Britain sixty years ago would have crushed the Islamo-fascism in their midst.
The "Moral vacuum" the Doctor spoke of has the effect on a society that the HIV virus has on the human body.
This selfish hedonism and lack of moral clarity weakens the non-muslim society's resistance to a foreign, hostile political ideology. It has caused me many a sleepless night wondering if the West has the will find the stomach to
destroy Islamism once and for all.

In short, if the warriors of jihad had picked their fight with us back at the start of WWII, we wouldn't be having this
conversation right now, for we would have crushed jihad and Islamic supremacism and swept it into the dustbin of history, like we did with Nazism or the Bushido cult of Imperial Japan.

"because you failed to convince me to your visions"

Once again, you don't pay attention... my criticism of you is based on your faulty reasoning, and your deliberate obfuscation of the issues.

"future discussion seems to be impossible."

You got that right.

This is just another debate that you both want to end with personal argument, because you failed to convince me to your visions. Cannot you democrats respectfully disagree without writing whole lists of personal attacks against my person? I try to ignore such smears but apparently such behavior makes me even more dishonest in your eyes. This is all what I have to say in this topic, future discussion seems to be impossible.

"I'm not going to lower myself to your level."

Maybe you should take a hard look at what you write on this blog: how silly, obtuse, and dishonest you have been. In your desperate attempt to always be right, you have made youself out to be an absurdity: A pseudo-Christian who professes a longing for an earthly king; a pseudo Catholic who refuses to see the connection between Judaism and Christianity; a person who cannot debate honestly and rationally; a pseudo Catholic who hasn't the humility to consider that maybe the Pope is a better authority on Judeo Christian history than he is...

And your last comment to marcfrans is truly laughable.

@marcfrans:

Indeed, I have made the same observation. There is some kind of blind obstinacy in so called Christians like Monarchist, who cannot or will not see the connection between Judaism and Christianity. The roots of Christianity are Judaism... without those roots Christianity has no basis. Indeed, Christ was a Jew, as well as his mother... perhaps Monarchist should contemplate that.

The other person's anti Semitism is more understandable. When people throw out all morality, they are free to denigrate, hate, and distort whatever they choose. They are the ones that Chesterton referred to as the "scientists" whose truth is "pitiless" - as pitiless as Mengele was.

I'm not going to lower myself to your level.

@ Atheling

1) Note the reference to "Poland HAD the biggest jewish population in the world etc.....". The use of the past tense reminds us of what happened in the holocaust (still in my life time!!!) and the active collaboration of many Poles in the execution of the plans of the nazis in that respect. 

2) It is interesting to observe that the objection to the term "judeo-christian values" seems to be widespread in Europe accross the ideological spectrum.  On this blog this objection seems to be shared by, for instance, the 'monarchical and fundamentalist Polish christian' who calls himself "Monarchist", as well as by a manifest secularist and self-declared republican (and certainly anti-clerical) Kapitein Andre, and by others as well.   It is no surprise to me that manifestations of anti-semitism (very clearly observable in many past discussions here on Israel and Middle eastern politics) seem to go hand in hand with manifestations of racism (clearly observable here in numerous discussions on European immigration problems).  They are two sides of the same coin.  

3) Once again, Jesus was a 'jew' (though a 'rebellious' one), and the (christian) New Testament was built on the (jewish) Old Testament.  Christianity broadly has always recognized that christian morality is largely a matter of virtues embedded in the biblical 'parables'.   At its core are the notions of the moral equality of all human beings (as 'children of God') and the notion of individual conscience (from which derives human freedom and the obligation of self-responsibility).   

Although you decided to heroically defend this term "Judeo-Christian tradition", I still don't know what exactly you understand by this. You question my knowledge about history of my own country. Poland had the biggest Jewish population in the world but both groups rarely mixed. Contacts were reduced to necessary minimum, Jews lived in ethnic ghettos and mostly spoke Yiddish. So, both groups had their own culture and not much in common.

Atheling,please,calm down!   : )
 
Now,perhaps,you see why I don't allow myself to be drawn into these fractious 'debates'.Been there,done that Oh so many,many,MANY times before...

"I think that this rhetoric is indirectly linked to ecumenism caused by political correctness"

No, you don't "THINK". I read the bloody book, and you didn't. I know more about it than you do, and you're WRONG.

"Talking about tradition, the Pope is not authority on this field and can be wrong."

He's a bloody better authority on it than you are, that's for damned sure.

I think that this rhetoric is indirectly linked to ecumenism caused by political correctness. Talking about tradition, the Pope is not authority on this field and can be wrong.

I do not hide the fact that I sympathize with Traditionalist Catholics however like many who share my view in Poland, I'm in communion with the church. Simply because I'm against any kind of schism. I welcome recent decisions of my Pope Benedict XVI directed towards Traditional Catholics.

If you understand the context of the quote I provided, it had NOTHING to do with "ecumenism". Again, why are you unable to comprehend what I write? The Pontiff was referring to JUDEO CHRISTIAN TRADITION.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a true Catholic, and that you are not in communion with the Church.

As a matter of fact, like many bogus Catholics, you are your own pope!

About marcfrans comment, sorry but if somebody quote my comment about something and write about something else then this is definitely not my fault. This topic is about religion and my comment was about religion, pure and simple.

I accept your argument with Pope, I read two his books, however not about Jewish topic. Unfortunately as I have write this was his weakness, ecumenism... Generally I like him but completely disagree on this issue. He also prayed in mosque...

About Pope, please some quote, I know that JPII unfortunately promoted ecumenism but I don't remember such statements

From Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

"...The questions you ask-and which many ask-do not refer to Saint Thomas or to Augustine, or to the great Judeo-Christian tradition. It seems to me that they stem from another source, one that is purely rationalist, one that is characteristic of modern philosophy-the history of which begins with Descartes, who split thought from existence and identified existence with reason itself: "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am")..."

If you actually read some of the Pope's letters, encyclicals, books, homilies, etc... you might find his usage of the term "Judeo Christian" throughout.

Doubtlessly, you'll spew some more babble dismissing the evidence I have provided, or ignore them altogether, as you have done previously.

"If he quoted and commented the line, where I was writing about the church and priests then I have the right to expect that he commented this issue and not some other."

You have NO RIGHT to "expect"... Your response should be based on evidence, not your supposed "right".

Again, your failure to read and comprehend marcfrans' (and others') comments make your argument and comments irrelevant and meaningless.

That's because the birthrate in Europe started declining when Europe embraced socialism in the 20th century before the immigration of non whites. Socialism has become Europe's religion, and your rejection of Christianity which embraces fecundity, is the HEART OF EUROPE'S DECLINE. Birth control, abortion, and euthanasia are part and parcel of the CULTURE OF DEATH.

Exactly!

You're dead wrong on the use of "Judeo Christian" as "neocon". The term Judeo Christian is used by the Pope, the bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church. Indeed, as a child and as a young adult, I heard that term used consistently throughout my education in a private Catholic school and in a Jesuit college... and that was before the term "neocon" emerged.

I used modern term but that doesn't mean that they did not existed before. You know that for me this is left. Well, they could use it, talking about "Judeo-Christian dialogue"(clearly two different thing) and not "values" or "God". Of course this is possible that some progressive clergy talk nonsense, because this is nothing else but politically correct nonsense. About Pope, please some quote, I know that JPII unfortunately promoted ecumenism but I don't remember such statements.

The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics. It has been suggested that the term obscures fundamental differences between the two religions - Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism" - while erasing continuities between them and other religions, especially other monotheistic faiths.

Secondly, I see nothing in marcfrans' comment that supports "democratizing" the Church. He is referring to leaders of a political system.

If he quoted and commented the line, where I was writing about the church and priests then I have the right to expect that he commented this issue and not some other.

"I'm told that Southern California used to be a very pleasant place, but now, every formerly leafy or grassy patch has been occupied by a colony of Mexicans. Can't you see how this could possibly have a negative effect of the population level of European-Americans?"

Uh, every "leafy or grass patch" in Southern California never existed... So Cal is a desert with a slab of concrete on top, scattered with some palm trees. People there rarely have grassy lawns unless they are very wealthy because it's often illegal to water grass with city water due to water shortages. Now, would you please provide some statistics for your silly assumption that the birthrate in So. Cal is affected by the Mexican immigrants? If anything, I have seen articles indicating that the recent trend among affluent whites in that area, particularly in Hollywood, is to have MORE babies, not less.

"It is so obvious that immigration drives our birthrates down that I find it surprising that the fact is never mentioned"

Maybe because it's not OBVIOUS??? You still have absolutely no support for your assertion... Your link to your past comment is pure conjecture and, I might add, adolescent wishful thinking.

"However, I don't find surprising that "bogus conservatives" say the decline in European birth rates is attributable to nanny statism and has nothing to do with immigration"

That's because the birthrate in Europe started declining when Europe embraced socialism in the 20th century before the immigration of non whites. Socialism has become Europe's religion, and your rejection of Christianity which embraces fecundity, is the HEART OF EUROPE'S DECLINE. Birth control, abortion, and euthanasia are part and parcel of the CULTURE OF DEATH.

How dense can you be? "Be fruitful and multiply" is God's command in Genesis... You have rejected God, His Church, and His laws, which guarantee LIFE. So, in your obdurate and obstinate blindness, you embrace DEATH.

Call me a "bogus conservative", it is irrelevant. You, however, are a BOGUS EUROPEAN.

What drives our birth rates down: immigration or the nanny state?

Atheling: "Your adherence to this ridiculous assertion with absolutely no justification"

In fact, I have already given a few explanations here.

There are lots of ways immigration is driving European birth rates down. An obvious way is by overcrowding. I'll take an American example so you understand better. I'm told that Southern California used to be a very pleasant place, but now, every formerly leafy or grassy patch has been occupied by a colony of Mexicans. Can't you see how this could possibly have a negative effect of the population level of European-Americans?

Atheling: "It's the NANNY STATE, stupid!"

You would expect a nanny state to make it easier for women to have children. Maybe sometimes nanny statism can backfire and have a somewhat negative effect on birth rates, but probably not most of the time. In any case, it can be corrected.

It is so obvious that immigration drives our birthrates down that I find it surprising that the fact is never mentioned. Of course, the media will never mention the question. Even worse, they will say we need immigration to replace the falling population. But I would expect the "immigration-skeptics" to keep saying all the time that immigration from the third world means that Europeans will keep having fewer and fewer babies.

However, I don't find surprising that "bogus conservatives" say the decline in European birth rates is attributable to nanny statism and has nothing to do with immigration. The same people will argue that we must launch a counter-jihad against islam, but above all... continue mass immigration from the third-world, including the muslim world.

My diagnosis: Atheling has been listening too much to the bogus conservatives.

"Well from somebody who use such neoconian term like "Judeo-Christian", one could expect also supporting democratization of the church..."

You're dead wrong on the use of "Judeo Christian" as "neocon". The term Judeo Christian is used by the Pope, the bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church. Indeed, as a child and as a young adult, I heard that term used consistently throughout my education in a private Catholic school and in a Jesuit college... and that was before the term "neocon" emerged.

Secondly, I see nothing in marcfrans' comment that supports "democratizing" the Church. He is referring to leaders of a political system.

You really need to read more carefully.

Well from somebody who use such neoconian term like "Judeo-Christian", one could expect also supporting democratization of the church. How about schools? The same mechanism, more and more teachers instead to teach children, discuss with them! They want to be like a friends and of course later few children treat them seriously. Recently I read story how Polish female teacher invited her students to party in her home, with drugs and alcohol of course... Communists at least kept some discipline at schools, democrats destroyed even this...

"Muslim immigrants are not filling a population vacuum either, since they are the main cause of the European population decline."

Moronic.

Your adherence to this ridiculous assertion with absolutely no justification indicates some refusal to accept any responsibility (on the part of indigenous Europeans) for Europe's population decline.

It's the NANNY STATE, stupid!

Well, yes, in an IDEAL world "people need moral leaders to respect and follow, and not...".

In the REAL world, however, there is no guarantee that "leaders" will be such moral leaders, independent of whether these leaders are elected, hereditary, or in power through some 'power grab'.  In fact, historical empirical observation, shows clearly a shortage of great "moral leaders" under all these circumstances.  And, it is only common sense to assume that elected leaders have IN GENERAL a somewhat greater 'incentive' to work for the common good of the people than power grabbers and inheriters.   

Hence, democracy is difficult, rare and 'messy', but it is the least bad system around for humans. And like everything else human, it usually does not last.

Now, for a return to another phantasy planet, read Monarchist's further comments that are sure to follow........

The most ridiculous thing of course is the notion of a 'safe workplace' when it comes to soldiers and emergency services personnel...

I was under the impression that the Church of England was not in a popularity contest with other religions and philosophies or lack thereof and that it was not obligated to compete for members, anymore than the Queen needs to get press by behaving like Paris Hilton.

Unfortunately this is how church leaders seems to behave, this is not only about Protestantism (masses like some shows), also Catholic church after Vatican II went in this direction. Church hierarchy wants to show people that they are like them, thus they are losing all respect among society. Democratization of the church is even more stupid than the same sickness as a political system. People need moral leaders to respect and follow and not strangely dressed "friends". The same about army, democratic general who is like a friend to his soldiers wont be really respected among them. He will lose every battle because of lack of discipline.

Kapitein Andre: "one cannot argue that fundamentalist Islam is filling any sort of 'moral vacuum' created by the decline of Christianity"

Muslim immigrants are not filling a population vacuum either, since they are the main cause of the European population decline.

And they are not filling a labor vaccum either. Europeans will do any job if the pay is adequate, and many Arab immigrants will rather live on welfare and drug trafficking if they have a choice.

To sum things up: There is no vaccum. Europe is already populated with Europeans. We don't need third-world immigrants.

The Independent: Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester, […] but, as his name suggests, he is from a largely Muslim family background. […] Interestingly, Dr Nazir-Ali does not simply blame the Saudis, or other foreign governments who might have been funding militant Islam in the mosques of Great Britain, for the rise in Muslim chauvinism in this country.
 
This attitude is not surprising given his ethnic and religious heritage. Though I do not doubt his commitment to the Christian faith, his 'other affinities' cloud his judgement with regards to relations with Islam, Anglicanism and issues of race and nationality.

The Independent: He blames the British people themselves, arguing that there has been a catastrophic collapse in Christian-based morality and spirituality in this country over the past 40 or so years and that this has created a "moral vacuum" in society as a whole, which has been increasingly filled – at least in the minds of impressionable youth – by fundamentalist Islam.
 
In Western countries, the practice of Islam is almost entirely dictated by descent or intermarriage. Not only is the number of non-Muslim Westerners who convert to Islam statistically insignificant, but it is dwarfed by Muslim defectors (globally) to Christianity, agnosticism and atheism. Therefore, one cannot argue that fundamentalist Islam is filling any sort of 'moral vacuum' created by the decline of Christianity in the United Kingdom or the West for that matter. Even if all non-Muslims in the UK were ardent religionists (e.g. Christian, Jew, etc.), this would not impact radical Islam. Moreover, if British Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity, they would simply to immigrate in the first place.

The Independent: Here, as a leading figure in the Church of England, Dr Nazir-Ali is swimming in dangerous waters. Is it the British people who should be blamed for deserting, in their millions, the once-dominant Church of England? Or should not the Church of England look at its own performance and try to understand why it has lost such a vast proportion of its audience – at least as defined by regular churchgoing, rather than notional affiliation?
 
I was under the impression that the Church of England was not in a popularity contest with other religions and philosophies or lack thereof and that it was not obligated to compete for members, anymore than the Queen needs to get press by behaving like Paris Hilton.
 
The Independent: An astounding statistic in a recent Policy Exchange pamphlet, The Hijacking of British Islam, shows that while Muslims make up no more than 3 per cent of the British population, there are now more Muslims who attend a mosque regularly than there are regular attenders in the pews of the Established Church. Fundamentalist Islam can hardly take all the blame for that extraordinary reversal.
 
I fail to see how Christianity and Islam are so linked. Certainly atheists and agnostics can oppose Islamization or radical Islam without converting to Christianity. Perhaps liberal democracy, rationalism, scientific inquiry and capitalism will take the wind out of British Muslims' sails also...
 
In conclusion, the mere fact that the Church of England is allowing Pakistanis and Africans to occupy high positions is indicative of the condition of Anglo-Saxon Christianity.

Yes, I don't consider Islam much of a religion either... it has no mysticism either.

It's more like a totalitarian system... and it is cult-like.

Atheling, I used the term 'archaic' in its meaning "characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time", and continued with "stupid 'religious' rules from ancient Arabia", unwilling to grace the movement in question with the word 'religion'.

The more I've read about it, the less I feel like calling this a religion at all.

I think that of course everybody should read something about Islam still this is not the most important. This is impossible to achieve success on this field (and not only on this) basing on negative emotions to your potential enemy. People should be united not in hate but in faith! Only positive force is guarantee of success. Europe found itself in this position because people whom live here are degenerated, demoralized and have not higher values. Another key to victory is to finally realize this internal weakness, a cancer that blown out this continent from inside. This is why first and foremost I advocate reading books about the greatest civilization that ever existed, the Latin civilization. These days people don't even realize what that means.

@Henrik:

Good for you. But do you think that everyone has read about Islam (why are you calling it "ancient religions" when we are discussing just one religion that is not as ancient as the others?) as you have?

There are many ignorant people who buy into the "religion of peace" garbage... and they should be enlightened.

Being an established religion isn't fatal, in most instances.    However, in the late 20th century, being "established" anything, whether its media (BBC, PBS), universities, churches, charitable funds, has meant it attracted liberals, who then recruit their own.   

For churches in particular, social liberalism is a quick death, very quick, one generation will clean out all your converts and leave the greyheads to slowly close the place down.   My uneducated guess is that social liberalism carries a negative presumption of how the world works if left to itself that repels people, just the opposite of Christian optimism.  

Atheling, for the record, I own and read copies of:

• Noble Quraan (from Islamic University of Medina)
  
• Ibn Ishaq: Life of Muhammad
  
• Al-Tabari: History vol. 6-9 (Muhammad again)
  
• Serge Trifkovic: Sword of the Prophet, Defeating Jihad
  
• Robert Spencer: Politically Incorrect Guide, Religion of Peace?, The Truth About Muhammad etc.
  
• Craig Winn: Prophet of Doom
  
• Daniel Pipes: Militant Islam Reaches America
  
• Mark A. Gabriel: Islam and Terrorism
  

- as well as a stack of more specialized litterature. After all this reading, I got more - not less - letssay 'categorical' about people paying reverence to crazy religious laws and criminal 'prophets'.

Sometimes, it just makes more sense to focus on real problems than those made created by adherence to strange, old books and the people described therein. Thus the little rant...

"...the banning of all religious concepts from the public sphere in Europe - had done more damage in terms of undermining the public's adherence to moral virtues."

Well that's the chestnut, isn't it?

The Left seeks to undermine and destroy any religious expression, traditions, values, sentiments, virtues, etc... because ultimately their adherents wish to practice what they want without moral restraints.

My dear old Dad, a man who grew up during the Depression and fought WWII and Korea, used to say in his later life: "...this country is becoming a nation of hedonists..." The work ethic, self reliance, courage, moral fortitude and certainty of my parents' and grandparents' generations have given way to nihilism, libertinism, and socialism.

@ Rob the.....
 
It is true that in his speech Romney made the point that state-sponsorship of religion has harmed religion in Europe.  But, that is really about the fairly distant past.  I thought that his more important point (and of more contemporary relevance) was that secularism as the new state-sponsored 'religion' - i.e. the banning of all religious concepts from the public sphere in Europe - had done more damage in terms of undermining the public's adherence to moral virtues. 

Perhaps, we should take a new look at the actual speech?

Henrik:

"Those who prefer to discuss archaic religions can go burn themselves on the stakes."

Know thy enemy... This war has several fronts. Dismissing some of them is foolish and naive.

Perhaps "responsible" is a better word than "blame"... and yes, people who are interested in justice are usually concerned about responsibility.

What we need is a way out. Focus, analysis, debate, action. One of my 'holy grails' is energy independence from Middle East, Russia, Sudan etc. It'll be a Herculian effort, but it's a great common task to unite our societies. Those who prefer to discuss archaic religions can go burn themselves on the stakes. We have important work ahead of us and cannot afford to waste our energy on adopting stupid 'religious' rules from ancient Arabia.

The CoE has for a long time made its own problems. By failing take its theology seriously and consequently harboring within its clergy many outright atheists, it has made a mockery of the faith it ostensibly professes. Because of its close connection with the Crown, and its dependence on the government for support, it has been unable to be the independent, prophetic voice that it should have been. The process for choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury, wherein it is largely up to the Prime Minister, makes the choice entirely political where it should be ecclesiastical. The folly of this process is abundantly evident in the current incumbent, Dr. Rowan Williams, who is totally unsuited for the position (also known as the ArchDruid of Canterbury).

This is particularly sad when one considers that Anglicanism itself is a significant, growing faith around the world. It is particularly vigorous in Africa, Latin America, and the Far East. These are all places that the faith was taken to by missionaries sent out from England in times gone by and it has taken root and prospered. But now the Mother Church, the Church of England, has withered and is on its death bed, essentially by its own hand.The loss of faith that has swept all of Europe following WWII seems to have hit England just as hard as any of the other countries. Secularism, materialism, socialism, and greed seem to be big factors in what has happened. The CoE was in trouble theologically long before these more recent problems came along in terms of having agnostic clergy, so it was just totally unprepared to cope with these new challenges. 

The outcome of all of this may be a "new" CoE that is no longer an arm of the state, a disestablished church. This would be a major change, probably a healthy change, but a difficult step for a church that has always enjoyed considerable comfort (the comfort level would drop considerably!). There is tension within the CoE regarding the possible ordination of women to the episcopate, and this raises talk of a possible third province (the first two being Canterbury and York) that would be under the Archbishop of Canterbury but not under any women bishops. The homosexual issue, both for clergy and parishioners remains a hot topic within the CoE. There are a number of things brewing that could tear the CoE to pieces on Rowan's watch, and he is poorly equipped to deal with any of them. 

In his speech yesterday on the 'Mormon question' Mitt Romney made a point of using Europe's empty churches and growing jihadism as a warning against going down Europe's road. He contrasted the free market approach of the US with religion against the European approach of state-sponsored religion. When the state turns against the religion, it has little ability to survive on its own, because it's never had to compete.

The Church of England has a lot to answer for. It's never stood for much theologically speaking (the best definition comes from the Irish playwright Brendan Behan, who in a famous quatrain said that its foundation stones were "the b***s of Henry the Eighth"); attendance has had, very often, a lot more to do with social conformity than with religious devotion, and in the last few years the CofE has, rightly, become the laughing stock of television programmes. It's basically a bunch of cretinous, politically correct semi-atheists who haven't got the guts to follow their non-belief to its logical and honourable conclusion, i.e. resign and get a real job somewhere.
Dr Nazir-Ali seems to be an honourable exception in this sea of dhimmitude and vacuous do-goodism; hopefully he'll try to explain to his brethren that Muslim religious leaders are not going to change from bigots to reasonable people just because of a few invitations to tea and bickies.