Many thanks to Kitman for YouTubing this clip. The entire speech is available at KitmanTV.
See also Frank Gaffney’s account of the speech at Big Peace.
[Post ends here]
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A Radical Imposition of Sharia
Former congressman Newt Gingrich gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute today, and his topic was stealth jihad and creeping sharia. Below is an excerpt from his speech:
Many thanks to Kitman for YouTubing this clip. The entire speech is available at KitmanTV.
See also Frank Gaffney’s account of the speech at Big Peace.
[Post ends here]
Many thanks to Kitman for YouTubing this clip. The entire speech is available at KitmanTV.
See also Frank Gaffney’s account of the speech at Big Peace.
[Post ends here]
66 comments:
Slowly, the ideas are penetrating the mainstream.
Keep up the good work.
The 15% that are violent are not the problem. Its the 85% that fully agree with Muslim Supremacy, Shariah Law, Dhimmitude, Death for Apostacy, etc....but prefer other methods for their implementation.
The problem isnt Radical Islam. The problem is Islam.
Newt is still splitting the imaginary hair of Islam into "radical" and regular .
The dogmas of the pedophile warlord, rapist, mass-murderer, slaveholder and theocratic totalitarian Mohammad are inherently evil.
Islam is a retrograde deathcult (you try to leave and they try to kill you) and only by exposing its terroristic tenets and acknowledging its explicit threats against all who refuse to bow to Islam's cruelty and intolerance can the scale of the danger we face be understood and intelligently opposed.
Enough with this waffling about "Sharia".
It's the Islam, stupid.
A certain female blogger pilloried Newt on account of his upholding the false dichotomy and on account of objecting to just the Ground Zero mosque rather than all of them.
On the other hand his distinction is not between 'violent extremists' and 'moderates' but between jihadists (including those engaged in stealth jihad) and non-jihadists (i.e. non-violent and non-stealth).
One would hope he has done this on purpose recognizing that is obligatory for muslims to engage in some form of jihad to be true to their movement. One cannot have one without the other. So by defeating tackling jihadists the objective of defeating the political ideaology known as Islam is defeated too. One hopes this is what he has in the back of his mind and is going along with the distinction for political reasons, and to get the public to buy in.
His was pretty clear that he sees the US as the main battleground so that gives one hope. For to defeat Islam without qualification what is needed is a restoration of belief in Western civilisation and a willingness to defend it but this is what is needed to defeat jihad, particularly stealth jihad. If that can be achieved then the defeat of Islam per se in total should automatically follow.
In a way then I hope he is being politically aware, much as FDR (whom he quotes), was aware that he could not declare for war against Germany per se on account of domestic politics but nevertheless saw that as what would happen by following his policies of aid to Britain etc.
imagin what if he actualy understands the problem some where deep in he's heart, but he just knows, that if he wants to get elected president in 2012, he needs to watch out what he says.
and then if he'll actualy get elected, he'll do more than just not allowing sharia...
he has some chance of geting elected.
the latest public policy poll show him wining in his party, and against obama. but all other polls show him lose so...
but he is aperently geting more votes than before.
maybe he can be vice president.
I don't think Newt has a chance in hell of ever being president. There is much that works against him.
It's nice to hear an American academic speaking up about Islam. As a historian, his view of it is more realistic than most. I wish that more of the intellectual community here in America understood exactly the nature of the threat we face in this ideology and system.
The idea that there is one rule of law for everyone is a Western idea.
The Good Muslim who engages in honor killing is a murderer.
The True Muslim who rapes Christians is a rapist.
They must be prosecuted as such-- Sharia must be given no quarter.
The prologue to this clip, mentions that the Left is part of the equation of defeating Islam.
That is the key. We have to stop the Left in order to confront Islam.
Newt Gingrich is all over this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/29/quotes-of-the-day-410/
Ill state it again.
I think that Newt Gingrich would make a great president.
I would certainly vote for him, in fact he is one of my favorite possibles. That doesnt mean I havent had disagreements with him.
That being stated, he does have electability problems.
Perhaps he would best serve as Secretary of State or another high level Cabinet position.
See also Frank Gaffney’s account of the speech at Big Peace.
Before anyone gets all hot and bothered over Gingrich, I suggest that they peruse the comments section that follows Gaffney's article.
I will also concur with Profitsbeard in how:
"Newt is still splitting the imaginary hair of Islam into "radical" and regular."
Although I understand the stifling influence of Political Correctness, permitting a realpolitik attitude to dilute or diffuse one's message with an unsupportable differentiation between "radical" and regular Islam simply doesn't cut it.
The war against Nazism was not won by isolating a hardcore element within Hitler's ranks and retaliating solely against them. Neither will the war against Islam be prosecuted successfully by faulting only the violent jihadists and giving a pass to that other 90% of Muslims who tacitly condone the use of terrorism to impose global shari'a law.
Identical to the fight against Nazism, this is an all or nothing proposition. It is very unhealthy to mince words on this topic because − to paraphrase Oscar Wilde − inadequate clarity far outweighs any convenience if one must eat those same very toxic words later.
To his undeniable credit, Gingrich finally begins to shine some disinfecting sunlight upon the Left's obscene and suicidal collaboration with Islam. However, it will require someone with a much greater degree of moral clarity to drive the American electorate's understanding regarding Islam's intrinsic threat to Western civilization.
This isn't about "radical" Islam. It isn't about fundamentalist Islam. It isn't about extremist Islam. It isn't about violent Islam. It isn't about jihadist Islam. It isn't about Wahhabist Islam and it isn't about Islamism either. It's about ISLAM. It has always been about ISLAM. And it will continue to be about ISLAM until the highly unlikely prospect of genuine Muslim moderation occurs or Mecca, Medina, Riyadh and numerous other centers of global jihad are pulverized with their rubble being bounced a few extra times for good measure.
Lest anyone conclude otherwise, make no mistake that ISLAM alone bears sole responsibility for this intransigent state of affairs and that − through taqiyya, terrorism plus unanimous and thundering Muslim silence − Western civilization has been given no alternative but to pursue annihilation of an enemy who desires no less in return.
Once Newt demonstrates some remote comprehension of this matter, he may have some relevance. Until then, he will remain an also ran in the war against Islamic jihad.
I think you are being a little to hard on Newt.
Moving the Mainstream Acceptable Discourse, to the realm of Non Violent Jihad is a huge step in the right direction.
He is not a fringe figure.
This is great news.
Small steps Zenster. Dont cut your nose off to spite your face.
Encourage the movement of this idea that it is not just violent terrorist Jihadists that are the problem.
This speech by Newt is a sign of progress, of getting the message out and advancing understanding...in the face of overwhelming Politically Correct pushback.
Furthermore, Newt correctly identified socialism and the left as a threat to Western Civilization, one of the 3 major threats.
In fact, without the Left, Islam would not be a threat.
He is on the right track, even though his points about socialism were economic and not cultural.
Patience, padawan.
Tom Tancredo advocated nuking Mecca, and that came off sounding insane.
Small steps, Ellie, small steps.
Interesting that foxnews took him as a guest, something like 2-5 times in the last couple of months.
And they also had an interview with Robert Spenser lately.
No other news network would dream about doing this (at least until now).
Fox are an increasingly important player...
Why not just ban religion altogether? I reckon the world would be a much better place if such a policy was implemented. Have proper de-religification programs for the poor souls who can’t live without fooling themselves into believing that they’ll be somehow rewarded in the afterlife. Maybe then die hard ex-Christians and radical ex-Muslims could live together without making life miserable for everyone else?
As far as I’m concerned no rational people in this and age believes in an imaginary buddy up in the sky.
I also suggest that people check out Pat Condell’s latest video on you tube where he talks about the irrationality of religion. I highly recommend it.
EV, c'mon -- you know the rules.
===========
EscapeVelocity said...
Why not just ban religion altogether?
Because banning your cultural heritage is not the way to protect it and propagate it.
[ad hominem redacted]
Im sorry Barron, but its attitudes like that, that are exactly the reason the West is weak and vulnerable to invasion by anybody doing their own thing, celebrating their own culture and pushing the Euros who have lost the will to procreate to the old folks home.
Good Lord!
EV --
I understand your point well enough. But I'm sure you can make it quite convincingly without calling names.
Another thing you should remember about orthodox atheists: there's nothing they love better than getting a Christian's goat.
Then, when the victim goes off, it confirms the atheist's view that Christians are volatile, stupid, and/or irrational.
Recommending the abolition of Christianity is strategically unwise.
Allowing yourself to be baited by insults to Christianity is tactically unwise.
Even Christians should read their Machiavelli.
Newt doesn't get it in the ways others have noted here, but also in his misunderstanding of Judaism and Christianity. God -has- spoken, He -has- given us His law. Disobedience -is- sin. I suspect his abandoning the wife of his youth and his covenant with her and God which can only be dissolved by death may be involved in his thinking (and is also why he cannot be electable, the base won't vote for him reliably)
However, the whole thoughtform is completely different. In the Judaeo-Christian worldview, we are God's children. In Islam, we are God's dogs. That culture doesn't much like dogs. A rebellious child you love and hope will return in time. A feral dog, you shoot. In Christianity and Judaism, we have certain unalienable rights because we are made in the Image and Likeness of God, among which but by no means limited to are life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue. In Islam, feral humans have no rights. Neither do domesticated humans (Muslim, cognate of Islam "to submit")
EVs desire for a world without ontology, epistemology or ethics (a.k.a. "religion") is something that never was, never will be, and cannot be as long as a human being exists. '
Baron said ....
“Another thing you should remember about orthodox atheists: there's nothing they love better than getting a Christian's goat.
Then, when the victim goes off, it confirms the atheist's view that Christians are volatile, stupid, and/or irrational.”
No Baron, I’m just stating my own personal opinion about religious beliefs. The massive problems that the western world is facing at the moment are in my opinion due to two organized religions, Christianity and Islam. Christianity for allowing Muslims entry to the west by using moral and ethic codes found in the Bible, and Islam for causing the current problems and by justifying this behavior with verses from the Koran.
If EV gets offended when someone points out this fact then that’s his problem. But then again EV shouldn’t throw any stones. He has himself time after time on GoV expressed his own personal opinion that we the ungodly emasculated Euros must embrace Christianity in order to stop third world immigration and he hasn’t really bothered to consider whether he offends others with such statements. If he’s not able to take it himself then he should refrain from dishing it out.
And yes, I do believe the world would be a better place without religion and if religious people get offended when they hear that then so be it.
And yes I’m an atheist and I resent the undemocratic and evil Islam that is spreading like a grass fire in the west.
kritisk_borger
if you need a proof that christianity is the truth, you can enter my blog, and read the first artical there(it's a new and undevelopted blog, so there are only 2 articals there).
but you need to understand, that as a european, you have been brain washed for decades. more than any washing machine can wash...
and if you will not understand that, you will either regrate it for ever, or will simply have no life efter death.
also,
kritisk bloger, the problem that the west faces is lack of faith in god and jesus.
islam is just the earthly conseqens of that. it always has been. islam is a control mechanism desined to subgegate spiritiuly weak parts of the world.
that's why europe don't stand a chance against it.
kritisk_borger: And yes I’m an atheist and I resent the undemocratic and evil Islam that is spreading like a grass fire in the west.
Then consider acting like it for a change and stop antagonizing some of the only allies you're likely to find.
Face it, Christians are one of the only groups of people with a sufficiently operant moral compass to help a tiny minority like you. They also have a sufficiently inclusive world view where you would have decent odds of surviving in a society that they controlled. Like the USA, for example.
Try saying that about Islam or even your own European Socialists. Both are similar but different death cults. One just manages to conceal its cannibalism a little bit better than the other.
I've already had my fill of your opacity so all that I'll suggest is for you to ponder the merits of working towards an alliance involving this world's honorable faiths along with those who are agnostic or atheist in order to present a united front against Islam.
Barring full-out nuclear annihilation of the MME (Muslim Middle East), few other measures have much hope of saving our planet from being overrun by Islam.
Think long and hard about your contempt for Christianity. Someday you may regret having worked so diligently to alienate one of the few groups that is sufficiently compassionate with respect to helping you when the rough sledding begins.
Put another way, this world's minuscule atheist population sure as Hell isn't going to defeat Islam all by its lonesome. You can bet the farm on that.
Right, when universalism, egalitarianism, not being ethnocentric and equality are killing us, we need a religion that emphasizes equality, egalitarian universalism and that has the Jews as the chosen people. Really well thought. Christianity is in fact our former transnational anti-racism ideology. The truth of the matter is that we need to become really bad Christians like we used to be.
The way I see it, Christianity isn't big in Japan and yet they're not having an Islam problem nor an extinction problem.
a. the japanies have a fertility rate of 1.2 children per woman.
if they keep it up like that they'll be as extinct as the dinosaurs.
b. there are maybe 150,000-200,000 muslims, and millions of christians in japan
c. they are in the pacific ocean and they speak a language muslims can't learn to speak, read and write in. so it's not exacly a wonder they have less muslims than europe.
Zenster said ...
“Face it, Christians are one of the only groups of people with a sufficiently operant moral compass to help a tiny minority like you. They also have a sufficiently inclusive world view where you would have decent odds of surviving in a society that they controlled.”
Hmm... Christians are the biggest advocates of third world Islamic immigration to Europe. I have yet to see devoted Christians who oppose multicultural immigration to the west. Former Norwegian prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik is an ordained priest and he’s one of the biggest supporter of appeasing Islam in Norway. So no Zenster I don’t think so. The biggest opponents of multiethnic immigration in Norway are pretty much all godless souls. To me it seems that Americans believes that Socialists = atheists, but guess what I ain’t so. By the way have you ever visited Europe?
“I've already had my fill of your opacity so all that I'll suggest is for you to ponder the merits of working towards an alliance involving this world's honorable faiths along with those who are agnostic or atheist in order to present a united front against Islam.”
Well gee, ditto. And yes I’ll pretty much corporate with any group who opposes Islam, but I’m not going to help people whose only desire is to eradicate Islam and have it replace with Christian theocracy. No way, no one tells me what to do.
“Barring full-out nuclear annihilation of the MME (Muslim Middle East), few other measures have much hope of saving our planet from being overrun by Islam.”
I don’t think so. Islam in the west could be eradicated within a couple of months if it came to it. The Muslims in the west are not a strong group. They think they are, but they’re not. When push comes to shove they will lose.
“Put another way, this world's minuscule atheist population sure as Hell isn't going to defeat Islam all by its lonesome. You can bet the farm on that.”
It sure as hell isn’t going to be Jesus Army’s that going to defeat Islam in Europe, it will either be professional army/armies or anti Islamic militia groups with members who hail from every specter of the political scale and personal belief system (Islam excluded).
kritisk_borger:
"I have yet to see devoted Christians who oppose multicultural immigration to the west"
First of all, wake up! You are in blog full of devoted Christians...
Second of all, the only force in the world that is threatening Islamic domination is the Republican Party in the US, which is Christian, and couldn’t exist without Christianity.
Also people like Baron, Robert Spencer, Newt gingrich, are Christians.
And the crusaders! That defeated islam in Europe in the first place are where devoted Christians.
and allot of Israelis are also religious, so...
nb said....
“First of all, wake up! You are in blog full of devoted Christians...
Second of all, the only force in the world that is threatening Islamic domination is the Republican Party in the US, which is Christian, and couldn’t exist without Christianity.”
Ehh..Dubya and family (all of them republicans) are close friends of the Royal family in Saudi Arabia (the worst Islamic scum of the earth).
The Reagan administration armed and trained the mudajahedin in Afghanistan.
The Clinton administration helped establish the Muslim republic of Bosnia. They also helped facilitate the successful secession of the Muslim enclave of Kosovo from Serbia. And Dubya made sure that it came to fruition.
And let’s not forget the Islamic nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which with the help of the US has re-instated devout Islamic governments.
clinton was not a republican.
and without war like iraq, afganistan, iran-iran, afgan-soviet, israel-arabs/palastiniens people woulden't know what islam is about.
iran-irak
nb said....
“clinton was not a republican.
and without war like iraq, afganistan, iran-iran, afgan-soviet, israel-arabs/palastiniens people woulden't know what islam is about.”
I think people in Norway got a pretty good idea what Islam was about when three thousand Muslims marched through the streets of Oslo in the late 1980’s and demanded Salman Rushdies head on a stake. The view was also confirmed when William Nygaard the Norwegian publisher of the satanic verses was gunned down a couple of years later by Iranian security personnel outside his house in Oslo on the direct orders of Ayatolla Khomeni. These episodes just confirm my view that all religions are irrational and outdated.
Something which I've written about here.
rebelliousvanilla: Right, when universalism, egalitarianism, not being ethnocentric and equality are killing us, we need a religion that emphasizes equality, egalitarian universalism and that has the Jews as the chosen people. Really well thought [out].
Who fought and defeated the Nazis? The vast majority of them were Christians.
You are confusing real Christians, who are willing to defend their faith, with the Rowan Williams brand of spineless, appeasing snot gobbling morons who are so totally shot through with the insane, suicidal toxin of selfless altruism that they can no longer act in their own interest or even self-preservation, for that matter.
As a "dry-lab" thought experiment, ask yourself what other group on earth has any potential for defeating Islam, aside from the Communist Chinese, that is. And if you want to live in a world led by the Chicoms, then you have problems that cannot possibly be solved by any amount of reasoned discussion at this forum.
Try real hard to keep in mind that I am not a Christian. However, as a devout agnostic, I still have a sincere appreciation for those who maintain some sort of reverence for the human soul.
Clearly, Islam does not fall into that category.
I invite you to posit just one other even slightly cohesive group that has any chance of defeating Islam without rendering our world an equal, or only slightly less worse, sort of tyranny.
Go right ahead. Give it a shot.
The lot of you are quite expert at negative criticism. Now, let's see you deliver some solidly constructive critical analysis regarding the who, what, where, when and how by which any other significant and already organized body on the face of this planet is going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating Islam.
While you're at it please feel free to explain how this forum's owners, who if you hadn't noticed are sincere Christians, somehow manage to capably enable and conduct functional counter-jihad without any of the smarmy, sanctimonious garbage you are whingeing about.
Ill point out that it was Atheists and Pagans in cohoots with a myriad of other groups that pushed Christian societies to be more tolerant of "the Other," which has gotten us into this mess.
And Atheist Hedonists, a handful of Neitzchean weirdos, and dope smoking Pagans dancing around Stonehenge arent going to turn things around, especially if they keep their war on Christianity up. Hell, we are now catering to Satanists in the public sphere, for God's sake. They are just aiding and abetting that which they rage against, whilst completely uncomprehending of the reason for its occurence, and their complicity in it.
Mindboggling.
* Note on Satanists. They are given rights to practice their ridiculousness in prisons now.
Wake up and smell your hot steaming turd, for Christ's sake.
EVs desire for a world without ontology, epistemology or ethics (a.k.a. "religion") is something that never was, never will be, and cannot be as long as a human being exists. --- Stephen
I think you have me confused with kb.
kritik can surely find a lot of stuff to criticize the US for with its foreign policy.
However, its the US that was getting its hands dirty, fighting totalitarianism of one form or another.
Its easy to sit back and criticize, in your easy chair free from the moral hazard of action.
But that never stopped the Europeans for the last 50 years.
LOL!
but I’m not going to help people whose only desire is to eradicate Islam and have it replace with Christian theocracy. --- kb
Im not going to help people whose only desire is to eradicate Islam and have Christianity banished from public participation in the governance, legislation, and institutions of Christian majority nations.
That pretty much sums it up.
As I pointed out, people like kb have been pushing Christians to be more tolerant of the other, and now that we have tolerance of the other, its Christians fault for allowing tolerance.
LOL!
One thing is for sure, kb has his anti Christian bigotry front and center. Its all their fault.
He is the problem, and doesnt even comprehend it.
As I said. Mindboggling.
Escape Velocity said...
“As I pointed out, people like kb have been pushing Christians to be more tolerant of the other, and now that we have tolerance of the other, its Christians fault for allowing tolerance.”
It’s always amusing to see sanctimonious diehard Christians who doesn’t mind mocking Muslims and make fun of their religion, going totally bananas when non Christians say something negative about their own ‘sacred’ religion Christianity, or simply expresses their personal view on religion in general. Then all of a sudden the gloves comes off and ridiculing Christianity becomes a big deal, as opposed to their own ridiculing and mocking of other religions and personal morals systems that doesn’t involve living in accordance with a book written a thousand years ago by some desert nomads living in the Middle east.
“One thing is for sure, kb has his anti Christian bigotry front and center. Its all their fault.”
No, as far as I’m concerned people can believe in whatever they like as long as they don’t try to push their views on me. I reckon the biggest bigots out there today are the religious lunatics who’re trying desperately to ram their religious believes down other people’s throats, kind of like EV who advocates for the revival of Christian belief and moral on the ‘ungodly European sinners’.
What would be the first step EV? To abolish Darwin’s ungodly evolution theory and replace it with true Christian Creationism? Kind of like what they’re trying to do in Texas? That would really rock wouldn’t it?
In case it somehow eluded your notice, kritisk_borger, my previous post was directed not only at rebelliousvanilla but yourself as well.
So, once again: I invite you to posit just one other even slightly cohesive group that has any chance of defeating Islam without rendering our world an equal, or only slightly less worse, sort of tyranny.
You're real good at slamming other people, justifiably or not. Now, let's see you do some heavy lifting for a change and contribute any sort of cogent analysis that goes beyond the usual sort of, 'That won't work' and 'Christians are icky' time-wasting crap.
Since you at least have enough wits about you to recognize that Islam is ready to eat your lunch, why don't you reveal your Master Plan™ to our studio audience and all the folks at home. That way, all of us can share in the wise and wonderful truthiness of your grand vision for our collective future.
You too, rebelliousvanilla. Stop hiding up there in the nosebleed seats and come on down into the spotlight so all of us can see you unfurl whatever flag it is that we are supposed to march under which will return Islam to the stone-age lunacy it so fervently desires for all of us to live in.
You say that the Christians can't do it. Fine, why don't you tell us who can? Enough of the naysaying, let's have a dose of reality here.
Zenster I'm reposting some comments I left on GoV some while ago. Hopefully these comments will give you an idea on my take on Islam and how it will be defeated in Europe if it comes to a violent struggle.
Here they are;
I’ve read many times on various blogs and internet discussion forums that Muslims will be able, at some stage in the future, to seize control in Europe based solely on their overwhelming large numbers, their aggressive manners and the average Europeans ‘supposedly’ lack of ‘balls to stand up for themselves’. I for one don’t think it’s as simple as that. Huge numbers of civilians have little or no influence on the events during an armed conflict. They are normally the first to flee as they don’t have weapons, proper military training and often don’t possess the willingness to take part in an armed conflict. They end up as genuine refugees as opposed to the vast majority of people who come to Europe to apply for asylum.
As to the question whether Europe will fall to Islamists sometime in the future or not it’s worth keeping in mind that during civil wars or national unrest it’s normally those who control the armed forces that prevails. If it came down to it would be fairly simple for a small well equipped and professionally trained army to quell an insurgency or a potential coup d’etat. There are countless of examples of that throughout history so it shouldn’t really be a groundbreaking revelation. Remember that only a couple of weeks ago the Thai army effectively killed the red shirt protest in Bangkok.
I also believe that if the sovereignty of any European nation was at stake, the generals of that nation would not hold back any punches but deal with it swiftly and comprehensively (no matter what the EU may have to say about it). After the victory the decision makers (not necessarily the elected politicians) would introduce measures that would guarantee that such a scenario never was allowed to take place again.
And by the way, the armies of Europe are at the moment overwhelmingly white European and they will probably also continue to be so in the future.
6/18/2010 3:09 AM
Next comment;
Baron,
I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, whether a continuation of the current situation will be the outcome, a Muslim takeover, an Indigenous victory followed by a swift Muslim exodus or something else.
My key point is that it’s not a case of numbers that’s going to dictate who’s going to win if it comes down to a violent struggle. It’s going to be a question of who controls the armed forces. In my opinion it doesn’t really matter that much whether there’s a big Muslim population who supports sharia in Sweden or not. The civilian Muslim population can do very little against a well trained and well equipped army hell bent on crushing a violent insurrection. You have to remember that the majority of the Muslim population in Sweden will not take part in an armed struggle; it’s only going to be a small group of fanatics who’re going to undertake such a mission if it ever comes down to it.
Yes, a civilian Muslim can express his disapproval of the army’s’ actions, he can take to the streets and protest but there’s very little that he can when the army decides to open fire on the demonstrators. I recon a dozen highly organized and well trained soldiers would have no difficulties in taking out a couple of hundred civilian demonstrators if they decided to do so. And I believe that the outcome of such tactics would have a devastating effect on other protestors moral and eagerness to continue opposing the regime.
And if anarchists and fanatical Muslims were seriously preparing a hostile takeover the intelligence services would get wind of it and ensure that proper steps were taken to eliminate this threat before it could be put into life.
And at the moment there are no Muslim militia groups organising a hostile takeover in any country in Western Europe. There isn’t any massive training camps were Muslims are taught military tactics. The Muslims who are active in Europe today are exerting political pressure on the authorities by utilizing various anti-discrimination laws and ‘western guilt’.
There isn’t any organized Muslim military threat behind the Muslim political advancement in Europe. Think about it, when was the last time that fanatical Muslims carried out a terrorist act in Europe? And how many times do we read about such attacks being stopped by the various intelligence services before they can even be carried out?
Yes, Muslim youths are heavily involved in crime, but they wouldn’t stand a chance against proper military units. Most of them would run away with their tail behind their legs if the military started killings say a dozen of their mates and made it clear that the same thing would happen to them if they didn’t change their ways.
I’m worried about the growing numbers of Muslim in the west and the elite’s cowardly appeasement, but I’m not worried about the Muslim military strength at all, because it simply doesn’t exist.
6/19/2010 9:09 AM
Last comment;
"I don’t think so. Islam in the west could be eradicated within a couple of months if it came to it. The Muslims in the west are not a strong group. They think they are, but they’re not. When push comes to shove they will lose.
It sure as hell isn’t going to be Jesus Army’s that going to defeat Islam in Europe, it will either be professional army/armies or anti Islamic militia groups with members who hail from every spectre of the political scale and personal belief system (Islam excluded)."
7/31/2010 8:20 AM
And that's my take on that issue.
kritisk_borger: And by the way, the armies of Europe are at the moment overwhelmingly white European and they will probably also continue to be so in the future.
Which are also of an overwhelmingly Christian makeup − whether in practice, tradition or heritage − but far be it from you to admit that.
It sure as hell isn’t going to be Jesus Army’s that going to defeat Islam in Europe, it will either be professional army/armies or anti Islamic militia groups with members who hail from every spectre [sic] of the political scale and personal belief system (Islam excluded)."
Au contraire, if anything, the military coalition that is most likely to defeat Islam in the short term will probably be one that has a strong resemblance to the Multinational Coalition Forces that are currently doing all of the dirty work in the MME (Muslim Middle East). It is unlikely that India, Japan, or a stupendously reluctant China will contribute much to such an effort.
And, as I have already noted, should that be the case, it will be a predominantly Christian task force that clips Islam's wings.
I welcome you to argue the point.
Of course, kritisk borger, was pushing the idea of banning Christianity.
And then claims that the problem is Christians cant take criticism.
Par for the Atheist course.
Maybe we should ban Atheism, Heathenism, and Islam.
That way, we can rally the Jesus Army to the Crusades against the infidels.
You could make common cause with the Muzzies then.
Wouldnt that be a hoot.
Zenster said..
“Which are also of an overwhelmingly Christian makeup − whether in practice, tradition or heritage − but far be it from you to admit that.”
One could if one wanted to quite possibly label all white people in the west as Christians. Just like one could label people in the Middle East as Muslims, but then again most rational people knows that this would be a dishonest way of categorizing people. Hell I could possibly be labeled as a Christian as I was christened as a child, even though I’m clearly not, I’m an atheist. And the same thing goes with the rest of society too.
All one has to do is inspect any Christian church on a Sunday morning and see how many people are actually attending the sermon and make a quick mental note as to how many are not. I’m pretty convinced that you’ll find that the Christians would come up as a tiny minority and like I mentioned above it’s the same thing with the rest of society including the armed forces.
When I refer to Christians I’m referring to people who believe that Jesus Christ is their savior. That’s what being a Christian is all about isn’t it? Someone who believes in Jesus Christ and the bible?
When I’m referring to Christians I’m referring to people like Escape Velocity who believes that they’re going to Heaven when they die. I’m talking about people who’re actively trying to convince others that their way of life is the correct one. I don’t know about the American armed forces, but in Europe I’d say the great majority of active military personnel don’t fall into this category.
I can count on one hand the number of Christians military personnel I came across when I was in the armed forces in the early 90’s. The great majority were non-Christians. Nor do I agree with your claim that the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq mainly consists mainly of deeply religious Christian individuals. I personally know one SAS member who’s serving in Afghanistan and he’s definitely not a Christian, but then again that’s besides the point.
Here’s a question for you. Do you believe if there was a referendum held today that the people of Europe and America would vote for a society run strictly in accordance to the Bible or not?
EV,
When I said that we should perhaps ban religion altogether it was done tongue in cheek. I seriously thought that most people would get that, but then again you saw red immediately and swallowed it line sink and hook.
kritisk_borger: One could if one wanted to quite possibly label all white people in the west as Christians. Just like one could label people in the Middle East as Muslims, but then again most rational people knows that this would be a dishonest way of categorizing people.
It would be "dishonest" except for the fact that a vast majority of Western European and American caucasians originated from Christian cultures while, at one time, the Middle East was a mosaic of many different religions and belief systems.
Other than that bit of profound disproof regarding your observation, let's see what else you have to say.
All one has to do is inspect any Christian church on a Sunday morning and see how many people are actually attending the sermon and make a quick mental note as to how many are not. I’m pretty convinced that you’ll find that the Christians would come up as a tiny minority and like I mentioned above it’s the same thing with the rest of society including the armed forces.
Ah, yes. Another solid indication that you quite possibly don't understand Christianity very well. I'm no expert either but I sure try to avoid making rather misguided statements like that one. Being someone who lives in what was once a predominantly Lutheran country, you might be aware that church attendance is not of pinnacle importance in determining actual rates of pratice.
Currently, America is about 76% Christian and over 70% Caucasian. While the numbers are more difficult to ascertain for Europe there is still a sizeable Christian population there as well. Great Britain's number hovers somewhere around 70%. If you are in Sweden, then you should know that your country has one of the highest rates of abandonment for all of Europe which may be skewing your perception. While not all inclusive, those aforementioned numbers are not a "tiny minority".
Nor do I agree with your claim that the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq mainly consists mainly of deeply religious Christian individuals.
Who asked you to? It most certainly was not me. Nowwhere did I say that soldiers in the Multinational Forces were "deeply religious Christian individuals". Please take your straw man arguments elsewhere.
Here’s a question for you. Do you believe if there was a referendum held today that the people of Europe and America would vote for a society run strictly in accordance to the Bible or not?
Yeesh, enough of the straw man arguments already! The only form of theocracy in discussion happens to be ISLAM and NOT Christianity. This discussion is about defeating Islam and not in any way intended to address your screeching about Christianity.
Zenster said...
“Ah, yes. Another solid indication that you quite possibly don't understand Christianity very well. I'm no expert either but I sure try to avoid making rather misguided statements like that one. Being someone who lives in what was once a predominantly Lutheran country, you might be aware that church attendance is not of pinnacle importance in determining actual rates of pratice.”
Oh, so Church attendance is not a big part of Christianity? Then what is? Attending the local bars and brothels?
And even if it wasn’t as you say ‘of pinnacle importance’’ it’s a pretty good indicator of peoples spirituality and the profoundness of their faith, or perhaps I should rather say lack of thereof.
In the old days in Norway people would get into a lot of trouble if they didn’t attend church. The local priest would come around and demand why the ‘sinner’ weren’t in attendance. In the western and southern part of Norway (Norway’s Bible belt) sanctimonious Christians were fast in pointing fingers and making life miserable for those who diverged from the ‘true path’ up until quite recently hence the displeasure of this religion among many Norwegians today.
Extreme Christian organizations in Norway actually had ‘undesirable women’ (travelers – in Norwegian ‘Tater’ ) sterilized against their will up until the early 1970’s.
As to the way Christians are classified and counted in Norway. Children born to Norwegian parents are automatically registered as Christians by the Norwegian church. If a person wishes to disassociate himself from the Church he’ll have to go to his Local Church Parish and get the proper application forms to fill out. There is quite a bit of paper work involved in that process. The priest will also try to dissuade the person in question from ‘leaving’ the Church, and there is a fee involved in submitting the forms.
A lot of people in Norway aren’t aware of this, and many of those who are don’t won’t the hassle with all the paper work and some just don’t care whether they’re registered as Christians or not, even though they don’t believe in God.
And yes I would claim that there’s not a Christian majority (people who believe in God) in Norway, and I’ve actually lived there for most of my life.
“Currently, America is about 76% Christian and over 70% Caucasian. While the numbers are more difficult to ascertain for Europe there is still a sizeable Christian population there as well. Great Britain's number hovers somewhere around 70%. If you are in Sweden, then you should know that your country has one of the highest rates of abandonment for all of Europe which may be skewing your perception. While not all inclusive, those aforementioned numbers are not a "tiny minority".
to be cont.
Just because some people identify themselves as belonging to the Christian religion in a survey doesn’t necessarily mean that they themselves believe in God. Many would do so simply because they were brought up as Christians / Christened as babies / or identify themselves as Christians due to their ethnicity. Many would also do so because of traditions, kind of like why non-Christians still have their babies Christened or get married in a Church. It doesn’t mean that they believe in God. And anyway surveys and statistics should not be relied upon as absolute and accurate information.
“Yeesh, enough of the straw man arguments already! The only form of theocracy in discussion happens to be ISLAM and NOT Christianity. This discussion is about defeating Islam and not in any way intended to address your screeching about Christianity.”
Is ‘straw man argument’ your favorite expression? Or do you just use it when you can’t answer the questions asked of you? I asked you a simple question regarding the issue we’re debating here which is whether the majority of the population in Europe is Christians (believe in God) or not. It would be logical to draw the conclusion that if the majority of them are in fact practicing Christians, then they would prefer to live in a society run by Christian morals and virtues/vote for religious parties who would better represent their interests. But then again that’s not the case, is it? People are allowed to drink alcohol have sex outside of marriage, have abortions and live in gay relationships if they choose to do so. And that’s the way that the majority prefers it, so no they’re not Christian (believe in God) majority countries.
Even in America the ‘anti-Christ’ Barack Obama got the majority of the votes.
Zenster, the problem is the Christianity if we're to face other Christians. Christianity was great, when it was just an European religion. And not only this, but the values of it are fairly invert - basically, Christian theology right now is sort of pure, not contaminated by the German martial mentality or things as such. Liberalism is merely Christianity without God. Heck, tell me what denominations of Christians, besides the Orthodox, mind immigration.
This is fairly on key.
Also, Christianity isn't ethnocentric for us. The survival of the Jews is important, but us as Europeans are expendable. And by saying that Christians fought to save the Jews is hardly something that contradicts it, especially since the victors took quite a few pages out of the Nazi handbook in their treatment of Germans.
Oh, and I'd have no problem with Christianity if it wasn't like this. As an atheist, I don't really care what banner we are under, as long as it is us under it. But most Christians could care the less if Europe was African in 200 years, as long as the Africans were Christian.
To sum it up, all the Christian organizations are into the present insanity so saying that there's no other organized group is silly. It's like saying that our nations represented by our governments are the solution.
EV, the US did a great job at exporting this insanity that we are living through to Europe. And heck, if let's say Germany actually tried to do something about the Turks and stay German - guess which country would be the first to bomb them. Give me a break about the US. The US bombed Christians for the sake of Muslims and this has nothing to do with ethnic preservation, which might be seen as racist.
To answer your question Zenster, every single institution or organization that we have is an unmitigated failure. We must replace them with new organizations. So while there's no cohesive group right now, we must form one. In the end, I don't really care, I'd always take Christians over Muslims. But supposing we do away with Muslims, then what? Religion in this way is hardly a tool to do anything, since it's not centered around us. Also, we need to do away with universalism and become more tribal. Christianity isn't good for it either.
Zenster, you said
Which are also of an overwhelmingly Christian makeup − whether in practice, tradition or heritage − but far be it from you to admit that.
What's a Christian makeup? They're of European heritage. A belief is part of you only if you practice it and most European soldiers don't. Well, except the Romanian armed forces, which yes, are overwhelmingly Christian in the true sense of the world. Actually, the European armies are quite great since the only people I know in them are those that love their European heritage. I suppose that in the German armed forces there aren't spineless fools like in the German football national team that don't sing their own anthem. In this sense I'm lucky, because even the Romanian national team sings the anthem so the army is even more badass. :P Too bad we have quite a lot of ancient war stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzR1T6CjMQ
I sort of love that the people in my city actually show up for this parade, despite it being really cold outside. For example, when you join the Romanian Armed forces, the first oath you take is to the Romanian nation and the army has the motto Pro patria et ordine iuris. I'm actually pissed off that the army gets under 3% of GDP and that we send our troops in worthless wars to my country. Anyway, being in the Romanian armed forces means you take a pledge to defend ethnic Romanians. At least this is the common interpretation of the oaths. Christianity can't trump that.
And European culture originated from the meeting of Rome and Greece. This is a more important part of our heritage than Christianity or Enlightenment. If I'd join the Romanian armed forces, I'd be considered a Christian too, despite me being an atheist. The census counts me as Christian too.
kritisk_borger: Oh, so Church attendance is not a big part of Christianity?
Do you even read before you type? What part of: "Being someone who lives in what was once a predominantly Lutheran country, you might be aware that church attendance is not of pinnacle importance in determining actual rates of pratice", did you not understand?
My point was in reference to Lutheranism as practiced in SWEDEN, not the entire Christian world. Look up the differences between Christian reformation and Catholic faiths if my point is unclear.
kritisk_borger: Just because some people identify themselves as belonging to the Christian religion in a survey doesn’t necessarily mean that they themselves believe in God.
Do you have any factual evidence to support such a claim? Please provide it along with cites and links before you expect me or anyone else to accept such an absurd statement.
Is ‘straw man argument’ your favorite expression?
No, but it certainly seems to be your favored form of fallacious argument.
Or do you just use it when you can’t answer the questions asked of you?
I am not obliged to answer whatever oddball, distorted, off topic questions that you happen to come up with.
I asked you a simple question regarding the issue we’re debating here which is whether the majority of the population in Europe is Christians (believe in God) or not.
You can look up that information on the Internet just as easily as anyone else. I never claimed that "the majority of the population in Europe is Christians". That is your own statement and you can prove or disprove it as you see fit.
My point deals with how Islam is most likely to be defeated by those who derive from a Christian background or heritage. You have seen fit to dispute that point even as you then observe how the individuals who will most probably save your atheist bacon are likely to be those exact people of Christian background or heritage.
Go figure.
rebelliousvanilla: And by saying that Christians fought to save the Jews is hardly something that contradicts it, especially since the victors took quite a few pages out of the Nazi handbook in their treatment of Germans.
Where did I say; "that Christians fought to save the Jews"? All I said was, "Who fought and defeated the Nazis? The vast majority of them were Christians."
Read what you like into my own statements. Just don't expect me to respond to your abstruse questions.
To answer your question Zenster, every single institution or organization that we have is an unmitigated failure.
I would qualify that by noting how many Western institutions have morphed into failures despite having once been quite functional. The Gramscian form of Cultural Marxism bears a lot of responsibility for this change.
So while there's no cohesive group right now, we must form one. In the end, I don't really care, I'd always take Christians over Muslims.
Which closely corresponds to my own views as a devout agnostic.
But supposing we do away with Muslims, then what?
Should Christianity manage to unify itself alongside of forming alliances with other non-Muslim groups in order to defeat Islam; then we had all better hope like Hell that Christians got the memo and know damn well enough not to try any theocratic bull's pizzle lest they get the same dose that Islam received.
Right now, the defeat of Islam is so crucial that I'm willing to take that risk. Christianity's ascendance won't see the bulk of Western civilization immolated nor our world thrown back into the dark ages like Muslims are hoping for.
rebelliousvanilla: What's a Christian makeup? They're of European heritage. A belief is part of you only if you practice it and most European soldiers don't.
Wittingly or unwittingly, Europeans still carry forward a lot of their Christian roots in, for instance, the way their government constitutions enshrine a significant chunk of Mosaic law. Many other modern cultural practices similarly derive from that prior heritage.
Anyway, being in the Romanian armed forces means you take a pledge to defend ethnic Romanians. At least this is the common interpretation of the oaths. Christianity can't trump that.
Where have I disputed that?
My point remains that the West's Christian heritage will likely play a significant contributing role in defeating Islam.
I'll leave it for you and kritisk_borger to quibble over the window dressing.
Since Christendom was responsible for the Enlightenment, I wouldnt worry too much.
Of course Atheists will never give them the credit they deserve, on that score. And in fact contrive to spread falsehoods in order to deprive them of that credit (in other words discredit Christianity/Christendom/and Christian Civilization/Institutions). The Flat Earth Error concisely shows how this is done, and who is doing it. Its just one aspect of the false narrative being promoted where Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages (instead of rightly shown as the force that drug/led Europe out of the Dark Ages) and as an anti science anti learning force....which of course nothing could be further from the truth.
But alas...
A people that sneer at their own heritage are getting exactly what follows. Self hatred and immolation...lead to decline...and others more confident will step in to take control of the resources.
You people are fools. Uncomprehending, prefering the comfort of your self deception and self delusion.
All groups hostile to Christian Europe are licking their chops to build their new Empires and societies on its ruins....while in collusion to help bring it down.
Islam/Muslims
Western Leftists
Athesists
Both the Atheists and Muslims are in cahoots with the Western Left.
As it looks now though, its Islam that has 57 Nation backing, 1400 years of Civilizational Experience and vast resource wealth, and devout followers willing to give their lives to the struggle....and billions willing to move to Europe. (Western Leftists also were willing to give their lives to the struggle, but most now are comfortable middle class within the institutions).
Advantage Islam.
Never count the Army of Jesus out.
Florida church plans to burn Quran on 9/11 anniversary
By Eeyore | August 2, 2010
Times of India:
MIAMI: A Florida church said it plans to publicly burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, prompting threats from Islamic groups and warnings the move will trigger a rise in hate crimes.
The Dove World Outreach Center of Gainesville, Florida said on its Facebook page it will hold an “International Burn a Koran Day” on September 11, asking other religious groups to join in standing “against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil!”
“Islam and Sharia law was responsible for 9/11,” pastor Terry Jones said. “We will burn Qurans because we think it’s time for Christians, for churches, for politicians to stand up and say no; Islam and Sharia law is not welcome in the US,” the organizer of the burning action added.
Reactions to the Koran burning announcement were swift. Members of the Al-Falluja jihadist forum have threatened to “spill rivers of your (American) blood” and “a war the likes of which you have never seen before”.
Mainstream Muslim groups also denounced the move and lamented the sentiments promoted by the Gainesville church.
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=24551
EscapeVelocity: Mainstream Muslim groups also denounced the move [to burn qur'ans] and lamented the sentiments promoted by the Gainesville church.
Yet, these same Muslims somehow managed to remain conspicuously silent about the routine confiscation of Bibles by Saudi Arabian customs inspectors which more than likely meet with a fate identical to that pending the Qur'ans in question.
I have already voiced my own mixed feelings about book burning. What I will note is how, in this particular case, the Christians are providing another useful object lesson in that they are leading by example.
Should Muslims obtain the usual Dire Revenge™ through their intent to “spill rivers of your (American) blood”; once again will Christians show Islam the true meaning of martyrdom.
One historical and profound distinction made by Christians − that seems utterly lost upon Muslims − is the practical definition of being a martyr. Islam's perversion of this term is especially detestable in light of how Christian martyrs have never sought to take the greatest number of their tormentors along with them. Muslims can make no such claim and the Islamic definition of martyr is an abomination in all respects.
I have long predicted that a number of modern Christian martyrs will emerge during the ensuing conflict with Islam. If this process begins in Ganiesville, then so be it. The time is long overdue for American Muslims to openly demonstrate their barbarity and if these Gainseville Christians are unafraid of this prospect, then I will reluctantly acknowledge that the time is ripe for it.
Would there were some other way but − even as Islam sows the wind − it forbids any alternative with Muslims one and all reaping the whirlwind for their trouble.
EV, tell me a Christian denomination that is taking a really strong stand against immigration - legal and illegal. If you can't, then Christians are in the boat of the left too.
And why would I give someone props for Enlightenment? A lot of the ideas coming out of it were bad for my people.
Zenster, as I said, if push comes to shove, I will support Europeans no matter what banner they are under. Heck, we can use the EU flag or whatever, I don't care. Also, our system of governance is influenced a lot more by Greece and Rome, rather than Christianity. And I'd like those roots of Christianity changed with something else since Christianity without God is liberalism, hence the reason why Europeans are insane.
Zenster said ..
“Do you even read before you type? What part of: "Being someone who lives in what was once a predominantly Lutheran country, you might be aware that church attendance is not of pinnacle importance in determining actual rates of pratice", did you not understand?”
Well you obviously don’t read the replies to your own comments. In Norway and Sweden people would get in to a lot of trouble in the old days if they didn’t attend church, so I would say that Church attendance has been a very important factor in Christianity in those two countries. But of course you know best, not the people who have spent most of their lives there, isn’t that right?
People don’t attend Church in Norway and Sweden in great numbers anymore because they’re not very religious and they’re not being penalized by the Church anymore for not showing up. The empty pews are sure tell sign that people have turned away from organized religion. But of course you will continue to dispute this fact because you know best. I bet ya that you’ve never set foot in Scandinavia before.
“Do you have any factual evidence to support such a claim? Please provide it along with cites and links before you expect me or anyone else to accept such an absurd statement.”
Well I’ve explained that to you in detail in my last reply, I also explained to you in detail how the Church in Norway increase their membership numbers by adding every baby born to Norwegian parents into the Church, but which you just seem to ignore, so I’m not going to waste my time anymore.
“My point deals with how Islam is most likely to be defeated by those who derive from a Christian background or heritage. You have seen fit to dispute that point even as you then observe how the individuals who will most probably save your atheist bacon are likely to be those exact people of Christian background or heritage.
“
Well gee that’s another razor sharp observation from you. Considering that most Christians in the western world today are for multiculturalism and for appeasing Islam I don’t think that they’re going to save us.
And yes I know you keep rambling about people of ‘Christian heritage and background’. My point which you just don’t seem to grasp is that this is not the same as Christian individuals. Christianity was imposed upon the people of Europe. That religion was pretty much what Islam is today. It’s like saying that people of Eastern Europe are of a Marxist background/heritage and claiming that they’re still Marxists today.
And why only go back to Christianity? Why not go back to the Greek and Roman influence? And why not be even more honest and say that the people who’re most likely to stop Islam in Europe will be those who hail from the Germanic tribes, since you’re so caught up with history?
And since you’re so adamant about other people documenting their claims why don’t you document your own claims and give us some links that proves that the majority of the soldiers in the armies of Europe today are Christians (individuals who believe in God) because you’re not that deluded that you don’t realize that it will eventually be the armed forces or members from these forces that will have to deal with militant Islam if it ever gets down to it?
Or maybe you think that Christians will defeat Islam by bashing the Muslims with big black Bibles??
kritisk_borger: I bet ya that you’ve never set foot in Scandinavia before.
You'd lose that bet. I have been there more than once and, on different occasions, spent several weeks in both Denmark and Sweden.
Christianity was imposed upon the people of Europe. That religion was pretty much what Islam is today.
Too bad your moral relativism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How is it that European Christianity managed to produce the Enlightenment while Islam continues to be the world's preeminent force for darkness?
You clearly have a grudge against Christianity that appears to blind you with respect to its worthwhile contributions. I'm not even a Christian but still have the moral clarity to understand how much of Western history has been channeled by its influence.
Zenster said...
“Christianity was imposed upon the people of Europe. That religion was pretty much what Islam is today.
Too bad your moral relativism doesn't stand up to scrutiny.”
Oh really, so according to you it would have been quite unproblematic for someone to speak out against the Church and criticize it’s teachings say four or five hundred years ago in Europe? Do inform us please because this is groundbreaking news.
“Too bad your moral relativism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How is it that European Christianity managed to produce the Enlightenment while Islam continues to be the world's preeminent force for darkness?”
So according to you the Church encouraged the enlightenment process in Europe??
I don’t think so. The enlightenment wasn’t something that the Church started or encouraged, it was a result of people starting to question the Church and its authority. The enlightenment resulted in value being placed on science and logic rather than undying belief in a book written more than a thousand years ago. If the enlightenment hadn’t taken place, Europe would probably be a Christian version of Saudi Arabia where any opposition or criticism of the Church would be punished severely. Kind of like how the Church prosecuted the infidels during the Spanish inquisition and the witch trials, some which even took place in America.
When the Bible was first printed in English the clergy in England was in uproar because it meant that they would lose some of their power as the bible up until then had only been available in Latin, which the ordinary people couldn’t read. The translator however wanted ordinary people to be able to read it for themselves in their own language and not having to rely on the clergy. This led the Church in England to issue a statement that anyone caught with an English bible would be killed. The Church eventually managed to kill the translator.
It was definitely an act based on the true idea of enlightenment, wouldn’t you say?
Zenster, kritisk didn't say Christianity is Islam, he said that European Christians produced the Enlightenment. But this doesn't change the fact that Christianity was forced upon Europeans, on Scandinavians quite late at that. kritisk is right when he says that the Enlightenment was created in spite of Christianity, despite it having quite a Christian background.
Still, I don't get why the fight over this, since quite a lot of the values that come out of the Enlightenment are quite bad(in terms of morality or politics/ideology, not the science and accent on logic parts).
Science and logic were both fostered by Christians and the Roman Catholic Church.
"If the enlightenment hadn’t taken place, Europe would probably be a Christian version of Saudi Arabia where any opposition or criticism of the Church would be punished severely."
You mean the Protestant Reformation, not the Enlightenment. But its probably all the same to you, heh?
No difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity either.
Ive got news for you, Christianity DIDNT make Europe into a version of Saudi Arabia. It's not even something to conjecture, we can see that it didnt.
The Spanish Inquisition was foundational in reclaiming the Iberian penninsula from Islam, in a very thorough manner.
The opposition to Bibles being printed in laymen's tongues was academic within the Church's, as well as a power play. But that power struggle was among Christians, not Non Christians (Atheists/Agnostics/Pagans/Scientists or others) vs Christians.
But hey, loose logic and analysis and bigotry are classic combinations arent they.
As long as you can maintain some "truthiness", heh?
Meanwhile the Scientific Revolution was well underway, mostly with Catholic educated Christians leading the way, indeed many of them were ordained by the Church as clergymen, themselves.
It's important to understand that the Church (or Churches) werent perfect, they were institutions of man, and thus flawed with all human failings. And sure you can find many things to gripe about and point fingers at, but those were the exceptions, not the rule....although those who dislike Christianity and the Church(es) will continue to assert that opposite. An unbiased analysis of the grand scheme of things, puts both Christianity and the Church(es) in a positive light as forces for science, education, learning, reason..etc.
But alas...when you start from a place of either ignorance or bigotry (or both as is the case these days because forces hostile to both Christianity and the Church(es) dominate the education systems....you get self hating ignoramuses who cant understand why their civilization is collapsing around them.
And that's the rest of the story...
Just wanted to add that their were disagreements within the Church(es) about the printing of Bibles in native tongues.
Not just those who left the Church over this issue...(but still remained devout Christians). In fact they may be even more devout Christians than your average CofE or Catholic layman...probably so.
EV said...
“Science and logic were both fostered by Christians and the Roman Catholic Church.”
So the Church in the past actively encouraged people to come forward with their alternative thesis and views so that the Church could embrace these new revolutionary ideas? So why was it then that the inquisitions actively sought out people they perceived to be guilty of witchcraft and sorcery and had them tortured and killed?
People with alternative views were treated as heretics (infidels). Even Galileo was brought before the pope because of his views.
Another quote;
“Ive got news for you, Christianity DIDNT make Europe into a version of Saudi Arabia. It's not even something to conjecture, we can see that it didnt.”
And ...
“The Spanish Inquisition was foundational in reclaiming the Iberian penninsula from Islam, in a very thorough manner.”
Christianity in the past was a very real version of today’s Saudi Arabia. You go on and ‘praise’ the inquisitions’, which tortured and killed people in the most bestial way possible in a process instigated and carried out by the Church to ensure that the people didn’t stray from the official religion or doubted the truthfulness of this religion.
Saudi Arabia is a sick Muslim theocracy and they also persecute people who stray from the one true religion according to them Islam, just like the Church in the past.
And what about the witch trials where they also a result of keeping ‘the Muslims’ at bay or were there other motives for these?
And if you failed to get the point of my earlier comments, I never claimed that Europe today is a Christian dictatorship. What I said was that Europe in the old days was run by the Church with an iron fist and had it not been for people starting to challenge the authority of the Church we’d probably still be a Christian version of Saudi today.
You are the one that is talking about banning Christianity from Europe.
Christians arent proposing to ban Atheists from Europe.
We are at the point where your advocation of tolerance leads....a weak society that doesnt stand for anything, except its on hedonism.....spiraling apart in a myriad of groups self interest.
Denial aint just a river.
And for the record, your assertion that Christian Europe was at any time like Saudi Arabia under Islamic Rule is just plain false.
It wasnt like that 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago, nor 1000 years ago.
EV said..
“You are the one that is talking about banning Christianity from Europe.”
Which I’ve already told you was a tongue in cheek comment. People can believe in whatever they like as long as they don’t impose their views on me or try to restrict the way I live my life.
“Christians arent proposing to ban Atheists from Europe.”
True, but they did however kill and torture atheists in the past which you don’t seem to have a problem with since you seem to praise the inquisitions.
“We are at the point where your advocation of tolerance leads....a weak society that doesnt stand for anything, except its on hedonism.....spiraling apart in a myriad of groups self interest.”
I’d say the troubles the west are facing at the moment are caused by individuals with ‘believes’ that are either religious (Christians/Muslim) or religious in nature (Marxists, socialists).The problems are certainly not caused by people who only define themselves as atheists.
I’m for rationality and logic, not spirituality and blind devotion. I don’t base my decisions on a book written over a thousand years ago I base them on logic.
And yes Europe of the past was most definitely a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.
Post a Comment