#2
Arguments of cause and effect, either for or against religion, and its effect in history, are overblown and peculiar.
On one hand it could be said that religion "flavors" our history without really directing it; on the other, that this kind of atheism is an outgrowth of religion--not just disinterested disbelief, but as much a reaction to religion as a whole, and Christianity specifically, as is Satanism.
Did Christianity cause Galileo? Certainly not, though he thought himself a religious man. What he did ignored his own faith and reached conclusions that no person of faith at the time untempered by scientific reason, was *allowed* to believe.
But it can be said that Rene Descartes philosophically tried to re-create the Garden of Eden in his "State of Nature", absolutely reliant on the mythology of religion to produce an ideal place in atheism parallel to it. And variations on this theme are found throughout communism, socialism, leftism, liberalism, the environmentalist movement, etc.
That is, much of what the left craves is a return to the Garden of Eden. How self-reliant and unique from religion is that?
In turn, this changes the complexion of the argument about the influence of religion to its secular power. Today we wisely distrust holy men who seek political office, especially Imams. But for a long time in human history, the church and the state were one.
That being said, was it religion that created western civilization, or 1,500 years of conflict between princes and kings? While the actions of those powerful men may have been done with respect to religion, few of them imagined their actions as religious acts, instead of realpolitik.
By SALIM MANSUR
Those who may share U.S. President George Bush's anguish in these recurrent winters of our discontent are not many. It is easy to describe Bush as a beleaguered president in a war that a majority of Americans now question as the November mid-term election demonstrated. They want an end to the war in Iraq without having to admit defeat.
The agony of Bush is compounded by his knowledge of the enemy. That and the constraints placed, in a free society within the context of our integrated world, on his office and its ability to wage the sort of war necessary to defeat the enemy.
U.S. presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman were also reviled in their times and during their respective winters of discontent. But their circumstances in defeating the enemies of freedom were much different, and less onerous than those Bush has to contend with.
The Confederates were slave-holders, bent on destroying the American Union, rather than give freedom to their slaves. Despite doubts about Lincoln during the worst months of the long Civil War, the enemy was clearly visible and victory was precisely defined as saving the Union and crushing the Confederacy.
Similarly, Roosevelt and Truman fought the fascist and militarist powers of Germany and Japan who were on a rampage across the world. Even in the darkest moments of World War II their political opponents could not, dared not, publicly doubt the objective of securing the unconditional surrender of these enemies.
But the enemy Bush is contending with -- while a majority of Americans and America's allies pretend it doesn't exist -- is not merely an alliance of states or a mix of ideologies or a cause that the United States must fight and defeat. The current enemy is the outcrop of a broken civilization of the past, spewing forth from its rotting bowels an endless horde of militants and fellow-travellers, carrying with them the most atavistic ideas about faith and politics that modern civilization, which Bush represents, hesitates to name for what it is.
We have to go back to the declining years of the Roman Empire to find a parallel with our times. Rome had spread civilization far and wide around the Mediterranean basin, but over time it became besieged by barbarians from outside its frontiers and then from within.
Civilization is more supple, hence fragile, than the iron and steel from which it is built. It might be likened to a garden, delicately laid out and carefully maintained. When ignored or unattended, weeds destroy what human artifice builds with much labour. Over time, people take their civilization for granted, become careless and unwilling to bear the burden of protecting it. Then its defences are breached, as Rome was, and the city is overrun by those who envy or loathe civilization, bringing ruin in their wake.
Radical Islamism and Islamist terrorism have already made a wasteland of the greater Middle East. Where once a great Islamic civilization prevailed, now, in its place, there so often thrives a culture of bigotry and tribal violence, with their effects spreading outwards across land and sea.
Rome did not know how to defeat the barbarians before they overran her. Those who endlessly fault Bush for the shape of the world visible since 9/11, will one day cry a river if he and his successors fail to save civilization from its present-day enemies.
Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, named Bush "the bravest president" for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians, despite the venom of his peers. In the dark winter nights, some of us will have prayers for Bush, knowing the difference between what he represents and those who would prey upon civilization.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/30/2006 11:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bush's fine, given circumstances, and the unfortunate fact that almost half of Americans would not perceive danger--were it in front of their noses--did present some limits on formulating of his policy.
One may argue that in the hindsight, Bush should have been bolder. It was, though, an imperative to try certain options, manifested in Iraq. We still don't see which way the Iraq experiment would unfold. But it had to be done to discern whether its pattern would be a viable option that could prevent an outright full war of civilization against barbarity, with all its nastiness unleashed.
What may be the case, considering present situation and the potential trends, is that we need Winston Churchill, soon.
But that still begs the question of how we will get someone of Churchill's caliber to run, much less win, in the face of the formidable odds posed by the forces arrayed against us, today. The current system weeds out people of character, achievement, and gumption.
I hold out some small hope that people like LTC Kurilla will join the political fray and bring their stainless steel honor to bear. It's asking much - perhaps too much.
#3
.com, no 2012 is not too late, at least as North America is concerned (US, CA). It may be too late for a mighty bunch of people, but not for the western civ overall. I am not so sure as the Western Europe is concerned, the train wreck is coming--almost as predictable as a Hollywood production movie. Central Europe will become the place where European branch of western civ will be preserved, with our help or without.
There are, of course, some positive developments on other fronts. In Africa, the Somalian/Ethiopian theater is a good sign, together with the fact that there is an increasing amount of conversions to christianity in many regions--mostly from animistic creeds, but there would not be an alarm sounded from some muslim clerics if the islam-to-christianity conversions were negligible.
The main problem, as I see it, is the media. Albeit in decline, it still has the hold on distribution of information--that is what in their view passes for information nowadays. This hold has to be broken in order to have a good chance for reduction of the length of the war, from several decades (~4) to perhaps not more than one.
A search for information on K Ellison brought me to this site where I found this commentary from an apostate. I was quite pleased to read his thoughts about islam=arab imperialism as that conforms with my own views. I will only quote one section, but I encourage y'all to go look and see.
...........
Muslims can be categorized into three types - stupid, intelligent and cunning. Stupid Muslims:
Majority of non-Arab Muslims belong to this category. They do not read or understand Quran. They fail to realize that Islam is for Arabs. They are the gullible people who are becoming the lackeys and foot soldiers of this political system. They are deluded to think that beneath the filthy and gross practices of Islam, there is some truth. They keep on looking for hidden meaning for gross Quranic verses and Islamic practices.
Intelligent Muslims:
These categories of Muslims are ignorant of Islam and have not read or understood Quran. But they are intelligent people. Once they read and understand Quranic messages, they leave this religion.
Cunning Muslims:
These Muslims are the super intelligent types. They know what Islam is for. They also understand Quranic messages and what is the real meaning of those verses. But they will still keep saying that Islam is a true and divine religion from God and concoct ways to bring more gullible/stupid people to the fold of Islam. Most Arabs belong to this category. Since Islam imposes Arab way of life and elevates status of them, they would naturally want to keep Islam going. It benefits their puffed up pride and suites their way of life of having access to women and unlimited sex.THWAK! Ya bunch of sexual miscreants.
An appeal:
The non-Arab Muslims from Asia and Western world, you are being used by Arabs for their advantage and selfishness. Arab Muslims are using you in their fight against Jews. They do not respect you or treat you with respect. But you are unnecessarily becoming subservient to Arabs by being a Muslim. They are forcing you believe in a political system that is not yours. Islam is a foreign ideology for you. They placed this monkey on your back and you are happily carrying it around, ruining your life and destroying this world for them. Throw away that Islamic monkey from your back, relieve yourselves and live your life.
I have found that many of the best exposes of islam are by apostates, but this guy nails it.
#3
Many Muslims are Arab wannabes. But why? What have Arabs achieved other than plunder? Pre-islam' Persian, Yemenese and Egyptian history are more interesting than anything they have done since Mohammad made concoctedd the koran out of his own brain farts.
#5
I never could figure out how the 'Nation of Islam' can be Islamic since Islam has slavery, Mo said a blacks have the heart of a monkey and was good for nothing but being a slave.
Not to mention that Arab muslims are holier then non-arabs. (See Dafur).
#6
Exactly, CF. Of course, Islam itself is a political movement, not a religious one. So, in that aspect, I guess the NoI is "Islamic."
Posted by: BA ||
12/30/2006 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A brilliant explanation of the muzzie cult. Just serves dirt A-raaabs like Muhamhead. Nothing more than fabricated bullshit to serve desert bedouins. And, he hits the nail squarely. All who serve their A-raab masters are nothing but simplistic fools. The most foolish of all are the females who submit to this subjugation.
#8
HAVING COME FACE TO FACE WITH THESE FANATICAL PIGS THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THEM IS VIOLENCE.THEY WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WEST. THE FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN THE ATO ARE THE WORST. EVEN IF THEY PUT THIER HANDS UP, WE GUNNED THEM DOWN. FIRE WITH FIRE. WHEN WE WERE INSANE WITH ANGER, THIER HEADS WERE PUT ON A ROCK FACING WEST. WE KICKED THIER ASS DURING ANACONDA, AND CROSSED INTO PAKISTAN AND KILLED THIER SENTRYS, AND TOSSED GRENADES INTO THIER HUTS. IF 1 MADE IT OUT, WE SHOT HIM. WE TOOK PRISONERS, TORTURED THEM, AND KILLED SOME MORE. A-STAN 2 TOURS, IRAQ, 1. I GOT MY TAB A WHILE AGO, AND IAM EARNING IT.
#9
I think, considering the content very carefully, that you're just another troll, a Jesse MacBeth style troll - and not a very good one, not to mention an ass for posting in ALL CAPS.
If you want anyone to believe you're not, then get serious. That's a heaping pile of BS, son.
#12
Back to the post, which is simply fantastic. I've known about the Arab-centrism of Islam, but figured it was due to the fact that the Quran was written in Arabic, and they knew how to read it in the original. I HAD heard of a verse from a hadith that ranked people, with Mohammed at the top, Mohammed's family next, then his tribe, then the Arabs. I never could find it.
Terrific catch, Brett! I put up a link at my website: this is an article to remember.
#14
The idea of a fifty year old man marrying a six year old girl is so gross to me. I always despised this Muslim practice and tend to believe this as an aberration among Arabs. Turning point for me was, when I found the “great” prophet of Islam actually practiced his despicable act. Such a person can not be my prophet.
however,although they say they are an org of former Muslims, I think there are some infidels-from-birth
there (at least the way normal people define birth, moslems claim all babies are born Moslem and some are brainwashed to be other faiths)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
