Article

2006-01-13

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-01-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Fred, it would seem so, at least as the locations you've mentioned are concerned. We may end up we a relatively calm and manageable ME, but I think that the focus of islamists will shift to Europe. It's the area of the lowest resistance in their view. Perhaps for some time, the modus operandi would be a low level of terror--like in some cities de facto taken over by muslim immigrants, spiked once a while by a boom here and there. But it is a waiting game and in five years or even sooner, the daily news from Europe would be rather depressing.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-01-13 00:48|| 2006-01-13 00:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Lull, hiatus, or victory?

Hiatus. Or hudna.

Posted by Pappy 2006-01-13 02:40|| 2006-01-13 02:40|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm with pappy: they're on the run, religiously incapable of admitting real defeat, so they're declaring a hudna that the left will spin as a "humanitarian" truce, and build themselves back up for the next battle. If they REALLY had any sense, they'd lay low until Shrillary got elected on the basis of, "Bush did good, we won, now let's pounce on business and divvy up the goodies from the boom".

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-13 05:14|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-13 05:14|| Front Page Top

#4 I am here in Iraq advising an Iraqi unit and if they can get the supply issue squared away and the old guys at higher HQs out of the way, these guys will open up an even larger can of ass whipping on the bad guys. We may have a long way to go but I agree we got over the peak.

Posted by TopMac 2006-01-13 06:32|| 2006-01-13 06:32|| Front Page Top

#5 For the on-the-scene view and for your service - Thx, TopMac!

Posted by .com 2006-01-13 06:44|| 2006-01-13 06:44|| Front Page Top

#6 WOT

DimmiCraps seem to be the largest threat in the WOT.

The media and elites are in full gaga over Shrillary, but I have faith that she'll never make POTUS if we remain vigilant and stick together.

thank you Rantburg U and all the critters here and a special thanks to our Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Navy and Coast Guard.

Posted by Red Dog 2006-01-13 07:30|| 2006-01-13 07:30|| Front Page Top

#7 The last half of a war like this will be the toughest, politically. Dems will want to stop our advances and reach for peace with the enemy. We must chase them to the ends of the earth and destroy them or we will be destine to fight them again.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-01-13 07:42|| 2006-01-13 07:42|| Front Page Top

#8 But what about Surging Violence?

Posted by Crease Slolung3988 2006-01-13 07:44|| 2006-01-13 07:44|| Front Page Top

#9 "Dems will want to stop our advances and reach for peace with the enemy. We must chase them to the ends of the earth and destroy them or we will be destine to fight them again."

Yep. And once we're done with the Dems, then we can get busy and do the same to the terrorists.

Yeah, I know I'm being a smartass, but Red Dog is right: the left-liberal establishment and particularly the Democratic party-- through stupidity, dishonesty, cowardice and faithlessness-- are a major barrier standing between us and victory over the Islamic menace.

And I'm no longer confident we can win against the latter, without destroying or at least crippling the former.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-13 08:17|| 2006-01-13 08:17|| Front Page Top

#10 Pappy's correct, Hudna. Fred has listed the status of action on all the hot fronts, but they are not the decisive fronts. Europe continues to flail. Zappy looks more like Allende daily, the Dutch don't want to send their contribution to Afghanistan, Merkel seems tepid, God knows what the French and Italians will do, will Britain return to old labour after Blair goes (about this I am least worried) and when will Europe's population turn majority Islamic?

Likewise, the domestic situation, the most important front, is worrisome. Everyone can see the situation as Fred has described it, especially with MSM help, and the donks can say, "Mission Accomplished, let's pull out now to save the lives of our boys." Victorius interruptus. And they will. If this message wins in 2008, the terrs will get the breathing room they need to regroup, reorganize and rebuild.

Right now the biggest problem is Iran. If Bush wants to do something about it, he has done little to prepare the public. The donks will say he is getting us into another war that isn't justified, that we don't need to be in, just like Iraq. Why do we have to have these adventures to enrich Halliburton and KBR? And that message will resonate because the people have not been properly prepared to support action against Iran.

China is still out there, ready to play with anybody who will make a problem for us, Iran, Pakistan, Norks, Venezuela, Cuba, France.

Tactically, things are going well on the fronts DoD is addressing. At the next level of geo-political strategy, I'm not so sure.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 09:06|| 2006-01-13 09:06|| Front Page Top

#11 I'd like to remind everybody that not one war is still in progress, but two. The SOCOM shadow-war, operating on the four corners of the world, yet hidden from sight, has long been producing major victories that never see the light of day.

These victories are not one-shots, either. Often they involve the setting up and management of long-term intelligence and espionage networks, cultivating sources and field operatives, and creating immense databases to unmask entire enemy networks. Operations that may last 20 years.

About two years ago, perhaps, it was let slip that well over 200 such operatives had been killed in the line of duty. No mention since. But since it can be assumed that few of these gentlemen go into that night gently, they must have taken a hellacious number of enemy with them.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-13 09:44|| 2006-01-13 09:44|| Front Page Top

#12 This would be a good time to cancel the UN and start a new, mature, and freedom loving group.

Posted by wxjames 2006-01-13 09:52|| 2006-01-13 09:52|| Front Page Top

#13

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by Ray Gunn 2006-01-13 10:01|| 2006-01-13 10:01|| Front Page Top

#14 So it's Ray Gunn today? Slick...
Thought you were done here?

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-13 10:07|| 2006-01-13 10:07|| Front Page Top

#15 cute - trap him

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-13 10:13|| 2006-01-13 10:13|| Front Page Top

#16 Keep in mind that the Italian attack may already have been thwarted by the GSPC attacks in Europe. I doubt that most people really have any idea about all of the hard work being done on both sides of the Atlantic that has kept Europe and the US from experiencing more terrorism. With Iran, the problem, as Nicholas Burns noted some time ago, is that the remaining al-Qaeda leadership is still there, regardless of Binny's status, and in Pakistan the LeT training camps are still operating. You kill those two nodes, take out their equivalents in SE Asia, and decapitate the Golden Chain, and I'll say that once that happens we'll have very much achieved our objective of defeating al-Qaeda with only the mopping up in places like Algeria, Bangladesh, and the Caucasus to keep us occupied.

Posted by Dan Darling">Dan Darling 2006-01-13 10:15|| http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com]">[http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2006-01-13 10:15|| Front Page Top

#17 It's a lull while the remnants regroup.

I suspect that Israel will decapitate and de-nuke Iran -- soon. I'm hoping that will be a tipping point in which the Iranian survivors in power will decide that backing al-Qaeda, meddling in Iraq, and supporting terrorism is not the path to a greater Iran. I'm also hoping that it will be a shock and awe display involving at least one nuke so that Israel's foes will be forever reminded that they can be reduced to a glassy plain if they can't get past their scheming and seething and start minding their own business. The bigger the blow, the better the lesson.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-13 10:24|| 2006-01-13 10:24|| Front Page Top

#18 The world stage is a Go board to Chinese and US leaders - each advancing his white or black stone into the other's zone of influence, planning to encircle the other before being encircled themself. It is a rational process. Islamo-fascism is the third player whose only goal is to flip the board over. The US is distracted from the Go game as it works to keep the Mad Mullahs at bay. For some reason China seems unconcerned, even encouraging and sometimes supporting the MMs. They may feel their willingness to be ruthless will allow them to repel Islamo-fascism once China has achieved dominant position on the Go board. Are they overconfident? Between their western frontier issues and their neighbors to the south and east, they would seem to be asking for trouble - time will tell.
Through it all Europe, including Russia for the most part, just sits by, like college Go kibitzers stoned to the max, comprehending nothing.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-01-13 11:00|| 2006-01-13 11:00|| Front Page Top

#19 I'd like to remind everybody that not one war is still in progress, but two. The SOCOM shadow-war, operating on the four corners of the world, yet hidden from sight, has long been producing major victories that never see the light of day.

Agreed. The question, however, was what 'terror' groups were doing at this point. They have been thrown off-balance. Unfortunately they are adaptable. Hence my opinion that it's a hiatus.

While it has been highly effective, there are limitations to what can be accomplished on the 'second war-front'. Most critical - intelligence, data and espionage networks require constant maintenance and are subject to political pressure. One merely need look at the Cold War history for that.

Posted by Pappy 2006-01-13 11:17|| 2006-01-13 11:17|| Front Page Top

#20 It's a lot like bailing hay. At times we'd have to stop when a summer shower would come along. We'd maybe eat lunch, take a break, hiatus, whatever. But then when the rain stopped we'd be back out picking up bails until none remained in the field. It was hard work but we were committed to getting the job done. It's the American way.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-13 11:29|| 2006-01-13 11:29|| Front Page Top

#21 Islamo-fascism is the third player whose only goal is to flip the board over. Well said!

Excellent post, Fred. I wish these victories were better known to the American public. History shows that the battles never end and there is always another Iran on the horizon, but the "war" organized by Binny's little band of international thugs is scattered and disoriented.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 11:45|| 2006-01-13 11:45|| Front Page Top

#22 re: Iran

Fighters deploy
increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say.
An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel.
F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s.
Both units' F-1Coinciding with 6s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command Air Forces, which runs air operations in the region, said the F-16 deployment of about 80 jets is part of a rotation and is not related to Iran's uranium reprocessing.

Let's enjoy the quiet moment before the next noisy bit. Tea, anyone?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-13 11:59|| 2006-01-13 11:59|| Front Page Top

#23 Yes, tea please, and one of those delightful milk tarts if you would.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-13 12:03|| 2006-01-13 12:03|| Front Page Top

#24 Just a caution about interpreting the deployment of the 122nd wing.

This is an Air National Guard wing equipped, if I read their website correctly, with older models of the F-16. The deployment was announced late in December as part of a normal rotation. Could be that is because of the rising aggressiveness of Iran or just as part of rotations planned for a while. A whole airwing is a big deployment.

What is not said here (one way or the other) is whether the unit they are relieving is rotating home immediately or hanging around in theater for a while -- which would indeed mean the forces there have been augmented. This ANG wing is manned at a 900+ person level, according to the Dec. story, and so a count of 70+ aircraft sounds about right ....

Posted by lotp 2006-01-13 12:17|| 2006-01-13 12:17|| Front Page Top

#25 Watch the Navy for awhile...

Posted by Fred 2006-01-13 12:40|| 2006-01-13 12:40|| Front Page Top

#26 On the other hand, they're still lopping the heads off schoolgirls in Thailand...

Posted by BH 2006-01-13 13:10|| 2006-01-13 13:10|| Front Page Top

#27 keep an eye on the USS Reagan strike group - left last week for a WesPac tour... if they cross into the Indian Ocean and there's no typhoon humanitarian crisis, wellll... :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-13 13:12|| 2006-01-13 13:12|| Front Page Top

#28 Fred,
As a PK I grok religion and am very troubled that nothing has been done to help the Soddy firebrand mullahs on to the next plain. It's a major missing element. That Friday sermon will continue to incite the fodder until the drift and tone are too dangerous to be spoken aloud.

Posted by 3dc 2006-01-13 13:16|| 2006-01-13 13:16|| Front Page Top

#29 Fred - actually everything you mentioned is a symptom. They root cause is well known. It needs to be vectored or destroyed.

Posted by 3dc 2006-01-13 13:17|| 2006-01-13 13:17|| Front Page Top

#30 Agree on the Navy. And as I posted in the new thread on the air wing deployment, while these are older aircraft and less experienced pilots, they could do a fine job patrolling, say, the border with Syria while the F15e Strike Eagles escorted B2s or Tomahawks found selected targets.

If it comes to that.

Posted by lotp 2006-01-13 13:18|| 2006-01-13 13:18|| Front Page Top

#31 3dc has the nut of the issue. This crap will keep coming around until the holy men lose their heads or islam reforms.

Posted by remoteman 2006-01-13 14:00|| 2006-01-13 14:00|| Front Page Top

#32 until the holy men lose their heads or islam reforms.

very true. But neither of those things are going to happen any time soon. The former because it would create absolute havoc among the billions of members of unreformed Islam. And since Islam hasn't reformed itself for thousands of years, chances are it won't be graduating from rehab anytime soon.

If I can't cure cancer, I'll settle for reducing its symptoms to the point where old age is poses a greater threat.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 14:11|| 2006-01-13 14:11|| Front Page Top

#33 Through it all Europe, including Russia for the most part, just sits by, like college Go kibitzers stoned to the max, comprehending nothing.

Russia is in a complete and coordinated strategic alliance with China -- or atleast I've never once seen a single time in the last ten years (atleast) where their interests, methods or even their rhetoric have caused consternation or opposition in the other.

The global anti-democratic axis being formed, the one whose satellite states go from North Korea to Belarus and all the way to Venezuela and Bolivia (most recent acquisition of said axis) -- it has atleast as much Russian involvement as Chinese one: and I'd say even more so.

People underestimate Russia because of its bad economy and declining population -- but it's a diplomatic superpower and it has vast natural resources; and as such it wields an energy grip on the whole of Europe as it recently most eloquently demostrated (which it also augments with military threats, as seen in Ukraine).

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-13 14:54|| 2006-01-13 14:54|| Front Page Top

#34 Unfortunately, suppressing islamofascism is like kneading dough - you push down here, and it pops up over there. While Fred's assessment is excellent, there are a couple of points left out. Number one is the rise of islamofascist groups in southern Africa, from Kenya to the Congo, south to South Africa. There's also the rising arrogance of Sudan that needs to be dealt with. Somalia continues to be he$$ in a handbasket, although the northern portion seems to be developing quite well.

We also have to look at the Pentagon assessment that states the problem is Islam, not rogue elements. That really put the cat among the canaries. Now we know that either Islam must reform to accept the right of others to worship as they please, or it must be eradicated as a cancer that will destroy everyone's freedom. The United States has never fought a religious war before, but we're in the midst of one now, without accepting that fact. Iraq seems to be going in the right direction - a secular government that allows all religions to worship without fear, but still predominately a Muslim nation. Turkey was more or less the same, but we see that such secularism cannot be maintained in the face of strong religious aggression.

I would say that the current conditions are neither lull, haitus, or victory, but merely AQ shifting to another battle front. The victory won't be ours until there are no more fronts for AQ to shift to.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-01-13 14:59|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-01-13 14:59|| Front Page Top

#35 The United States has never fought a religious war before, but we're in the midst of one now, without accepting that fact.

plain direct and elegant.

Posted by Red Dog 2006-01-13 15:03|| 2006-01-13 15:03|| Front Page Top

#36 Now we know that either Islam must reform to accept the right of others to worship as they please, or it must be eradicated as a cancer that will destroy everyone's freedom.

Well, it can't be eradicated, so option b is definitely out. Even if you nuke into glass the whole of the Middle East (and presuming you could stomach such a "solution", which I can't), that still won't eradicate Islam. Even if you could create (which you can't) a global totalitarian state that pursues with hatred every single expression of Islamic belief, that's still not any more likely to succeed than the Roman emperors were in destroying Christianity.

So why don't we stop talking about the fairy fantasies that perhaps make some people look macho (or ridiculous, depending on perspective) but accomplish little else?

As for imposing a reformation upon Islam, how is that likely to happen either? As far as I know there has never yet been a successful external imposition of reform to a religion either. In truth the West treats the idea of religion (and thus the whole idea of blind faith) with too much respect for that to happen. If Christians have people preaching that contraception is a sin (and that religious concept must supposedly be respected rather than mocked and insulted to its face as an insult against people's reproductive and sexual freedom), how are you gonna convince Muslims that a woman revealing her hair or speaking to a man *isn't* a sin? We can't battle Islamic unreason with Western reason, because frankly the West suffers from too much unreason of its own.

So, with either imposed reform or imposed eradication being difficult-to-the-point-of-impossibility what else remains? The only thing that remains is something that has actually been accomplished already in several places: namely, the strict and absolute separation of mosque and state. Not a war of Christianity against Islam, not even a war of moderate Islam against strict Islam, but rather a war of secularism against the interference of religion in politics.

Christianity itself only truly reformed once it had been removed from secular power, with actions such as that of the French Revolution and the abolition of the Papal states.

Only *then* will Islam reform itself - if it finds itself bereft of secular power.

One good step would have been if the new Iraqi constitution had forbidden clerics to take political posts or maintain militias. The Iraqi constitution should also have placed *secularism* itself (not just "religious freedom") as being of the highest importance -- instead it declares that no law can violate the principles of Islam.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-13 15:41|| 2006-01-13 15:41|| Front Page Top

#37 Problem is, Aris, the Qu'ran doesn't have a phrase similar to this:

âRender unto Caesar the things which are Caesarâs, and unto God the things that are Godâs.â

That's the justification in the Bible for separation of church and state. While we're all supposed to have faith in our hearts, the affairs of state may be managed without overt religious reference.

Islam doesn't have that, and considers secularism to be apostasy. I frankly don't see how your suggested remedy could be implemented.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-01-13 16:17|| 2006-01-13 16:17|| Front Page Top

#38 That's the justification in the Bible for separation of church and state.

Steve White, this "justification" was largely ignored for about 1800 years or so, until the Church was placed in a sufficiently weak (in secular terms) position that it was *forced* to care about it, because it had no other way.

That's my very point -- that the Christian church was eventually *forced* to embrace the separation of church and state.

Islam doesn't have that, and considers secularism to be apostasy. I frankly don't see how your suggested remedy could be implemented.

Remove clerics from power. The offensive against Iran should have started because the West can no longer tolerate religious regimes, not because we can not stand WMDs. Whenever a former regime is toppled, the new Constitution must pronounce secularism as a fundamental value or else Western aid and support will be immediately withdrawn from the new regime.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-13 16:33|| 2006-01-13 16:33|| Front Page Top

#39 I have U.S. money in my pocket that says "In God We Trust" on it. But that's the God that values individualists and women and children and says "Love thy neighbor". It's not the god of Islam ("submission") that values clerics, treats women and children as property, and says "Kill the infidels". My ancestors fought in the Crusades and then moved on to higher values. Islam is insisting on more crusades. If you don't believe that this is religious war, then you are not listening to the enemy. It's radical Islam against the world, and they'll tell you so.

Aris, Naziism can be snuffed out -- why can't radical Islam?

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-13 16:43|| 2006-01-13 16:43|| Front Page Top

#40 You keep bringing up a false equivalency between Christianity and Islam in these discussions. A thought occured to me the last (or second or third to last) time before this you brought it up, but I wasn't able to talk about it, the thread had already expired by the time I got home.

The Fourth Crusade which sacked Byzantium was (for that and many other crimes) excommunicated by the Pope Innocent III.

But as far as I know, no Moslems were ever declared apostate by whoever the authorities of the day were for conquering Constantinople in 1453. In fact, as far as I can tell, by being the prevalent military power of the day in the Islamic World Mehmed was automatically the religious authority and beyond that sort of thing.

While I'm at it, I'd like to say that I find the Albigensian Crusade types here (and do I have to explain that phrase?) to be rather irritating. But at the same time I find your insistance that the conflict eventually breaks down into the good guys vs. the non-atheists just as stupid and naive as the people who say there are no "Moderate Moslems."

Posted by Phil 2006-01-13 16:53|| 2006-01-13 16:53|| Front Page Top

#41 Or to put it another way, telling them their choices are between following Osama or joining the church of Richard Dawkins is going to produce the same wretched result that telling them their choices are between following Osama or the Pope will.

Posted by Phil 2006-01-13 16:59|| 2006-01-13 16:59|| Front Page Top

#42 It is ingorant to imply that the Christian church was eventually *forced* to embrace the separation of church and state. The early Christian church was formed completely 100% outside of the Government. Christians who were caught being Christians were, with Government approval, thrown to lions for entertainment or were martyred.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 17:00|| 2006-01-13 17:00|| Front Page Top

#43 I have U.S. money in my pocket that says "In God We Trust" on it. But that's the God that values individualists and women and children and says "Love thy neighbor".

Your second sentence indicates that you've made a moral judgment on your God's commands, rather than merely put your trust in him --- which is what any suicide bomber can do.

Do you truly believe in God issuing commands? And how can you convince another person that it's *your* perceived commands that God is issuing, and not the Quran's?

Aris, Naziism can be snuffed out -- why can't radical Islam?

Nazism wasn't snuffed out (no ideology can), it merely lost its hold on power with the fall of its promoting regimes (aka Nazi Germany and allies), which is what I say we do for Islamofascism also. Defeat the Islamofascist regimes.

Namely I'm arguing from moving the fight from the amorphous and impossible ("We need to reform Islam! No, we need to eradicate it!") to the specific and possible (combatting the Islamofascist regimes.)

Once Islamofascist regimes have been defeated, Islam will itself find its way to moderation. But to talk about combatting Islam as a whole is similar to starting arguments in 1939 about battling the whole of the idea of nationalism when it's specific Nazi regimes that are now launching their war.

Sure: Islamofascism sprang from Islam which sprang from theism, same as Nazism sprang from nationalism which sprang from tribalism (in the loose sense).

I think that all the above six are negatives. But first things comes first. To try and fight the amorphous and widespread, before fighting the acute and concentrated is to doom yourself to failure.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-13 17:09|| 2006-01-13 17:09|| Front Page Top

#44 The United States has never fought a religious war before, but we're in the midst of one now, without accepting that fact.

Let's see, 1940 we get into a war that Eisenhower called a "Crusade for Europe" to defeat the most evil man and regime in history, 1860 we get into a war that inspires "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Before that 1780 the War of Independence didn't have an overtly religious theme, though slavery to KG was a big issue, 1700 King Phillip's War, proportionately the bloodiest war in American history against the heathen Indians, 1640, our colonial founders compatriots conduct a civil war with certain religious overtones in the old country.

I'd say we're about due for another religious war. The MMs should check our won-lost record in religious wars. See The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 17:09|| 2006-01-13 17:09|| Front Page Top

#45 Phil, there are plenty of radical Moslems who would declare that there are no "Moderate Moslems" -- that Jordanian homicidal maniac in Iraq that is killing innocent Iraqi Moslems daily is one example and that equally insane Iranian president is yet another.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-13 17:12|| 2006-01-13 17:12|| Front Page Top

#46 It is ingorant to imply that the Christian church was eventually *forced* to embrace the separation of church and state. The early Christian church was formed completely 100% outside of the Government. Christians who were caught being Christians were, with Government approval, thrown to lions for entertainment or were martyred.

But once the Christian movement became powerful enough to take control of the state, they forgot all thoughts of separation of church and state. Christian Emperor Theodosius massacred thousands of polytheists for example.

My point remains that Christianity willingly separated itself from the state only in its weakness -- in its first infancy, and now in its old age.

The Fourth Crusade which sacked Byzantium was (for that and many other crimes) excommunicated by the Pope Innocent III.

Phil, so? The Pope may have excommunicated many people whose actions displeased him, but the question is whether the Church willingly abandoned secular power or whether it was forced to do so.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-13 17:19|| 2006-01-13 17:19|| Front Page Top

#47 Phil, there are plenty of radical Moslems who would declare that there are no "Moderate Moslems" -- that Jordanian homicidal maniac in Iraq that is killing innocent Iraqi Moslems daily is one example and that equally insane Iranian president is yet another.

And I hope you're not going to go to them for theological advice.

Posted by Phil 2006-01-13 17:25|| 2006-01-13 17:25|| Front Page Top

#48 My point remains that Christianity willingly separated itself from the state only in its weakness -- in its first infancy, and now in its old age.

You're missing vast parts of the middle ages when the Church, although more powerful than today, was not an arm of the secular authority the way it was in the time of Theodosius. In fact, it wasn't until around 1500 or so that the pendulum swung back towards stronger intermingling of religious and secular authority, partly because of the Protestant Reformation; every two-bit kingling and dukedom between Austria and the Norwegian part of Lapland wanted its own little captive state-controlled church, and things went downhill from there... many of the large Catholic regimes of the time decided in reaction they needed authority over the branches of the Catholic Church in _their_ land to keep up.

A lot of people don't know that the Spanish Inquisition, for instance, was subordinate not to the Catholic Church but the Spanish Crown (which got the confiscated property of those declared apostate).

A lot of the Founders who helped establish formal separation-between-church-and-state in the US weren't "radical freethinking atheist Dawkinists" or anything of the sort, or adherents of Voltaire and Rousseau; a lot of them were Quakers or Congregationalists or Anglicans reacting against the excesses of Cromwell and the Puritans (not to be confused with the Pilgrims).

Posted by Phil 2006-01-13 17:55|| 2006-01-13 17:55|| Front Page Top

#49 the excesses of Cromwell and the Puritans

and James and Charles and Mary and Henry and on and on.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 18:16|| 2006-01-13 18:16|| Front Page Top

#50 My point remains valid. Islam from its inception is the government. Christianity is not an institution, or a government, but a spiritual faith about the values of faith, hope, charity, forgiveness. Christianity, as taught by it's "founder" Christ, has zero, nil, nada interest in the government or controlling the lives of others - except to share the Gospel and a better way than live than is the normal human condition which, without being taught to the contrary will seek to deal with life's trials through blame, revenge, greed, etc.

That Churches have been abused through out history to collect followers and money has but has never had any relationship to Christianity itself.

Martin Luther King talked about civil rights. Many of the institutions claiming to be civil rights organizations today are corrupt. They are actually just vehicles to collect followers and money and have values that are the antithesis of Martin Luther's ideals. But the fact that some of them are corrupt does not mean that teaching the values of civil rights is the cause of their corruption.

You can point at some churches that had to be forced to separate church from state - but then they weren't really Christian churches, now were they?

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 19:04|| 2006-01-13 19:04|| Front Page Top

#51 antithesis of Martin Luther's KINGS ideals just to clarify.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 19:07|| 2006-01-13 19:07|| Front Page Top

#52 I'll take military victory for $500, Alex...

Alex?

Alex, it's when a nation defeats its enemy in the field of battle.

I understand you're canadian, but come on, you've been living in the USA long enough to know the difference, right, Alex?

Alex?

Posted by badanov 2006-01-13 19:31|| http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]">[http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl] 2006-01-13 19:31|| Front Page Top

#53 Phil - great post.

Posted by anon 2006-01-13 23:45|| 2006-01-13 23:45|| Front Page Top

#54 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Ray Gunn 2006-01-13 10:01|| 2006-01-13 10:01|| Front Page Top

11:45 Red Dog
11:44 Red Dog AU commish
16:19 Bird Dog
16:10 Bird Dog
10:01 Ray Gunn
09:55 AU commish
23:53 Omeang Grailet5065
23:52 .com
23:48 ed
23:45 anon
23:42 .com
23:38 twobyfour
23:36 Frank G
23:35 twobyfour
23:35 .com
23:34 Seafarious
23:28 3dc
23:25 Frank G
23:08 .com
23:03 twobyfour
23:03 SC88
23:01 .com
23:00 .com
22:58 .com