Thanks for the endorsement.
 
Perhaps I appear so pessimistic because, while recognizing the "theoretical solution(s)", I am equally cognizant of the practical  impediments preventing those solutions from being implemented. Solutions and impediments that you yourself describe with much clarity in paragraph three of "The price of victory".

“….conundrum that Peter's political/educational friends have created for Europeans.”

I agree that there was a time when immigration was actively pushed by the European governments. And I also agree that out of humanistic reasons, refugees from over the globe were received in Europe with a lot of help. Other laws, again on humanitarian grounds, like family reunion together with the political and economical turmoil in the home countries completed the attractiveness of Europe for Muslims. That caused the 5% Muslims living in Europe at this moment. In addition the trauma’s of the Second World War, with his genocides and the Arian übermensch ideology caused a counter reaction that declared all cultures equal. This probably prevented a more forcible integration of the immigrants.

Today, we can say that a lot of those decisions were wrong. But on the defense side, let me say this:

- The traumas of the second World were real. There have been abominable atrocities committed by people who believed themselves to be superior to all others based on their culture and ethnicity. It was a normal stage in a learning path to declare just the opposite after the war: All people and cultures are equal. I still think people are equal, but values are most definitely not. This is generally acknowledged by all of my “political/educational friends” nowadays.
- Radicalization of Islam is a rather recent phenomenon. No More then 20 years ago, there were regions in Saudi Arabia where woman didn’t wear a veil. In Turkey, Iraq and Syria secularism and moderate Islam were the rule. Even the Palestinian liberation movement was essentially secular. It is difficult to establish the causes of this radicalization. A few milestones are known though: The establishment of the Muslim brothers in Egypt and their subsequent suppression is probably a main catalyst amongst Sunnites, The creation of the Islamic republic of Iran for the Shiites.

The fact that we don’t know the exact causes of the radicalization, makes it so difficult to fight it. What could be the causes:
- The Palestinian-Israeli problem? I doubt it.
- Globalization and his subsequent treath for the traditional way of life? Probably a factor
- The fall of the soviet union and subsequent revival of Islam?
- Others?

@ Atlanticist

I subscribe to everything you said in your last two posts to peter vdh.  But, I am slightly less pessimistic than you, in the sense that there might be a "solution" to the conundrum that Peter's political/educational friends have created for Europeans.  In short, it might be possible to preserve the (judeo-christian) values of "humanism" under 2 conditions. 

-- First, 'strict' immigration control and law enforcement.

-- Second, 'leading' individuals and 'governments' in Europe actively - even aggressively - reasserting 'humanistic' values.   The actual and effective preservation of freedom of speech would be the best place to start.  And a total refusal of different laws for different people should be the guiding principle (i.e. equality before the law as opposed to equality of incomes or whatever) in every political jurisdiction in Europe.  In short, the culture must become intolerant of BEHAVIOR or ACTIONS that reflect intolerant values, and the net result should be to make life in Europe 'unpleasant' or unattractive for intolerant INDIVIDUALS with different values. In practice, this would largely amount to a firm rejection of 'multiculturalism' in Europe's manifestly different cultural jurisdictions, and assertion of duties of integration and of cultural assimilation/identification for immigrants.

Obviously, this is a theoretical solution.  It has little chance of actual implementation, because the people who created the conundrum are in power (in politics, academia, even in business) and have created blocking mechanisms to preserve their power.   So, short of a wholesale  turnaround in politics and media, dhimmitude is more likely to be the end result for Peter's grandchildren or greatgrandchildren.

Thank you for your intelligent response.
 
 
Let's look at that list of options again:
 
i   The launching of a war of extermination against Muslims (in Europe).
 
Comment: NOT something I have personally ever advocated as being either practical or moral.
 
ii  The mass deportation of the millions of Muslims already here.(in Europe).
 
Comment: Again, NOT something I have ever suggested.
 
iii  Bring upon them (the Muslims of Europe) the values of humanism (or moderate Christianity, if you like).
 
Comment: Yes, I like the idea very much but I do not believe there is even the remotest possibility that it is going to happen (see my previous post for one of the reasons why I say this).
 
 
So, what IS the solution? Well, have you considered the possibility that perhaps there isn't one? All victories are earned at a price, and perhaps the price Euro-humanism will have to pay for its victory of 'reason' over Christian 'superstition' is dhimmitude. 
 
Kappertarian Kismet? I'll let others decide.

@1cent

…self-loathing nihilistic narcissist..
….self-loathing, morally bankrupted, vacuous….
….the fascism of the socialists….
….hostile anti-human fascist….

Normally name-calling is a somewhat worthless discussion technique that serves the purpose of underscoring statements with a lack of evidence. But in your case it becomes the core statement itself.

@Atlanticist911

I agree, my prediction is a bit gratuitous. But then again, what are we going to do? There are 1.5 billion Muslims. 25% of world population and that percentage is growing rapidly given their high birth rates. You want to launch an extermination war against them? That doesn’t seem very human nor realistic to me. Or deporting the millions of Muslims that are already in, and then build “fortress Europe” to keep them out? Isn’t very realistic neither.
So lets set it as a goal to bring upon them the values of humanism (or moderate Christianity, if you like.) and break the hundreds of useless little can-do can-not-does that make peoples life (especially women) miserable.

@bollekeboy

Humanism or secularism is most definitely NOT a 'nothing.' Believe me, one really doesn’t need a holy book to give one’s life a meaning and to define moral principles to live to. The proof: Me and those millions of other secularist, and agnostic people around the world. We most certainly are not overrepresented in detention and psychiatric centers. I’m a happily married father of 3, who tries to do his bit of social welfare in the town he lives. I teach my children values, and the reason why they are what they are. But its true, I also teach them to decide for themselves which principles form the basics of their lives.

Peter and his ilk aren't going to save Europe, he's too much the self-loathing nihilistic narcissist. The demise of Europe isn't a concern of his. Like many European slobs in the 1930's that sat watching the gathering storm with smug detachment or amusement whatever happens to you and other good people he essentially thinks you deserve.

When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything.....GK Chesterton

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.....GK Chesterton

Islamism, no matter what you may think about it, is a definite 'something.' It is a very bad something, but a something none the less. Humanism or secularism are essentially a 'nothing.' They are nothing of any substance, anyway. The humanists/secularists can ridicule Christians all they want for what they see as archaic beliefs. However, if they think their ideology is going to save Europe from the coming catastrophe, they are the ones living on blind faith.

"Humanism succeeded in freeing European society from unjust and harmful Christian religious chains. It will succeed in doing the same with Islam religious chains for its Muslim population".

You're ridiculous. That will take about a thousand years with a whole lot of human misery and carnage in the process. You'll be dead in how many? And, I wouldn't be too sure you can predict the correct outcome.

For those of us in the here and now, I'll take our Christian legacy any day over Islam. Christianity from its inception was given permission to reform, which it did, and become compatible with secularism..."Give unto Caesar,....". Islam hasn't got that legacy. It's so cheap and stupid to cherry pick Old Testament passages as if whatever specific incidents were a legacy that Christians felt compelled to act upon.

You are so thoroughly the self-loathing, morally bankrupted, vacuous European that you are a parody. When you believe in nothing, eventually you'll believe in anything. Vilify Christianity all you want, as a European here's your choices: the fascism of the socialists in Brussels or the slow grinding advance of hostile anti-human fascist Islam. Take your pick?

Having no core values, you are road kill to either of them.

But let's say that you are right about this. Over what time-scale are you taliking about here and at what cost?
 
Muslims everywhere have witnessed with their own eyes what happens to a culture (i.e. the judeo-christian culture) when it succombs to soulless secularism and they will fight (literally and figuratively) tooth and nail to make sure this doesn't happen to their own. This is just one reason why I don't believe this humanist heaven on earth crap is ever likely to materialise, either in Europe or in the Muslim world at large. So, if I'm wrong about this then  bully for you, but if you are wrong that's a disaster of a whole different order of magnitude for the EUtopian humanists AND the rest of us poor sods out there.
 
There's that music again (Wake up little suzie...).
 

@ PVH
 
Is that Everly Brothers music I hear everytime I read these words?
 
"Humanism succeeded in freeing European society from unjust and harmful Christian religious chains. It will succeed in doing the same with Islam religious chains for its Muslim population".
 
 

If you are an European then you are why Europe is the sad bankrupted mess that it is. 
 
Europe isn’t a sad bankrupted mess. Reading too much BJ can harm your common sense.
 
The Ten Commandments have endure because they make sense for a society to respect. The New Testament endures as a model for human virtue while the Koran doesn't.
 
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,”
Punishing children for what their parents did doesn’t fit my ethic values.

 
Religion is a good thing for humans, it brings structure and comfort to many. The Greeks who deliverd to the West an incredible blessing weren't imbecilic secularists of the modern European ilk.
 
I don’t know what they were teaching you about the Greek faith. But I happen to know that it was a pantheon of bizarre humanlike creatures driven by jalousie, revenge, power and lust. If you prefer those above a scientific approach that wants proof and sustainability, then every further discussion seems fruitless.  
 
Here's a thought, if you are a European, defiling your cultural heritage will get you eaten by a force such as Islam that hasn't
 
Naturally there is no need for any explanation about the link between not keeping your cultural heritage and getting eaten, but then what should you expect from people that believe that an ancient book full of monstrosities contains the only possible truth. Here is a thought for you: Humanism succeeded in freeing European society from unjust and harmful Christian religious chains. It will succeed in doing the same with Islam religious chains for its Muslim population.

Cardinal Brady: Successive decisions [of the EU institutions] have undermined the family based on marriage...
 
Marriage is far more than a religious institution. It is the structure for the most basic and fundamental socio-economic and political unit - the family. And the family is the originator of everything that can be regarded as social or political. Despite the passage of some millennia, marriage has proved a superior vehicle by every conceivable measure (i.e. economic expansion, population growth, law and order) than any alternative such as polygamy. Postwar economic expansion, combined with welfare statism deluded many that marriage was obsolete, purely religious or inhibiting. And yet scientific study continually proves that marriage is better for one's health and economic well-being. Nor has marriage's common-law dilution proved viable, beyond legal claims on property division.
 
Cardinal Brady: Without respect for its Christian memory and soul, I believe it is possible to anticipate continuing difficulties for the European project. These will emerge not only in economic terms but in terms of social cohesion and the continued growth of a dangerous individualism that does not care about God or about what the future might have in store.
 
The cardinal would do well not to ignore the other contributors to Western Europe's intellectual traditions - the Germanic and Greco-Roman cultures. Moreover, individualism is as rooted in Christianity as egalitarianism. What we have here is cherry picking. And we're picking all the wrong ones.

....and those that respond to him.
With all of the thoughtful content that BJ provides it's a no brainer why so few bother posting here.
Come on, this is should be above the level of a junior high debate where no one has the maturity to pass on the clown that won't shut up.
 
 

If you are an European then you are why Europe is the sad bankrupted mess that it is. The Ten Commandments have endure because they make sense for a society to respect. The New Testament endures as a model for human virtue while the Koran doesn't. Religion is a good thing for humans, it brings structure and comfort to many. The Greeks who deliverd to the West an incredible blessing weren't imbecilic secularists of the modern European ilk.
We all know how the European secular utopian paradise of "an equitable and passionate society" ended in Russia with 30-60 million dead and the rest serfs to the state for generations. Nor has modern secularism with its subjective ethics been kind to people. Here's a thought, if you are a European, defiling your cultural heritage will get you eaten by a force such as Islam that hasn't. Basically, your drivel is superficial nonsense.

You reject God, accept the existence of the devil and seek truth, correct?
 
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/truth.html
 
 
Advice: Ditch the Chinese dude and start getting in touch with your dark side.
 
Abracadabra, baby!
 
 

If you don't believe in the existence of God, but you believe that "money is the work of the devil, " then logic must tell you that taoism is no longer the 'path' you should be taking but perhaps this is:
 
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/natural.html
 

re: many questions.

OK Let's discuss your item (E), shall we?
 
If religion is manmade and there is no God, how can money possibly be "the work of the devil"?

Sorry, but there are too many topics in this game - Agree on what?
A) anything passing our brains (thinking) is manmade
B) religious thinking is fruitless
C) U.S. Politicians are frauds
D) Money is (a) religious placebo
E) Money is the work of the devil
F) Man suddenly stood up and walked, thought, etc.
G) Kappert's brain smells (good or bad)

Are you challenging Descartes? I sure hope so!

Kappert's posts are thought provoking. Nar, who am I kidding? I suspect that not even kappert wouldn't agree with that statement.

I definitely don't know what you are talking about, and nothing in my brain is manmade.
If you are talking about manmade religion, I am not so sure where the origins of religion come from.
The non-believers make it very simple: first there were apes for a couple of million years, than some type of man, surely in Africa for a couple of million years and than: BOONK, man started talking, thinking calculating since approx. 15.000 years now. All of a sudden, coming from nowhere.
This is nice but unacceptable to me.
Further, I must agree, everything going through YOUR brain is manmade and boy, it smells.

Prove: http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/cc/moneydevil.html

is it money we talk about???

US politicians, as they are eager to reveal some common believe, must be frauds.

I have to agree with THE DOCTOR: "Everything that we process through our brains , ethics and theology included , is manmade it cannot be anything else ." Therefore, the whole debate on Christianity or any religion in Europe are fruitless!

Peter's post was thought provoking , if the reference to "Europeans" meant the people of Europe then I guess that I have a query . The European does not exist , a person who lives in Europe does , however most people would regard themselves as French , Germans or Irish , not Europeans .
Likewise they would have differing approaches to politics , morals , theology and ethics ; as to having no interest , there are a few of us ethicists out there ( in all countries )who would beg to differ .
Everything that we process through our brains , ethics and theology included , is manmade it cannot be anything else .

"Here in Europe people don't ask their politicians (anymore) whether or not they believe in the holy Trinity...".
 
Perhaps, but how are people like Mr Vanderheyden going to respond when an ever increasing number of his fellow Europeans insist on knowing from their politicians whether or not they believe in the concept of Tawhid? And how will this subject impact upon the E.U's eutopian dream of a single affluent community living in fraternal peace and harmony with itself and the rest of the world?
 
"The acceptance or denial of this ... produces a world of DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND MAN. The BELIEVERS in it become ONE SINGLE COMMUNITY and those who do not believe in it FORM AN OPPOSING GROUP".
[emphasis added]
 
http://islamworld.net/docs/mautaw1.html
 
*scapegoat
 
For those who don't already know, google this word to discover its origins and definition.

Even commited Europhiles tried to sell power grabs by unaccountable, unelected bodies as "institutional reform", so why would anyone miss something that apparently is in dire need of reform? Because "scary things" will happen once the EU is pared back instead of "further integrated" the way Europhiles want?

Europe is becoming a very convenient scapegoat. If in some conservative mind, something isn’t the way you would like it to be, just blame Europe. Boy, they will miss the institution once they succeeded in destroying it. Here in Europe people don’t ask their politicians whether or not they believe in the holy Trinity being actually one or two and a half. It’s not because it’s forbidden by Europe, it’s because nobody is interested. That doesn’t mean however that Europeans don’t care about ethics. On the contrary, they do very much. That’s because Europeans have discovered that ethics shouldn’t be found in a Holy book thousands years old that has been written, rewritten, censured, added, misinterpreted and wrongly translated a thousand times. They found out that ethics can’t be found in mathematical rules deciding that something is a human being from the moment the semen cell is halfway 0.1 micro-nano-meters from the centre of the egg. They found out that ethics served a goal in creating an equitable and passionate society, and are thus manmade, liable for change and open for public debate.  
 

The Cardinal is right to warn for the anti-Christian agenda of the EU. However, why should "committed Christians" be "instinctively committed" to the transnationalist, hence by definition socialist, "European project"?

The Cardinal indicates that he does not understand the socialist roots of the EU's secularist and anti-Christian agenda by blaming "dangerous individualism" as the cause of the EU's flaws instead of socialism. At the same time, however, he refers to the US as the example which Ireland and Europe have to follow. The Cardinal should ponder the question why America is less secularist than Europe. Is it perhaps because, contrary to Europeans, Americans are more inclined to "dangerous" individualism than to socialism?