. Render to Ceaser what is Ceaser... your politics.

Render both to Ceaser and you get 100s of years of European warfare or you get this 3rd Islam revival, the 3rd Global Jihad.

No thanks.

David S. said...

I never said we should be violent. My point was that God, according to Scripture, commanded Jews to kill anyone who worshipped a different god. This is something that God proposed - that is my point. You said that intolerance or state religion are repugnant to Christian and Jewish belief. On the contrary, God Himself in the Scriptures told His people to kill unbelievers. This is a simple historical fact for one who accepts the Bible. So it goes like this: "clearly, then, if God advocated it, it is not morally repugnant." And there you go - a rather logical demonstration using the Bible showing that, at least at times in the past, God wanted His people to kill those who do not believe. My point in all this is simply that you are quite wrong when you say that state religion is completely repugnant to Christian belief.

Concerning the formation of Israel: what does that have to do with anything? As I said before, modern day Jews do not follow Mosaic Law. They follow the Talmud. And I still don't see how the formation of Israel has anything to do with this subject.

And finally, you keep ranting about how the religious State caused these or those wars, etc. It would be far more accurate to say that the CHANGE in the religion of certain states led to war. To that I can readily agree - there were military conflicts between Catholic states obviously, but the religious wars only begun after protestantism came into the picture, converting previously Catholic lands into protestant ones. Obviously that would lead to instability, just as a democracy collapsing into a totalitarian dictatorship would cause instability to neighboring democracies.

You are correct about modern Europe, though - the general populace is entirely disillusioned and faithless, the product of which is a major cause of the present crisis. Once again, however, this is not the fault of state religion per se, but rather because of the conversion of Catholic lands into protestant ones.

Vince P said...

Hehe.. those darn Protestants... who do they think they are Protesting the State Religion.

Why.. if they never protested and complained how oppressed they felt there would never have been the wars there are.

They should have just submitted to the Catholic Church's authority but no.. they had go read the Bible and come to thier own religious convictions. Dont know that the State Religion is the only good one? Trouble makers, i swear.

David S. said...

Vince P --

“Men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, not less than individuals, owes gratitude to God, who gave it being and maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God . . . we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will . . . It cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking . . . From all these [proofs] it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and propagate."

“Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the state to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness - namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the state, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it” (Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Libertas, On Human Liberty).

This is official Catholic teaching. Anyone who calls themselves a Catholic and actually adheres to the Catholic doctrine is required to believe what I just quoted above. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with Catholics.

"Why.. if they never protested and complained how oppressed they felt there would never have been the wars there are."

Yep. And protestantism had nothing to do with 'oppression' of any sort.

"they had go read the Bible and come to their own religious convictions."

Ok - I attempted earlier to prevent this religious debate from continuing here where it doesn't belong, but you have continued to comment on the board instead of emailing me. Fine then.

First of all, protestants slaughtered far more Catholics than Catholics did in response. Secondly, Luther's views, as well as his successors, were a direct threat to the state, and they desired their own political power - hence they were not only a threat on religious grounds but a threat politically independant of the fact.
Martin Luther distorted what the Scripture said to an absurd degree. He claimed that men are saved by "faith alone" - something quite obviously condemned in the Bible. Check out 1 Corinthians 6:9 and use three brain cells and anyone can see that what Scripture teaches is NOT "sola fides." There are also a good dozen other quotes that prove the point, but this should suffice.
Martin Luther also was not fighting for freedom of anything. The man was actually far MORE oppressive than the Catholic Church was, and condemned anyone who disagreed with him in the slightest.
Luther also said that "reason is the enemy of faith." I think most people can agree that that sounds more like Islamic blind faith than real conviction. In multiple other places he also claimed that Christ was an adulterer, Moses was an enemy of God, the Catholic Mass is the worst abomination in history, Christ did not give any commandments whatsoever, that sin is allowed as long as you believe, etc. - Luther believed some pretty twisted things that no reasonable human being would accept.
So why did it catch on? Power, plain and simple. Luther provided a means by which German nobles could assert authority and get more land/money/etc.

Why am I ranting about Luther? Because he is the source of all protestantism. Why do I dislike Luther? Besides his constant immorality and blasphemies, in his madness he held to a blind and irrational worldview. Luther was a mindless zealot. He was, in modern terms, a radical terrorist. Those who came after him were no better.

Do not get me wrong: Modern day protestants are nowhere NEAR Luther, neither in action nor in belief. I was raised Lutheran, and modern day Lutheranism or any other protestant denomination is incredibly benign given its beginnings. My point has nothing to do with modern day protestants, in fact. It has everything to do with the ridiculous notion that they did some great thing or stood for the American Ideals. They did not. They would have killed you as well as me.

So in the future, if you wish to discuss matters of religion, don't attempt to justify this or that set of beliefs based on the pop-culture subpar version of history they teach you in 7th grade social studies. Let's talk about the actual concepts using logic.

I would like to apologize at this point to Baron for allowing this religious discussion which is entirely unrelated to your site to continue. Vince, I will not respond to any further posts, so if you want to slide the last word in, be my guest. If you wish to seriously discuss this with me however, feel free to email me.

Pastorius said...

It's adamazing that you have to say something like this:

"... the fact that most Muslims do “want us subjugated to dhimmitude and to overrun the world — [they are] just not ambitious enough to do it” is not enough for me to advocate their extermination ... It’s not what people think, feel, or want. It’s not about their hatred of the infidel. It’s about how they act on their feelings and beliefs that should govern policy towards them."

My hats off to you for having written this post.