Hilaire Belloc, in his 'The Servile State', is very good on how abandonment of Christianity will lead to a reinstatement of slavery.
John Lamont | 03.30.06 - 5:46 pm | #

We are screwed. The chance that the West will return to the gospel are slim to none.

I've been waiting for NYC to be nuked for years now. It's only a matter of time.
Sydney Carton | 03.30.06 - 7:24 pm | #

Sydney:
Don't be too sure. I look at the demonstrations against the CPE (the first work contract) in France and see the country (and by extension Europe) has to hit bottom like an alcoholic before it can climb out of the hole.
Also Europan Islam is actually more brittle than the mainstream media and the Moslems assume.
The cartoon controvsivey and Abdul's plight have snapped the Europeans out of their multiculti fantasies.
Never despair 'cause the good Lord has a plan that we don't yet see unfold until it's time

xavier
xavier | Homepage | 03.30.06 - 10:08 pm | #

It's astonishing, and yet sadly stereotypical, how the blogosphere's pope of pacifism, Chris Sullivan, is most eager to attest to the goodwill and peacefulness of head-hackers, and simultaneously most resistant to ascribe similar benevolence to those who defend us from the bronze-age fanatics. Leftists like him truly have a death wish.
craig | 03.30.06 - 11:17 pm | #

Belloc is strangely prophetic about Islam in his book "The Great Heresies" which is totally awesome. The book... not the fact that he predicts muslim aggression.
andrew | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 12:59 am | #

So, Christianity is not a "slave religion" and Christians are not the slaves of God? So, then, I guess also that when we are taught by the Gospel that Christ took the form of a "servant" (i.e. a slave) in order to save the world, and when we are further taught that Christ is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, we are not to understand that we are to live our lives in imitation of His--i.e. as "servants" or "slaves" of God?
This, folks, is not the distinction between Muslims and Christians; it is the distinction between liberal democratic capitalist materialists and Christians (and Muslims).
If that makes Chris Sullivan a leftist, then I say "Up, Chris Sullivan!" The man understands.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 5:35 am | #

One wonders what Father Samir thinks about "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Bloggers will have a field day over this case, but the fact is that as long as a government derives its legitimacy from a religion, it cannot tolerate threats to the religion on which it rests. And if it's just getting into the stone ages, the sanctions are somewhat primitive.
Anonymous | 03.31.06 - 6:12 am | #

Jews are not primarily servants of God; they are God's own chosen people, the kindred he has chosen to make covenant with and make his own. It's a family relationship. They are also bound by God's law and commands, but then, he's the head of their clan.

We are not primarily servants of God; we are primarily adopted children of God, and brothers and sisters of God, and body parts of the body of Jesus Christ. The intimate family and bodily relationship we have with God (the Eucharist) is what is most important to our religion.

Now, we are also servants of God, but that is our profession, our job description -- our position in the family company, if you will.

For Muslims, there is only the job. Islam means submission. (To be fair, there are historic forms of Islam which soften and mysticize this relationship into one of romantic love. But those forms are not what we're seeing practiced, for the most part, and AFAIK, those ideas have little basis in the Koran or Hadith.)
Maureen | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 6:32 am | #

Maureen--
Correct. There are many distinctions between Islam and Christianity, all of which favor Christianity to the utmost. The fact, however, that Muslims submit totally to the will of God, as they understand it, is not a way in which Islam should be distinguished from Christianity. As Christians, we also should submit completely to the will of God as we understand it.
The problem for Muslims is that their understanding is radically flawed.
The problem for most Christians is that they will not submit to the will of God, and are led into greed, materialism, and militaristic nationalism by entirely temporal and secular powers. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; but look about you and see how much evidence there is that anybody really believes that and acts accordingly.
Will Christ's Kingdom include a Las Vegas, a Hollywood, a Disneyland, a Pentagon, a Stock Exchange, a war zone, an inner-city ghetto?
Rob | 03.31.06 - 7:26 am | #

"Another sensible Jesuit"? So ... now you know both of them?
A. Nonymouse | 03.31.06 - 8:07 am | #

Oh, yeah. "Democratic capitalism" is an oxymoron. I know the guy who probably gave the term to Michael Novak, and he has since repudiated it, favoring a "Just Third Way" that is neither capitalism nor socialism.

Ironically, Novak claimed that what Chesterton meant by "distributism" is EXACTLY what he, Novak, meant by "democratic capitalism." Right after reading that, I found another commentator who claimed that what Chesterton meant by "distributism" is EXACTLY what HE meant by "democratic socialism."

Evidently the people who claim that socialism is simply State capitalism weren't too far off the mark.
A. Nonymouse | 03.31.06 - 8:11 am | #

Well Mark, I'm not quite getting the connection between the article you linked to and your comment on it. That aside, the most important thing to note is that in terms of meaningful engagement with Islam, the foreign policy of the Bush administration is the only game in town. It is a grave disappointment that the Catholic church (like many other parties) has only entered this arena to the extent of criticizing the President for initiating the Iraqi war. If the Catholic church has any other ideas, I hope they can "get out of the wagon and help the rest of us pull" as Phil Gramm used to say.
Koz | 03.31.06 - 8:25 am | #

I have never yet heard any person state clearly what it is that they think should be "done about" Islam.
The main thing seems to be to do nothing and hope that the "moderate" Muslims somehow get control over, and suppress, the "Islamofascists."
What are these people smoking? Have they ever read any history?
I will say what I would "do about Islam." I would withdraw all Western military and corporate presence from those regions of the world dominated by Islam, and leave Islam to its own devices. I would trade with Islamic countries on mutually agreeable terms, at their invitation, once Western hegemony in Muslim regions is no longer a factor. I would not try to export to Muslim countries products that are offensive to Muslims. I would welcome any and all Muslims who feel that they can be comfortable residing in a Western, post-Christian culture, to come here, and allow them the same religious freedoms allowed any other faith group.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 8:44 am | #

Rob:
Intereting proposal but you haven't taken into account the millions of Moslems in the West. What do we do about them? I'm leaning toward revoking the hospitality we've accorded the non-citizens and send them back to the Moslem lands. As for Moslem citizens of the countris in question, they'll have to swear an oath with the understanding that taquiyya will be grounds for revocation of their citizenship and explusion.

As to your question what to do with the Moslem? Well the ones that live in the West engage them. Oblige them to demonstrate the inerrancy and reasonability of the Koran; oblige them to explain how dimmitude of the Christians and Jews and application of Omar's pact is conducive to an ordered society. Justify how murdering Moslem converts to Christianity pleases God and reorders Creation.

Islam is a brittle religion because it's never developed apologetics that doesn't relay on the sword, gun and bomb. Let the Moslem prove the contrary.
xavier
xavier | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 10:10 am | #

xavier--
So far as I am aware, there has not been a problem with Muslims living in the West, that hasn't been caused by Westerners' militaristic and hegemonic presence in the East.
I would have no problem with Western nations asking alien Muslims to leave.
I do not think, however, that Muslims who are citizens of any Western country should be grilled concerning their faith, or made to sign some kind of "loyalty oath." If they break the laws, they should be dealt with as such.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 10:23 am | #

As Christians, we also should submit completely to the will of God as we understand it.

Isn't this Protestant thinking? Are we not to submit to God as He reveals Himself through the church? A good Catholic cannot engage in violent protests unless the magesterium approves or at least remains silent. Moslems can choose the most radical clerics and nobody seems to be able to reign them in. The "will of God as we understand it" makes it easy to imagine God has our prejudice.
Randy | 03.31.06 - 10:24 am | #

Randy:
I agree that knowing God's will is always a problem. I don't know that it's only a problem for Protestants, however.
My solution would be to err on the side of caution. When trying to decide, for instance, "Does God *want* me to participate in this homicidal activity?" (be it capital punishment, personal rage, abortion, or possibly unjust war)--if I had to guess, I'd guess "No."
Our main beef with Muslims seems to be that their conception of God's will, would quite often render the answer "Yes."
That's why I think we should, as much as possible, disengage from the Muslim world. I think that God would rather we leave Muslims alone, than force our way onto their turf, exploit their resources, pollute their culture, mess in their politics, and kill them.
If, having disengaged, they continue to attack us, we should deal with them *most* harshly.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 10:44 am | #

I think that God would rather we leave Muslims alone, than force our way onto their turf...

What about Christ's commandment to teach all nations the Gospel?
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 11:00 am | #

Sean--
If we go as missionaries, fine. If we go to siphon off the oil and bolster dictators and kings (kings!) and to enforce our market share by force of arms, no.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 11:13 am | #

kings!

There is nothing inherently immoral about kings.

There is nothing inherently moral about them either, to be fair.
brendon | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 12:10 pm | #

So, Rob, you don't mind the Jews being driven into the sea, then?

Also, how are we going to trade effectively if there's no Western corporate presence there? A lot of the things that they want to buy from us require technical support and service, and the techs are Westerners. They aren't buying produce from us, they buy aircraft and computers.

Regarding siphoning off the oil, if it weren't for the West, Japan, India and China the oil would be of no value. To them, as well, because without oil money there would be no question of any Peninsular Arab state having money to operate a national airline or anything like that. They just don't bring anything else to market that matters anywhere near as much. Although I am very pleased with a UAE bathroom sink I bought several years back.
Ed the Roman | 03.31.06 - 12:30 pm | #

There is nothing inherently immoral about kings.

There is nothing inherently moral about them either, to be fair.

Both statements are true. But I think far more kings have been canonized than elected political leaders.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 12:43 pm | #

Gosh, I guess that we shouldn't have been so quick so shuck off poor ol' King George. Maybe we could get Prince Bandar to loan us enough Saudi oil bucks to buy a franchise on Prince Charles from the Brits, so we could have a real kind one day, too...
Rob | 03.31.06 - 12:55 pm | #

My statement was in no way an apology for the House of Saud. Nor was it an apology for George III. But abuse does not destroy use. Bad kings do not make monarchy bad any more than a bad president, bad congressmen, or bad judges make our republican form of government bad.
brendon | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Rob:

"Siphoning off their oil" You have got to be kidding. Perhaps at first an argument could be made that the West was not paying a fair price for Middle East oil, although it was Western engineers, corporations and technology that developed the oil in the first place. But for the last 30 years, since the 1972 oil embargo, we have been paying exhorbitant amounts to the Middle East. I wish we could find something else to power automobiles so we did not have to buy oil at all.
Bob | 03.31.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Bob--
Who is enjoying the profits of that Middle Eastern oil? Is it not Western investors and Eastern despots?
Rob | 03.31.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Rob:

What is your point? Western investors includes everyone who owns stock in an oil company. A lot of people.

I thought your point was the West exploited the people of the Middle East. We have not. Perhaps their rulers did.
Bob | 03.31.06 - 1:52 pm | #

Bob--
And who has been propping up and protecting their rulers?
Rob | 03.31.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Rob:

I still do not understand your point?

If you want the West to stop buying oil fro the Middle East, I am inclined to agree with you. But how far should we go? Should we stop buying bananas and coffee from South America because there is exploitation there. The only reason I am inclined to agree with you about Middle East oil is because of the tendency of the Middle East and Islam to attack the West.
Bob | 03.31.06 - 2:09 pm | #

Bob--
Would it be fine with you if the Arab oil sheiks found some way to lease all of the grain-producing farmlands in the American mid-west, sent over Arab managers with Arab-built equipment to grow and harvest the grain, and then sold it off to the global highest bidders, while making only a small elite of American landlords fabulously wealthy?
(I know that this analogy is neither airtight, nor plausible in the real world situation, but it's close enough to make my point, I think.)
Rob | 03.31.06 - 2:15 pm | #

Rob:

I already addressed this. If since time immemorial there had been all this land out West and we did not know what to do with it and the Arabs did. (Which I guess is sort of what we did with Native Americans)
Then after the Arabs, through their know how and technology had made the whole area greatly productive, we booted the Arabs out after 50 or 60 years and jacked up the price of grain causing a worldwide economic recession that lasted almost a decade. I think this would be a stronger analogy.
Bob | 03.31.06 - 2:26 pm | #

Bob--
It would be a valid extension of my analogy, to be sure. I'm not saying that the Arab side is blameless in this whole thing. I'm saying that I would like our side--my side--to become blameless in this whole thing. The Arabs can look to their own souls.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Rob:

My question to you is how are we, those of us alive now, sinning by continuing to buy oil from the Middle East?
Bob | 03.31.06 - 2:42 pm | #

Bob--
It's not the buying of oil, it's the protecting of the oil (and the Western investment in it) by means of war.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Rob:
I must take isue with your statement that Moslems living in the west are peaceful. They aren't. There was a case cited by both Amy and Robert Spencer of how a Catholic school with an 80% Moslem student population was 'invited' to become Moslem and some Moslem parents even disrupted a mass. The headmaster blew them off. The Moslems who contributed nothing to the school; who send them to a Catholic learning institution because Moslem education is totally useless. Yet the ingrates that they are covet what doesn't belong to them. There are other examples of how disruptive they are to a non-Moslems societal order.

The unequal distribution of oil wealth doesn't justify the destruction of the World trade centre, the bombings in Bali, Madrid, London and southern Thailand. The fault doesn't lie with us- it's with the kleptocratic regimes that have totally stifled civic life and robbed their own people. Yeah the West plays a role but where are the ordinary people?

xavier
xavier | Homepage | 03.31.06 - 3:50 pm | #

xavier--
I didn't mean that during the current state of upheaval Muslims living in the West have been universally peaceful. That is obviously not the case.
Again, I don't claim that Islam is a peaceful religion. I don't claim that Muslims can live peacefully with other peoples. I don't believe that there will ever be a majority of "moderate" Muslims, who will control a radical minority and end the strife.
What I see are two possibilities: all-out war, no prisoners taken; or disengagement and mutual quarantine. I favor trying the latter.
Rob | 03.31.06 - 4:07 pm | #

Hello, all,

I'm delighted to see so many struggling with the right questions. Really there is one question: What is to be done about Islam? For the Church, it's a no brainer! Evangelize the Muslims. There will be lots of martyrs, but that's the way it's always been. Nothing new here. We trod the path of the cross as did our Master, Lord, Friend, and Brother.

For the State, the issue is Jihadism and Islamism. The first requirement is to realize that "moderate" Islam (1) has no troops; (2) is confined to faculty lounge lizards in universities and a handful of Sufi guru types with larger handfuls of admiring coeds and their boyfriends; (3) has nothing in common with the apologists for Islam (like John Esposito at Georgetown - a paid hack for the Saudis) who are really allies, not of the U.S., but of the fifth column among post-modernist, multiculturalist academic leftists who hate America.

Once we have studied the relationship between Islamism and Jihadism and the classical sources (Quran and Hadith) we realize: (1) that Osama bin Laden is far more in the mainstream of Islam on the subject of jihad and death for apostasy than the Sufi heretics; (2) that Muhammad's character falls far below the pagan standards of his own time; (3) that Islam has been from the beginning a MILITARY threat to all non-Muslim societies; (4) that we should boast of the crusades, not apologize for them, while acknowledging that atrocities committed at the time are deplorable, but contrary to Christian ethics, while atrocities of the Muslims conform to Muslim ethics. The values of the post-Christian West (a strange mix of secularism and the Christian Churches and Jewish communities) are superior in every respect to virtually any Islamic society. Even in the areas where we feel especially vulnerable, our values are superior.

Take chastity as an example. Muhammad himself was notoriously unchaste and claimed divine revelation to cover his lust and promised young adolescents who die in jihad an eternity of delights that far surpasses their most exciting wet dreams. Rape of defeated enemies is approved; rape victims in Muslim societies are jailed because four male witnesses are required to convict of the crime.

So we should have a new Manhattan Project that would discover rapidly how to become energy independent. We should forbid all Muslim immigration of those who will not swear on a Quran that they do not want Shari'ah law to replace the Constitution. We should monitor carefully the thousands of mosques in this country that have been funded by Wahhabist oil money. We should resist the temptation to violate the human rights of Muslims here, but be under no illusions that many Muslims in America are a major security threat (see Steve Emerson's AMERICAN JIHAD for evidence).

Finally, we should, in season and out of season, raise the issue of reciprocity with our Muslim friends and neighbors. Why did John Paul II advocate for a mosque in Rome when Muslim countries persecute Christians?
Tom Haessler | 03.31.06 - 5:03 pm | #

What is wrong with the view that the war in Iraq is a solution? A misunderstanding of the relationship between culture and democracy. Democracy is just as much about minority rights as it is about majority rule. It's just as much about the natural law tradition of human rights as it is about the electoral mechanism. Japan is an especially interesting case. Already in the nineteenth century the Japanese were imitating many features of Western society (including dress!). The virtual collapse of Shintoism after the War, together with the view that the victors had the right to define democracy, not the vanquished, was another plus. The victors in Iraq are the Shia Islamist parties. They are, by definition, opposed to democracy as defined in the West. In an Islamist context, democracy defined as the electoral mechanism is the PROBLEM, not the solution (as was proved in Algeria!). Islam, by definition, is opposed to nationalism and national rule (except as a temporary expedient). None of the Islamists cares two cents about a specific country. They care about world-wide Islam. So national self-determination (a subject given much attention in classical works on natural law) is quite irrelevant in this context. That's not the question that the Islamic Brotherhood is Egypt is concerned with. There concern is not with Egyptm, but with Islam. And if there's a completely free election, they'll win. And they're allied with Hamas and support terrorism.
Tom Haessler | 03.31.06 - 5:15 pm | #

What do you mean, the "virtual collapse of Shintoism after the war?" Shintoism is going well and strong in Japan. The emporer still performs the requisite Shinto rites each spring and fall. The shrines are still frequented and maintained. If you asked the commmon man in the street in Japan if he considers himself a Shintoist, he would would say yes---even those who are Christian might say yes!
Patricia | 03.31.06 - 7:56 pm | #

Hello, Patricia,

What I meant is that the allegiance to Shintoism as an ideological substrate for political action ended with the termination of World War II. Yes, there are reactionary nationalist groups in Japan that live in the past, but none of this interferes on a day by day basis with democracy as understood in the West. Japan is, despite its propensity for dual and triple religious affiliation, is now part of the West.
Tom Haessler | 03.31.06 - 8:34 pm | #

There is, in Japanese law, a thing called State Shinto, distinct from religious Shinto. State Shinto is what the Emperor performs public rites in. State Shinto is explicitly defined as NOT being a religion: it is a set of rituals for the State.
Ed the Roman | 03.31.06 - 9:53 pm | #

Hello, Ed the Roman,

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there could be state Shari'ah - just a set of symbolic rituals for nostalgia's sake having no religious significance? LOL
Tom Haessler | 03.31.06 - 10:41 pm | #

Democracy is just as much about minority rights as it is about majority rule.

This is confusing actual, modern democracy, which protect minority by stymieing democracy, with the term.

Democracy, so far from intrinsically protecting minorities, often oppresses minorities with a vigor that monarchies and oligarchies can not match.
Mary | 04.01.06 - 11:32 am | #

Not true, Mary. Atheists, agnostics, socialists, communists, anarchists, homosexuals, secular humanists, Mormons, fundamentalists, animal rights activists, people advocating elimination of all controlled substances laws - all these are minority groups whose rights to free expression, free association, and to life are acknowledged and defended in virtually all Western democracies. The unborn do not yet have the right to life. But beyond this major exception - virtually all minorities are in a far better position in these democracies than in monarchist and oligarchic societies. All newspapers, magazines, and even music publishers were censored in the Austro-Hungarian Empire just for starters. There was no freedom of speech in the modern sense in any medieval monarchy. Religious dissenters (heretics) were always in danger of losing their livlihoods if they were lucky or their lives if they were unlucky. Democracy is by far the worst form of government except for every other form.
Tom Haessler | 04.01.06 - 9:14 pm | #

Democracy supported slavery in the USA for decades when everyone know it was morally wrong.

Wars do change things.
broed | 04.01.06 - 11:57 pm | #

I think you meant that the unborn do not have a RECOGNIZED right to life, at least in the current climate of legal positivism.
A. Nonymouse | 04.03.06 - 12:41 pm | #