It's the Demography, Stupid

The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
BY MARK STEYN

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam

www.opinionjournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760)
________________
Steyn is so on with this.

His point is we are multicultural-ing ourselves to death. We are so "caring" about "balance" and appearing multicultural (without REALLY know anything about any other culture, mind you... including our own) that we are dooming our own culture to obselescense. That we have become so self-absorbed that we don't even care about having children. That we are so involved in our minutia that the enemy of modernity will walk right in and give us a killing blow without us even realizing it is happening.

Religious cultures place a high value on children, even the Islamofascists as they care more about males, than societies that center their thoughts and desires solely on the individual as leftist Europe and blue America is proving statistically.

That is why all you anti-Americans on the left probably won't really be a bother in the long run. You are either gay or so self-involved that you will eschew children to pursue your selfish interests like perpetual adolescents and will not pass on your idiotic pseudo values on to the next generation. The Christians you all hate so much will win out in the long run.

But because of you selfish, adolescent liberals, the Muslims will over take us all because they, like the Christians, will have a lot of children. but, unlike the Christians, they will pass on a hatred for the west to those children.

So, the destruction of western values can be laid at the feet of leftists even more so than at the feet of Islamofascists.

And in that, Steyn is 100% right.

So, you're raising child to hate Islam and leftists, right?

Much better. What you're talking about is maintaining a Christian identity, not a western one. There is a difference, which I'd love to discuss with you, but I don't talk to fools who use terms such as islamofasicsts and who refer to all "leftists" as gay. But it was fun listening to the rantings and ravings of an insane mind, thanks for the tour!

Hey looky ... its pat robertson jr.

If the west becomes extinct, it will have nothing to do with liberalism or birth control.

And the US was NEVER mono-cultural

False premise = false conclusion ... next !

...I don't talk to fools who use terms such as islamofasicsts and who refer to all "leftists" as gay...

Islamofascist is a generally accepted term for activist Mulsims. Mobile didn't say all leftists were necessarily gay. http://www.crownvic.us/forum/images/smilies/new/smart.gif

That smiley got a laugh out of me. Good thing that site went down, you've found a much better one because of it.

Using the term islamofascist is like using the term reporklican. Everyone knows what it means, but it shows the obvious bias of the speaker of such a term and is an uncivilized method of referring to people. As off as extremist muslims might be, muddying statements with such base terms shows a serious lack of class.

And you know what I meant about the gay thing, so hush up and go back to crying about not getting sent any PMs.

[this is where I wish I had a crying smiley]

Judging by what Hollywood tells me, the West is in danger of extiction due to

A. A Meteor
B. Zombies
C. The Core of the earth dissapearing.
D. All of the above at once.

I'm pretty sure "Islamofascist" was made up by Fox "News". Also, I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.

I'm pretty sure "Islamofascist" was made up by Fox "News". Also, I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.

None of the politically powerful "Christians" want to kill you by smashing your head in with a rock because you're a woman who let her ankle show while walking alone down a street. None of them want to cut your head off with a dull knife because you said something insulting about Jesus Christ. None of them want to rape your 12 year old daughter as revenge for an imagined slight. I think your fears are a little mis-aligned. Could you give an example of one of these so-called "Mullahs" that give you the cold sweats at night?

None of the politically powerful "Christians" want to kill you by smashing your head in with a rock because you're a woman who let her ankle show while walking alone down a street. None of them want to cut your head off with a dull knife because you said something insulting about Jesus Christ. None of them want to rape your 12 year old daughter as revenge for an imagined slight. I think your fears are a little mis-aligned. Could you give an example of one of these so-called "Mullahs" that give you the cold sweats at night?

They're not gonna take over. No, America would fight back domestically first. Christianity can sneak up and take power without anyone ever knowing. After all, Xians are good.

I'm not agreeing with everything the op says.

However........... I have to ask all the people here: why should Muslims in Europe not insist on Sharia law if they turn into the majority?

You realize that in Europe like the US the majority rules, right? Is there any particular reason why Islam shouldn't be incorporated into European laws like it is back home in the Mid East/North Africa? One answer I've heard is "because of different traditions". So what? That may sound like an answer but it doesn't really mean anything. Traditions come and traditions go, so what?

None of the politically powerful "Christians" want to kill you by smashing your head in with a rock because you're a woman who let her ankle show while walking alone down a street. None of them want to cut your head off with a dull knife because you said something insulting about Jesus Christ. None of them want to rape your 12 year old daughter as revenge for an imagined slight. I think your fears are a little mis-aligned.


I don't care what they want to do, as they have no power to do it. The two threats from fundamentalist theocratic thugs are from Islamic ones and from Christian ones, and the muslim ones have no power. We who value liberty will fight them if they start to gain power, just as we're fighting you now, as you've gained power. The Christofascists are a real and present threat, while the Islamofascists are not.


Could you give an example of one of these so-called "Mullahs" that give you the cold sweats at night?

People like Coulter or O'Reilly, who have a lot of media influence over the weak minded people in our society and advocate the bloody forced conversion to Christianity of the infidels, Pat Robertson, who advises the President, or the President himself, who believes that he has divine authority to rule. Roy Moore is a good example, too. He believed that he should be a Christofascist judge in a state court, ruling from his interpretatin of religious literature and ignoring the secular law.

Look at all you people lashing out against our secular governemnt, and want to end the two and a quarter centuries of progress we've had under it.

You folks who hate freedom and want an all powerful religious government, unrestrained by the Constitution, able to snoop and spy on citizens, arrest at will, and torture. You actually have representatives in our government, waging war on the Constitutiuon and the Bill of Rights. The Muslims don't.

I've been reading a history of the American media, and it's remarkable how the rhetoric of people like Steyn hasn't changed at all since "nativists" tried to stir up racist paranoia during the Progressive Era. Then the focus was on jews and blacks, but the nature of the appeal, and its motivation, is the same as today's hand wringing about muslims. The strange thing is that Steyn et al think they are onto something new.

You folks who hate freedom and want an all powerful religious government, unrestrained by the Constitution, able to snoop and spy on citizens, arrest at will, and torture. You actually have representatives in our government, waging war on the Constitutiuon and the Bill of Rights. The Muslims don't.

How do you know what Muslims want?

The constitution itself allows a sufficient majority to create shariah by allowing any part of it to be altered

This was funny and a perfect example of lopping off your nose despite your face...

Using the term islamofascist is like using the term reporklican. Everyone knows what it means, but it shows the obvious bias of the speaker of such a term and is an uncivilized method of referring to people.

Islamofascist is a SPECIFIC term. It refers to a VERY specific segment of Islam that is based on a fascist ideology, is responsible for acts of terror, and would indiscriminately kill all in their path. It does NOT cover all of Islam.

Of course, those who deny that the usage of the term is proper are the same multiculturalists who would damn their OWN culture for putting a sack on a terrorist's head, calling that "torture", but claim that terrorists who cut off the heads of THEIR prisoners just need to be "understood". In other words, the kind that assist terrorists by burying their own heads in the sand leaving their rear ends unprotected. Just the situation Steyn decries.

Now, to correct the OTHER fallacy...

There is NO such thing as a "Christofascist". No Christians have cut people's heads off, operated as terrorists, or gone outside the democratic process for at lest one hundred years.

And there CERTAINLY aren't any doing it now, nor any advocating for such.

So, the childish and petulant usage of this term is merely an attempt to make themselves feel better that they are "PC" and one not based on ANY evidence what-so-ever.

There is NO such thing as a "Christofascist". No Christians have cut people's heads off, operated as terrorists, or gone outside the democratic process for at lest one hundred years.

Why do people just assume that cutting peoples' heads off is qualitatively different from incinerating people, disemboweling them, blowing their heads and other appendages off by means of bombs dropped from the sky, especially when the aerial bombing kills a hell of a lot more people than head-chopping? Is it because the head-chopping is upsetting to people watching it from the safety of their living rooms on TV? I would imagine that watching people being bombed from the sky might be upsetting as well, but of course we in "the west" don't like to show this upsetting stuff on TV, even if we know we're doing it on a daily basis.

One could argue that the head-chopping, because it is honestly displayed for what it is rather than hidden, is marginally superior from a moral perspective.

However........... I have to ask all the people here: why should Muslims in Europe not insist on Sharia law if they turn into the majority?

You realize that in Europe like the US the majority rules, right? Is there any particular reason why Islam shouldn't be incorporated into European laws like it is back home in the Mid East/North Africa? One answer I've heard is "because of different traditions". So what? That may sound like an answer but it doesn't really mean anything. Traditions come and traditions go, so what?

ding ding ding

congrats for being the 1st to address the substance of the article. And to add to what you said...didn't they succeed somewhere in Canada already?




PS...Good to see you again MV :nice:

most of the people here aren't satisfied until we live in a post apocalyptic police state refugee camp.

hopefully when the fecal matter hits the fan, most whites will be living in gated communities and all the others will be forced to duke it out Mad Max style for scarce resources in the ruins left behind, as they do in Detroit :|

PS...Good to see you again MV

Thanks. Been VERY busy these last months. Started a blog that kinda got outta hand in 2005. Have over a dozen contributors and it takes up far more time than I thought it would!

Also, another board I was frequenting looks like it is closing down.

I'll miss Europe.

... I won't.

Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism.

The individualistic atheist/secular humanists do not believe they are trying to do any damage to anything. What they (myself included) believes is that it's a more normal and healthy lifestyle because of all the problems with religion through the ages. That and forcing women to sit around pregnant is "barbaric" and backwards minded. Is there a dispute about that last point?

When women are given choices most of them do not choose to have 10 children and never pursue their own lives.

However, there is the small (or huge) problem of contexts. Giving women the freedom not to have families (among other practices) obviously means a percentage of them will choose not to. As it turns out, the percentage appears to be extremely high. When your culture lives by values that mean it will shrink while the others next door have values that mean they will increase then it's more than probable you're in a bind. You can either keep your values and promote them or give them up.

Some people seem to assume that secular values will win out over fundamentalist religious ones but there's no reason why they would. There's only one smart assumption here and that's to assume that no one will respect any tradition forever.

Jay,

Good point...

There's only one smart assumption here and that's to assume that no one will respect any tradition forever

That is for sure. For instance, what child doesn't imagine that HIS ideas are better than his Parent's (at least until he grows up)?

However, your claim that secular humanists don't think they are destroying the west with their ideas doesn't mean they AREN'T. Good intentions don't count for much in the long run.

Remember, EVERYONE thinks their ideas are "good", after all.

Originall posted by Mobile Vulgus
In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department

You don't seem to grasp how strong their defenses are, every country that could threaten them in conventional war is either an ally or someone with whom war would be largely determined through Nuclear exchanges.
For Canada to waste all it's money on a military it's population and economy can't support that they aren't going to use just to be a world power is the true waste.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it

No society in the world is enslaving women to continuously have children against their will,
short of that all they can do is give incentives which many countries like France and Canada do. (that's social spending too)

I don't hear you suggesting a way to make people who don't want to have children to do so that's even remotely close to as palatable as immigration.

I'm starting a new thread about solutions to this

That is why all you anti-Americans on the left probably won't really be a bother in the long run. You are either gay or so self-involved that you will eschew children to pursue your selfish interests like perpetual adolescents and will not pass on your idiotic pseudo values on to the next generation. The Christians you all hate so much will win out in the long run.

You poor sad man!

I am a leftist. I have been called an anti-American (although I am not one). I have three children. I am not gay.

Oh, and I am a Christian.

I'm pretty sure "Islamofascist" was made up by Fox "News". Also, I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.

You people are irrational. You make the mistake of buying your own BS.

I don't care what they want to do, as they have no power to do it. The two threats from fundamentalist theocratic thugs are from Islamic ones and from Christian ones, and the muslim ones have no power. We who value liberty will fight them if they start to gain power, just as we're fighting you now, as you've gained power. The Christofascists are a real and present threat, while the Islamofascists are not.


People like Coulter or O'Reilly, who have a lot of media influence over the weak minded people in our society and advocate the bloody forced conversion to Christianity of the infidels, Pat Robertson, who advises the President, or the President himself, who believes that he has divine authority to rule. Roy Moore is a good example, too. He believed that he should be a Christofascist judge in a state court, ruling from his interpretatin of religious literature and ignoring the secular law.

Look at all you people lashing out against our secular governemnt, and want to end the two and a quarter centuries of progress we've had under it.

You folks who hate freedom and want an all powerful religious government, unrestrained by the Constitution, able to snoop and spy on citizens, arrest at will, and torture. You actually have representatives in our government, waging war on the Constitutiuon and the Bill of Rights. The Muslims don't.

1. None of the people you mentioned want to kill American women if they let their ankle show while walking alone down the street. None of them have ever beheaded anyone for being a Jew or have advocated doing so. None of them have ever tortured and killed anyone for insulting Christianity, nor have they ever advocated doing so. Islamists have done these things, and intend to continue doing these things until Islam rules the world. Try again. You have failed to make your case.

2. Coulter and O'Reilly are not religious figures, much less Christian leaders. You failed to make your case. Try again.

3. Pat Robertson has no political office. He has also never had anyone killed for breaking one of the 10 commandments, nor has he advocated doing so. You failed to make your case. Try again.

4. The president himself has never killed anyone for not converting to Christianity, nor has he ever advocated doing so. He will also step down voluntarily at the end of his second term. You failed to make your case. Try again.

5. Roy Moore never ignored secular law in any of his rulings. You failed to make your case. Try again.

The bottom line remains that there are no Christian mullahs with the power over life and death in the US. You are wrong when you say they are a greater threat than Islamists. The point remains that the Islamists have openly declared their intent to destroy the modern western way of life and are a much greater threat than any Christian leader in the US. Case in point. How many Americans have the Islamists killed vs. how many have American Christian leaders killed?

The Christofascists are a real and present threat, while the Islamofascists are not.

Who are the "Christofascists"?

Who are the "Christofascists"?

Christians. Boo doesn't like them.

Christians.

Why not just call them by the name "Christians"?

Why not just call them by the name "Christians"?

Because Boo doesn't like them.

Because Boo doesn't like them.

Why not?

Why not?

Because 1,000 years ago Christian soldiers tried to take back what were Christian lands, and they're trying to do it today. Christian kids are trying to pray in school. :p

..that isn't it Sulla.

Boo doesn't like them because he is TOLD not to like them by his leftist masters.

Because 1,000 years ago Christian soldiers tried to take back what were Christian lands, and they're trying to do it today. Christian kids are trying to pray in school. :p

Apparently, that's scarier than the prospect of a 737 plowing into your office building or a dull knife blade slowly removing your head.

Apparently, that's scarier than the prospect of a 737 plowing into your office building or a dull knife blade slowly removing your head.

Of course! If the Christians are allowed to have a moment of silent prayer in school, or if they stop gay marriage, we'll be in a theocracy.

Because 100 years ago children didn't pray in school, and gays were allowed to marry. :p

..that isn't it Sulla.

Boo doesn't like them because he is TOLD not to like them by his leftist masters.

The Christian menace must be stopped. Did you know that Catholics won't let WOMEN BE PRIESTS???!?

How is that different than keeping women in a burning building because they aren't properly dressed?

Because 1,000 years ago Christian soldiers tried to take back what were Christian lands, and they're trying to do it today. Christian kids are trying to pray in school. :p

..that isn't it Sulla.

Boo doesn't like them because he is TOLD not to like them by his leftist masters.

And this differs from you being told not to like liberals by your right-wing masters how ???

Apparently, that's scarier than the prospect of a 737 plowing into your office building or a dull knife blade slowly removing your head.

The Christian menace must be stopped. Did you know that Catholics won't let WOMEN BE PRIESTS???!?

How is that different than keeping women in a burning building because they aren't properly dressed?

^ these 2 posts just busted my strawman-abusurdo meter

And this differs from you being told not to like liberals by your right-wing masters how ???


Who is my right wing master?

You tell us

You tell us

I don't have one. I'm a self made man.

Islamofascist is a SPECIFIC term. It refers to a VERY specific segment of Islam that is based on a fascist ideology, is responsible for acts of terror, and would indiscriminately kill all in their path. It does NOT cover all of Islam.

[ . . . ]

Now, to correct the OTHER fallacy...

There is NO such thing as a "Christofascist". No Christians have cut people's heads off, operated as terrorists, or gone outside the democratic process for at lest one hundred years.

And there CERTAINLY aren't any doing it now, nor any advocating for such.

So, the childish and petulant usage of this term is merely an attempt to make themselves feel better that they are "PC" and one not based on ANY evidence what-so-ever.

So you make up the silly term Islmaofascist for violent fundimentalist muslims, but insist that no one use a similar term for violent fundimentalist christians, and you see nothing wrong with this? You notice that the term "Christofascist" is childish, but fail to notice how silly the term "Islamofascist" is.



Of course, those who deny that the usage of the term is proper are the same multiculturalists who would damn their OWN culture for putting a sack on a terrorist's head, calling that "torture", but claim that terrorists who cut off the heads of THEIR prisoners just need to be "understood". In other words, the kind that assist terrorists by burying their own heads in the sand leaving their rear ends unprotected. Just the situation Steyn decries.


Oh, Christ, man. Take a Prozac. People throwing around ditto-head terms like "islamofascist", "PC crowd", "mulitculturalists" and "leftists" hardly add any credibility to their emotionally driven politics of hysteria.

Who are the "Christofascists"?

I made it up as a reference to neoconservatives and the religious right, to point out the absurdity of the ditto-head term 'Islamofascist'. It didn't work. Dittoheads can never see how silly they are, not even while pointing out how silly the exact same thing is from someone else.

Of course, Mr. Funny will probably have a different answer.

Christians. Boo doesn't like them.

Oh, my. How predictable.


Why not just call them by the name "Christians"?

Christofascist is a SPECIFIC term. It refers to a VERY specific segment of Christianity that is based on a fascist ideology, is responsible for acts of terror, and would indiscriminately kill all in their path. It does NOT cover all of Christianity.

The point, of course, is that the same dittoheads who say that stuff and expect people to take them seriously will squeal like stuck pigs when it's not used to benefit their own twisted ideology.

Though I'm sure Mr. Sanity will have a different answer.

Because Boo doesn't like them.

Haha.

Why not?

He's just lashing out at strawmen. I'll bet he answers with something straight out of Ann Coulter's mouth, though. Let's wait and see . . .

..that isn't it Sulla.

Boo doesn't like them because he is TOLD not to like them by his leftist masters.

:rolleyes:

^ these 2 posts just busted my strawman-abusurdo meter

Have you not been following the posts at all? Boo is more afraid of Christians than he is of radical Islamists who have vowed to kill as many Americans and Jews as they can. My comment is valid, as I have laid out a comparison between the examples of Christians he finds scary and the actions of the Islamists. Since he continues to fear the activities of Christians more than the activities of radical Islamists, I must infer that his danger sensors are misaligned.

So you make up the silly term Islmaofascist for violent fundimentalist muslims, but insist that no one use a similar term for violent fundimentalist christians, and you see nothing wrong with this? You notice that the term "Christofascist" is childish, but fail to notice how silly the term "Islamofascist" is.


Ah, but you have provided no examples of "violent fundimentalist Christians" doing anything like what the "violent fundimentalist muslims" are known to have done, are doing, and have promised to continue doing. You have also not given us any examples of "violent fundimentalist Christians" seeking to destroy Western Civilization, as the "violent fundimentalist muslims" have promised to do. There is no valid reason for you to apply the term.

Yes, boo, please DO give us that big great list of all the "violent Christians" that you know of on the international scene. We are waiting.

There is no such thing as a "Christofascist". But, I'd guess if you think there are then they must be riding unicorns and talking to mermaids in that tenuous world you call "reality"!

...You have also not given us any examples of "violent fundimentalist Christians" seeking to destroy Western Civilization, as the "violent fundimentalist muslims" have promised to do.

It is indeed an insane comparison since Christianity was a driving force in creating Western Civilization.

Boo is right. There is no real difference between opposing abortion or supporting silent school prayer and executing women if they're raped, or beheading helpless hostages. :|

Christianity was a driving force in creating Western Civilization.

It's tithes an cathedrals sapped surplus wealth, stifling economic growth.

The triumph of the west was largely due to scientific advancement which the church throughout history has opposed.

Christianity ruled the papal states which failed misrebly.

Many christian countries have done poorly.

Countries that don't have religiously run governments have done very well in the last two centuries.

The triumph of the west was largely due to scientific advancement which the church throughout history has opposed.

Knowledge gained for purposes of scientific advancement is a divine gift which begins with the fear of God. There is a clear relationship between God and science that cannot be overlooked.

Knowledge gained for purposes of scientific advancement is a divine gift which begins with the fear of God. There is a clear relationship between God and science that cannot be overlooked.

Maybe god is helping the advancement of knowledge but the church certainly hasn't.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96790&page=1

http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer

The other kind of terror
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Christopher Dickey has a terrific piece up on Newsweek's online content this week:

The sentencing of Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics, a gay bar and the Atlanta Olympics, ought to be a milestone in the Global War on Terror. In Birmingham, Ala., on Monday he got life without parole. Next month he�ll stack up a couple more life terms in Georgia, which is the least he deserves. (He escaped the death penalty only because he made a deal to help law-enforcement agents find the explosives he had hidden while on the run in North Carolina.) Rudolph killed two people, but not for want of trying to kill many more. In his 1997 attack on an Atlanta abortion clinic, he set off a second bomb meant to take out bystanders and rescue workers. Unrepentant, of course, Rudolph defended his actions as a moral imperative: "Abortion is murder, and because it is murder I believe deadly force is needed to stop it." The Birmingham prosecutor declared that Rudolph had "appointed himself judge, jury and executioner."

Indeed. That's what all terrorists have in common: the four lunatics in London earlier this month; the 19 men who attacked America on September 11, 2001; Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, and many others. They were all convinced they had noble motives for wreaking their violence. Terrorists are very righteous folks. Which is why the real global war we�re fighting, let's be absolutely clear, should be one of our shared humanity against the madness of people like these; the rule of man-made laws on the books against the divine law they imagine for themselves. It's the cause of reason against unreason, of self-criticism against the firm convictions of fanaticism.


He goes on to explore something we've discussed often here: the hard reality that terrorism does not always come from abroad, from brown-skinned foreigners, but often from our own midst as well; and that at the root of all of them lies a broad disaffection with modernity; and that truly winning the fight against terrorism requires us to confront and defuse that disaffection.

He also explores how this reality stands in stark contrast to the "war on terror" our current leaders have given us:

But if the war of ideas that British Prime Minister Tony Blair talks about is going to be won -- and he's right in saying that's the core battle -- then the difference between rationalism and obscurantism should be underlined at every opportunity. And that's not what's happening. Instead, since the detour into Iraq it seems the intellectual compass of those who led us there has gotten lost in a fog of moral pieties, and sweet reason has surrendered to missionary zeal. To be a true believer in the Global War on Terror you are supposed to believe that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, but that they would never think of fighting back outside of Iraq. Any effort to understand the enemy or his motivations is treated as an apology for what he does. At times we seem to be infected by the very pathology we are fighting against.


In case there's any doubt that domestic terrorism remains a potent force, you can turn to the recent U.S. News and World Report piece outlining just how extensive their activities have in fact been even since Oklahoma City:

In the 10 years since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, roughly 60 right-wing terrorist plots have been uncovered in the United States, according to an upcoming report by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. The plots, all foiled by law enforcement, reportedly included violent plans by antigovernment militia groups, racist skinhead organizations, and Ku Klux Klan members to use various types of chemical bombs and other weapons.


It's important to understand that this terrorism was defeated precisely because we undertook a law-enforcement approach to defeat it. Much of the success was predicated on solid intelligence-gathering and threat assessment, as well as appropriate timing for law-enforcement action. In other cases -- especially those since 9/11 -- we simply got lucky.

Some instances from the SPLC report:

-- May 20, 2005: Two New Jersey men, Craig Orler and Gabriel Garafa, who allegedly belong to neo-Nazi and skinhead groups, were charged with illegally selling to police informants guns and 60 pounds of urea to use in a bomb.

-- Oct. 25, 2004: FBI agents in Tennessee arrested Demetrius "Van" Crocker after he allegedly tried to purchase ingredients for deadly sarin nerve gas and C-4 plastic explosives from an undercover agent. Crocker, who was involved with white supremacist groups, was charged with trying to get explosives to destroy a building and faces more than 20 years in prison.

-- April 10, 2003: The FBI raided the home of William Krar, of Noonday, Texas, and discovered an arsenal of more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 65 pipe bombs and remote control briefcase bombs, and almost 2 pounds of sodium cyanide, enough to make a bomb that could kill everyone in a large building. Krar, reportedly associated with white supremacist groups, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for possession of a chemical weapon.


In many of these cases, the potential for mass casualties -- probably not as great as 9/11, but equal to or greater than the London or Madrid bombings -- was very high.


http://dneiwert.********.com/2005/07/other-kind-of-terror.html



Can any of you tell me the last time some Muslim was arrested for trying to make Sarin here in the US???

The ignorance you guys display is truly pathetic...:nonono:

Maybe god is helping the advancement of knowledge but the church certainly hasn't.
All the more reason not to worship one another.

Yes, boo, please DO give us that big great list of all the "violent Christians" that you know of on the international scene. We are waiting.


Ah, but you have provided no examples of "violent fundimentalist Christians" doing anything like what the "violent fundimentalist muslims" are known to have done, are doing, and have promised to continue doing.


Yes, I have. George Bush and his band of Christofascists just killed over 30,000 people.

When was the last time you saw an Islmaofascist kill that many people?

Unless you were unaware that shooting thousands of bombs at people is violent.

You have also not given us any examples of "violent fundimentalist Christians" seeking to destroy Western Civilization, as the "violent fundimentalist muslims" have promised to do. There is no valid reason for you to apply the term.

They want to destroy our courts, our education system, our notion of limited government and inalianable rights, our free press, our secular government, our social safty nets, our wages, pensions, health care, science, medicine, and freedom itself. I'd say that's trying to destroy Western Civilization.


There is no such thing as a "Christofascist".


Why not? If rightwing propaganda outlets can make up a term like Islamofascists for people who bomb and kill everyone who stands in their way of power, then why can't I make up a term like Christofascist for people who bomb and kill everyone who stands in their way of power?

Have you not been following the posts at all? Boo is more afraid of Christians than he is of radical Islamists who have vowed to kill as many Americans and Jews as they can. My comment is valid, as I have laid out a comparison between the examples of Christians he finds scary and the actions of the Islamists. Since he continues to fear the activities of Christians more than the activities of radical Islamists, I must infer that his danger sensors are misaligned.

The beaked sea snake (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9310113) is the most poisonous snake in the world. It is widespread in shallow seas from the Persian Gulf to northern coastal Australia. It is especially abundant in estuaries and bays around the mouths of great rivers, such as the Indus and Ganges.

I'm far, far more afraid of slipping on ice and breaking a bone than I am of getting bitten by a beaked sea snake. If you can't understand this, then you own't understand why Christofascists are more of a threat to my freedom than Islamofascists are. It would also indicate a severe level of neurotic anxiety on your part.

Work with it.

Christofascist is a SPECIFIC term. It refers to a VERY specific segment of Christianity that is based on a fascist ideology, is responsible for acts of terror, and would indiscriminately kill all in their path. It does NOT cover all of Christianity.

Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics, gay bars? has been mentioned as one person possibly motivated by Christian teachings.

How many acts of terror in the 20th and 21st centuries have been committed where the terrorist's stated motivation or justification was Christian beliefs?

What acts of terror have been committed where the terrorist's stated motivation or justification was Christian beliefs?

No one said that was a requirement. The Islamofascists in Iraq are fighting to end an occupation they consider evil and oppressive. That's the same thing the Christofascists claim they're in Iraq to do. The Christofascists have said that the purpose of the war is to "fight evil". Several of the Christofascist Mullahs have said as much, aslo. For example, Ann Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." She's a well respected Mullah of the Christofascists, and that's not the only Fatwah that any of them have issued.

Also, Bush said God wants him to be President, and to fight evil, and probably said that God told him to attack the Iraqis and kill tens of thousands of people.

. . . .

(If this is hyperbole, then so is the crap the dittoheads are spitting out, because it's nearly identical.)

The Islamofascists in Iraq are fighting to end an occupation they consider evil and oppressive.

How do you know insurgents are motivated by Islam?

What acts of terror have been committed where the terrorist's stated motivation or justification was Christian beliefs?

No one said that was a requirement.

You've mentioned religion repeatedly as the motivation for terrorism. Then when I ask for specific examples of people using Christianity as a motivation you said it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter now?

You've mentioned religion repeatedly as the motivation for terrorism.


Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

Steyn speaks The Truth.

I have oft noted the demographic catalcysm of declining birth rates and what it means for the affected cultures. Anyone who thinks an imported Muslim majority, which advocates Sharia law, won't someday be successful in making their new countries into theocracies, is just plain not paying attention.

Countries that don't have religiously run governments have done very well in the last two centuries.


You mean like the U.S.S.R?

Oh that's right - the U.S.S.R. was a religiously run government - based upon Secular State Worship.

The Islamofascists in Iraq are fighting to end an occupation they consider evil and oppressive.


They're heros!

Heros who cut off people's heads and blow up cars in crowded markets!

Anyone willing to shoot an American can't be all bad, eh Boo?

Boo is just an example of the Multicultural Suicide-Pact mentality that infects Liberal Westerners.

You've mentioned religion repeatedly as the motivation for terrorism.

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

Didn't you make the following statement?

The Islamofascists in Iraq are fighting to end an occupation they consider evil and oppressive. That's the same thing the Christofascists claim they're in Iraq to do.

You used Islam and Christianity in the names of insurgents and soldiers in Iraq. You also said they're both brands of terrorists. What does Islam or Christianity have to do with terrorism?

Boo is just an example of the Multicultural Suicide-Pact mentality that infects Liberal Westerners.

Its easier that way. Its easier to say that since the enemy screams religious slogans as they murder people, the people they're murdering must be the same way.

That way he gets to play moral relativist, and doesn't have to condem the enemies of the US. No one who fights the US can be that bad, after all.

Pot-smoking post-grunge neo-hippie slackers will be one of the first groups exterminated by Western Sharia Regimes.

Just sayin'.

There is the fact that Americans are the most Christian people of the developed nations of the world. That has nothing to do with anything?

^^^LOL


The death of the west will be due to ignorance, not anything to do with Sharia law brought about by liberals.

Now that we're on the subject, let's take look at who is more likely to bring us something similar shall we? Oh this is fun..

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1059876&postcount=9

That's the end of this one!

"Neo-grunge-statist-islmao-commie-faciso-theocrat" WTF :confused:

Damn ... where is that mass-hysteria smiley ??

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


You Christian lunatics want your own version of Sharia law here, so what are all bitching about? Anything to demonize the evil liberals hiding under your beds I guess...:nonono: :nonono:

"Neo-grunge-statist-islmao-commie-faciso-theocrat" WTF :confused:

Damn ... where is that mass-hysteria smiley ??


Isn't it amazing how they are becoming the exact monster they claim to be fighting?

If it weren't for Christianity, you wouldn't have the freedom and resources to diss it on the internets.

There is the fact that Americans are the most Christian people of the developed nations of the world. That has nothing to do with anything?

We also have the most tolerant culture in the developed world.

We also have the most tolerant culture in the developed world.

You can thank the lefties for that

You can thank the lefties for that


Reply was' tolerant 'not most perverted . :eek3:

You can thank the lefties for that

I can't think of anyone in mainstream American culture today that is less tolerant than an American leftist.

I can't think of anyone in mainstream American culture today that is less tolerant than an American leftist.

If thats true, you are blinded by ideology

You can thank the lefties for that

Oh? I haven't noticed leftist tolerance of, say, religiousity. You guys love your Communists and fringe nuts...not so much anyone else.

Oh? I haven't noticed leftist tolerance of, say, religiousity. You guys love your Communists and fringe nuts...not so much anyone else.

Hmmm ... when was the last time a lefty took your Bible away or prevented you in any way from practicing your religion ?

Hmmm ... when was the last time a lefty took your Bible away or prevented you in any way from practicing your religion ?

How often do you lefties refer to people with different political views as religious fanatics?

Often.

How often do you lefties refer to people with different political views as religious fanatics?

Often.

Only the Christofascists. ;)

How often do you lefties refer to people with different political views as religious fanatics?

Often.

Like Pat Robertson ?

BTW I rarely, if ever, use the term religious fanatic

If it weren't for Christianity, you wouldn't have the freedom and resources to diss it on the internets.

If it weren't for people rejecting Christian teachings in favor of Reason, you wouldn't have the freedom and resources to diss it on the internets.

If it weren't for people rejecting Christian teachings in favor of Reason, you wouldn't have the freedom and resources to diss it on the internets.

What an absurd statement.

With every generation, Christian reforms led ITSELF toward the ideals of Democracy. It could EASILY have gotten there WITHOUT secularism.

And, you SEEM to FORGET that secularism led to communism and THAT killed more and oppressed more people than ANY other human ideology in history!

So, blind, so blind.

What an absurd statement.

With every generation, Christian reforms led ITSELF toward the ideals of Democracy. It could EASILY have gotten there WITHOUT secularism.

And, you SEEM to FORGET that secularism led to communism and THAT killed more and oppressed more people than ANY other human ideology in history!

So, blind, so blind.

I don't think you know what "secular" means. The United States has had a secular government since it's inception.

What an absurd statement.

With every generation, Christian reforms led ITSELF toward the ideals of Democracy. It could EASILY have gotten there WITHOUT secularism.

And, you SEEM to FORGET that secularism led to communism and THAT killed more and oppressed more people than ANY other human ideology in history!

So, blind, so blind.Democracy is man centered gov't. Are you sure this is a Christian ideal?

What an absurd statement.

If it was, you did not make a very convincing case here


With every generation, Christian reforms led ITSELF toward the ideals of Democracy. It could EASILY have gotten there WITHOUT secularism.


Then why did it take 1500 years to get to the protestant reformation ? it was inspired by the renaissance that's why. When the people lead, the religious feudal leaders will follow.



And, you SEEM to FORGET that secularism led to communism and THAT killed more and oppressed more people than ANY other human ideology in history!

So, blind, so blind.

And you make the elementary mistake of Stalinist Tyranny for communism (Stalin expelled Trotsky from the party ... remember? ) Marx did not even believe in centralized government, Stalinism borrowed more ideology from the czars than from Marx. And Marx really just repackaged medieval christian anti-semitic / anti-capitalist ideology.

My point is "godless commie" is just a simplistic meme that was invented in the 50's to help keep the cold-war furnace stoked.

Oh ... speaking of mega-murders ... google up Hong Xiuquan (who thought he was Jesus' brother) and the Taiping Rebellion

moral relativist



you lefties



Islamofascist

multiculturalists

"PC"


Islamofascist

leftists



his leftist masters.


secular humanists [ . . . ] destroying the west with their ideas



Secular State Worship.

Could you guys throw out a few more emotionally charged buzz words in order to increase the validity of your argument? You haven't twisted enough words and made enough hysterical claims to really give your agruments the emotional impact that you desire.


This is how words are robbed of meaning and the collective intellect sours.


Hahahahahaha.

In another thread you're comparing 19 and 20 year old American soldiers to guys who cut people's heads off. In this thread you've compared Christians who believe in school prayer and who oppose abortion to Islamic radicals.

In what way are the terms 'moral relativist' and 'lefty' inaccurate?

We already went through this in another thread. Where you make stuff up.

In another thread you're comparing 19 and 20 year old American soldiers to guys who cut people's heads off.


I didn't say anything about 19 and 20 year old soldiers. You're making that up.


In this thread you've compared Christians who believe in school prayer and who oppose abortion to Islamic radicals.


I didn't say anything about school prayer. You're making that up.

Why do you always make stuff up to try to bolster your argument? Don't you think your argument would stand better if you didn't always have to lie?

damn commies! :mad:

I don't think you know what "secular" means. The United States has had a secular government since it's inception.

I don't think you know what thread you are on. I never said the US was a "religious" government!

So, what IS your point?

Your former statement was absurd on its face and not much "argument" is even NEEDED to deflate it. You flat out stated that religion COULDN'T "reform". But it CLEARLY had begun to BEFORE the USA ever began.

It may not have come along as fast as YOU wanted it to, but it WAS coming along toward reform.

So, to say that it is impossible shows several things:
1) you know NOTHING about history (like every good leftist)
2) you hate religion more than you love truth (not saying religion is necessarily truth itself,m but you hate religion so much that you let that hate overpower your vision of what has REALLY happened in the past)
and,
3) You employ a childish exclusionary thought process

And you have STILL failed to prove your point that there are such things as “Christofascists” in comparison to Islamofascists. NO large bands of people, almost no INDIVIDUALS even, are lopping off people’s heads and blowing up discos in the name of Christ. NO Christian groups are parading thru the streets in brown shirts claiming that they want to institute a Christian version of sharia law.

You claim WE are the ones not addressing the issue, yet YOU have given us nothing but leftist homilies and boring DNC talking points.

I don't think you know what thread you are on. I never said the US was a "religious" government!


You were doing the standard dittohead thing and lashing out at secular governments, seemingly unaware that our government has always been secular. Like a good dittohead, you sling words around without having the foggiest idea what they mean.


Your former statement was absurd on its face and not much "argument" is even NEEDED to deflate it. You flat out stated that religion COULDN'T "reform".


No I didn't . You're making that up. Are you Sulla under a different name?


1) you know NOTHING about history (like every good leftist)
2) you hate religion more than you love truth (not saying religion is necessarily truth itself,m but you hate religion so much that you let that hate overpower your vision of what has REALLY happened in the past)
and,
3) You employ a childish exclusionary thought process


1. Obviously I'm not the one lacking for an understanding of history. You seem to want to argue that the United States government is a product of Christian thinking, and that it was founded as a Christian government, not as a secular government. You're a bit hazy on that, but it's what you seem to have been saying.

2. I don't hate religion. I hate stupidity.

3. Hahaha. Says you? Man, that's rich.


And you have STILL failed to prove your point that there are such things as “Christofascists” in comparison to Islamofascists. NO large bands of people, almost no INDIVIDUALS even, are lopping off people’s heads and blowing up discos in the name of Christ. NO Christian groups are parading thru the streets in brown shirts claiming that they want to institute a Christian version of sharia law.


I never said anything about lopping off heads. I said something about ripping children in half with cruise missiles and cluster bombs.

Why do you keep making stuff up?


You claim WE are the ones not addressing the issue, yet YOU have given us nothing but leftist homilies and boring DNC talking points.

Says the guy running around ranting about "secularism", "Islamofascists", and "PC"ism. All you've been doing is repeating emotionally charged slogans from right-wing propaganda outlets.

That includes your mindless right-wing talking point of accusing everyone who challenges your childish exclusionary thought process of "DNC talking points." I can hear the same thing from every right-wing talk show and blog. Show me where any DNC affiliated people ever said anything about "Christofascists". As far as I know, I made that up for this thread. You're just repeating the same intellectual sewage that every other dittohead repeats.

Not that you'll notice.

..From the nutter...

You were doing the standard dittohead thing and lashing out at secular governments, seemingly unaware that our government has always been secular. Like a good dittohead, you sling words around without having the foggiest idea what they mean.


No, you inferred such.

1. Obviously I'm not the one lacking for an understanding of history. You seem to want to argue that the United States government is a product of Christian thinking, and that it was founded as a Christian government, not as a secular government. You're a bit hazy on that, but it's what you seem to have been saying.

Like I said, you know NOTHING of history. The USA IS a Christian nation, but NOT a sect driven government. Unlike he nations in the Mid East (and a few other places) a particular Christian sect does not operate as an official part of government on official levels.

However, nearly ALL the Founders (Yes even the ones who can be quoted as hating "organized religion") were not only Christian but most of them said that we could NOT last as a nation without reliance on God and without religious teachings among the people.

The problem with you religion haters is that you confuse a government that runs with religion as an official segment of it with a government that operates in tandem with religion, but without having that religion as an official part of it. The USA is the later, not the former.

2. I don't hate religion. I hate stupidity.

Then you must surely have thrown away all the mirrors in your house!

I never said anything about lopping off heads. I said something about ripping children in half with cruise missiles and cluster bombs.

No, you equated Islamofascists with your mythical Christofascists. Islamofascists are terrorists who lop off people's heads. there is NO such corresponding Christian group on the face of the planet, your foolishness to the contrary.

Now THIS was a funny paragraph that is soooo typical of a brain-dead leftist...

That includes your mindless right-wing talking point of accusing everyone who challenges your childish exclusionary thought process of "DNC talking points." I can hear the same thing from every right-wing talk show and blog. Show me where any DNC affiliated people ever said anything about "Christofascists". As far as I know, I made that up for this thread. You're just repeating the same intellectual sewage that every other dittohead repeats.

You start by claiming that I am simply giving boring rightist talking points... then you RESPOND with boring LEFTIST talking points!

Does your lack of a sense of irony ever end?

None of the politically powerful "Christians" want to kill you by smashing your head in with a rock because you're a woman who let her ankle show while walking alone down a street. None of them want to cut your head off with a dull knife because you said something insulting about Jesus Christ. None of them want to rape your 12 year old daughter as revenge for an imagined slight. I think your fears are a little mis-aligned. Could you give an example of one of these so-called "Mullahs" that give you the cold sweats at night?


Yes, but some of them think that Ariel Sharon was struck down by the wrath of God, think that natural disasters occur because of a certain state's political decisions (you know who I'm talking about), blow up abortion clinics and use sniper rifles to shoot doctors (numerous whackos), use religion as an excuse to lynch blacks and tie them to their bumpers and drag them through the streets (KKK), throw rocks at two men for holding hands in public... do I need to actually dig further?

The 9/11 terrorists and OBL and Al-Qaeda are not doing what they're doing out of religious belief, but are doing so out of politics. We're not fighting Islam, we're fighting a political movement born out of Islamic areas. Just like we weren't fighting Germany in WWII, we were fighting the Nazi Party and the Third Reich that was in control of Germany.

Yes, but some of them think that Ariel Sharon was struck down by the wrath of God, think that natural disasters occur because of a certain state's political decisions (you know who I'm talking about), blow up abortion clinics and use sniper rifles to shoot doctors (numerous whackos), use religion as an excuse to lynch blacks and tie them to their bumpers and drag them through the streets (KKK), throw rocks at two men for holding hands in public... do I need to actually dig further?


Around here, the religious whackos like jews. God chosen people and all that. :shrug:

Great post. You are right on in your points. I don't think Europe will perish though. The Nationalist parties are growing rapidly. Legislation to decrease immigration and reward childbearing couples is either in place or on the horizon. No, Europe will be O.K. We are the ones that are going to have a hard fall. Our media and public opinion is so controlled that it will take a catostrophic event to get America thinking about race and culture again.

I didn't say anything about 19 and 20 year old soldiers. You're making that up.


Boo:

Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.



I didn't say anything about school prayer. You're making that up.


Boo:

I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.

Rub your forehead as you read this post, it'll help the blood flow.

Boo:

Originally Posted by BooRadley
I didn't say anything about 19 and 20 year old soldiers. You're making that up.

Because you do it off camera? Isn't that why you crazy rightwingers hate Arab television? Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.



Nope. Doesn't say anything about 19 and 20 year old soldiers. Thanks for confirming that for us.



I didn't say anything about school prayer. You're making that up.

Boo:

I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.


Nope, doesn't say anything about school prayer. THanks for confirming that for us.


Rub your forehead as you read this post, it'll help the blood flow.

Doesn't seem to be working for you.

Nope. Doesn't say anything about 19 and 20 year old soldiers. Thanks for confirming that for us.


Oops, the average age of troops in Iraq is 23. Good point Boo!

So I'll correct myself. Boo doesn't see a difference between 23 year old American soldiers and terrorists in Iraq.


Nope, doesn't say anything about school prayer. THanks for confirming that for us.


Then who are the Mullahs, Boo?

I thought you were dim, I didn't think you were a coward running away from your beliefs.

Like I said, you know NOTHING of history. The USA IS a Christian nation, but NOT a sect driven government. Unlike he nations in the Mid East (and a few other places) a particular Christian sect does not operate as an official part of government on official levels.

However, nearly ALL the Founders (Yes even the ones who can be quoted as hating "organized religion") were not only Christian but most of them said that we could NOT last as a nation without reliance on God and without religious teachings among the people.


Ah, man. Here it goes. The standard right-wing talking point confusion. The USA is not a Christian nation. Go read the Constitution. It describes our form of government, and it doesn't say it's a Christian form. We do not ahve, and have not ever had, a Christian government in the United States. Even the founders who were Christians didn't want that, because they weren't stupid dittoheads.


The problem with you religion haters is that you confuse a government that runs with religion as an official segment of it with a government that operates in tandem with religion, but without having that religion as an official part of it. The USA is the later, not the former.


It doesn't operate in tandem with religion. Religion is seperate, and has been since ratification. Show me where in the Constitution, the doccument that describes what kind of government we're going to have here, it says that the government should run in tandem with religion.

It doesn't. Religion is for individuals and churches, not for the government, no matter how much you want to pretend it does.


Then you must surely have thrown away all the mirrors in your house!


If I were also still in Jr. High School, I'd think this was pretty clever.


No, you equated Islamofascists with your mythical Christofascists. Islamofascists are terrorists who lop off people's heads. there is NO such corresponding Christian group on the face of the planet, your foolishness to the contrary.


You just finished saying that we're a Christian nation, and that our government works in tandem with Christianity. Our government just killed tens of thousands of people in order to increase it's power and influence. You're now claiming that no Christian group does that, but if our government is Christian, then it's a Christian group that has done this.


Now THIS was a funny paragraph that is soooo typical of a brain-dead leftist...

You start by claiming that I am simply giving boring rightist talking points... then you RESPOND with boring LEFTIST talking points!

Does your lack of a sense of irony ever end?

Leftist, leftist leftist LEFTIST leftist. Leftist Leftist, leftistleftistleftist . . . leftist! Left leftists leftist LefTisT.

Good point. Did you get that from Coulter, or from Rush?

Oops, the average age of troops in Iraq is 23. Good point Boo!

So I'll correct myself. Boo doesn't see a difference between 23 year old American soldiers and terrorists in Iraq.


You're still lashing out at strawmen. I didn't say anything about troops at all. Reread it again. (and again and again and again). Then try to think about it without adding things into it that would be easy to attack.


Then who are the Mullahs, Boo?

I thought you were dim, I didn't think you were a coward running away from your beliefs.


Why do you insist on trying to add things that would be easy to defeat, to other people's arguments? Is it because you can't address it directly?

You're still lashing out at strawmen. I didn't say anything about troops at all.


Oh?

Because they show the boddies ripped in half from your cluster bombs? Cutting off a person's head versus tearing off limbs, ripping people in half, blasting whole families to death for political gain isn't exactly a far cry different.

Who fires tank munitions? Who pilots aircraft?

If you were so afraid of talking about your beliefs, why did you spew this tripe in the first place?


Why do you insist on trying to add things that would be easy to defeat, to other people's arguments?

Sulla the Dictator:

Then who are the Mullahs, Boo?


Hmmm...

Boo:

I'm far more worried about Christofascists taking over America than I am "Islamofascists". The Christofascists actually managed to get a few of their Mullah's into positions of power here.

If you're afraid of debating your claims, why do you make such ridiculous statements?

With every generation, Christian reforms led ITSELF toward the ideals of Democracy.

Why do democratic countries forbid laws based solely on the Christian bible?

The 9/11 terrorists and OBL and Al-Qaeda are not doing what they're doing out of religious belief, but are doing so out of politics.

Are Mid Eastern politics separate from religion?

Because Christianity went throught a Reformation centuries ago. Englightened people recognized that combining the power of a sovereign/state with Divine Authority is dangerous.

The current Democratic Party in the U.S. has forgotten this truth.

Englightened people recognized that combining the power of a sovereign/state with Divine Authority is dangerous.

Never happened.

Really? Then, pray tell, what was The Reformation?

Primarily political.

It involved an attempt to rid the church of corruption supported by german princes who wanted to seize vast church properties.
Most of the reformers became opressors of religious freedom in turn which is very unenlightened

They were opposed by powerful catholic figures (the pope was a divine right ruler in certain areas) who decided to reform after they could no longer supress dissention. They only changed when threatened with a loss of power.

The Catholic Church lost an immense amount of power (and the corresponding kingmaking ability that allowed it to control governments) with the spread of Protestantism. This did create a foundation of separation of Church and State.

This did create a foundation of separation of Church and State.

Like when John Calvin became dictator of Geneva?

You are missing the forest for the trees. Progress is not linear. As Church power was thwarted, it created vaccuums. Not all subsequent events were in the right direction - but the movement sorted itself out over time.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

maybe, but the fact remains that since the entire forest tried to suppress religious freedom wherever it gained control which is pretty much the definition of an unenlightened attitude toward religion.

Also, their supporting princes established Lutheranism as state religion which isn't remotely close to separation of church and state or likely to lead to it.

Yours is the same type of mentality that looks at a soldier being killed in a war and extrapolating that one event into prognostications of doom and gloom.

I'm sticking with my theory. After centuries of centralized control by the Catholic Church, the transition to Protestantism was messy. That is the typical state of affairs as human systems go through rapid phases of change and new mores/standards are being developed. For a more recent example, witness the changes in Russia after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Without customs of liberty and the institutions in place to ensure its protection, organized crime is running rampant. One could say that early Protestantism went through a similar phase of dislocated opportunism - but over time, as people learned and adapted, the petty tyrants were largely purged (although they still raise their heads from time to time).

Protestantism went through a similar phase of dislocated opportunism - but over time, as people learned and adapted, the petty tyrants were largely purged (although they still raise their heads from time to time).

Your forgetting that that opportunism brought about the initial success, the stuff I mentioned is the reformation itself,
the messy, necessary transition would be the thirty years' war.

You are still focused on the trees.

If the Reformation did not catalyze Separation of Church and State, what caused it?

You are still focused on the trees.

If the Reformation did not catalyze Separation of Church and State, what caused it?

Martin Luther was inspired by the great renaissance thinkers and the humanists to "go to the source" ... in his case ... the bible ... to discover how the catholic church had departed from Jesus teachings.

Let's see....

In the U.S. it was never there
In France it followed specifically from the Dreyfus affair
In Russia, the communist revolution
In Germany it never had that much power

I'm sure you know that governments were constantly attempting to gain control of the local church from the international one.

There was a gradual trend of seizing church properties.
There was an trend of the assertion of state authority in the administration of Justice.
I'm sure the revolutions of 1848 had something to do with it.

The establishment of non-church run universities and improvements in education in general led to a weakening of church influence .(excommunication required public participation to have power).

The most educated ceased to be members of the church diminishing it's influence.

Democracies were less concerned with being excommunicated than monarchies and they were becoming more commone.

Economic power ceased to be based primarily on agriculture weakening church resources.
The reductions of church wealth made it less appealing to powerful people.

Those are some possible reasons for general and specific origins of the seperation. But in many places it is only partially seperate of is still in control.

I dont think I answered Bos question ... there may have been other states in the middle ages that were secular, but as far as occidental history goes, I believe the magna carta was the first real break of the church's rule

Englightened people recognized that combining the power of a sovereign/state with Divine Authority is dangerous.


Whoa! Never expected to see that from boe.

Nice of her to recognise our enlightenment ! .. eh Boo ?

I believe the magna carta was the first real break of the church's rule


How's that?

It was the beginning of constitutional monarchy. Not much about the church

Is there any reason no one mentioned what inspired the founders of the United States and the French Revolution - the Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke?

The Magna Carta started the rupture of monarchs ruling by Divine Right and introduced The Rule of Lawa. It wasn't perfect - but it was a step in the right direction.

The posters above who do not see how Christianity was a contributor to the Enlightenment miss the mark.

The posters above who do not see how Christianity was a contributor to the Enlightenment miss the mark.

Yeah, without a Dark Ages, there couldn't have been an Enlightenment. They needed something to be enlightened from.

It was the beginning of constitutional monarchy. Not much about the church

the first clause concedes the freedom of the Church to elect its own without royal interference

Can we all just agree that allthough it was probably a good thing the reformation, like most historical events good and bad, was pursued for both good intentions and by some for self-interest?

Can we all just agree that allthough it was probably a good thing the reformation, like most historical events good and bad, was pursued for both good intentions and by some for self-interest?
I agree - because that's human nature...