The Church – Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?
From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2006-09-19 20:45
Although not a religious person myself, I am usually in favor of a revitalization of Christianity in Europe. However, I sometimes have my doubts when I see how many, too many, church leaders consistently end up on the wrong side of issues related to Islam and Muslim immigration.
Bat Ye’or claims that dhimmitude in the Middle East has often progressed because Christian leaders have sold out their own people, either for short-term personal gains or in the mistaken belief that they have a “shared religious heritage” with Muslims. It is also frequently Christian leaders and bishops in the West who are calling for open borders for poor, destitute Muslims because “it is the Christian thing to do.”
The Protestant Lutheran Church in the German city of Hannover organized an exhibition to acquaint the Germans with Islam. The exhibition, entitled “The Faces of Islam,” was the work of the female students of the Protestant Studies Institute in Aachen. On Palm Sunday in 2006, a Protestant church in Bochum, Germany celebrated Muhammad’s birthday and invited the local Turkish community to attend the service. A Turkish music band played Sufi music during the service, in which Protestants and Muslims joined together in honor of Muhammad.
In the UK, church leaders wanted to invite the families of the London suicide bombers to a national memorial service in honor of the victims. Two senior Church of England bishops believed that extending the invitation to the bombers’ families would acknowledge their own loss and send a powerful message of reconciliation to the Muslim community. Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, urged the nation to unite and turn would-be suicide bombers into friends by building “an inclusive circle of love.”
The same Archbishop has also said that British Christians should see Muslims as allies in the struggle against secularism. A number of Christian, and some Jewish, leaders shared this point of view both during the death threats against Salman Rushdie and during the Danish cartoon Jihad.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, about 10,000 Christians have been killed between 1998 and 2003 and about 1,000 churches have been burnt down by Muslim mobs. The radicals want Indonesia to be the foundation of a Southeast Asian caliphate that will launch Jihad against other nations such as Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia until they submit to Islam. In the Indonesian province Aceh, where sharia law officially prevails, Muslim mobs razed a church in response to a forged (by a Muslim) advertisement inviting Muslims to a Christian revival service. Witnesses said there were over 100 Muslim men present, many of them carrying swords. They poured gasoline over the building and set fire to it.
Why this aggressive reaction? According to Islamic law, Christians and Jews (not other religious groups) can live in an area dominated by Muslims, but only if they accept their status as second-rate citizens, dhimmis. This implies many restrictions, such as never trying to convert or preach to Muslims, never to have a relationship with a Muslim woman and never to say anything insulting about Islam or Muhammad. If even one single person breaches any of these conditions, the entire dhimmi community will be punished, and Jihad resumes. Notice that while Muslims, following each case of Islamic terrorism, are quick to say that not all Muslims should be punished for the actions of a few, this is precisely what sharia prescribes for non-Muslims.
What’s worse is that in practice, as in this case from Indonesia, attacks on non-Muslims can be triggered by unconfirmed rumors, personal grudges by Muslims or outright lies. In reality, this means that all non-Muslims will live with a constant, internalized fear of saying or doing anything that could insult Muslims, which would immediately set off physical attacks against them and their children. This state of constant fear is called dhimmitude. Many Middle Eastern, Pakistani and Indonesian Christians know that as a matter of survival, they must say one thing in public and another in private. They are held hostage in their own countries.
In Egypt, a film depiction of someone converting to Islam and then becoming disillusioned with his new religion was enough to bring more than 5,000 protestors to the church, get a nun stabbed and three people killed. Muslims interpreted it as a breach of the traditional Islamic law mandating death for anyone who leaves Islam, and of the old dhimmi laws forbidding non-Muslims to proselytize.
Bishop Armia of the Coptic Church in Egypt, which predates the 7th century Arab invasion and preserves the last remainder of the language of the ancient pharaohs, assured that “Copts would never tolerate anyone insulting Islam.” Coptic Pope Shenouda III, knowing fully well that any provocation could mean mayhem and murder for his fellow Copts, has reiterated that “any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ.”
Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO. Hardly anybody in the mainstream Western media made any attempts to explain this to the public.
In another case, angry protests raged across the Muslim world over a Newsweek magazine report that interrogators at the U.S. military prison Guantanamo Bay had put the Koran on toilets, and in at least one case flushing it down. The escalating violence prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge Muslims to resist calls for violence. “Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all,” she said. Newsweek later retracted their original article, which was found to be baseless.
In November 2002, days before the Miss World pageant in Nigeria, a Nigerian newspaper published an article in which the writer suggested that Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, would have approved the pageant and would have chosen a wife amongst the contestants. The article sparked a Jihad riot in which over 200 people were killed and thousands injured. The next day, the newspaper published an apology. The president of Nigeria went on national television and condemned the newspaper. He said, “It could happen anytime irresponsible journalism is committed against Islam.”
As one African observer later noted about the Newsweek story, the reaction of the White House in the United States was largely similar to that a Third World president gave when faced with the same challenge. For Muslims, the world’s only remaining superpower appeared to play the role of dhimmis.
Bishop Artemije, the spiritual leader of Kosovo’s beleaguered Serbs, has warned against Western support for an independent state in the province, where Muslim Albanians greatly outnumber Christian Serbs and have destroyed many churches and monasteries under the auspices of NATO soldiers. The Bishop warns that independence would reward ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. Since 9-11, he said, “the United States has been engaged in a global struggle against jihad terrorism, which threatens not just America but peaceful people of all faiths and nationalities. That is why we who live in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija find it difficult to understand why so many voices of influence in Washington support a course of action that would hand to the terrorists a significant victory in Europe.”
While Muslims responded with deadly outrage to the now-retracted report by Newsweek of alleged Koran desecration, there was little outcry when Islamic gunmen in 2002 holed up in Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, assumed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ, used the Bible as toilet paper. About 30 priests, monks and nuns, and more than 150 Palestinian civilians, who hid inside to escape a gun battle between Israelis and Palestinians, remained inside the church with the armed militants for more than five weeks. Some of the Palestinian fighters, who belonged to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, part of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organization, were received as heroes when they later returned to Gaza.
During the so-called Oslo peace process from the mid 1990s, while Palestinian authorities received financial support from Western nations, Arafat increased the boundaries of Bethlehem to include nearby Muslim villages, and encouraged Muslims to settle in the city. As a result, the percentage of Christians rapidly declined.
The Islamic gunmen were also responsible for the rape and murder of two Christian teenage sisters. The assailants claimed that the sisters had been murdered because they were “prostitutes” and had been “collaborating” with Israeli security forces. “The gangsters murdered the two sisters so that they would not tell anyone about the rape,” said a family member. “Many Christian families have sent their daughters abroad for fear they would come under attack by Muslim men.” “Some of the murderers were later killed by the Israeli army, but others are now living in Europe after they had sought refuge in the Church of Nativity. It’s absurd that Muslim men who rape and murder Christian girls are given political asylum in Christian countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy.”
The irony is that the same sexual harassment and rape of non-Muslim women, part and parcel of Jihad, is now spreading to cities in Western Europe with many Muslim immigrants.
Professor Weiner, Scholar in Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, provides an in-depth look into the nearly uninterrupted persecution of Christians throughout the decade since the Oslo peace process began. The Christians have shrunk to less than 1.7 percent of the population in the Palestinian areas. “Tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad, while those who remain do so as a beleaguered and dwindling minority,” Weiner said. “Their plight is, in part, attributable to the adoption of Muslim religious law (sharia) in the constitution of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Christians have been abandoned by their religious leaders who, instead of protecting them, have chosen to curry favor with the Palestinian leadership.”
More than 500 Muslim men, chanting Allahu akbar, attacked the Christian village of Taiba east of Ramallah. “They poured kerosene on many buildings and set them on fire. Many of the attackers broke into houses and stole furniture, jewelry and electrical appliances,” said one resident. The attack was triggered by the murder of a Muslim woman from the nearby village of Deir Jarir. Her family forced her to drink poison for having had a romance with a Christian man from Taiba. Muslim men can marry Christian women, but Islamic law forbids Muslim women from marrying Christian men. The Christian community was thus collectively punished because it was rumored that one of their members had breached the rules of dhimmitude.
In a meeting attended by Robert Spencer, former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky noted that Israel had again and again aided Christians – at their own request – against Islamic violence and injustice, most notably when the Church of the Nativity was occupied by Jihadists in 2002. Yet international Christian leaders, he said, have not responded with similar gestures toward Israel. He is right. While Christians are persecuted on a daily basis in Muslim nations and may soon be wiped out in the Holy Land, Christian organizations in the West are too frequently engaged in “dialogue” with Muslims and demonization of Israel. Christians need to realize that they have much more in common with other non-Muslims, not just Jews, but Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Atheists, than they will ever have with Muslims. Jussi Halla-Aho, running for parliament in Finland as an independent candidate, has come to some of the same conclusions as I have regarding the Leftist-Islamic cooperation in many Western nations: The Left milks the working natives to maintain a predominantly idle immigrant population, who thankfully vote for the Left. The welfare state society thus has to support two parasites, each living in a symbiotic relationship with the other. This will eventually cause the system to collapse. Why would anyone support a policy that leads to certain destruction? Well, because a career politician never sets his sights 20, 50 or 100 years to the future but instead focuses on the next election. The short-term focus of our democratic system can thus, combined with Muslim immigration, turn into a fatal flaw.
But Halla-Aho asks an even more important question: “Why do the voters let all this happen? It is because Westerners like to be ‘good’ people and believe that their fellow men are equally good people. It is because they have humane values.” “It is because the moral and ethical values of Western man have made him helpless in the face of wickedness and immorality.”
Our Western “moral and ethical values” are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking. Will our openness to outsiders, our democratic system and our Christian compassion, precisely the values that we cherish the most, render the West incapable of withstanding Jihad? A good Christian has to turn the other cheek and love his enemies. How are we to reconcile this with the reality that Muslims regard this as a sign of weakness? And how can we fight sharia when bishops and church leaders are the first to call for a “compassionate” immigration policy that allows masses of Muslims to settle here? Christians argue that Europe’s problem is a cultural vacuum created by the retreat of church attendance and Christianity as a religion, which has paved the way for Islam to enter. They have a point, as I have shown before. But some Christian groups are opening the West to Islam, too, and the secular state doesn’t have to be insipid and toothless. Far from it, it was secular states that fought and defeated the Fascist regimes during WW2 and risked the destruction of the planet in the Cold War. The non-religious authorities in China are far more ruthless in crushing any Islamic aggression than most Christian countries are. Of course, the downside is that they are far more ruthless in crushing anything deemed to be a potential challenge to their power.
Luckily, not all Christian leaders are appeasers of Islam. One of the intelligent ones comes from Australia, a country that has been fairly resistant to Political Correctness. They have taken serious steps towards actually enforcing their own borders, despite the predictable outcries from various NGOs and anti-racists, and Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world. George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, tells of how September 11 was a wake-up call for him personally:
“I recognised that I had to know more about Islam.” “In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.” “The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of fighting or waging war.” “Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for fear-reaching renovation is severely limited.” “I’d also say that Islam is a much more war-like culture than Christianity.” “I’ve had it asserted to me is that in the relationship between the Islamic and non-Islamic world, the normal thing is a situation of tension if not war, or outright hostility.”
Pope Benedict XVI, nicknamed “God’s rottweiler” as a cardinal, seems to embody elements of both the sensible and the silly Christian ways of dealing with the Islamic threat. Although Benedict has stressed the need for “reciprocity” in Christian-Muslim relations and urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants, he has also said that Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.
It caused an uproar in the Islamic world when Benedict XVI, as a part of a longer dissertation, quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor’s hostile view of Islam’s founder: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Benedict later said he was “deeply sorry” for the reaction to his comments on Islam and that the quote he used from the medieval text about holy wars did not reflect his personal thoughts. Although this technically constitutes a non-apology apology and was deemed “unsatisfactory” by Muslims, many anti-Jihadists would have preferred the Pope to use the opportunity to make a clearer stand against Islamic aggression.
Still, his comments raised public debate about the issue, and certainly marked progress compared to his predecessor Pope John Paul II, who kissed the Koran in public in an effort to reach our to Muslims.
I have described examples of incredible stupidity and appeasement from Christians in the West, but also of courage and clarity of mind in standing up to Islamic aggression and defending Western civilization and the world from sharia. The ideological civil war within the West is not just between secularists and religious people; it runs straight through the Church itself.
Christians need to understand that there can be no peace or understanding with the Islamic world. They want to subdue us, pure and simple. Church leaders of all denominations, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, must stop stabbing Israel in the back and campaigning for a de facto open borders policy while Muslims are threatening to swamp our lands. Yes, Christianity teaches compassion, but it also teaches identifying evil and standing up to it. At the end of the day, the Church must decide whether, in the defense of civilization, it wants to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
A Christian Agreeing with Fjordman
Submitted by Uranium on Mon, 2006-09-25 16:02.
I'm a christian and I agree with Fjordman.
Fjordman recently published an article regarding feminism paving the way for Islam. He postulated that the emasculation of men and breakdown of the family structure has weakened society and created a vacuum ready for Islam to fill. It was a brilliant article and I emailed it to many people I know.
I suspect that the same kind of thing has happened to the church. Over the last 30 years its structure has been emasculated by the rising tide of marxism. I would even go so far as to say the two trends have gone hand in hand. Part of the marxist agenda has been to break down christianity because it is one of their main, if not primary obstacles.
The Church has the potential to be a powerful part of the solution if it would only wake. Right now I consider it my job as christian to aid this process.
Christianity will protect us, not the bible
Submitted by Jari on Tue, 2006-09-26 09:55.
If we were to agree on the paraphrase of a meek, a spiritual humble, who 'owns the world' with relatively accurate idea's and perception of the world - with high value for society - i wonder to what extent the New Testament can serve as a 'guide to become a meek'.
The NT may obtain a large sum of examples on 'the humble way to live', it does however contain very little systematic insight on the (perception of the) actual world. And if the NT does not provide a thorough intellectual challenge, can it be a surprise that the meeks of today are to be found in the unversities, not in Church? The NT in agreement with scientific reason ... because it hardly contains any?
Furthermore, if we were to believe that the writers of the New Testament envisioned the unification of a Europe that was severely divided by the fall of Rome, the emphasis was inevitable: many examples of peace and compassion, hardly any positive examples of strenght, willpower, protection. It is therefore unlikely that the bible can be used to defend its readers.
Meanwhile, Christianity seems to refer to Europeans as an ethnic group (oh will the missionaries spit at me!) largely deriving their ideology from a politically biased selection of the words of Jesus, who i consider an extremely wise man. Let's see. Would that be diametrically opposed to the Islam?
Final comment: is the Coran not being (mis)used as a pretence, an 'explanation' of the anger caused by the jalousy of mainly Arabians towards Western man?
Different levels of interpretation
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-09-22 15:27.
@ K V B
When it comes to the actual behavior of many (most?)contemporary leaders of christian churches, we are probably in broad agreement that it is self-destructive. After all, these people are not immune to the broader culture around them. Our difference lies in the interpretation of presumed 'christian' expressions. My point is that you tend to give them a superficial, perhaps too 'common', meaning.
I already told you that "the meek" refers to the 'spiritually humble', not to the 'suckers-who-cannot-stand-up-for-themselves' in daily life.
The same applies to an expression like "love thy neighbor". Postmodernistic naive-left moral-relativistic thinking may interpret that to mean "let your neighbor do what he likes, don't judge him nor his behavior, etc...''. More serious thinking, however, would see it as a admonition TO ACT in his best interest, the neighbor's that is! And it cannot be in the neighbor's interest to let him misbehave, to behave immorally and intolerantly towards his fellow men, etc... Resisting BAD behavior of a 'neighbor' is the moral thing to do. Confirming or tolerating bad behavior is the immoral thing to do. If the christian message has been reduced to a refusal to make moral judgement of others' behavior and ideas, then it is doomed.
Thus, the christian message can be perverted, even by many christian leaders. Surely, it has in our day, as it has often in the past (but often in different ways).
Submitted by K_V_B on Fri, 2006-09-22 20:09.
@oiznop: I find it always amusing when people ask me to explain my atheism. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either, but somehow nobody ever asks me to explain that. Explaining atheism is also not the topic of this discussion.
The topic is wether the church is part of the problem or part of the solution. I stated that it might be in the nature of Christianity to be passive, to not offer resistance against a militant religion like Islam. Marcfrans suggests that it might our society that made Christianity lose its backbone.
If a religion is a collection of memes, and if mutation and selection applies to memes as much as it does to genes this can be explained. Christianity changed, in order to survive in the increasingle secular society. This would suggest that Islam could change too, if we make sure that it needs to in order to survive.
You misinterperted the question......
Submitted by oiznop on Fri, 2006-09-22 20:41.
@oiznop: I find it always amusing when people ask me to explain my atheism. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either, but somehow nobody ever asks me to explain that. Explaining atheism is also not the topic of this discussion.
That's not what I asked you KVB. I asked you not to explain your atheism, but why you think religion is useless, and if you were in Europe? I am trying to figure out your mindset. I don't care if you worship your refrigerator or not. I just want to know what makes religion useless from your standpoint.
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-09-21 23:12.
@ K V B
A long time ago, I once read an interesting theological discussion of the biblical concept of "the meek". I have forgotten most of it, but I recall that it had a lot to do with the difficulties of translating from archaic languages to old Greek and Latin, and certainly to modern concepts in modern languages.
I may be wrong on this, but I think the biblical "meek" refers to the "meek in spirit", or - if you will - the 'humble', those who do not put themselves in the 'centre' of things, who don't excessively judge things by reference to themselves, etc.... I doubt that it would have anything to do with 'the passive' or the 'weak'. Those are probably modern naive-left perversions of the biblical "meek". It wouldn't make sense to have a religion that preaches passivity or self-destruction.
Again, I may be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure that you are.
I may be wrong but...
Submitted by K_V_B on Fri, 2006-09-22 14:06.
I am not an expert in christian doctrine. I did get a thorough Catholic indoctrination when in school, but I might not remember everything correctly.
For the record: I often quip that I'm a "born again atheist". To me a religion is a set of ideas, a set of "memes" to use a popular term, that is mostly useless.
My reaction was aimed at the title of the piece. It is my opinion that the "love thy neighbour" meme can never survive the "conquer thy neighbour" meme. And thus christianity is part of the problem.
You are not wrong, but.....
Submitted by oiznop on Fri, 2006-09-22 14:50.
Christianity can be part of the solution, but only with in reason. It can't be naive about the reality of things such as this. In that sense you are correct. (Christian) Religion does have a penchant for being like that to a great extent. That can be a recipe for disaster. It's almost like abuse of the golden rule, especially when the golden rule is not reciprocated. And when it's not reciprocated, then the doors are open for Christianity and Western Civ to be destroyed thru it's own actions. My question to you KVB is why is religion usless, especially in a moderate format? I have often wondered what makes the Atheist mind tick. Please explain. Also, are you in Europe?
Oh, and one other thing,
Submitted by oiznop on Thu, 2006-09-21 20:34.
Oh, and one other thing, KVB...If you read through this whole article, the "squatters" are fugitives, rapists and criminals. They are anything but meek.
Submitted by oiznop on Thu, 2006-09-21 20:15.
The Jesus from the gospels preached to "turn the other cheek", and at the sermon on the hill said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the world". A christian church that does not put up any resistance is at leastacting in accordance with the teachings of its supposed founder.
These are church sanctuaries, not flop houses! These people are desecrating these sanctuaries and turning them into mosques! This is flat out wrong. Do these churches not have any shelters they are affiliated with? Sorry, but your quotes from the the new testament only go so far. This is a question of respect for the "hosts" of these "guests" and these "guests" don't have any. They don't have any for the church, for the country they are trying to milk for welfare, and anyone who is not like them.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Submitted by K_V_B on Thu, 2006-09-21 18:59.
The Jesus from the gospels preached to "turn the other cheek", and at the sermon on the hill said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the world". A christian church that does not put up any resistance is at least
acting in accordance with the teachings of its supposed founder.
Pretty appalling if you ask me
Submitted by oiznop on Wed, 2006-09-20 19:35.
Looking at these pictures, any doubts I had about the situation in Europe have been thwarted. If the Euros allow this to continue to happen (which they will thru their own appeasements), especially the church giving refuge to these illegals, they are doomed. And guess who they are going to come running to when it's too late!!!....Are these Cathloic clergymen in Belgium this stupid? Is no one on the continent going to church that this has to go on?
Peace at What Price?
Submitted by dchamil on Wed, 2006-09-20 17:20.
It is always possible to have peace. All you have to do is give your adversary whatever he wants. Give him your money, your house, your wife, your life, your country. And you'll have peace.
cogent article # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2006-09-20 15:38.
@ mission impossible
I fully agree with your comments and am grateful for your short but clear exposition. Once again, Fjordman has shown himself to be one of the 'best' contributors or writers of this website. In my opinion, his most important point can be found in the last paragraph, where he refers to BOTH 'compassion" and necessary "identification of evil". Many are the christian church leaders who have come to 'narrow down' christianity to some kind of mindless and sentimental "compassion", thereby neglecting other ESSENTIAL features of the 'christian message' (like 'self-responsibility' and the need for 'moral courage' to stand up against evil). The current broohaha about the pope's comments in Regensburg illustrates this well. His discourse was about Reason and Faith. The essence of the 'old' Europe (the one of the Enlightenment) was the convergence of faith and reason. You cannot abandon one, nor the other, and survive as 'Europe' in this world. The American Constitution is not a suicide pact, and christian 'solidarity' cannot and should not be either.
The Fjordman article is written largely from a European perspective. And, he is right, that most of Europe, and certainly 'Rome', has abandoned Israel long ago in a frenzy of fruitless appeasement of 'evil'. The survival of Israel, and its democracy over the past fifty years or so, is almost exclusively due to Israeli determination and CONSTANT american support. And the latter rests in large measure on the political base of american 'evangelicals'. The 'liberal' church establishment of the traditional christian churches have bought into the absurd extreme moral relativism of marxian academia, and their membership is dying.
Good point, not well made
Submitted by Snorri Godhi on Wed, 2006-09-20 13:20.
Most of this article is going on and on about things that have only a remote connection to the title. Let's get straight to the point:
The ideological civil war within the West is not just between secularists and religious people; it runs straight through the Church
Quite true, and by the way the ideological civil war also divides secularists. I would argue that it is easier to fight for freedom if you do not believe in turning the other cheeck, but I am not dogmatic about it.
Inequity essential part of islamists, Pope reciprocity principle
Submitted by Invite_Jesus on Tue, 2006-09-19 23:12.
At the surface, islam seems like egalitarian. However, like communism, it is full of class and caste distinctions. "Dalit muslims" of India remain notoriously exploited and downtrodden outcasts even after conversion into islam. They are the ones left behind among all religions like dark Darfurians (Of course, there are Dalit Christians too, discriminated by Upper Caste Christians!). You can marry a muslim man (if you are woman and if you convert), not generally a muslim woman, even if you are a man!
The point is it is all sweet talk like islam being the "religion of peace!" - biggest cruel joke. Conversion by sword type coercion does take place (especially in India), on a massive scale right now, copying evangelists.
Recent Pope's address at Regensburg was perhaps envisioned by his dreams of converts among the iraqis, jordanians, syrians, iranians, turks, saudis, pakkis, banglas, afghans,...etc without bloodshed. Is it possible? Possible if his speech at Regensburg had been successful. Now apostates are to be beheaded and no converts to Christianity possible in the land of the uncivilized brutes mentioned above but only in cultured, civilized, and advanced nations like India, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam and Mongolia where excessive privileges are given to even alien cultures who may not have any compassion at all for the natives nor respect for their cultures or their Gods.
Submitted by Benedikt on Tue, 2006-09-19 23:03.
Christianity is not centered on Europe anymore. Christianity is not a tool for exporting or strengthening European culture. If Europe wants Christianity it is okay. If it doesn't Christianity won't die. But most probably Europe will die then.
Suggestion from a silly Christian
Submitted by KG on Tue, 2006-09-19 22:18.
I typically enjoy your articles but I don't see where you made your case within this article for your blanket charge against Christians as back stabbing Israel and campaigning for open borders.
In fact I see as much evidence against it in your article as for it. And in comparison to say the dismal performance of political leaders in the west I'm not seeing why you decided to single out religious leaders.
I'm also not especially impressed with your quoting the Pope out of context. I think it's enough to be dealing with that from the Islamics. When you can point to how say Blair or Bush or Chirac have stuck their neck out as far as the Pope maybe then tossing around backhand comments like "silly Christians" might be not come off as so grossly out of place. Especially since us silly Christians have already seen one of our own die for the Pope speaking up where secular leaders haven't and we are expecting more.
That is not to say that I don't think there are a number of specific acts that merit criticism. But that old adage applies -- sweeping generalizations generally accomplish nothing constructive.
Perhaps next time narrow the scope to a specific religious leader and act you'd like to critique. I think you'll do better and be more likely to elicit support from us silly Christians.
Cogent article, supported by well-researched evidence
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-09-20 06:19.
I do not see Fjordman making sweeping generalizations as you allege. His research for this article has again been methodical, and he quotes more than enough evidence to support his main thesis, which is, Christianity goes out of its way to accommodate (even support) those who seek its destruction out of a misplaced sense of compassion.
It seems likely you are simply smarting from seeing the Christian religion, or more specifically, its so-called "leaders" being held up as incompetent and sapless. I am a Christian too, although I am yet another who does not attend church regularly. But, that does not stop me from reading my Bible regularly. What Fjordman alleges about the slow capitulation of the Christian Church, often under impossible circumstances, does not offend me. Rather, it strengthens my resolve to do something positive about it, in order to change the trend.
I and others would be very impressed if you could take a similar cue from such criticism, take the evidence that has been cogently presented, and be positive. We can all do things to ensure the rot stops here.