Ads


George Weigel

view all featured authors »

No More Appeasement of Radical Islam

The murder of more than 50 Catholics by jihadists during Sunday Mass in Baghdad on Oct. 31 is the latest in a series of outrages committed against Christians by Islamist fanatics throughout the world: Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and on the list goes. The timing of the attack on Baghdad’s Syriac Catholic cathedral was striking, however, for it came shortly after the conclusion in Rome of a special Synod on the Middle East. During the Synod, very little was said about Islamist persecution of Christians; indeed, every effort was bent to show the Catholic Church sympathetic to Muslim grievances, especially with regard to the politics of the Middle East.

This strategy of appeasement has always struck me as unwise. The al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists’ answer to the Synod—the Baghdad murders—has now proven the strategy deadly. Appeasement must stop.

I quite understand that Christians in the Islamic world are tiny minorities, burdened by economic distress and cultural prejudice (the latter partially explaining the former). But unless Christians begin to push back against those who, like the Baghdad murderers, describe their churches as “dirty place[s] of the infidel that…have long been used as a base to fight Islam,” jihadists and other radical Islamists will simply roll over them, en route to rendering anything deemed an “Islamic land” Christian–free. What might a strategy of resistance to this implacable persecution look like?

It would begin with the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI quickly and forcefully condemned the murderers of Baghdad; no one should doubt the Pope’s commitment to the survival of Christians in Muslim-dominated lands and to combating the anti-Semitism that often goes hand-in-glove with Islamic Christophobia. Yet in the Vatican Secretariat of State, the default positions vis-à-vis militant Islam are unhappily reminiscent of Vatican diplomacy’s default positions vis-à-vis communism during the last 25 years of the Cold War: try to reach political accommodations with Islamic states; foreswear forceful public condemnation of Islamist and jihadist ideology; look for interlocutors with whom to discuss co-existence among Islamic intellectuals. Such a strategy did not work in the Cold War, as I demonstrate in The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II – The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy. And it will not work with jihadist Islam, which in many respects is a more ruthlessly determined foe than the late-bureaucratic communism of the 1970s and 1980s. So strategic re-set is required in Rome. And it might well begin with a steady campaign of public condemnations of Islamist depredations against Christians throughout the world.

The Vatican bureaucracy and local Catholic leaders in the Middle East must also reexamine the assumption—widely bruited at the recent Synod—that resolving the Israel-Palestine issue through a two-state solution will solve every other issue between militant Islam and Christianity. It won’t. Moreover, a viable two-state solution, which every reasonable person supports, is not on the short-term horizon (although important steps are being taken to build the infrastructure of civil society on the West Bank). Meanwhile, Islamist depredations against Christians in the Holy Land are a present reality. Christian leaders whose people are being murdered by jihadists and other Islamist fanatics ought to stop blaming their precarious situation on the State of Israel and put the blame where it belongs: with Muslim intolerance.

The key theme to be stressed in all this is religious freedom, which is precisely what Benedict XVI emphasized at the conclusion of his homily at the Middle East Synod’s final Mass. As Father Raymond de Souza pointed out after the Baghdad massacres, “Christians have been in Iraq from the earliest centuries, long before there was an Iraq or, one might note, there was Islam.” Christians do not live in majority-Muslim lands by sufferance but by right. They should say so, and their co-religionists should say so. It would be helpful if the United States government would say so and would name the jihadist perpetrators of murder for who they are. But while we await that (unlikely?) change, we in the Church can summon the courage to confront, without illusions, what has become a lethal problem.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

Comments:

11.24.2010 | 11:25am
The Moz says:
This is a real problem that the two state solution will not resolve and who knows may even exacerbate if the agreement is viewed as capitulation by the extremists. I have a friend who is a Shia from Basra and who travels to Canada about once a year. He tells me that there are Churches in Basra and that they are safe. He even managed to buy me a crucifix in Iraq and give it to me a couple of years ago. Might this not be a problem specific to the Sunnis?
11.24.2010 | 12:14pm
roger says:
Mr Wiegel,
I completely agree, we can stop this by expressing ourselves more clearly, we should send a note, pass a resolution, make mandatory the display of "coexist" bumper stickers on the family car. Perhaps we should "go nuclear" and start a letter writing campaign, that will show them.
I agree it should start at the Vatican; but wait, what was it that Stalin asked when he was urged to cultivate the support of the Vatican; "How many divisions has the Pope?".
It should start with the recognition and proclamation that islam is a death cult, a system of backwardness, ignorance, hatred and unreason. Then we should stop islamic immigration into the US at least, (it may to too late to save Europe) we should seriously proselytize against islam and we should punish those nations who permit the human rights abuses you describe, and when I say punish I mean with things that go bang rather than things that wimper.
11.24.2010 | 12:59pm
I think we shouldn't allow construction of any more mosques in the US. That would discourage Muslim immigration. This in turn would make it more difficult for the radical Islamists to blend into our society - ultimately to commit acts of terror.
11.24.2010 | 1:33pm
Radical Islam does not exist. It wasn't fundamentalists that provoked the Crusades, it wasn't fundamentalists that provoked 9/11. These are faithful practicing Muslims. Either this is apart or it is not a part of Islam. Islam can't be dialogued with.
11.24.2010 | 1:46pm
KM says:
Finally, some sanity. This decision to confront (Radical)? Islam for what it is, is long overdue. Why can't we learn a lesson from what Islam did to the Middle Eastern countries and begin confronting the reality of intolerance, which is embedded into Islam as a religion? There are certain teachings of Islam that HAVE TO be dropped, i.e. killing of apostates, labeling Christians as "Kaffirs," and subjugating them to Jizyah, which renders them as second hand citizens. Outside of this option, there IS NO WAY the Christian population in Iraq or any other country where Islam is the majority, can prosper. We'll never get any where as long as we're too scared to deem Islamic teachings as intolerant and unreasonable. It's all vain talk.
11.24.2010 | 3:08pm
R Hampton says:
When someone takes a hard line with Saudi Arabia, wake me up. Until then, I prefer to snooze through the bluster.
11.24.2010 | 4:53pm
Ray Ryan says:
To coin a phrase-"Talk is Cheap". While they hold the cards, we hold our temper. Down the days the cards will be redistributed. We can wait. God Bless.
11.24.2010 | 5:40pm
carolinmd says:
We have a serious leadership problem in our country. The president is so pro Muslim, it has been his position to remove the wording Islamic Muslim terrorists from the official documented wording to just generic terrorists.. We are undergoing a dangerously politically correct agenda, which is being deliberately being imposed on us by the heads of our country.
It is considered wrong minded, even racist, to question the reason for this obvious deception, only very stupid people would see it differently. Americans knows that freedom of religion is one of our founding principles, and progressives are quick to claim that Islam is one of the great religions of the world, and all these people deserve our respect and admiration. This view is held by most liberals, elitists who consider themselves far more intelligent than "other" Americans. I do believe they are mistaken on this one. They must not be reading anything but works that preach to the choir.
Our country should be a leader in restoring the rights of Christians around the world, and protecting the freedom of religion for everyone, but it won't. Our president doesn't like the fact our country was founded on Christianity, and wants us to appear more worldly oriented, and for some obscure reason, this seems to mean embracing the Muslim religion as something that it is not, a real religion .
11.24.2010 | 5:50pm
Joe McCarthy says:
Mr Wiegel

A perspective I agree, appeasement did not work before, it is not of the human condition to believe and not believe wholly.

Christendom is under attack, however I would suggest Catholicism needs to stand somewhat apart from some of our Christian brethren who have little respect for our beliefs while close; they never give an inch. Catholics were lured to expect the reciprocity of Modern Christianity of the 1960's, I respectfully believe Vatican II was a strategic mistake from purely Roman Catholic proselytism, which liberalized a beautiful faith and has taken a heavy toll

I viewed you explanation of another misrepresentation of the press on the use of condoms. Would you more frequent on these cable networks. Thank you
11.24.2010 | 5:58pm
John Francis says:
The Christians of the Middle East are in a terrible bind. If the Vatican or other western Christians complain too much, even the spotty security and constricted freedoms they have will be taken away. Don't expect our country to do anything. Truth be told, both the left and right, for different reasons, have failed. Corporate America wants the Saud family in place and oil flowing (as does Japan and Europe). The left sees a two state solution as a panacea for jihad-ism. Both sides are useless on the issue at hand.

I would also say to the Islamophobes whose comments are already posted, please consider the history of Roman Catholicism. A pope called upon a nation to revolt and kill their "heretic" queen, an Anglican. A pope condemned freedom of worship ("error has no freedom"), approved the burning of texts, approved pogroms and the ghettoising of Jews, while another pope condemned the Enlightenment, freedom of speech and the press while expressly forbidding Protestant churches (except embassy chapels) in the territories controlled by the Vatican. This didn't change in any real degree until the post World War I era. So it is a bit rich for Catholics to lecture anyone on toleration and brotherhood.
11.24.2010 | 6:45pm
Maria V. says:
if Islam finds peaceful existence with Christians increasingly difficult , the methods of removing them into lands that they can be far awy from them should not be that difficult ...Israel's experinces is still fresh ..and there are places like Mongolia that would like more people ..

An international antiterrorism group that would look at all measures ,as vigoroulsy as handling the SARS outbreak ...that any pleace where there is violence against Christians, a surrounding 10, 20 mile radius to be cleared for Chritains alone ..as well as 400, 500 of family and friends , all to be moved to such safe zones, to protect the 'freedom figters' to be tottally free , from any contact with Christians ..

And God willing , may be a hundred years from now, they would even have their own version of Thanksgiving , while Christian lands would continue the tradition with added reasons for same !
11.24.2010 | 7:21pm
Appeasement? The US has invaded two predominantly Muslim countries and is bombing a number of others (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and no doubt others) IThat's hardly appeasement. You condemn the killing of Christians in Iraq, and you should. Do you condemn Predator attacks that often kill innocents even if they get the targets? If you think the end justifies the means, don't call yourselves Christians.
11.24.2010 | 8:24pm
Mark VA says:
Mr. Weigel is absolutely right, the current appeasement policy of the Vatican's Secretariat of State is a repeat of the discredited ostpolitik, now applied to the Muslim world.

One may be tempted to a very cynical and scandalous conclusion that perhaps the fate of some "lesser" Catholics is negotiable, when "more important global" considerations are in play - like engaging in endless accommodations with Marxists then, or with Muslim intellectuals now.

Where is the boundary between prudence and cowardice?
11.24.2010 | 8:33pm
Mike says:
The Islamists who advocate violence use Qur'anic texts to validate their point of view. Muslims that reject violence do so on grounds of different quotations but do not address or confront the texts used to validate violence.

Al Qaeda is just part of the militant strand of Islam that has existed since its inception. Invasion of Spain in 711, over running and enslaving the Balkans, through to the siege of Vienna in 1683 and in modern times 9-11 and now the genocide of the Assyrians.

Islam as whole has never apologised or made a collective act of repentance for its past history. This is long over due.

Just as there is an annual Holocaust Memorial Day so there should be an annual day of repentance by Muslims for their invasion of Europe and the West and the recent genocides.

Saying sorry may deter Muslim funding of violence and its youth from taking up a path of violence.

We should also spiritually adopt violent terrorists and pray for the salvation of their souls, the salvation that alone comes through the Word of God made Flesh that dwelt amongst us.

We are often told that Islam is part of the Abrahamic faiths.

To be part of the Abrahamic faiths is to accept the God that is because that was what was revealed to Moses. The premise of violent Muslims is that of a libertarian god.

When God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush he did not say “I am absolute liberty” nor did he say “ I am what I will”.[1]

What God did say was “ I am who am” that is the eternally subsistent being.

Exodus 3:14
God replied, "I am who am." Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you."


God identifies Himself in Exodus 3 : 4-15 as the God of Abraham The God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.



[1] Providence. Garrigou-Lagrange
11.24.2010 | 10:01pm
Take a look at my blog for a different perspective.
11.24.2010 | 10:09pm
Mark VA says:
John Francis:

One encounters such versions of "history" on occasion.

May I recommend that you read "The Quest for Shakespeare" and "Through Shakespeare's Eyes", both by Joseph Pearce. In addition, Norman Davies, whom I also recommend, is widely regarded as an excellent and impartial professional historian, who specialises in the history of Europe.

As far as your comment about the "Islamophobes", what's your opinion about the Catholic response to the second siege of Vienna?
11.24.2010 | 11:35pm
Hieronymus says:
Mr. Weigel is undoubtedly right in his appeal to stop the appeasement of Islamic terrorism but is there really any solution to this growing threat? I'm afraid not. We are moving towards a head-on collision all over the world - in the Near and Middle East, in Europe, in Africa, perhaps also in North America. The probable scenario will unfold in three stages: 1. Secularists and Islamists attack and defeat Christians. 2. The Islamists turn against the secularists and finish them off. 3.The Islamists reign supreme. The stress is, of course, on the unbelievable stupidity of secularists who hope that by supporting the Islamists they can trounce Christian opposition to homosexuality, abortion, polyamory, etc. Oh man, will they be surprised!
11.25.2010 | 12:50am
You would not permit a a group from a terrorist religion to set up shop in your backyard, so why permit them to build a building (mosque) in our great city of New York, close to the greatest attack on America in centuries, where over 3,000 people died and many are still sick from the exposure to this attack.

Is it because (God forbid) since we lose over 3,000 in abortions each day, what is 3,000 more bodies gone? Have we become so desentitized that we do not see the harm of permitting them a mosque in America? I am not saying to round up all Islamic people and put them in separate camps and guard them.

I am saying, stop encouraging them to live here. In England, Islamic people are still trying to get their Shairi (Islamic law) (pardon my spelling) in place of English law. They will soon populate Europe completely. Then what?

Face coverings should not be allowed - how would be see the enemy? Do we not see the enemy and permit him or her access even without the face coverings?
The really sad thought I have is that when the American people reelected a recent US president even though evidence from his pre-presidential days in Arkansas sent up red flags.....if our present president were up for reelection, the American people would most likely reelect him!!!

The majority of Americans love America and want to protect her. Let's talk about what each one of us can do to strengthen our country and then go about doing it.

Patricia in St. Louis, MO
11.25.2010 | 12:56am
An excellent place to start learning about Islamic activity is the US is this website: http://www.danielpipes.org/2100/the-islamic-states-of-america

Happy Thanksgiving from Patricia in St. Louis, MO
11.25.2010 | 7:25am
John Thomas says:
"a viable two-state solution, which every reasonable person supports" - except the reasonable people who realise that the effective rulers of Palestine (Hamas, Iran) do not want a state, peaceful coexistence, or recognition of any kind, but only the total, permanent destruction of Israel. No, this fact does not render Israel always blameless in every regard, but it does cast doubt on the "Liberal" claims that Palestinian nationhood is a (or the) route to peace. "There can not be 'peace' while there is Israel" - Ahmadinejad would say.

Christians in the Middle East must not be induced to "push back" as far as some have (allegedly) in parts of Africa, where they are said to have used violence, as well as the Islamicists (tempting though it must be, for defence).
11.25.2010 | 9:25am
Maria V. says:
St.Patrick was able to convert Ireland in his lifetime...The legacy of St.Francis is still very evident in the Holy Land ..

Pope John Paul II and his role that continues from heaven , along with powerful saints such as St.Faustina who have promised to intercede for us ..Bl.Mother as Lady of Fatima calling for role of prayer and penance ..

Our Lord has givens us powerful allies , to help us to ask The Father , to send His Spirit , in The Name of Yehua , to bring mercy into hardened hearts that are in the grip of fear and its ways of control , submission and destruction ..

Hoping that all Catholic Churches would take up powerful deliverance means such as Eucharistic Adoration ..

and as an act of mercy , if the need comes , to have plans to remove en masse , those who need exorcisms - to be administered in remote settlements , removed from enemy influences ..

After all, most of those who are in the grip of fear and hatred would have been our very brethren in faith ...

Focusing on better unity in The Church too would be the promised antidote ..

The reportedly rapid growth of faith in places like Africa are also great beacons of hope and trust , in our Lord for us ...
11.25.2010 | 10:47am
Margaret says:
I find this venom toward Muslims very uncomfortable. About a quarter of the world's population is Muslim. If they were all hostile, we'd have far more problems than we do. The US constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all of us, including Muslims. Many of the Muslims who live in the US are highly educated and valuable contributors to our society. There is no single prescription for "being Muslim." The religion is not centralized like, say, the Roman Catholic faith is. There are numerous branches of Islam, most of them peaceful. Many Muslims do not follow a literal interpretation of the Koran, just as (thankfully!) many Christians don't follow a literal interpretation of the Old Testament (otherwise we'd still be stoning disobedient children and putting fortune tellers to death.)
11.25.2010 | 11:51am
What are the appeasers saying now, I am curious?

I am catholic, hence I also believe that the Muslims are my brothers who may do me harm. That being said, from which brother shall I dread the most, the Muslim who may do me harm or the brother who offers me empty platitudes?
11.25.2010 | 1:57pm
lastblast says:
Joe,

You are absolutely correct. I am tired of hearing about these "few" militant muslims. The "few" are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS worldwide. They HATE the West.....They HATE Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. You know what? They even HATE and murder their own. Those who keep touting Islam as a "peaceful religion"...........are you stupid? Are you blind? Do you just accept what people tell you is truth without researching things for yourself? Do you SEE the faces of the victims of Islam? Do you understand that any message of "peace" that can be found in the pages of the Quran are the EARLY writings and that according to Islam, the later writings supercede the earlier ones? Do you know that their own leader, Muhammad, himself butchered many Jews and other "infidels"? Do you know that one of Muhammad's wives was only 9 years old when he started having relations with her? He is the face of Islam.

I always hear about Christians did this and Christians did that (the "holy" wars, etc). The thing is this: Did JESUS teach violence? Did Jesus PRACTICE violence? Look to the leader of a movement/religion to understand the TRUE nature of it. Now look to the followers. Are they mimicking the actions of the LEADER? Are they practicing what is written in their "guide book"? This is the true mark of a GENUINE, fully faithful follower. Are the violent in Islam following the actions/teachings of Muhammad? Yes..........so they are being true to their faith. Are the "peaceful" following Muhammad's actions and later teachings? No. They are the UNFAITHFUL of Islam. They only want to follow him so far. We see the same in Christianity. They are called the "lukewarm".........wanting to have a little "religion"---they want to carry Jesus' name, yet still be a part of the secular world around them.
11.25.2010 | 5:49pm
Hieronymus says:
@Margaret,

You are undoubtedly a very good person but you are also quite naive. I used to think like you, too; in fact, several years ago I was on the verge of converting to Islam after studying it for close to a decade. It is an admirable religion and I am still fascinated by it but I have understood that theology is one thing while the way of life is something quite different. Putting it in a nutshell, even the most benign Muslim is very unlikely to stand up to his or her co-religionists in defense of non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews or Shintoists. The reasons are quite simple: first, Islam is not just a religion, it is (I have to repeat myself) the entire way of life. Because of that, Muslims always support each other and it is unthinkable for them to side with a stranger against another believer. Even so, there still might exist some courageous individuals whose well-developed conscience is stronger than their ethno-religious bonds (a distinction really superfluous in case of Islam). But they are against not only their fellow-Muslims but also against fellow-Muslims armed to the teeth who do not hesitate to kill or to commit suicide while killing others. The situation is perhaps similar - but rather worse - to that of the native Germans helping Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. Such people did exist; however, they did it at the cost of an enormous risk not only to themselves but to their entire families. Now, how many Muslims in Iraq are helping their Christian neighbors? Have you heard of at least a few "good Samaritans" risking social alienation and perhaps death to help the unbelievers? Think about that, Margaret, and then see if you can still think the same way about "good Muslims".
11.25.2010 | 9:45pm
These muslums are not practicing "radical islam". They are practicing their beliefs in accordance with the koran. There is a youtube debate between Spencer and Kreeft on the internet. Anybody who wants to learn about islam should view it. It always amazes me how ignorant people are of this religion.
11.25.2010 | 10:38pm
Richard says:
Coming to a predominately conservative blog never fails to produce a good share of wingnuts. What is there about religious fanaticism whether Muslim or Christian that makes people lose perspective?
11.26.2010 | 7:18am
Michael PS says:
I agree with Margaret & Richard

Certainly in Europe, and especially France, we have plenty of evidence of the voice of moderate Islam

One has only to consider statements by people like the president of the Muslim women’s movement Ni Putes Ni Soumises[ (Neither Sluts nor Door-mats) Sihen Habchi, in a forceful attack on “Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism” has demanded
“No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads”

Or Rachida Dati, herself a Muslim and former French Minister of Justice, who told the National Assembly that
“The Republic is alone capable of uniting men and women of different origins, colours and religions around the principles of tolerance, liberty, solidarity and laïcité, making the Republic truly one and indivisible”

Likewise, Fadela Amara, another Muslim and French Secretary of State for Urban Policies, who has declared that
“For this generation, the crucial issues are laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation, based upon living together in harmony throughout the world, and not only in France.

Note how all of them stress laïcité, or the secular state, as a fundamental value; a state that neither recognises, salaries or subsidises any religion, whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship – something enshrined for Americans in the First Amendment.
11.26.2010 | 9:21am
The problem with the Conservative methodology - to try to just physically attack its apparent enemies - is that our enemies are hard to identify. The apparently peaceful, moderate Muslim shopkeeper in Kabul, might pick up an AK-47 and become a "radical" at night.

The answer? Continuing, like Jesus, in peaceful dialogue; continuing specifically with the attempt to create a moderate Islam. One more aware of its roots with the Christ Jesus (or "Isa") that even the Quran called a "Great prophet."

This work - as I can attest personally. Having lived as a Christian in a moderate Muslim country - Turkey - for 5 years.
11.26.2010 | 12:04pm
J de la Cruz says:
George Kadlec said: "There is a youtube debate between Spencer and Kreeft on the internet. Anybody who wants to learn about islam should view it. It always amazes me how ignorant people are of this religion."

The debate between Robert Spencer and Peter Kreeft may be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA&feature=player_embedded

Be prepared to learn.
11.26.2010 | 12:41pm
Harold says:
To Richard: Coming to a predominantly left-wing blog never fails to produce a good share of moonbats. What is it about anti-religion fanaticism that makes people lose perspective?
11.26.2010 | 1:27pm
I think the sooner people realise that is almost impossible to extricate the ordinary muslim from the fanatic, the better it would be for us all. The so called liberal or ordinary muslims support, either tacitly or actively, the activities of these so called fundamentalists.
How many 'ordinary" muslims have openly condemned the activities of these fanatics and then gone ahead to actually do something about it? A word is enough for the wise. The attempt at pacification is never the right solution.
11.27.2010 | 9:07am
ryan says:
A "christian" nation invades Moslem Iraq and moslem Afghanistan and stands by as the Palestinians are oppressed. The Church in Bagdad was not blown up before the invasions - the Chruch had been there for years ... If moslems invaded the US you better believe American "bubbas" from Mississippi and cowboys from texas would be blowing up mosques until their last dying breath. Get out of Iraq get out of Afghanistan - apologize to both countries '.. apologize to the Moslems end the apartied of the Palaestanies people then see where we are. If "they" (it is always the bigoted "they" when it comes to Moslems - we don't even know who we are trying to defeat in Afghanistan other than the "Taliban") blow up a plane then have law enforcement find the killers and punish the criminals don't invade a nation.
11.27.2010 | 12:34pm
Dawn Slike says:
To John Francis re: Catholic hypocrisy: The difference is this: a few bad popes of past centuries led a cumulative few bad years of violent upheaval and intolerance against people of other religious persuasions. But the Islamic culture has been intolerant and violent and blood thirsty from its very inception. The popes diobeyed Christ's commandments, whereas the Islamic faithful are being completely adherent to their founder's violent dictates against infidels, which are in fact everyone else in the world.
11.27.2010 | 12:55pm
Hieronymus says:
@Michael PS,

These women being politicians, your examples are completely non-representative and invalid. It is as if you were trying to argue that Catholicism allows abortion because Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden support it. The Catholic masses believe otherwise (apart, of course, from some very confused secularists like Richard), and so do the Muslim masses. For example, if you want to see what's really happening in France, go to http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933
11.27.2010 | 6:27pm
Jeff says:
Mr. Weigel's inclusion of Nigeria in his discussion needs to be re-evaluated. The confrontations in Jos (that is most likely what he is referrring to) are more to be understood along the lines of tribalism than religion (it just so happpens that the tribes are of different religions). The basic issues concern scarce resources (esp. land) and power.
It should also be noted that in some of those confrontations people who called themselves Christians were also instigators and committed terrible atrocities.
11.27.2010 | 8:15pm
Ray says:
Way too much confused talk on this Islammist issue. The endless debating goes nowhere; Accomplishes nothing discernable.

An anti-Islamic terrorist strategy? How about the NYC 9/11 "memorial" mosque --

QUOTE:
"Could A Pig Save The World From The Evils of Islam?"
A group of non-immigrant Spaniards that didn’t want a mosque in their neighborhood came up with an original solution.

In the middle of the lot where the mosque was supposed to be built, they buried a big pig and made sure it became public knowledge.

Since Islamic law forbids the construction of mosques on hog-soiled land, the Arabs had to abandon the project.

The Israelis have been using this strategy since 2004. They put containers of pork fat in all their buses and made sure everybody knew about it.

If a suicide bomber decides to explode himself in a bus, he’s taking the chance that some of the pig fat ends up on his body and therefore he will not go to Paradise. Israelis buses have been safe from attacks since then. No more attacks.

http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/could-a-pig-save-the-world

A further example told to me about an American military officer (troop) commander, who required his soldiers to dip their ammunitions (bullets, shells, and so on) in pig fat – lard (rendered pig fat). Then, as word of this practice spread, Muslims became unwilling to fight his troops. They backed off and selected alternative targets.

-- RW.
/\/\/\
11.28.2010 | 2:05pm
Hieronymus says:
@Ray,

Looks like this pig fat business is only an unimplemented and probably ineffective idea, see http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-253864.html
and
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/israeli-news-pig-fat-to-be
11.28.2010 | 7:10pm
John Donovan says:
Another dimension of this: The disintegration of sexual standards in America, resulting in the weakening of the family and the rise in social pathology, should be seen as a matter of national security. Our undisciplined culture, exported torrentially into ancient but fragile civilizations, feeds the burgeoning ranks of hostility against America more than any other source of influence.
11.29.2010 | 12:40am
Jae says:
I am disgusted that Weigel, a Christian, is advocating vengeance as a defense on behalf Christians. Granted, he does not state explicitly that violence is the only route, but by saying that diplomacy will not work, I cannot see what other solutions he has in mind. In the end, against militant Islam, he advocates a militant Christianity.

This will not do. This is not Christianity. This is a shell of Christianity dissolved of its fundamental substance. This is a cheap Christianity, a humanized Christianity, a dead Christianity without power. It is a polity of-this-world, not the Body of Christ. It is a Christianity filled with the wisdom of our current age, not in trust in God's ability to repay, for good or ill.

We are commanded to bless those who hate us, and our enemies, to love. On behalf of our brothers, do we hate our enemies? No, we pray for their families, we supply them with medical needs, education, food, comfort. This is the law of Christianity, upon which future Christians will judge our reaction.
11.30.2010 | 10:22pm
Hieronymus says:
@Jae,

I hope you also understand that if this truly Christian attitude is followed, soon there will be no future Christians, in Iraq or elsewhere. This is the real paradox of Christianity.
12.2.2010 | 4:52pm
John Meyde says:
Radical Islam is not. It was not fundamentalists, who caused the Crusades, it was not fundamentalists. These believers are practicing Muslims. Either there is an exception or not is part of Islam. Islam has not interacts with.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact