Anti-Jihad Manifesto Misses the Point

Today twelve international authors, most of them (former) Muslims, such as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but also a couple of “French philosophers,” published a manifesto in the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. An English version of the manifesto “Together facing the new totalitarianism” was posted yesterday evening on the website of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

The manifesto states that

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

The above paragraphs clearly display the manifesto’s defects. While Islamism can be considered the perversion of religion, the three scourges of the 20th century – Fascism, Nazism (National-Socialism) and Stalinism – were secular ideologies. Neither Adolf Hitler nor Joseph Stalin were theocrats. It takes “French intellectuals” to use mankind’s experience with National-Socialism and Stalinism as motivation for a rallying cry to oppose “religious totalitarianism” and a call for “secular values,” which they hold to be “universal values.”

There is no doubt that Islamism is a threat to freedom and human dignity. However, as we have warned before, some people – undoubtedly brave, but nevertheless mistaken – are prepared to destroy certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of education, in their fight against Islam and religion in general. The question has already been put here:

Is Islam dangerous because it is a religion? Do Muslim values differ from European values because the latter are rooted in Christianity or because they are secular? These questions are at the heart of the debate in Europe today.

In our opinion, man is a religious being. Secularism destroyed the Christian roots of Europe and, in doing so, created the religious vacuum that is now being filled by Islam. The manifesto warns against

battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. […] We must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.”

History in the past century, however, has clearly indicated that those fighting for an “egalitarian” world were the most “liberticidal” of all. Freedom is the right to live “unegalitarianly.” This is why The Brussels Journal defends the right of individuals – though not of the state – to “discriminate” (which, by the way, contrary to what the manifesto implies, is not the same as “oppress”). Indeed, it is no coincidence that the manifesto avoids referring to “Socialism” (and even “Communism”) among the scourges of the past century and prefers to speak of “Nazism” and Stalinism” instead. Half the manifesto’s signatories are probably Socialists, which explains why the manifesto obfuscates the secular, Socialist roots of these scourges.

While in America a cultural war is going on between “blue” (liberal) and “red” (conservative), the cultural war in Europe is a three-way war between the European equivalent of the American “blue” (socialist), the European equivalent of the American “red” (conservative, though Europeans often use the term “liberal”) and Muslims. I prefer to refer to the first group as “secularist” (although I realise this is a generalization and many Christians belong to these “secularists,” including – unfortunately – most of our bishops and priests) and to the second group as “Christian” (although many agnostics belong to it). The reason why I make this distinction is because the second group is prepared to acknowledge the importance of the cultural traditions of the West, rooted in the Judeo-Christian values without which classical-liberalism could never have evolved.

I cannot state this any better than Dr. Jos Verhulst, in his contribution to our Dutch-language section yesterday:

The great public secret behind the whole issue of the Danish cartoons is the following. Nowhere does the core text of the New Testament argue for censorship. There is not a single instance where the New Testament states that a non-Christian should be persecuted for his convictions or statements. With regard to those with whom it is not possible for Christians to co-exist, Christ simply preached secession: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (Matthew, 10:14). On the other hand, Christ did not allow himself to be censored: He said what He had to say, He “insulted” and “offended” the pharisees, and for this He was persecuted and finally murdered. The core text of Islam is different. It explicitly calls for the persecution and submission through violence of all who hold other beliefs.

It is true that throughout history there have been Christians and Christian churches who, in contradiction with the Christian core text, have engaged in persecution and censorship, and that there have been Muslims who have pleaded for freedom of expression and thought. Even today there are instances where the Vatican calls for censorship (see the Osservatore Romano of 5 February) while Dyab Abu Jahjah calls for freedom. But the dynamics of the core texts that have shaped both civilisations through the centuries, are diametrically opposed. Freedom lovers had the support of the one core text but not of the other.

In the West the general development, against all the authorities, through all the turmoil and in spite of all the regressions, has continued to be towards increasing individualism, freedom of thought, development of science, abolition of slavery and the blossoming of the ideals of equal rights, democracy and radically free speech. The world of Islam, on the contrary, developed into a “close society” where the individual submits to the community.

And now he stands at the dawn of the 21st century: the maligned individual, unsteady on his own feet after executing the inner breach with every form of imposed authority, uncertain, blinking in the brightness of the only god he is willing to recognise – Truth itself, stretching out before him unfathomably deep – full of doubt but aware that he, called to non-submission, must seek the road to the transcendent, carrying as his only property, his most valuable heirloom from his turbulent past, that one gold piece that means the utmost to him, his precious ideal of complete freedom of thought, of speech and of scientific inquiry. That is the unique advance that he received to help him in his long and difficult quest.

Meanwhile he is being beleaguered and threatened on all sides; from out of the darkness voices call him to submit and retreat; they shout that the gold in his hands is worthless, while the brightness ahead of him still makes it almost impossible for him te see what lies in store. In short: what this contemporary individual needs most of all is courage, great courage. And the will to be free and to see, which is tantamount to the will to live.

This, in our humble opinion, is a far more appropriate “manifesto” than the one published in Charlie Hebdo today. The battle that is being waged today is a battle between those who defend the right of individuals against the right of collectivities.

The Islamists and the secularists (including the priests and bishops among them) have more in common than the Islamists and the Christians (including the agnostics among them), because the latter acknowledge that at the heart of Christianity is the individual with his individual responsibility before God. Without Christianity, individual responsibility would not have become the centre of European civilization. It was the French Revolution that jeopardized this tradition and that became the root of collectivism, with its socialist, fascist, national-socialist and communist excesses. From this perspective even Jihadism is more a child of secularism than of religion.

I really don't understand Muslims ...

I have just read an article at VG-NET where 4 different groups of Muslims are fighting (with use of violence) - to get control over a Mosq in Norway.

The name of the groups are "Malikene, Sheikhene, Jattene og Gujjarene"

The reason - money !


Infants with bombs

Ok, we got it.  It is all the Jooooooo's fault as usual.  Old story...yawning....yawning...yawning. 


Besides the cartoon's - how do you talk sense to a people who dress their children of 2, 3 and 4 years old up in a costume of suicide bombs and parade them down the street proudly?


The Arab-Israeli's want nothing to do with their brethern on the other side of the wall...did you know that?  Do you even wonder why?

What is a "moderate" muslim?

I hear so much about these "moderates"... how valuable they are for creation of a real dialogue etc. The only problem is, what they are moderate about is in how they express their beliefs, not in the lucidity or sanity of their beliefs.

So the moderate will not torch your house if you are a jooooo, or they will move to western socities because they can think clearly enough to realise there is no education, no jobs, no money, no future in the burning trash heap of Islamic socities. They will suffer the western "infidel" and all his "decadence" so they or their children can at least have a chance at a decent job and education.

The "moderate" will abide by the laws of the land... for money. But they still share the same beliefs as their tragic, slightly more ignorant brother muslims who have stayed behind in their Islamic hell holes. They are just quieter about it. For a job, or school. But they hate just as blindly.

These moderates realise they have to leave and move west when the top Islamic university in the world, Al-Azhar University, ranks 48th... in Africa.

RE A New Era Of Israeli Terrosism

Ah Yes EU Muslim..... It is all Perfectly clear. A couple that has a long history of mental problems, setting off fire crackers, is right up there with the guy setting off an explosive vest packed with Ball berrings in the middle of an islamic funeral procession or the guy driving a car, packed with explosives, into a group of children in the hopes of killing one US soldier..... The moment the moderate Muslims start fighting these people, insteaad of making excuses and blaming everybody else in the world for thier problems, is when the rest of the world will start listening to you and taking you seriously.... Until then it is just more noise 

The Palestinian Terrorism continues...

In this week's cover story investigating the phenomenon of female suicide bombers, Newsweek uses Dr. Eyad Sarraj (a discredited but frequently used media source), to make the claim that it is Israeli rule that promotes suicide bombing. (Note, the issues we are referencing came to light before the Netanya bombing and refers to the phenomenon of suicide bombing in general as opposed to specific attacks.)

Scene of Netanya Suicide Bombing, Palestinians March in Celebration of Netanya bombing (both are Reuters)

In yet another bloody Palestinian terrorist attack, five Israelis were killed outside a shopping mall in Netanya while scores of others were wounded.

However, despite official condemnation of terror attacks for "harming Palestinian interests," by providing cash for the families of suicide bombers and using its state controlled media to glorify "martyrdom," it is actually the Palestinian Authority which is the "root cause" of Palestinian terrorism....

India and E.U?

Can anyone tell me if there are any political and major business alliance between the E.U. and INDIA since mr. bush is having a summit in that region of asia?

Protestant vs Catholics

Voyager, great link!  Thanks.


von Schlichtningen:


I do not have any data to back up what I said about Catholics tend to be liberal while Protestants are more conservative.  It is my own personal opinion based on what what they say and do, here and in Europe.


American and Eurpean Roman Catholics tend to have, 'interfaith dialogs of understandings.'  In Europe they often come to the defense of Islam and they tend to support Palestine over Israel.  That could be a remnant of Pope John Paul.  He kissed the Koran, for goodness sakes!  I'm sure that is because he believed that all people have good in them and that we must try and live with peacefully.  That is not a bad goal, however, when the other side wants to destroy you it is a very naive one.


Pope Benedict is a different animal and he gives me hope.

He very definately understands what Islam is all about and has already been quoted as saying that he doesn't think a reformation is possible.


It was defense as well



Most Europeans and Americans have been taught to be ashamed of the reality they should be proud.  America would not even exist if it hadn't been for the Crusades because Europe would have been Muslim long ago.


Think about it.   Muslims hammer Europeans constantly about the Crusades when they had been on their own religious land grab for centuries.  They were in Spain, Malta, Sicily, Italy and moving up the coast into present day Turkey.  The only reason Pope Urban II called for the Crusades was because the Byzantine emperer at the time (name eludes me) sent an emissary to him for help.  The Crusades weren't all about religion.


History books since the 60's have been rewritten.  Rewritten by liberal intellectuals.  They mask the word 'conquered'.  You will see terms like, "The Muslims expanded into northern Africa."  If you ask a Muslim, he will say that people embraced Islam.   They think and certainly would have you think that people willing gave up themselves up and it was all done peacefully. 


All you have to do is look no further than present day Sudan and Nigeria and see how Muslims are 'expanding' to get a sense of how it once was...and how it always has been.




"It is nothing more than turning individual disappointment into group grievance as a springboard for political power"


How true...but there is also the element of the silent majority....and it happens on both sides.


Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, [Serbs], Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life."



Secular or not, islamism horror is comparable to Nazism ....

It's true that comparing fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism with islamism is a bit direct but it is obvious that secular or religious, all these ideologies (for lack of a better global word) share a common trend for oppression. They all had there share of crime against humanity in its essence.
The fact that islamism is religiously oriented insetad of a secular ideology only makes things worse when ones considers the horrors of past religious wars (crusades, ...)

Who is at fault anyway?

von Schlichtningen:


Go on your journey of discovery of Islam, but you must divest yourself of the notion that Christians are at fault at least in part for Muslim behavior.  It is interesting to me that you say this, for only just a little while ago I read this...


Why the Left doesn't blame Muslims for Muslim violence

"In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame either the victims' group or the circumstances. We Americans are used to this. For decades, liberals have blamed violent crime in America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American society far more than on the murderers, rapists, arsonists and muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the criminals."


Yes, this article is written by an American but it is relevant to Europe as it and you will recognize the same thought processes exist on both continents.


The article mainly deals with the political, but you can also see the same differences between Protestants and Catholics on both sides of the pond.  Catholics tend to be liberal while Protestants tend to be conservative.

To truth serum

I think you misunderstand me. I do not blaim Christians for the Islamist's behavivour. It has been many years since Christians persecuted Muslims. Rather it has been the other way around. Muslims have in the last couple of centuries killed countless Christians and driven even more away from the Muslim territories. As we speak this policy is going in Nigeria and other countries.

No, what I meant with my remark was that we in the West have had a history of religious madness. We have had our wars. We have had a period of moderation and enlightenment that has brought us and Christianity where we are today.

These are phases the Muslims will have to go through as well. Otherwise continued conflict is unavoidable. I just hope an enlightenment is possible with Islam, and if yes, that it will come soon. Sadly it looks like the middle ages at this point.

Catholics tend to be liberal while Protestants tend to be conservative. I have not noticed this as a clear tendency in Europe. I would even say to the contrary; but maybe not. Do we have any European numbers on this?

liberals have blamed violent crime in America on racism

Yes just as the Nazis blamed a Jewish-Capitalist is after all the need to create a sense of frustrated entitlement that is the basis of political power.

It is no use blaming the individual when you seek group consciousness to propel you into power. Chavez in Venezuela is pursuing the old Peronist line and will leave the same disaster Argentina became.

It is nothing more than turning individual disappointment into group grievance as a springboard for political power

Dear von Schlichtningen

Thanks for your reply. I am not convinced, however, by your statement that the more religious a society is the more violent it becomes. The most murderous regimes where those of Robespierre, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Leopold II. These were non-religious regimes.
Moreover, we have to make distinctions between religions (as Dr. Verhulst did). You cannot compare Christianity to the religion of the Aztecs, nor Buddhism to Islam.

Dear Paul Belien

Let me clarify. A truly religious society of Bhuddists, Christians or Judaists would be populated by decent and peaceful people of moral standing - and would be peaceful. What I was declaring violent, was an apparent religious society. Populated by people who to outward's appearances seem religious (and very much would like to show others) but inwardly are not.

And here I come to my argument. Such societies are led by bigots and often foster fanatism in weak minded adherents. Because only a society controlled by fanatics can be run as a dictatorship. This is where I find my comparison to secular "ism" movements. Here religion is partly or fully substitued by the party dogma, communism maybe the most clear example. Unfortunately history show us how some movements can easily attract certain kind of people who in fanatism find belonging.

In these days whether you are catholic or protestant makes little difference as they have become similar. But before the reformation - the Catholic church had become oppressive and fanatical. The reformation was an important step to become more religious in the good sense.

And yes, we can not just compare religions as were they all apples. I have only lately started to study Islam and it is seemingly very different - the messages of peace and love drown in other more dark messages - which does worry me and many others. However, hopefully, some of the reasons for the Islamist's barbaric behaviour can be found in our Christian history as well. Some of them.

There is no reason to .... non-believers in this fight – on the contrary, and the Manifesto makes that point excellently. I think Paul Belien may have been dismayed to find that the gauntlet to take up this fight was, in fact, picked up by a number of secularists. This belies his posits in the earlier “The Closing of Civilization in Europe”, the self –congratulatory piece on Christians and how our values are tied up with that belief and that the reason we find no one ready to take up the fight is our lack of a belief in a life after. And then, to his (I suppose) great surprise, up turns a number of secularists ready to do and say what very few have dared.

 Furthermore, most of our modern European values, fundamental rights, have sprung out of ideas and theories during renaissance and were not connected with Christianity, also disproving the points made in that article.

I for one was delighted to read the Manifesto and can only hope it becomes as widely published as possible and that Christians won’t ruin the little fighting spirit there is because they don’t want to mix with “heathens”.

I couldn’t agree more with Seattle Man’s words: P. Belien’s analysis in intellectually incorrect and politically a non-starter.



fundamental rights

Wrong. English Common Law has protected individual rights long before the Renaissance. The whole basis of Natural Law, the introduction of the land mortgage itself derived from Judaism, gave England a completely different tradition from Continental Europe.

The Pilgrim Fathers went to Connecticut for religious reasons - they left Boston in Lincolnshire after being jailed and had spent time in The Netherlands. They took a Geneva Bible with them,

The great American universities such as Harvard were founded by a Congregationalist called John Harvard; the whole basis of education in the New World was religious and mainly Nonconformist such as Baptist, Congregaionalist, Wesleyan.

The Enlightenment brought the evil contradiction of "negative" and "positive" freedom and paved the way for Marxian Dialectic and the Rousseasque doctrine of "The General Will" which is little more than our Muslim friends claim in upholding the "Will of Allah" since all must conform.

The whole principle of individual self-worth and responsibility, and the notion of kith and kin as the basis of society emanates from Judaism which places a high standard of ethical obligation on its adherents, especially for the strong to show self-restraint.

The whole basis of English history is connected with The Church, and it is a country where The Inquisition never operated; it operated in Spain under the authority of The King not the Roman Church, and it was England which defined itself in opposition to the Catholic Absolutist Powers of France and Spain throughout its history.

So I refuse to hear of "European Values" since they have proven to be especially brittle in much of Continental Europe, most of which countries have lived under dictatorship within living memory

to mr. nielsen: re: bang and olufsen danish product

the site you gave me is very helpful regarding the new products for bang and olufsen.
I am impressed that they are actually using their omni directional tweeter that is unconventional in their CAR AUDIO LINE. Awesome! I was hoping DALI would do the same because they manufacturer very good and high end RIBBON tweeters. I would like to see that in car audio line.
Anthony gallos, TRANSMISSION AUDIO with their ribbons, SWEDISH company I believe,
could do the same along with ELAC and GERMAN PHYSIKS which makes DDD bending wave drivers from OHM WALSH design and elac with their ball shaped driver, totally unique as well!


recent news from filipino news, 4 workers racially and religiously motivated by the ARABS suspected of or accused of being terrorists( yeah right, east indian and four catholic filipinos???)was shot today, by the saudi religious police and in the news they accused being a terrorist. two are dead, the other two are in the hosipital facing charges.
No courts, no ANYTHING. Their crime is for being NON MUSLIM.
This happens all the time by the way how ARABS treat non muslims especially asians.
it boils my blood and that's why I know the feelings of new believer and those WHO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT MUSLIMS no matter what country they are from? Your take would be appreciated. If they continue to tolerate muslims in the U.S. like they do in LONDONISTAN, guaranteed their will be a 21st century AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Many Americans who have no voice in the MEDIA and government have had it, and that's 90 percent of all americans...THE MEDIA controls THE AIR WAVE and they are being manipulated by both parties in the government.
There are lots of good people in the government, but the outspoken ones who are pro muslims and anti everyone else, ARE THE ONE'S THAT ARE BEING HEARD!

Re: gerbil crusader on

About the U.S. Port Deal to the United Arab Emirates. U.A.E. From my point of view - they should not make this deal.

Since the Danish company MAERSK ( are running are running port's as well - this could be an options for our friends is USA. They can do it with no problems.

So if Mr. Bush took his phone and called "the grand old man" in Maersk, souch a deal could be finnished with no time.

Danish reaction to the Manifesto.

Both radial and moderate muslims in Denmark is against the "manifesto" by Salman Ruside write JyllandsPosten today. The muslims are convinst that the views in the Manifesto is based on fiction.

The chairman for the Danish writers union " Peter Legaard Nielsen" support the "manifesto"

Really ?

As for secularism: USA itself would never exist without it. It was the world's first constitution which did not mention gods or supreme beings.

Yet the President of the United States swears his Oath of Office on a Bible and Congress begins each day with Prayers.

but there's no way you can speak of Judeo-Christian

Oh yes there is. Christianity is the Gentile branch of the Judaic Olive Tree - Jews get 613 Mitzvot and Gentiles get the Noachide Laws. Judaeo-Christian is exact as a concept and has no connection with the attempt of Islam to graft itself onto Abram of the Chaldees.

Islam is a cut and paste Cult - Christianity flows from Judaism and spent the first 70 years after Christ's death worshipping in synagogues and sharing the Saturday Sabbath.

The Vacuum Fallacy

Paul Belien thinks that a "religious vacuum" sucks in religious people. The fact that Islam is filling up the European vacuum seems to confirm this theory. But what about the North Pole? The complete religious vacuum on the Arctic hasn't sucked in a single Muslim yet. It seems that Belien's vacuum theory is nothing but a miserable "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. First there was a vacuum and than the vacuum started to fill up, but the first event didn't trigger the second.

What then did trigger Islam to fill up the vacuum? I think first of all our Western economy attracts Muslims, but also other poor people who are looking for money. Secondly, although Christianity is disappearing as a religion, several harmful aspects of Christianity are still around, especially among socialist people. One of them is the condemnation of self-respect and self-defence, as paleo-conservative Sam Francis used to underline. I agree with Bat Ye'or where she says that "the destruction of Christian societies by Jihadists has always been brought about by the Christian leaders and churches themselves."

Instead of the Vacuum Fallacy we have to conclude almost exactly the opposite: to fight the Jihadists, we need less appeasing Christianity and more freedom-loving secularism.

Then what common ground do we have?

"...but, as a Christian, I am not going to fight for secularism."

Your choice. But then how do we work together? You are phrasing the issue in a way which makes me wonder how much common ground we have.

I admire your spirit and courage, Mr. Belien, but if you insist that the outcome should be a re-Christianized Europe I think you are making it yet more difficult for us to join together.

Intellectually I believe that your analysis is incorrect. Politically, I think it is a total non-starter.

We unite through fear of Islam

But Secularism is the parent of the alternative religions of Socialism or Pantheistic Environmentalism both of which have become European Pseudo-Religions.

Europe has returned to its pagan roots of worshipping Mother Earth and Fertility Goddesses when it is not bathing in the utopian waters of a Free Lunch promised by that European delusion of Socialism.

Europe is dying, it is importing millions of people to share in its decline as it exports industries to China and dupes its unemployed into believing in a better tomorrow. Europe has no spirit, no hope, no drive, and is bereft of Belief. The Religion of Europeanism has foundered on the reality of failure, and the resurgence of Nationalism is inevitable

Yes we unite through the fear of Islam

I am sorry, you keep saying Europe and I keep seeing America in those words. Forgive me.

I do not dispute much of what you say, but please, do not throw in the gauntlets yet. Cannot we stand as "The Musketeers"!
ALL FOR ONE and ONE FOR ALL - simply because three men made it into a song does not mean it is not a brilliant if applicable sentiment.

I will stand with you if you will stand with me. With our back to each other, our rapiers drawn and deftly turning the enemies blades away, deflecting them from each others hearts.

I have spent my whole life believing in the ideals that come from Europe. You cannot tell me I was wrong, not now. You cannot just lay down saying, "and this too shall pass!"

The men and women of my childhood fantasies..Raoul Wallenberg, Dr. Rudolf Breitschied,
Reverend Martin Niemöller, Princess Mafalda of Italy. And more so many more. These people lived, fought and died for Europe. Please do not be so easy to give in.

Odin be Praised!  Baldur Save Us!

The Power of Brussels Journal

Mr Belien:

I believe you underestimate Europe and the power of this blog.

When I first started coming to your site, I did not come to read Islamic articles...I came here to see just what was on European minds. I was curious if Euro's even thought about Islamism. Intially there were few articles about it. The articles mainly dealt with Euro issues which I still found interesting. A few people made comments here and there...but then came the Mohammed cartoons. All the sudden your website went into comment overload-literally. You even had to shut them down for a while.

You, with your individual act has helped to open the eyes of many, many people. It is blogs like yours that people come to more and more for real truth. They need their voice to be heard...and you have given it to them.

It is these blogs that this war has begun.

Common Ground

The common ground, it seems to me, is that we both believe in freedom, acquiring knowledge, and telling the truth. That is a lot. Do we have to fight together? I believe that every man should do his individual duty. Mine is to inform from Brussels about the situation in Europe (a dying continent which only a miracle can save), as a warning to the Western world not to repeat our fatal mistakes.

Perhaps our only common

Perhaps our only common ground is that we oppose the muslim fascists. In the week I was gone I have done some thinking, from the arguments I have seen presented Charlemagne included, you that are Christians do not approve of those of us who fight and are not Christians. In fact perhaps, you value the muslims more so, for they have a "mainstream religious belief."

We pagans love Europe as well. do not count us out completely in the fighting to come, you may need us, before you rekindle the "bonfires of the burning witches!"
I think that we have as much at "stake" as you do..pardon the pun. But one thing is for certain, I do not think we are welcome in "your Europe." As the french.."Ca Ira!" -"So it goes".

Odin be Praised!  Baldur Save Us!

Common Ground

It is not a question of signing up to a flag or wearing a Templar breast-plate, but it is about defending that which is under attack. The basis of Europe is the Church; the borders of Europe lie in The Balkans where Catholic meets Orthodox meets Muslim - that is the border. Kosovo and Gaza have the highest birth rates on earth 27/1000 - both can replenish the dying populations of Europe with new Muslim generations.

If you think Secularism is the antidote to Muslim expansionism you have made a Faustian bargain, for your Secularism means you will agree to a Treaty of Hudaibaya with Muslims availing themselves of your Secular World until they are populous enough to end the Treaty and impose Islam.

The eradication of Christianity is their goal - they succeeded in Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, North Africa and almost succeeded in Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and are working hard in Nigeria, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda

The Buddhist effigies in Afghanistan were blown up by the Wahhabis and no doubt when cathedrals in Cologne, Milan, York, London, Salisbury, Ely, Paris, Rheims, are destroyed or turned into mosques like St Sophia in Turkey or in Syria; you will say that is the beauty of Secularism that religion does not matter and Islam has its attractions

I don't think the European continent is dying - Paul Belien

A few simple drawings in a danish paper - was enough to start a new agenda about freedom, democracy and universal values in Europe.

About the manifesto - I regard it as document to other intellectuals, who don't dare to write or speak of fear, from the Muslim sub-culture in Europe.

In Denmark we have several examples, that the fear factor and political correctnes prevent intellectual people, business owners to talk about muslim related issues.

Our prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, addressed this issue in a large article last sunday in the danish newspaper "Berlingske Tidende".

Last year a teacher at The University of Copenhagen, was violent attack by some young radical muslim - because he as "non-muslim" read the Qu-ran in front of his students.

A female danish artist planned to release a new CD, where she would like "create understanding" between native danes and muslims. At the CD she wear a Bhurka -designed red and white as the danish flag. The CD was never released. Everybody here know the story about the cartoon in Jyllands Posten.

I regard the manifesto as "pep-talk" to the all in our part of the world, to stand up be aware of our democratic foundation.

pls keep up the good job Paul Belien - a free press in free world, is worth fighting for.


Denmark is the cyberworld equivalent of Czechoslovakia in 1938; and like Czechoslovakia it could defend itself unless it is persuaded by others to give up its own defences and succumb.

Denmark must stick clearly to its values and heritage and refuse the siren voices of compromise; Czechoslovakia disappeared from the map when it gave the proverbial inch and lost the mile.

Two meanings of secularism

We must find a way to avoid such internal fights, at least tactically. (...) Belien is a smart guy and I want him on my side -- so long as he is able to separate his own religious beliefs from our political system.

Exactly. Islamists are united and ready for war on civilization. We are now going to have an internal fight whether Europe took more from Jerusalem or more from Athens.

For Mr. Belien, Islamism is religion corrupted with secularism. For me, Socialism and National Socialism are pathological forms of religion. Is it really the crucial issue right now? What is at stake is Western civilization based on individual freedom and responsibility. Paul Belien's freedom to be a Christian and my freedom to be an atheist.

Secularism can mean either separation of Church and state or agressive anti-religious policy. I oppose the latter. Jihadists oppose the former. And, as noted by European Muslim, Islam does not support the distinction between religion and politics, Church and state. And thus everyone opposing Islamism has two options: either re-unite Tron and Altar and declare another Christian crusade or actively support secularism at least in the narrow sense.

It's still no to self-censorship!

The biggest point I believe that has been missed by all here is that Jyllands-Posten has bravely not succumbed to self-censorship again and that the authors have dared to put into print a truth that Europe has yet to face.  Their timing was magnificent for the whole world is watching.


This manifesto is undoubtably is going to create another outcry (put mildly) by Muslims around the world, EU and the UN.  How strong a reaction will we see?  One thing is for certain...the EU is going to have a conniption fit.


Mr. Belien, I can see where you would not want to fight for secularism, but this fight will be Islam verses everybody.  They will not care that someone is Hindu, Christian or atheist...they will only care that they are not Muslim.  Christianity certainly has a much better chance for survival or even renewal under a European secular state than it ever will under Islam.

Is Islam really a religion?

Some very bright islam-specialists will tell you that Islam is only a small percentage religion and belief (+/- 10%) and the rest (+/-90%) political behaviour, social interference etc...

If one really reads the Qu'ran he can observe very easily by himself. Big difference with Christianity where Jezus said: “Give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give to God what is God’s.”

With this explanation the comparision with other non-democratic political systems gets his full value.

Liberty, Democracy, Secularism

Personally (and this my opinion, not necessarily that of all BJ contributors) I am willing to fight for freedom and democracy (though freedom is more important than democracy), but, as a Christian, I am not going to fight for secularism. One earlier comment suggested that the manifesto should have spoken about "democracy" and "democratic" values instead of "secularism" and "secular" values.

To answer the question about the Scottish Enlightenment: I think it differs from the French enlightenment in the same way the American Revolution differs from the French Revolution. The American Revolution was conservative, i.e. it wanted to preserve traditional freedoms, while the French Revolution wanted to create a new man.
Blogger Sisu refers to Dennis Prager, who said: "Totalitarianism is not possible unless you erase the past." 
I think that is exactly the point. Europe has deliberately erased its Christian past (e.g. the debate about the preamble of the European Constitution and the fact whether one would mention God in it), thereby creating the vacuum that Islam is filling. Secularism in America means that the State leaves religious people alone. In Europe it all too often means that the State fights religion, and some, I fear, are eager to use the fight against Islamism (which is necessary) as a pretext to fight Islam and even religion in general.

Europe has deliberately erased

Yes Europe as a political entity is modelled on France and is really nothing more than a French Commonwealth made institutionally in the image iof France and designed to service the economic and political needs of France.

Thus it will inevitably crumble as France disintegrates, being nothing more than a pale pink version of the USSR. France thinks The State will save it from the world, but in fact the same fate awaits secular France as beset the GDR.Then the State-worshippers will have nothing

Missing points

Mr Belien is one missing the point of the manifesto actually.  Fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism are similiar to Islam in that they are all totalitarian in nature.  Islam is both a religion and a politcal ideology - you cannot separate them.  What matters is that they all had/have the same goal - world domination.


Mr. Beliens real problem is that the authors put a value on the secular rather than the Christian religion.  His answer to the coming 'clash of civilizations' is for Europe to find it's Christian roots.  A noble effort and one that I would not disagree with, however, Europe does not have the time.


Debating is a great thing...we are doing that here, but the window for debating is closing rapidly.  You have a problem-fix it.  Figure out the 'why and the how it happened' later if you want to hold on to all those individual freedoms that the Christian religion inspired and gave you.

That's an interesting question, but not a relevant one.

"Choose your enemy: who has murdered most people? The Church or the State? Who is most dangerous?"

My own view is that they have worked together throughout history. The Crusades, for example, were a joint action by Church and state. Of course now the State has more power but I guess I fail to see how the question is really relevant any more as the Church has given up its temporal power.

Let's keep our eye on the key question: does an effective response to Islamofascism require a religious revival? I say not at all. Others say 'Yes.' So how do we work together?

Hirsi Ali did not want to

Hirsi Ali did not want to ban the Vlaams Belang what would be a stupid thing to do.  She said in the debate that she wanted to fight the party, but not to ban it.  That was an interpretation of the journalists and you know why they did it.

Just my question; what do you understand as scottish enlightment? Hume, Locke? As you certainly know Hayek is influenced by these thinkers but also by some continental enlightment.

And off course: we must pposes to everybody that want to limit the individual freedom, like Muslim fundamentalist or the state want to do (these limitations). However what do you see as secularism. Do you see it as an way of the state to force a party to take up more women by draining their funds (what I oppose, it is the own right of the party and also parties my not be funded anyway.), and that is of course wrong. Secular values like in the manifesto do not really exist. May it was better to write "democratic values', like the seperation of church and state.

Difficult to distuinguish an ism from a religion

As an agnostic and liberal-conservative I can certainly subscribe to the "second group is prepared to acknowledge the importance of the cultural traditions of the West, rooted in the Judeo-Christian values without which classical-liberalism could never have evolved."

I must admit - except for the super-natural parts - the bible is the basis for all my moral values. The general teachings of Jesus are obviously right. But so are other similar teachings. I am a man of not just the book, but books.

But, frankly, as far as I can tell, the more religious a society appears - the more violent it is. Maybe this can be proven scientifically?

Truly religious people in my experience do live according to their faith. It is a personal and deep feeling. I respect such people as they often show remarkable qualities. They will not try to spread their faith by force but by example.

I would like to believe the human evolution goes towards atheists, agnostics and the enlightened religious - bound together by deeply felt moral values and philosophical thinking. As of course many atheists and agnostics also can find and create value in meaningful life. Of course moral codexes are of the outmost importance. Our secular societies fail miserably to teach our young even the most basic values. But did not the religious societies of yesterday fail as well?

Instead I think fanatism is the real current problem. Fanatic religion is based on the same as communism or fascism. A total blindness and conviction of the absolute truth. It is nothing but a vessel for the power-hungry to satisfy their sick needs - it is evil at play. It is something that has been repeated time and time again in history. This time a double whammy. Religious fascism or as we call it, Islamofascism.

I want him on my side

"Choose your side, Mr. Belien. You either fight secularism or Jihad."

No. We must find a way to avoid such internal fights, at least tactically. I think that there must be a middle way in which people who hold deep spiritual convictions -- call it "religion" if you like -- will acknowledge that such convictions are only their own personal basis and not try to force iot on others. Belien is a smart guy and I want him on my side -- so long as he is able to separate his own religious beliefs from our political system. Of course his beliefs may _inform_ his politics. But when his religion becomes his politics, as we see with Islam, we have a serious problem.

Choose your side

Ms Hirsi Ali, whose courage I admire, wants to defund a Dutch Calvinist party because it does not put forward women as candidates for election. Ms Hirsi Ali wants freedom of education removed from the Dutch constitution because she wants to put all children in state-run schools. Ms Hirsi Ali demands a ban on the Vlaams Belang, Belgium's largest party. Why? Because it is "islamophobe" or because it opposes the Belgian state?

Islam is a threat, but so is the state. As a freedom loving libertarian (and a Christian) I have always regarded the state as an enemy. I do not like this manifesto because it smells socialism. I favour separation of Church and State, but not because I want the State protected against the Church, but because I want the Church protected against the State. Choose your enemy: who has murdered most people? The Church or the State? Who is most dangerous?

I hope

that our own differences on religion don't divide us against a common enemy.

But we should talk frankly. Belien's statement "There never was any pre-enlightenment "Christianofascism" that led to the large-scale "killing fields" of "enlightened" post-1789 continental Europe." is not based in fact and answered in at least several easy ways:
1. Look to technology and the scale fo war pre-1789; it all changed in the onset of mass war with Napoleon.
2. Consider the Thirty Years Wars for violence and killing fields.
3. Ask the Jews about violence against groups in pre-enlightenmnet Europe if you want to know about Christofascism.

Mr. Belien, you have an awfully odd and poorly-informed view of European history which seems to center on "defending the faith" at any cost to facts. Go an pray if you like but please don't try to white-wash the past.
As to the shiboleth that the Nazis were 'secular,' that might be arguable if one ignores the thousand years of Christianity out which the Nazis grew and which made its barbarities against the Jews so easy for most Christians to accept.


Does a secular state promote secularism? Only if it starts handing out privileges to certain groups or castes, or when it starts competing with individuals where it ought no to. That's the core of it all. Christianity doesn't teach people to be envious, but a state might.

Truth and freedom

What good is having the freedom to follow the 'truth' if when you find it, you're not willing to face it or the consequences of facing it are too painful.  If that is all you have, you'd better defend it or you'll have nothing.


I personally believe that Islam is a political force, dressed up for the masses as a religion.  It has more to do with geopolitics than any 'religion' I've ever encountered and thus cannot be considered only a religion.  It seeks to change the laws of the host countries to accommodate it's adherents.  If every religion expected and got that, it would make for some very mixed up laws indeed. 


As for 'standing up for truth' who's truth are we standing for?  Yours, mine, the Muslim over there?  There's only one truth that matters to me.  I will not be told what I cannot read or view.  I will make those decisions and frequently do.  I've never had pr0n on my computer as a personal choice though I may have 'flashed' on it in passing.  Others  may choose to have mostly that.  That's their choice.  But I do not want a black mullah or the muttawa standing over me theoretically and actually threatening me if I do choose to see it.  What would that do to research into, say, Islam?  Oh...that's the whole point, isn't it.  Mustn't ask questions about or criticize Islam when you find the answers, THAT IS IF YOU CAN FACE THE TRUTH!

Re Truth & Freedom

The only Truth in Islam is that is seems to be an old boy's network for a group of backward, illiterate acting
group of thugs, who like to go tearing around other people,
their homes, religions and countries...bullying them, raising hell, kidnapping, beheading and generally starting trouble as well as creating havoc. Yessiree! Just
them good ole muslim boys. No dissension, no arguing, no compromising. Just their way or the highway. Alright, we put them on the highway and bomb I say. Then we will have freedom..from them.

Odin be Praised!  Baldur Save Us!

Why is communism not in the row?

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism,...

There is an inconsistency in this phrase that bends it into newspeak.

To be consistent it should be :'After having overcome Mussolinism, Hitlerism and Stalinism.

Another way to keep it consistent is to say :'After having overcome Fascism, Nazism and Communism.

Since it are ideas that have consequences, I prefer the latter version.

But these 12 voices apparently don`t.

There's no such thing as Judeo-Christian

You can speak of christian roots, but there's no way you can speak of Judeo-Christian as opposed to Islam; either you isolate each one of them or you combine them, all children of Ibrahim/Abraham. Combining only two of them is just confusing present day politics with historical facts.
European liberalism on the other hand is a secular movement and nothing else. It's chief value is individual freedom and religion' only place is inside the individual, not in any organisation or in texts that science has long ago superceded.

And could you please name some of these "Judeo-Christian" values as opposed to general humanist values ?

What do you mean with the

What do you mean with the Scottish enlightment? I try to place in the British history but I see the good evolution from magna carter to the glorious revolution and beyond and thinkers like Smith and Locke. You refer to the British thinkers of the 18th century?

Islam & Christianity & Secularism

Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with "religious regimes" - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).

Re: Islam, Christianity & Secularism

"Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed"

Where in the name of all the Gods did that come from?

Shar'iah law is
NOT Comprehensively adhered to from area to area in the islamic world. In fact the way it is interpreted varies. i.e. sudan they made the man give
a dowry for the goat, in other areas they would have taken more drastic measures.

Odin be Praised!  Baldur Save Us!

Chistianity is no longer violent because... was tamed by the Enlightenment. Before that, Christian theocrats were as murderous and totalitarian as the worst of the Islamists are today. Remember the Inquisition?

Read Heinz Schlaffer:

" was only after Christianity had been disempowered by the Enlightenment that it became civilised, friendly and modest enough that its adherents could find joy in it and its opponents no longer had to fear it. It isn't Christianity that forms the basis of modern Europe but rather the disempowerment of Christianity, the Enlightenment."

Islam hasn't yet gone through this necessary process of emasculation. It needs to.

Secular violence

I do not deny Christianity had its inquisition. Nevertheless that age had passed when the "Terror" of the 1790s struck France. The latter was a result of the secular French Revolution and the French Enlightenment.

An important difference has to be made between the Scottish Enlightement (which influenced Britain and especially contemporary America, and which was not anti-religious) and the French enlightenment.
The French enlightenment - secular and anti-religious - led to the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and also National-Socialism, all of them secular and anti-religious. It is this anti-religious secularism that I detect in the present manifesto, written by (former) Muslims who are unfamiliar with a religion, such as Christianity, that is based on the individual, and by French "philosophes."

The Scottish Enlightenment evolved from the Christian mediaeval roots. There never was any pre-enlightenment "Christianofascism" that led to the large-scale "killing fields" of "enlightened" post-1789 continental Europe.

Christianity was not "tamed" by the enlightenment. Mediaeval Christian Europe was not a totalitarian society, as we, Flemings, know.

It's the secularists who are doing most of the campaigning

From what I have seen it is the liberal secular-ish types who are actively opposing Islamism. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali came to London, her speech was organised by English Pen, the writers' organisation. The people who attended were mostly liberal-intellectual types. Irshad Manji's visit was hosted by a gay and lesbian group. The only British paper to publish the Mohammed cartoons was the Freethinker, a secularist magazine.

Much of the campaign against the Religious Hatred Bill was organised by liberal-secular groups, although Christian groups were involved too.

Conservatives in the UK have moaned a lot but done almost nothing. At the moment, my money is on the liberal-secularists making the most effective challenge to Islam - at least in the UK.

Much of the campaign against the Religious Hatred Bill was

It is simply irrelevant.............if the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill 2006 passes into Law Blair will have his Enabling Act and can amend any Act of Parliament by Statutory Instrument which requires no debate nor any vote in Parliament

In effect he can re-insert all the clauses blocked without any votes

At the moment, my money is on the liberal-secularists

These are the people who most inflame Muslim passions it is true. It is the flaunting of irreligious comment, and sexual provocation which most angers Muslims, but it is the fear that Islam will be reduced to the dire situation of Christian Belief in the perpetual hostility of the secular media elite that most drives Muslims to the barricades.

I doubt secular liberals will stay the course, they are so terribly frightened of violence; and violence is the oncoming wave

Manifesto misses the point only...

... in avoiding an attack on egalitarism and communism.

As for secularism: USA itself would never exist without it. It was the world's first constitution which did not mention gods or supreme beings. And Europe embraced rationalism and individual rights thanks to ancient Greeks and Romans, not to Jesus.

Choose your side, Mr. Belien. You either fight secularism or Jihad.

There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there isn't (Cohen)