Posted on 11/12/2007 7:17:03 AM PST by x_plus_one
Although not a religious person myself, I am usually in favor of a revitalization of Christianity in Europe. However, I sometimes have my doubts when I see how many, too many, church leaders consistently end up on the wrong side of issues related to Islam and Muslim immigration.
Bat Ye'or claims that dhimmitude in the Middle East has often progressed because Christian leaders have sold out their own people, either for short-term personal gains or in the mistaken belief that they have a "shared religious heritage" with Muslims. It is also frequently Christian leaders and bishops in the West who are calling for open borders for poor, destitute Muslims because "it is the Christian thing to do."
Our Western "moral and ethical values" are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking. Will our openness to outsiders, our democratic system and our Christian compassion, precisely the values that we cherish the most, render the West incapable of withstanding Jihad? A good Christian has to turn the other cheek and love his enemies. How are we to reconcile this with the reality that Muslims regard this as a sign of weakness? And how can we fight sharia when bishops and church leaders are the first to call for a "compassionate" immigration policy that allows masses of Muslims to settle here? Christians argue that Europe's problem is a cultural vacuum created by the retreat of church attendance and Christianity as a religion, which has paved the way for Islam to enter. They have a point, as I have shown before. But some Christian groups are opening the West to Islam, too, and the secular state doesn't have to be insipid and toothless. Far from it, it was secular states that fought and defeated the Fascist regimes during WW2 and risked the destruction of the planet in the Cold War. The non-religious authorities in China are far more ruthless in crushing any Islamic aggression than most Christian countries are. Of course, the downside is that they are far more ruthless in crushing anything deemed to be a potential challenge to their power.
Luckily, not all Christian leaders are appeasers of Islam. One of the intelligent ones comes from Australia, a country that has been fairly resistant to Political Correctness. They have taken serious steps towards actually enforcing their own borders, despite the predictable outcries from various NGOs and anti-racists, and Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world. George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, tells of how September 11 was a wake-up call for him personally:
"I recognised that I had to know more about Islam." "In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages." "The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of fighting or waging war." "Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for fear-reaching renovation is severely limited." "I'd also say that Islam is a much more war-like culture than Christianity." "I've had it asserted to me is that in the relationship between the Islamic and non-Islamic world, the normal thing is a situation of tension if not war, or outright hostility."
Pope Benedict XVI, nicknamed "God's rottweiler" as a cardinal, seems to embody elements of both the sensible and the silly Christian ways of dealing with the Islamic threat. Although Benedict has stressed the need for "reciprocity" in Christian-Muslim relations and urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants, he has also said that Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.
It caused an uproar in the Islamic world when Benedict XVI, as a part of a longer dissertation, quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor's hostile view of Islam's founder: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Benedict later said he was "deeply sorry" for the reaction to his comments on Islam and that the quote he used from the medieval text about holy wars did not reflect his personal thoughts. Although this technically constitutes a non-apology apology and was deemed "unsatisfactory" by Muslims, many anti-Jihadists would have preferred the Pope to use the opportunity to make a clearer stand against Islamic aggression.
Still, his comments raised public debate about the issue, and certainly marked progress compared to his predecessor Pope John Paul II, who kissed the Koran in public in an effort to reach our to Muslims.
I have described examples of incredible stupidity and appeasement from Christians in the West, but also of courage and clarity of mind in standing up to Islamic aggression and defending Western civilization and the world from sharia. The ideological civil war within the West is not just between secularists and religious people; it runs straight through the Church itself.
Christians need to understand that there can be no peace or understanding with the Islamic world. They want to subdue us, pure and simple. Church leaders of all denominations, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, must stop stabbing Israel in the back and campaigning for a de facto open borders policy while Muslims are threatening to swamp our lands. Yes, Christianity teaches compassion, but it also teaches identifying evil and standing up to it. At the end of the day, the Church must decide whether, in the defense of civilization, it wants to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
By Fjordman
How can a 'people of the book' flaunt the ten commandments so openly and not be called to task by even he holy father (pope) himself?. Thou shalt not kill etc...
Winston Churchill called himself a buttress of the church. A supporter from the outside.
>Winston Churchill called himself a buttress of the church. A supporter from the outside.
He was also instrumental in the nationalization of the Arab and other various tribes after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Great man, poor nation builder. Might have been better for them to stay in a tribal state until they could get out of the Dark Ages mentality.
I’ve always had the impression that the bizarre borders the British et al. chose for the Arab and Middle Eastern nations were an intentional policy to keep them weak and divided. Divide and conquer sort of approach. I’m not sure of this history, but it’s sort of been the assumption I’ve always applied to the history of the middle east.
From my travels on the internet, I have the firm opinion that the Average European doesn’t have much interest in a Christian Resurgence in Europe, and less in religious infighting.
I’ve also noticed that the average European considers any attempt to deal with, cope with, or even talk about an Islamic problem in Europe as simply a racist agenda or religious arguments that they have no interest in seeing happen, or engaging in themselves.
IMO, one of the problems in European Christianity is the void in Evangelism, Christianity in Europe is much more stultified and perhaps gentrified then other areas of the world.
Historically, the arabs were praying to the east and walking around the black rock and worshiping a deity similarly names to Alah (Ilah) a thousand years before Muhammed showed up.
Why are Christians sold out and betrayed by the clergy in the name of 'peace at any price'?
Our western history is one long story of betrayal by those who refuse to see that none are above the fray when it comes to defending the body of christ from extermination.
IMO, it’s because of Europe’s long history of wars involving Religion x+1, that is to say that religion was the excuse used to launch a war or a repression of other people.
And as of yet, Christianity is also not seen as facing a threat from Islam in europe as the “average” European is leaving the Church no matter the denomination so it’s just not as important an issue for them.
And let’s also remember that PC got it’s birth in Euroland, so even “if” a preacher sets himself on fire in Germany to protest Islams inroads, no one pays much attention to the man.
When Pope Bendict quoted the Byzantine Captive, Islam was not examined, the Catholic Church was attacked, instead of heeding what the Pope had to say, he was seen as an agent of division based on Religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.