Divided House: Dutch Debate Nature of Europe’s Culture War

The two major parties of the Dutch government coalition, the Christian-Democrat CDA and the Liberal VVD, are quarrelling about the nature of the culture war waging in Europe.

The Liberal MP Hans van Baalen, the VVD’s parliamentary spokesman for Foreign Affairs, criticised Agnes Van Ardenne, the minister for Development Cooperation and a member of the CDA. Last Saturday, in the London based Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, Mrs Van Ardenne wrote that the Danish cartoon affair is being abused by “fundamentalist secularists.”

The minister fears that the Danish cartoon case will trigger a backlash against religion in general. Mr van Baalen now demands to know from Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende and minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot – both CDA – whether they agree with Mrs Van Ardenne. The VVD spokesman wants her to “retract her words” in Asharq Al-Awsat. According to Mr van Baalen these words contradict earlier statements of both Mr Balkenende and Mr Bot which stressed that the Danish cartoon case is about freedom of expression, which they called “a fundamental principle which cannot be restricted.” Mrs Van Ardenne, however, writes:

“The exercise of one’s freedoms is not an end in itself. […] Freedom of expression does not relieve us of the responsibility to immerse ourselves in the various cultures and religions of our globalising world.

The problem is that many people who are making the most commotion about freedom of expression are not prepared for this responsibility. All too often, the façade of tolerance masks indifference or even hostility towards other cultures and religions. It is not always said aloud, but religion is sometimes seen as a relic of backward times and places, and inherently dangerous besides. This attitude of fundamentalist secularists is not only regrettable, it is itself inherently dangerous.”

According to Mrs Van Ardenne the current crisis is

“not a clash of civilisations, but rather a manifestation of the clash between the secular and non-secular worlds. If we look beyond the cartoon controversy for a moment, we can see that these days the secular tendency to ignore or even denigrate religion is leading to alienation instead of reconciliation.”

In an official speech, which she gave last September at an international conference entitled “Religion: A Source for Human Rights and Development Cooperation,” Mrs Van Ardenne had warned:

“It seems to me, that the tolerance for religious expressions in the public domain is going down by the day. I see a risk that the […] fury may return, with radical secularists trying to strip any sign of religion from the public domain. This may sound unlikely, but a new string of Islamist terror attacks could easily trigger a backlash against religion in general.”

In this English-language speech the minister had not specified who these “radical secularists” were. However, she was very explicit in the Dutch-language version of the same text, where she referred to four people in particular: Leon de Winter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Herman Philipse and Afshin Ellian.

Leon de Winter is a Dutch filmmaker and novelist, who edits an English-language blog “The Free West” warning against the islamization of Europe. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a well-known Somali-born VVD politician who co-authored this week’s international manifesto against Islamism. Herman Philipse is a Dutch professor of Philosophy who gained national notoriety in the Netherlands with his “Atheist Manifesto.” Afshin Ellian is an Iran-born Law professor, who is a sharp critic of Islamic extremism.

The hodgepodge list of Mrs Van Ardenne’s four “radical secularists” indicates that her analysis, though partly right, is partly flawed as well. In an appeasing fashion she denies that there is a clash of civilisations going on between the West and the Islamic world on the one hand, and stresses the clash between the secular and the non-secular world on the other hand. In reality (as was pointed out in an earlier article on The Brussels Journal about the call for an EU “clampdown on homophobia”) a three-way culture war is raging in Europe between secularists, Christians and Muslims. On some issues Christians and secularists team up against Muslims, on others issue secularists fight Christians and Muslims alike.

There are two circumstances under which a culture war becomes highly problematic, namely when certain parties, such as the radical Islamists, do not shun violence in order to impose their views, or when certain parties abuse the power of the state to impose their views on others. The latter is what is happening in the EU, where radical secularists are restricting the freedom of speech, and even the right to conscientious objection of religious people because, as Mrs Van Ardenne correctly points out, they regard religion as a dangerous relic of an “un-enlightened” past.

If one is to maintain a peaceful, tolerant multicultural society, two prerequisites must be met. First, no matter which of the three sides (secular, Christian or Muslim) one belongs to, violent extremists must be fought, also by people from their own side. This means that moderate Muslims must oppose the Jihadist Islamists as vigorously as Christians and secularists do, and that non-Muslims must support the moderate Muslims against the extremists. Second, it is essential that freedom of expression and the right to conscientious objection is guaranteed for everyone, no matter how “un-enlightened,” “backward,” “offensive” or “downright stupid” they may be. Here Mrs Van Ardenne is wrong and her critics are right: this is, indeed, a matter of principle. But the same principle implies that people who do not wish to be confronted with certain expressions are not pestered with them, let alone forced to pay for them.

What can one do, however, when one is confronted with a culture that condones the use of violence and to which freedom of expression is an alien concept? Even the members of a multicultural society need to share some common cultural values. If they do not, the culture war will become a real war. Perhaps that is what lies in store for Europe. Yet even if it does not, one wonders whether Europe will be able to survive the onslaught of Eurabia. I believe that Europe’s fate will be decided by demographics. The culture war will be won by religious people for the simple reason that they are more inclined to procreate than non-religious people. This has been my belief for a long time, and Mark Steyn has put it succinctly: “It is the demography, stupid.”

Given that Europe in its current secularised state is hardly Christian anymore (apart from some “unenlightened” vestiges in the East, such as Poland, the Baltics and Slovakia, which the EU is eager to destroy), the Muslims are bound to win. The only hope for the secularists is that they may succeed in rapidly secularising Europe’s Muslims. There are indications, however, that the confrontation with secularism is exactly what is driving angry Muslim youths to Jihadism. Moreover, as Mrs Van Ardenne’s words indicate, one cannot expect Christians to participate in a secularisation project. Europe is a divided house and, as the Bible says, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” (Matthew 12:25)

Christian Europe has withstood Islam at Poitiers (732), at Lepanto (1571), at Vienna (1683). We will soon find out whether secular Europe will be able to accomplish the same feat.

Islam is also a divided house

A divided house will fall. And Islam is more fractured than the West. Moreover conservative groups in The US and other countries are becoming more numerous too, causing Western Culture to become more conservative.

The No-true-Christian Fallacy

"You make a number of valid observations, but they do NOT invalidate the core point of Mr. Belien, which is the existence of a three-way culture war in Europe (between muslems, christians, and secularists)."

Sorry, but I think my observations DO invalidate Mr. Belien's core point. The error he makes (time after time) is the way he divides the three parties. The European parties are NOT divided into Christians against secularists, but into socialists against libertarians. And in each group, there are secular and Christian people. Belien says that "radical secularists are restricting the freedom of speech" in the EU. This is a blatant lie. All the freedom restricting laws in Belgium, for instance, were approved by the Christian Democrats, who were almost constantly in power from WWII until now. Furthermore, a lot of European Christians are member of a socialist party. In Belgium, a socialist Catholic priest is vice-president of the senate. Belien tries to escape from these facts by using his "No-true-Christian" fallacy and declaring all Christians who oppose freedom of speech as secular. This way he can blame secularism for abusing the power of the state and hide the fact that a majority of the Christians do exactly the same.

A second error in the "tree-way culture war" theory is the disregarding of the enormous difference between the threat of Islam and the threat of cultural differences between Europeans. Some Christians even go so far as to declare that "What is killing Europe right now is not the Mosque" but "a secularist cast of mind". The cartoon affair has shown us how wrong they are.

Procreation and no-true-christian fallacies

@ Johan B

You will have noticed that I agreed with most of your points, but not the one about procreation. There is a lot of evidence that religious people procreate faster than non-religious ones, certainly in 'developed' societies.

Your point about the role of Christian Democrats in freedom-undermining legislation is well taken, but you ignore my point that Europe is largely "christian" in a purely nominal way. And it remains my impression that the past immigration policies that led to the present multicultural nightmare were largely pushed (or led) bij secular socialist and green parties. The same applies, I think, to laws undermining freedom of expression in Europe. You may wish to confirm or dispute this, as I don't live in Europe.

There is no doubt that, in the long term, Islam threatens the survival of "Europe", in the sense of western individual freedoms. Belien is right that there is a three-way culture war underway in Europe. And, in my view, he is also right that secularism (in the sense of extreme moral relativism) undermines the ability of Europe to fight back, as people generally do not want to 'sacrifice' in the absence of 'transcendental' values beyond their own comfort. In the absence of 'own' values, new values will come and fill the vacuum. But you are also right in highlighting the role of 'christians' (nominal and fewer 'real' ones) in passing illiberal legislation. Both secularists and christians alike are suffering from naieve-left tendencies (i.e. extreme moral-relativism, promotion of envy and victimisation-theories, and naivete about the nature of the rest of the world) promoted by the educational system and the mainstream media.

To Trust Serum: About Bani Qurayza

Non-Muslims may find this story disturbing -- so too do many Muslims. The Muslim view of Muhammad is that he was mild and just, avoiding violence unless it was absolutely necessary. How then would he have allowed the killing of hundreds of men? Why were the Banu Qurayza not exiled, like the other Jewish tribes of Medina? Muslim scholars have approached this event in several ways.

  • Some scholars believe that Ibn Ishaq is not a reliable source, and that his account may be embroidered or exaggerated. They note that some elements of his story could only have come from descendents of the Banu Qurayza, and that those descendents may have lied.
Opponents would say that there are hadith that confirm Ibn Ishaq's account.
  • Some scholars say that Muhammad had given authority to Ibn Mu'adh to settle the affair, and had confidently anticipated that Ibn Mu'adh would sentence the Banu Qurayza to exile. When the arbiter ruled for death, Muhammad felt that this was the will of God and that he should not use his authority to challenge it. The blame for the killings belongs to Ibn Mu'adh, not to Muhammad.
Opponents say that Muhammad had the power to prevent massacre and should have used it.
  • One scholar has argued that Moses had directed the Jews to kill all the men of some tribes encountered during the conquest of Israel. If this was Jewish law, then it was only fair that Jews be treated according to Jewish law.

to European Muslim

"One scholar has argued that Moses had directed the Jews to kill all the men of some tribes encountered during the conquest of Israel. If this was Jewish law, then it was only fair that Jews be treated according to Jewish law."

The tribes that Joshua - not Moses - was ordered by his god to destroy were extremely bad including killing their own children and worship Bal, not for anything they did to the Jews. So it was not a Jewish law but their God's command to clean up the land.

In any event the Mosaic laws no longer apply after Jesus' death, which fulfilled the law. Jesus' two commands are love for God and love for neighbor. Muhammad while claiming to accept the Boble's prophets certainly did not follow Jesus' 2 commands, nor God's teachings.

A fundamental fact is there's no firey hell where the dead get torture in the Bible, whereas Muhammad used hell (defined a a place of tortures) to scare people into follwing his him and his lies.

By any measurement and standard Muhammad was son of Satan. Too bad Muslims and most people don't know that.

Jesus 2 commandments

Book of Matthew:

37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38: This is the first and great commandment.
39: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Yes Philo these are the two sections in the 10 Commmandments given to Moses.

If you look at them the first Section is focused on God; the second on Man. Jesus encapsulates the 10 Commandments effectively in two sentences, but he was a Torah-observant Jew and descended from the Levites as was John The Baptist.


One of the unfortunate things about English translations is that this word "law" has become so identified with secular authority when it is in fact "Torah"


With Jesus' death, the law (Torah) was fulfilled and no longer applies. For example there's no more need to observe the sabbath, or the dietary laws which are part of Mosaic law. As a matter of fact, the 600 Mosaic laws make sin manifest and show the need for a messiah and his sacrificial death to repurchase Adam's sin.

These concepts are not understood by most Christians.


One thing that does not get mentioned anywhere in the Bible is The Church - congregation yes, but no organisation called The Church.

I do recall however that Jesus Living stated: Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Noachide Laws

Actually Philo the 613 Mitzvot only applied to Jews anyway, Gentiles were brought within the scope of the Olive Tree by the Noachide Laws.

The Torah is still valid - or don't you accept The Pentateuch ? I suppose you don't believe in Isaiah either or the story of Boaz and Ruth ?

So you don't observe The Sabbath ? Interesting which Roman Emperor was it moved it to Sunday ?

I do not accept so-called Replacement Theology which is bizarre and without foundation

Just following orders

One scholar has argued that Moses had directed the Jews to kill all the men of some tribes encountered during the conquest of Israel. If this was Jewish law, then it was only fair that Jews be treated according to Jewish law.

This sort of argument makes it difficult to make advances in legal and moral matters, I would have thought. The saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" springs unaccountably to mind. Nice try though.

Bob Doney

Bani Qurayza

European Muslim:


"This implies that all the people of Madinah—Jews and Muslims alike—were protected by the new Muslim rulers of the city. The document also acknowledges that Jews and Muslims each have their own religion"


Apparently Mohammed had not invented the word dhimma yet for these Jews of Medina.


Bani Qurayza: A tribe of the Jews of Medina whose quarter Muhammad  besieged, cut the water to them and when they surrendered, he ordered his cousin Ali and his uncle Hamza to massacre them while their hands were tide from behind to their necks and their bodies were thrown in a ditch. Boys were inspected and if they had pubic hair they were counted as men and executed. The number of men massacred in that day is reported to be between 600 to 900. All their belongings went to Muhammad alone.  The children and wives of these Jews were sold as slaves. Muhammad kept the 17-year-old beautiful  Rayhanah for himself. Rayhana, whose father, brothers and husband, Muhammad had killed, did not accept Islam and did not agree to marry the prophet. She remained in his household as a sex slave until he died and forbidden to remarry after that. 

Explanations for some common terms

Non-Muslims were generally referred in to in Arabic as Ahl Al-Dhimmah, the “People of the Pact,” and Ahl Al-Kitab, the “People of the Book.” Strictly speaking, the terms should only refer to the monotheists mentioned in the Qur’an, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and a group called the Sabeans, whose identity is unknown. In practice, however, the legal interpretation allowed other religious groups the Muslims encountered, such as Hindus, to be counted as legitimate members of the dhimmi community.


The earliest usage of the term dhimmah is in the Constitution of Madinah and states that “The dhimmah [the pact guaranteeing security and protection] of God is one.” This implies that all the people of Madinah—Jews and Muslims alike—were protected by the new Muslim rulers of the city. The document also acknowledges that Jews and Muslims each have their own religion.



I can't find many followers

I can't find many followers of Islam here in the US so I want to ask a question to see what you may think. Let me start by saying I am not a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other. I am a Follower of the Way. It is not a religion, but a lifestyle our God has given us since the beginning to teach us selflessness and loving each other. It also states that Jesus (God incarnated) did come and teach us anew as buildings were built and religions were formed. God doesn't want that; He just wants us to learn from our mistakes and trust in His love. Ok, ;), with that said here is my question.

How do we know that our Bibles and Korans are true? Is it because that is what we are taught growing up? We are taught this is it and nothing other or you will experience death. It is true we are required to seek His way and have the spirit teach us until our death. Up seeking His way, it came to me that the Bibles and Korans were rewritten to benefit governments and the wealthy merchants. Mohammahed (peace be upon him) was given the Koran by Gabriel. This was because God was unhappy with the "religious" Christian Churches being formed. BUT Mohammahed (peace be upon him) was taught that Isreal is the land and Issac was the son. The Meccans didn't like this as they would lose money if everyone make the pilgrimage to Isreal. So in order to keep their revenue, they CHANGED the Koran to Mecca and Issac to Ishmael. Thus we are all the same and argue over nothing. Our fights are not with each other, it is with corrupted governments and the wealty merchants.

So that is it. ;) What do you think. I would only like to see respectful comments.

to cpmcmah

Where did you find references for your statements, which are mostly incorrect? Certainly not in the Bible nor in Jesus' teaching.

Until your statements can be substantiated, there's no point of arguing over unproven hypotheses. Have you ever read the Quran? Most likely not (see www.faithfreedom.org)

Jesus gave us one simple proof of true religion: that its disciples bear good fruitage.

Do you consider the fruitage of muslims good?
Of "the Way" good?

BTW Jesus is not God incarnated. God is a spirit person, so is Jesus now, who is now immortal.

The Bible does not benefit government. See Daniel 2:44 where it's said that God will destroy all earthly governments (or kingdoms). Yes the Quran is just a set of so-called Allah's revelation to Mo. People who really investigate the Quran know that Allah is Mo's alter ego - see faithfreedom.org

Fewer children-better lifestyle

My 2 cents...


I think it is because of economics and a ideal lifestyle.


People want to live the good life with a nice car, a nice house, a big screen TV etc...  In order to live that life for themselves they are having fewer children.  Is that selfish...yes and no.  By trying to have the good life for yourself you are also providing one for the few children you do have.


The problem here is one of timing.  Europeans and Americans came to the 'fewer children-better lifestyle' conclusion at the same time they opened the doors real wide for immigration.  Groups coming in had no such thoughts...they are having and have had lots of children.  Again, not necessarily a bad thing as long as they integrate and contribute.  This has turned out to be harder to do for Muslims apparently.



Life style & Economy

My 2½ cent...

Here in Denmark, it's different. It's both high income and low-income groups, who are having over 2 kids pr family.

Since people are getting devorced and getting a new "partner" - the birth rate among high income groups very high here. For people with an income over €90.000 pr. year it's normal to have 4 kids..

It's become some kind of status-symbol, to have more than two children here - I'm only average - having 3 children ;-)

Hope and muddle

The only hope for the secularists is that they may succeed in rapidly secularising Europe’s Muslims. There are indications, however, that the confrontation with secularism is exactly what is driving angry Muslim youths to Jihadism.

Well, the secularisation of Europe's Muslims is not unlikely. It's entirely possible that the reason the young Jihadists are angry is just because they sense they are losing. I've said it here before and I'll say it again: what most people want is economic security and a quiet life to bring up their families. It's the same the whole world over. It really is the economy, stupid. And when Islam succumbs to the temptations of consumerism and personal freedom, it'll be the women wot do it. Quite ironical really in that another correspondent has warned us against feminisation!

As for America, it's more instructive to look at what people do rather than what they say they believe. It then becomes obvious that consumerism, "me-firstism" and the worship of money is beating spirituality hands down. What's going on in today's America that the biblical Jesus would have recognised as following his precepts? Not a lot.

More .....

Bob Doney

More hope and muddle


With regard to European demographics, there's no problem in persuading the really rich and the really poor to have lots of kids. It's all the buggers in the middle that get squeezed by the high-tax, high-cost economies that Europe chooses to run at the moment. An extreme example of the foolish policies which bring this about is the German educational system which, as I understand it, decrees that their best and brightest are not fit to START their careers till they're in their late twenties. Don't their politicians know that female fertility falls off the statistical cliff only a very few years later? Come on, folks, wise up!

The UK is going down the same blind alley by saying that 50% of our children should go to university. What on earth for? What is so difficult about learning Microsoft Office - which, let's face it, is all you need to know to get started on most jobs - that you need a degree to use it?

So tweak the education system and add a bit of child-care here, a bit of help from the tax system there, and lots of liberalisation of labour markets and the situation could rapidly change. Lots of lovely babies - Christian and secular. Why are governments so stupid? It's a mystery to me.

Bob Doney

Thought-provoking comment

Thanks, Bob, interesting and thought-provoking comment. I like it (and hope that you are right), though I am not entirely convinced. I do agree, however, that liberalisation of the economy and tax support for families would lead to people having more children. I think that Western women are actually having fewer children than they would like to have, which indicates that it is less a matter of wanting to have children than being able to afford them.

re: thought provoking comment for mr. belien?

Is the reason why western women having fewer children is because of the women's movement, gaining independence or is it because of changing societal values in the west, curious as to what your analysis are?

Seperation of Church and State

It sounds like Johan may have a point. I am not familiar with Europes Seperation laws. However, If Religeon is strictly removed from politics, and Immigration laws are followed, this could all be avoided. I may be completely off the mark and sound niave, if so I apologize. It seems to me that there is a trend throughout the West both in America and Europe, where Religeous groups are are organizing into strong political groups to push thier religeous agenda. This needs to be stopped, religeon has absolutely no place in government. It does not work. As for the Immigration, again there is a trend both in America and in Europe to cater to certain groups of immigrants. Allowing them to establish thier own societies within thier new homes making it an extention of thier old home (Why did they immigrate in the first place???). This needs to be stopped as well. If you are going to immigrate to another country it is perfectly reasonable for that country to expect you to conform to thier society and the norms within that society. If the Immigrant cannot do this then the immigrant needs to go back to where they came from. It is that simple. 

a tinge of the fantatical

"Christian Europe has withstood Islam at Poitiers (732), at Lepanto (1571), at Vienna (1683). We will soon find out whether secular Europe will be able to accomplish the same feat."

If that's the best you can do...

While there is an immediate and real danger from the Islamofascists, there is a tinge of the fantastical in hope placed on "Christendom's" ability to stand up to it.

And it's inconsistent to worry that secular Europe/The West cannot (eventually) withstand Islam while conveniently forgetting that it was post-enlightenment secular Europe/The West which was able to withstand the Nazis and the Communists. Do you think that the soccer thugs of Liverpool and Glasgow will be bested in brutality by the Islamofascists? Do you really think that killing is such a difficult skill that even mild-mannered secularists have forgotten how?

It's admirable to raise the flag and rouse the troops, but doing it on the basis of medieval Christianity is a few centuries late. I am disturbed by what I see as your defeatism.

Btw, I read a laudatory comment (on one of your posts here) on another blog and I was appalled by the perverse manner in which the term "universal" values is morphed into something which supposedly opposes "individual" values. That's poppycock, technically speaking.

it was post-enlightenment secular Europe/The West which was able

Do tell......I am fascinated by counter-factual history. Do tell about this "Europe" which withstood the Nazis.

Do you mean Italy, Spain, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland, Hungary, Denmark, Austria, Germany...............or do you mean Sweden, Switzerland, or perhaps you think of the USSR which stopped being an ally of the Nazis once attacked by the Nazis.

I am really interested in this "New European History" to see which countries were so resolute in standing up to the Nazis....................like the Mayflower being the most overcrowded ship in history............Churchill must have been overwhelmed in May 1940 by the offers of support from "Europe"

Voyager, When I used the term Europe/The West

I meant to include the United States.
But your point is well-taken. Europe doesn't look very good in retrospect in terms of bowing-down to the Nazis.
But that was not because it was "secular" but because there was a lot of bigotry about and in fact many Nazi sympathizers among all countries.
Can you make the cae that the more secular countries -- and which ones those were in 1940 I don't know -- bowed lower? I don't believe so. Britain, probably amongst the most secular, no?, bowed least of any, though I am sure geography played a part.
But the larger question is whether a religious society is better able to withstand fascism? And there is NO evidence that such a broad statment is true. In fact if you look at Spain, Romania, Italy, it's obvious that the habits of mind which lead people to bow to the Pope don't in the least interfere with bowing to temporal tyrants.

Britain, probably amongst the most secular, no?

Britain in 1940 was certainly NOT secular in any respect but a normal society. I do not think religion was the issue that determined matters, but whether the society was rotten as in France or not.

You clearly ignore the fact that the US declared Neutrality on 2nd September 1939 and remained so until Hitler declared war on the Us on 7th December 1941. The US had passed Neutrality Acts throughout the period Hitler was in office.

The simple fact is that most of Europe was occupied by the Nazis. What this has to do with inviting Muslims into Europe I do not know. The issue is simply that Islam will take over if Christianity accommodates it and does not uphold its own faith. Europe was built on a Christian foundation, it will be very alien with a Muslim one


I do not think religion was the issue that determined matters, but whether the society was rotten as in France or not.

You've got to hand it to the Germans, they did have a bloody good army. The only reason Britain didn't succumb is that Hitler never really made his mind up to invade. He believed for a long time that he would be able to do a deal - and every encouragement from the jelly-kneed British politicians to think he could. "You keep your Empire (hollow laughter) and I'll have Europe and keep the nasty communists out."

Of course the British then dug up this retired, old imperialist nutter with an unbending will who persuaded them to fight on a bit longer. And we still had enough scrappy old ships and planes left over from the good old days to put up a bit of a fight. But if Hitler hadn't dillied and dallied, and if he had left opening his Eastern front a little longer, he would have certainly captured at least the South of England.

And would the Americans have cared? Unlikely.

But look at the effort it actually took to defeat the Germans. UN-BE-LIEVABLE. It took the combined efforts of virtually the rest of the world to do so (with the exception of those occupied with the Japs of course).

The idea that any of this was happening in the name of religion is a bit tenuous.

Bob Doney

PS Coming soon: "Bob's History of the Modern World in 1,000 Words". Unmissable.

And we still had enough scrappy old ships and planes left over

A Royal Navy still many times bigger than the Kriegsmarine and so dangerous that German warships were supposed to avoid contact with Royal Naval battlegroups - each time they came into contact - Graf Spee, Bismarck, they lost their capital ships of which Britain had many more.

The only reason Britain didn't succumb is that Hitler never real

Actually Bob Hitler could never have invaded Britain. His Operation Seeloewe was a farce - to have landing craft towed across The English Channel ? they would have been destroyed by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

That was the reason he could not invade - he could not defeat the RAF - which is why the Battle of Britain was so important.

He had to attack Russia because Stalin had occupied Bessarabia and Hitler was dependent on Stalin for oil.
Hitler had offered Stalin India but he wanted Scandinavia and the Baltic.

Hitler was not master of his destiny, he made choices and had to live with others' responses

Secular Belgium and France

Secular Belgium and France had a rate of 1,66 and 1,87 respectively.

I have to say that this rise is thanks to the rise of births of immigrants which are largly religious.  However I imply nothing or take any point of view.


The Procreation Fallacy

"The culture war will be won by religious people for the simple reason that they are more inclined to procreate than non-religious people".

First of all it is not always true that religious people are more inclined to procreate than non-religious people. Between 2000 and 2005, catholic Poland had an average fertility rate of 1,24 (children per woman). Secular Belgium and France had a rate of 1,66 and 1,87 respectively.

Secondly, demographic changes can be controlled by other factors than procreation. For example by reinstalling the Rule of Law. Most European countries have anti-immigration laws, but what do we see? When these laws are violated by immigrants these laws are not applied because of the Christian disease: solidarism and the condemnation of self-respect and self-defence. Europe doesn't suffer from a lack of Christianity. It suffers from an overdose of Christianity.

"Christian Europe has withstood Islam at Poitiers (732), at Lepanto (1571), at Vienna (1683). We will soon find out whether secular Europe will be able to accomplish the same feat."

It certainly wasn't Mark Steyn's demography that stopped the Muslims in Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna, was it?. So what is your point here? Are you saying that when it comes to a real war, we should put our hopes on Christians because they have a history of conquering Islam?
What about Pope Benedict who condemns the Danish cartoons? What about his bishops who march in demonstrations against the application of our anti-immigration laws? Or are you going to apply your famous no-true-Scotsman again and declare the pope, his bishops and the rest of the appeasing Christian flock to be secular Europeans as well?

Procreation fallacy

You make a number of valid observations, but they do NOT invalidate the core point of Mr. Belien, which is the existence of a three-way culture war in Europe (between muslems, christians, and secularists). Your comments appear to be rooted solely in anti-christian sentiment.

On specific points:

-- There is a lot of prima facie evidence that religious people are more inclined to procreate than non-religious people (and it is easy to understand why). Your single counter example of Poland confirms your second point that other factors are at play. In this case the impact of half a century of imposed communism on eastern Europe. And, note that the fertility rates you cite for Poland, Belgium and France, all fall below the replacement level.

-- Your comments about the "christian disease" and "marching bischops" are well taken. However, most of Europe is only nominally 'christian', and there is much evidence that the 'multi-cultural project/fallacy' was largely pushed through politically by the secular left in Europe. In this matter, christians have been mainly 'followers' of secular leftists who themselves are infected by an irrational overdose and misunderstanding of christian "solidarism".

Europe doesn't suffer from a lack of Christianity.

Untrue, it suffers from Sentimentalism in place of Thought. It is the decadence of the West that Sentimentalism has become the femininisation of society in which conflict is avoided at all costs and abuse is suffered and justified as being merited somehow.

Biedermann & Die Brandstifter is the Max Frisch play which illustrates this perfectly. Europe is beset by the fetish of an easy life, buy off problems, ignore perils and hope all is well.

Christianity in Europe is as decadent as the culture because it is debased into platitudinous twaddle by a CHurch which marketed Jesus as "best friend" and "all accepting" whereas he was neither. It has become commonplace for the church to act deontologically and accept whatever is fashion rather than adherence to faith and scripture.

Islam is disciplined, rigid, uncompromising and the contrast with the blancmange of Euro-Christian Hedonism is stark and salutary.

Europe has an execess of Humanist Sentimentalism coupled with a childish naivety that thinks only that fire keeps you warm, not that it burns and consumes all in its path. There is no self-restraint in these societies, just budget constraints and fantasy reigns supreme.

The countries with the biggest immediate problems of native Muslims are Netherlands, Denmark, Britain - the countries with the highest population densities