One of my favorite podcasts is the satirical news show Shire Network News, an unabashedly conservative British weekly show. This week has some very funny humor, as well as an informative interview with Mark Stein. He mentioned at least three really interesting ideas regarding liberalism, Europe, and Islamofascism.
1. Liberal Europeans are underestimating Islam’s anti-freedom tendencies, and their freedom is being taken away by the Islamification of their culture.
He discussed how a gay couple moved to Amsterdam to get away from the "oppressive" anti-gay culture in the US, and found that the gay bashing due to Muslims in Europe is even worse than here, mostly because Europe does not have a strong Christian conservative movement resisting Islam.
By contrast, both in the US and Europe, liberals FAIL to resist the poisoning of culture from Islam, for many reasons.
- They conflate Islam with conservative Christianity, and so give Islam’s more radical racial and anti-gay views room to grow in the same low level of opposition that they rightly use regarding Christianity. Instead, they ought to differentiate and oppose Islam with MORE force.
- They mistakenly believe that the more oppressive and violent Islam is not part of the mainstream of Islam, or that it really doesn’t influence mainstream Islam very much. But they are wrong, and by assuming that such ideas are marginal in Islam, are allowing it to grow in mainstream Islam
- They fail to view Islam with a suspicious, critical, and alarmed eye, buying in to the smooth words of the Islamic apologists like CAIR. Erring on the side of not wanting to believe the worst, and wanting to be multiculturally sensitive, they convince themselves that it’s not that bad, when in reality, they ought to be more willing to condemn not just radical Islam, but anyone who bears the anti-human policies of Islam. Stein remarked that "It’s going to be a long time before the mainstream left abandons its cobwebbed pieties." Indeed.
Bruce Bawer discusses this in First They Came for the Gays, as well as his book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within.
Stein remarked that while some liberals are concerned about Islam, they are often accused of becoming right wing, and are, in general, a minority. And don’t get me started about the silence of feminists on this issue, not to mention abortion!
2. Why the demonization (criticism) of Islam is necessary, because it is more true than false
He mentions that liberals often defend Islam against criticism or mockery (such as in the cartoons) because they are afraid that some Islamophobes will be motivated by that to do violence against Muslims.
Of course, what instead happens is the opposite – Muslims go on killing sprees when such things happen, calling for beheadings, and proving definitively that the criticisms of virulence and hatred within Islam were accurate.
3. Islamophobes and Homophobes – who is right?
He mentions that gay advocates call Muslims who call homosexuality a sin "homophobes," but Muslims often merely reply that gay advocates are merely being "Islamophobes." The ridiculousness and inaccuracy of the phobe labeling is clear in such an exchange.
The truth is, you can morally disapprove of Islam, Christianity, or gay advocacy without resorting to the ridiculous claim of phobia. I think such discussions cloud the issue. The real issue is, what is right, and why? What is morally wrong, and why?
Islam leads to a Misogynist, Homophobic Theocracy
Translation: Islam leads to Seeker.
Sorry Seek, but I couldn't resist. :)
after the Archbishop of Canterbury's call for the adoption of sha'ria law for the "dis-enfranchised" followers of allah in England, i would call on my cousins to lock and load, you know, as a last resort and a just in case … but, alas, the enlightened gave up on that a long time ago.
cin,
no problem, I am smiling, but you know, you are confirming my first bullet under point one above ;)
Ben,
Seriously, lock and load was part of my article
Dealing with Islam: Passive or Active Resistance?
You might also like:
The Danish Model for Dealing with Islam
Fighting Islamofascism Like Cold-War Communism
I agree with you, seeker, about Islam. I am ecstatic that I live in the West and not in an Islamic culture. However, xianity's history resembles that of modern-day Islam in its persecution of gays. I attribute the modern, enlightened treatment of gays as equals more to secular humanist and Enlightenment values than to xian doctrine. Certainly, 13th century xianity looked more like modern-day Islam than modern-day America. These issues are far more complex than you state above.
seeker,
great minds think alike it seems. thats not an original thought though, few thoughts are. but that isn't my point.
the Western male has allowed himself to be socio-engineered into something other than the great
warrior he once was. as the West turned socialist, all of what was once considered manly and martial has been cast as violent, barbaric and anti-social, giving the gov all control over who or what is allowed to be protected. all in the name of "enter fav lib reason here".
it is easy for your gov to sell you out when they control what you read, what you are taught, the ability for a common defense, etc. these events are only the tip of the spear, so to speak. the events that we have seen recently, say the Paris riots, are very tame given what can take place if the right event or militant leader comes forth.
"Christian warrior." Now there's an interesting concept.
absolutely louis. the ones who help keep you safe at night but are so despised at the same time.
Actually, have you never heard the old hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers (Marching off to war)."
Paul the apostle used the analogy of war for describing the christian and spiritual life in many places. It's just that the war is not against people, but against "powers, principalities, and every idea and thought" that is counter to christ.
But it still requires a warrior's mindset, not just a pacifist's lovey dovey approach.
I attribute the modern, enlightened treatment of gays as equals more to secular humanist and Enlightenment values than to xian doctrine.
That's not a bad argument. Others would say that the enlightenment, coupled with the reformation, brought xianity out of such errors.
What's also interesting is, why don't Jews kill apostates as commanded in the OT? And for how long have they not been killing apostates? I think since before the enlightenment. So why?
I don't know why Jews don't kill apostates, but xians certainly did.
By the way, seeker, you might check the lyrics before using the hymn to support you war apologia:
1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
(Refrain)
4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
(Refrain)
5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through countless ages men and angels sing.
(Refrain)
"Marching as to war…" "Like a mighty army…"
The author uses warlike images as a metaphor for Christian action, but he doesn't intend it as a literal incitement to violence or war. Christianity, here, is an alternative to war, using warlike imagery to invoke spiritual and peaceful methods. Thus, xianity replaces the worldly violent and warlike mindset. War and violence is the antithesis and perversion of xianity. The warrior mindset you speak about is turned towards goodness and struggle against spiritual powers: it is a non-violent struggle which Christ embodied and modeled to the world.
And, despite Ben's usual stupid sarcasm, I'm not a pacifist, nor to I depreciate the soldiers who sacrifice to protect us. In this imperfect world, sometimes violence must be met with greater and more powerful violence to avoid even worse evil. It is a mark of the tragedy which is human life. But it shouldn't be the mark of a xian mindset.
ACtually, I don't use the lyrics to justify war, I use it to counter the liberal myth that a Christian would never use a war metaphor – did you not see that i said it was an analogy?
However, as I have often said, while the Christian FAITH does not involve war, the Christian view of government does include the establishment of just laws and punishment, which can be extended to a view of just (and unjust) war. Many people confuse these two.
You misquoted the lyrics. I googled them in a few seconds. 'nuff said.
From my discussion, it was clear that i understood the metaphorical content even if i misquoted it. My bad on the quote, yours on not seeing that my point was valid even when misquoting the hymn.
Again, the term "Christian soldier" is biblical and historically accurate, and I have outlined the difference between militarism as a means of spreading the faith or suppressing others, v. enforcing secular justice. I think this perspective is both reasonable and biblical.
and my point was not to glorify war, but dealt with the notion of self defense, which sadly explodes into large conflagration when the root problem is ignored.
the root problem being, in this case, the nearly unchecked immigration of muslims into europe:
"Liberal Europeans are underestimating Islam's anti-freedom tendencies, and their freedom is being taken away by the Islamification of their culture." ——-
and then my point that western males are becoming less masculine in my opinion under the rule of socialist govs, and losing personal freedoms under those govs. the truest and most original of these freedoms is self defense. the socialist outlook is that this right must be granted by gov officials, not that it is a right given by God. but then socialist's at their core despise God.
when the masses have no way to defend home and hearth, as these rights and the devices which help insure their personal safety are being vampirically removed,
what happens if a militaristic movement actually begins in the streets of Paris? London? Rome? all across a europe being islamo-fied?
the people will have little say since they will be the socio engineered subjects caught between an undermanned gov and MILLIONS of potential bomb throwers. the resource that could be called upon in an instant, does not exist, no "lock and load" capability.
the gov and all its minions and cronies will have the means to protect themselves, but what of the people? will they(gov)have the political will, heck, the gonads, to do what they should? or, will they sell out the people all in the name of "enter fav lib cause here." the once proud, principled christian warrior has been switched out for the emo-culture.
we have examples here in the US to examine. the sanctuary cities based upon the political model of europe, and there willingness to do as they see fit, even at the cost of the sovereign citizenry and common sense in most cases.
Yeah, I agree. And, come to think of it, that Jesus sure didn't exhibit traditional masculine qualities either. What a wimp, taking that lovey-dovey approach when he should have stood up to the Romans like a real man and, at the very least, led an armed insurrection like the Maccabees before him! All that talk about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek and condemning those who live by the sword, and going as a lamb to slaughter just makes me sick to my stomach. Where was the Christian warrior when we needed him?
good, there is hope for you yet! :)
i would disagree with your assessment of JC's manliness, tho. 40 days without sustenance … 3 and a half years hiking through the urban and rural settings with little in the way of material goods(that kind of 3+ year stint would put a Ranger to shame)… never compromising his values even under the threat of torture(dang, this is sounding like Mc)… confronted satan face to presence and stood tall … and died like a common criminal. i think he did stand up to the Roman thuggery quite well.
was JC a Christian? i wonder, since the term Christian was not used till some years after his death, once the followers had grown in numbers and had become organized.
and i posted on the matter of self defense. i would think JC would say "defend yourself by any means necessary" if asked. he had the means of his own defense at hand, twelve legions worth i believe, but he had a mission to accomplish, so that was out of the question.
we as Christian men on the other hand, being neither messiah or heaven sent, do not need to sacrifice ourselves to tyranny. in fact, i believe we have a duty to stand up to it. a duty to protect.