Replies

How many good Catholics condemn lapsed Catholics for their views of abortion? That is more to the point. The first shock to classical Catholicism was the Reformation, a rejection of the worst abuses of that church. But it not only resulted in a schism of the church, it brought about reconsideration within the church to its own needs to reform. The second great shock to Catholicism was entirely voluntary, the Vatican II conclave, which was even more far-reaching in its effects on the church. It went too far, it was later decided, in even challenging the core values of the church. Ironically, it also created a schism within that church. But one between the religious and secular, or cultural, Catholics. Between those who truly embraced the faith as a faith, and those who just were part of its social structure, without any real interest in Catholic doctrines or worship. Many prominent American Catholic politicians are of the latter group--being nominally Catholic because in their youth that was the only way to political power. And only within the last few weeks has the church finally decided that embracing such nominal Catholics, because of their political might, is just not worth it. They must cease in their anti-Catholic behavior, supporting such doctrines as abortion and euthanasia, or they automatically excommunicate themselves from their faith, and cannot claim membership in the faith in their quest for power. But Islam has been cursed by a lack of reformation, in fact, just the opposite. In the late 11th and early 12th Centuries, the Persian philosopher al-Ghizali (there were several of similar name, so spelling is important) and his peers formalized the rejection of innovation and learning, advocating only knowledge which existed in the Koran, which ended the scientific and cultural progress of Islam. This was done as a xenophobic reaction to foreign threats to Persia at the time. It took many years for this fundamentalist philosophy to run through the Ummah, ending in West Africa just as Islam was driven out of Europe. Had the great libraries and magnificent artifacts remained in Muslim hands much longer, it is likely they would have been destroyed, as something that would lead the faithful astray. But being captured by the Christians, they led the way for them from the Dark Ages. Several more times, though, Islam has had its enlightenment crushed by such forces of fundamentalism and stagnation. The most recent, Salafist-Wahabbism, is perhaps the most terrible, destroying art, music, culture, science and non-religious learning everywhere it gets sway. The Taliban were only unique in that didn't care if the world saw their barbarism, their rule by whim, cruelty and viciousness. They thought it good advertising for their beliefs. Today it even destroys the few vestiges of history remaining in Islam of its founding in Arabia. Mosques are purged of their unique and beautiful artwork, remnants of the life of Mohammed and his family are erased, and non-fundamentalist sects are oppressed. In truth, the struggle between Islam and the West is the struggle ongoing since the days of the Roman Empire. It is not one of religion, but of civility versus barbarism. Barbarism cannot survive next to civilization, as even the common man will choose to live in civility rather than servitude and fear. So only those who richly profit from primitivism truly support barbarism, and they must leave no hope in those they rule that a better way may exist for them. It is a tremendous irony of Islam, that in its origins, *it* was civilization rejecting barbarity, and therein lied its power to convert, by persuasion, not coercion. It tried to transcend bitter tribalism and proto-nationalism, to create a religious civility, and so it thrived. Even within the Koran, the technological innovation of the time was embraced, because they were the ideas of progress. But like the Amish in the US, whose dress and behavior was codified in its origins to blend in with society, it stopped innovating, so now the Amish and the Muslim are to a great extent stuck in the past, and are anachronisms in the modern world. To Islamic scholars, they are caught in the paradox of still thinking of Islam as progressive and civil, above the barbarity of the world. But this was the barbarity of the world a thousand years ago, not today. So it truly is not out of character that they call for the death of those who say that Islam is not "a religion of peace". They do not see the hypocrisy of such a fatwah, or they refuse to admit it, for that would be an admission of barbarism, that Islam must reform itself or be lost to history, like the barbarism it sought to transcend. Years ago, I counseled a convert to Islam to search the Koran to find an interpretation of his faith more in line with the world today. I said that he should seek examples in the world of the struggle of jihad, and its success or failure based on its method. That is, I pointed to endless examples of Muslims who used violence, cruelty, viciousness, and war as their tools of jihad. And how theirs was the path to endless failure, defeat and humiliation. How God despised them, as any could see who would open their eyes. But more importantly, I then gave many examples of Muslims whose method of jihad was within themselves, a truly difficult struggle to overcome the meanness of man, to learn how to treat others with kindness and acceptance, and to meet oppression with prayer and forgiveness. And how this latter group prospered and overcame their oppressors, how their examples persuaded others of the value of Islam as a faith and way of living. And how they became enlightened in their religion, prosperous on the Earth and joyful in their faith. Because this is the Reformation needed within Islam. To realize that what God favors of man he rewards in many ways, and how He shuns cruelty, barbarism, oppression and cruelty. Even more so when such things are done in His name. The evidence surrounds us.