A thousand foaming lslamic loonies took to the streets of Khartoum today, demanding the execution of that poor British schoolteacher who allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Boy, I can't imagine why the immigration from Islamic countries to the West is 99.99 percent one-way. Who wouldn't want to live in such a paradise?
Meanwhile, Bruce Thornton responds on the City Journal website to the disgraceful dhimmi full-page ad in the NYT this week, by a group of Christians seeking "dialogue." Excerpt:
The groveling self-abasement of this language, particularly its begging forgiveness of Allah, is matched only by its remarkable historical ignorance. “Outright hostility” has indeed existed between Muslims and Christians, for the simple reason that for 13 centuries Islam grew and spread by war, plunder, rapine, and enslavement throughout the Christian Middle East. Allah’s armies destroyed regions that were culturally Christian for centuries, variously slaughtering, enslaving, and converting their inhabitants, or allowing them to live as oppressed dhimmi, their lives and property dependent on a temporary “truce” that Muslim overlords could abrogate at any time.And let’s not forget the seven-century-long Islamic occupation of Spain, the centuries of raids into southern Italy and southern France, the near-sack of Rome in 846, the occupation of Sicily and Greece, the four-century-long occupation of the Balkans, the destruction of Constantinople, the two sieges of Vienna, the kidnapping of Christian youths to serve as janissaries from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the continual raiding of the northern Mediterranean littoral for slaves from 1500 to 1800, and the current jihadist terrorist attacks against the West.
These historical crimes dwarf those committed during the few centuries of the Crusades, which, for all of their excesses and mixed motives, were fought to liberate from Muslim hegemony the lands that had been Christian for six and a half centuries before Islam burst forth from the Arabian Peninsula.
You know where I stand on the Iraq war, and on the decadence of the West. And I don't think we should set out looking for a fight with Islam. But come on, let's keep things in perspective.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
See .... I always had this funny idea in my head that religions were more than the sum of the negative actions of the people who purport to adhere to them. How much more is UBL reflective of Islam the religion as a catechism (i.e. pick up the proverbial catechism and say "I believe this, all of it") vs. an IRA bomber is reflective of Catholicism? Before everyone jumps all over me and slings USA/Western hating invective at me, I'm not saying said UBL and said IRA bomber are equivalent.
I always had this idea in my head that Christians were taught by Jesus to ask forgiveness of their fellows regardless of their fellows asking their forgiveness in turn.
I always had this idea that defending my faith meant speaking its truths, living its truths, and disagreeing when I believe someone misrepresents the faith. (I realize many of you will roll your eyes at the irony of that given my not being in alignment with the catechism of the RC on the matter of homoesexuality). OTOH, defending my *country* may require police or military action.
When Bruce Thornton accuses the signers of not defending their faith, I'd like someone to exaplain to me exactly what defending one's faith means. Perhaps he is conflating religion with culture, or mayhaps even confusing religion with country.
This "Christendom" vs. "Islam" business seems so .... 13th century .... to me. Just as Muslims live everywhere in the world, so, mostly, do Christians.
If we want to talk about politics being hijacked by radical fundamentalist Islam, OK doke, I'm on board. Bad bad bad bad bad. But I'd assume that when we're talking about Muslims, we're also talking about US citizens, Europeans and places like Turkey, Morocco and many other countries that are not necessarily in the grip of radical fundamentalist Islam like Sudan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, parts of Pakistan, etc etc etc
BTW, that last sentence was quite poorly formed. I meant countries not in the grip of radical Islam *unlike* Sudan, Nigeria, SA, parts of Pak, etc.
I'm not saying said UBL and said IRA bomber are equivalent
Good. Because one of the more obvious differences is that IRA bombers never claimed to be fighting for Catholicism. The IRA has from the beginning explicitly disavowed any religious affiliation (they prefer the term "Nationalist"), and the Catholic Church has consistently condemned membership in armed secret societies (including the IRA, Fenians, etc.). IRA members certainly aren't characterized by any sort of religious zeal.
crowd who are justifying extremist actions in the name of Islam are mostly (IMO) very well-intentioned people. But they are also dead wrong.
You mean members in good standing of RoP who celebrated 9/11 are well-intentioned people?
Forgot to take your meds?
mik, I believe you misunderstood I was saying, and the personal attack is beneath you. At least I hope it is.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.