Disgraceful 9/11 Memorial - GONE!
posted by Jason Pappas at 9:07 PM
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Previous Posts
- Hope in Egypt
- Islam, the Ideology
- The Islamic Revival
- Our Greco-Roman Heritage.
- Are Rights Universal?
- Intellectual Surrender
- Bravo, Michael Graham
- "Sixth Column" has New Articles
- Oh, That Islam!
- Islam and its Denial - Part VII
Articles
- Is Islam Evil?
- The Left's Response to Islam
- The Left's New Lie
- The Right's Response to Islam
- References on Islam
Major Posts
Links
- Liberty and Culture
- Front Page Magazine
- Ayn Rand Intitute
- To The Point
- QandO
- Jihad Watch
- Daniel Pipes
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Capitalist Magazine
- International Free Press
- New English Review
Blogs plus
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Pamela's Atlas Shrugs
- Gates of Vienna
- Counter Terrorism
- Infidel Alliance
- Mark Alexander
- Up Pompeii
- Freie Radikale
- Fawstin
- Sixth Column
- Llano Estacado
- Amber Pawlik
- Thrutch
- Conservative Swede
- Ronbo Soldier
- A Western Heart
- Solomonia
- Jeremayakovka
Feedback
Jason Pappas, proprietor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Who Links Here Top blogs
10 Comments:
Great news!
The predictablable cry from the stupidest communist 167 is now we have a 9-11 industry to go with the Holocaust industry. The far left are like delusional spoiled brats who cry and whine and need to row up.
It was an interesting debate but I think both authors are talking past each other. The “classical” fellow was right that we owe an invaluable debt to our Greco-Roman heritage without which we wouldn’t be the civilization we are today. However, he overplays his hand when he moves from the ideas to institutions. The Church played an important role in the revival of Aristotle’s ideas in the 13th century. After many of the changes were incorporated into our culture and taken for granted by the 16th century, the church appeared as being nothing but a hindrance to reformers of the day. However, I wouldn’t focus on the institution so much as to focus on the ideas that are in play.
I think that’s what the “classical fellow” started out to do but then he switched to the institution and people who are labeled Catholic. Notice how I try to avoid the equivocation between the ideology of Islam and the demographic group Muslims. When it comes to people or institution you have to ask: is it because of their religion of despite it? This is an attribution analysis that’s important – but far from trivial.
Auster launches into the history of the institution and what it achieved. That’s his main trust but then he touches on some ideas that he erroneously credits to religion. The idea of natural rights evolved from the idea of natural law. This originated in Greco-Roman Stoic philosophy, most importantly Cicero. The idea of individualism didn’t start at any one point but Greece had a very high esteem for individual achievement and the individual was the focus of art. Christians like to point to the view that the salvation of the individual soul is the central concern. It’s a valid point.
I credit Christianity with the ability to absorb classical civilization and transform itself (slowly over centuries) until today’s Christians can be personally devout while in the social realm they can deal with others by reference to reality, the use of evidence, and the commitment to reason. Auster seems to leave unexplained exactly what he would credit classical civilization and how he would deal with the details of the other guy’s argument.
How does this come into play in today’s analysis? Auster doesn’t seem to shed light on how Islam went astray and the West rose out of the Dark Ages – just that they didn’t. After all Islam believes in the salvation of the individual soul. It has a tradition of law. The separation of church and state is important but doesn’t it only mean that religion is removed from secular concerns to make room for reason? Isn’t that the point? The West has allowed Hellenic spirit the rule of the world!
Demographically it is true that the greatest number of people that face the jihadist threat comes from the ranks of evangelical Christians. They are free of some of the fashionable multi-culturalism common on the left. For whatever the reasons their eyes are open, they are open to the problem.
However, I think they can’t adequately explain why their religion escaped the fate of Islam. And, one of the points I occasionally make, why did the Orthodox Church stagnate? Although the Greek Orthodox Church came under Islamic rule in 1453AD, the Russian Orthodox Church was not so encumbered. Yet no where in Orthodoxy do we see the progress that we see in the West. A comparison of the Roman and Orthodox Churches is an interesting study in contrasts – more so than Christianity vs. Islam.
I’m going on vacation for two weeks on Sunday. I wish Auster would go into details more but to debate with him, I’d need to review and get some good books at my side for references. I, of course, expect Auster and others to value their religion and seek guidance during times of crisis. But there’s no need to diminish our classical heritage in the process. I think it should be enough to say “my religion is in harmony with reason and classical learning.” That was what Aquinas brought to the Church in the 13th century. Yes, he thought the philosophical tradition wasn’t enough, as one would expect, but his praise wasn’t faint and nowhere dismissive as some modern day critics of our Classical tradition.
However, I think they [evangelical Christians] can’t adequately explain why their religion escaped the fate of Islam.
Just a few quick thoughts on the above words...
The interest in reading for oneself and trying to discern the truth? As in the early Christians who searched the Scriptures for themselves so as to measure the truth of the religious teachers, as chronicled in the Book of Acts.
The emphasis on choosing a salvation freely offered through the sacrifice of Jesus? Evangelicals know that religion cannot be coerced, even though evangelical Christians believe they have found the one true way (as do Muslims, for that matter). Respect for all other people plays a part here as evangelicals believe that each an every person is God's creation and, therefore, important to God and, as a result, "deserving."
The belief that the devil is real and can use humans to achieve his goals?
The emphasis on a culture of life?
The recognition that Christians have an obligation to serve, not a call to conquer?
The different denominations which naturally allow for criticism, reform, and choice?
The conviction that humans don't have to win the victory (take over the world) because "He already has won the victory"?
What you mentioned is hard to explain, isn't it?
For me, personally, the understanding that no human being can truly know God's mind nor His will guides my words and my actions. I do the best I can to tend to my own soul, with His guidance as I perceive it. His guidance is personal and individual, and may be very different from His guidance for another Christian. I have no right to take my interpretation and force it onto someone else, though I will discuss theology and personal testimony if I am asked to. [Hope that I didn't overstep throughout this comment. I know that you are not a believer. You are free to tend to your soul, in the same way as I am free to tend to mine!]
Yes, the Orthodox Church stagnated. Dostoevsky offers some insights on that matter. Perhaps the lack of meaning as ritual supercedes? The lack of application of faith to daily life? I don't know, just guessing.
The Thirteen Original Colonies were divided as to the matter of which churches exerted control wihtin each colony, and various denominations persecuted each other. However, the colonies eventually unified, in part to fight common enemies who threatened autonomous control. Did the colonists realize they could have gone the way of feudalism had they not emphasized the importance of self-governance? How much did the Great Awakening play a part? Did the difficult move itself to the New World change the colonists' outlook as to different kinds of tyranny, including an ideological/religious one. Certainly literacy played a great part. I've been thinking about these matters lately.
PS: Jason, have a good vacation! While you're gone, I'll try to come back to your site here so as to catch up on some of your articles which I haven't yet had time to read thoroughly. Maybe I'll print them out and study them as opportunity allows. I can't always be sitting in front of a computer monitor.
My point was that in combating the Islamic threat, it may be enough for some people that Islam is not Christianity but I hope that’s not the reason (I know it is not in your case.)
We need a further reason: Islam is a political ideology that is deeply and inherently hostile to universal liberty. That’s a reason everyone can understand with or without a particular religion.
I think I didn’t explain myself correctly in the previous comment. I believe we shouldn’t approach this from a sectarian point a view. I think we should celebrate how contemporary Christianity and Judaism have embraced our common cause – individual liberty – seamlessly, vigorously (remembering the anti-slave movements?), and steadfastly. What more could one ask?
My question is: Does our Hellenic heritage give us something indispensable that religion doesn’t provide? I think it does. I think that is what Aquinas helped re-introduce in the West in an effective manner while the East languished.
Now, a religious person implicitly asks a non-believer the converse: is the human mind enough or do we need more? For example Aquinas started his Summa Theologica with the question: is philosophy enough? Obviously that’s an important question and one that is enjoyable to discuss. And it is natural that the devout should be passionate about their belief that religion is crucial. Let me respect that devotion.
Thanks, AOW, always insightful thoughts and questions.
Jason,
Islam is a political ideology that is deeply and inherently hostile to universal liberty. That’s a reason everyone can understand with or without a particular religion.
You know how much I agree!
In some ways, I'm a frustrated Christian. I find some of my fellow-believers reticent to look at ideologies objectively. More than that, some of my fellow-believers are poorly read. Others refuse to worry or to take action because The Rapture will save them. Danger! Narrow thinking!
I believe that no human completely understands God's plan for "the latter days." I work on to try to save my culture and the freedoms which my God has graciously given me. When I see an enemy, I stand up against him. To do otherwise would be sinful.
Obviously, my upbringing was one of education and of the importance of scholarly research.
Caroline,
I want to respond, but it's getting late. I have to work tomorrow. I'll get back here in the next few days.
My orientation is Christian Protestant, and we may have some interesting insights to share.
Caroline,
Preface: Don't be put off if I sound dogmatic with the following comment. I defend your right to whatever you believe as long as your belief allows me to have my own belief. I am NOT trying to convert you to Christianity.
My Christian beliefs are very basic. First, I believe that each of us has a God-given soul. Since He gave each of us a soul, we naturally have a desire to find something outside ourselves which is better than ourselves. Most find that something in religion; others find it in reason or in science. As I've already said, I have found my something in Christianity.
I believe that you recognize Islam as evil because your soul, God-given, allows you to see that reality. Your searching through Zen Buddhism (Do I have that term correct?) stems from a soul which is searching.
Now, if that soul is corrupted by the desire for power over one's fellow man (power which is physical and/or spiritual), we have a corruption which leads to an unquenchable desire for domination. The my-way-or-the-highway thinking, whatever its origin, is deadly and totalitarian. That type of thinking is shared by Islam, Communism, Nazism, etc.--and, yes, by religions as well. The difference between Islam and Christianity is this: from the get-go, Islam was all about the power, in some respect the power of acquiring real estate; MTP unified the tribes through Islam and send them forward on their never-ending militancy.
Christianity wasn't ever all about the real-estate (In Jesus's words, "My kingdom is not of this world"), but it became so for a period of time. When feudalism fell and the individuality (personal faith) inherent in Protestantism arose, Christianity became, by and large, a faith as opposed to a geopolitical ideology. Thus, Protestantism (greatly influenced by the Englightenment and the Renaissance, both of which led the way to literacy and critical thinking) led the way, albeit with some steps backwards when that my-way-or-the-highway thinking became civilly entwined with theology, to the concept of individual freedoms.
BTW, I see all totalitarian ideologies as Satanic in origin; there's my Christianity again. I see Islam as particularly Satanic because the voice of an angel came from his mouth. My religion teaches that only the supernatural voice of demons can come from a human being's mouth. [Other interpretations of that voice are possible--lying, sleep paralysis, whatever]
Despite my conviction as to the literally Satanic origins of Islam, I try to educate myself so as to put forth a reasoned argument, secular or theological, in order to convince people of the danger we have among us.
You said As much as I admire Jason's optimism that our comon defense of individual liberty should be sufficient to mount a defense against the jihad (to avoid a religious battle), I'm a bit pessimistic that it will be sufficient. Yes, in many ways the fight against Islam is a religious battle; Islam is the basis of Islamism. But this century's thinking will not allow for another religious war if the West takes such a position. Also, we risk losing the secularists when we label the battle religious.
I am a pretty devout Christian, but I count Jason as my friend in this conflict of cultures, and I will never turn on him because he lacks personal faith. His knowledge helps me to understand inherent dangers which I might have overlooked had I only approached Islam from the Christian point of view. I am so grateful for what Jason says on this site, and his words help me to clarify what's rolling around in my own mind. I'll so even further: As a Christian, I believe that the Lord brought me here to this site. Maybe I sound wacko, but that's what I believe (I won't go into the path which led me here, but it is quite a story) Admittedly, some of my Christian friends don't understand my position, but they can engage in this conflict on whatever level they understand.
BTW, I am not much on ritual, except as an adjunct to personal faith. Ritual didn't bring me to the Lord; the Holy Spirit did and, afterwards, I was able to appreciate ritual. I don't need that ritual to practice my faith. In fact, I see ritual as inherently dangerous because of the potential for establishing a cult leader.
Now, do I believe that Christianity is the only path to the true God and to eternal life? Yes, I do, but because I didn't invent Christianity and because I know it as my personal faith only because the Holy Spirit drew me (In an earlier post, I already said that I don't think any denomination has Christianity quite right because God's mind is too complex for humans to fathom), I have no right to condemn anyone else or to interfere with, except by giving testimony, another person's spiritual matters. And when any religion or ideology starts telling me that I can't be a Christian, I will fight to maintain my right or to regain my right.
The Thirteen Original Colonies were first fighting for civil rights. After those were gained, they realized that religion, as in a government-established one, had the potential to interfere with those rights. Of course, each colony had different founding origins, and some of those were through different religious affiliations (Puritan, Quaker, Baptist), and some colonies were founded without any religious affiliation.
Factoid: Even though Massachusetts Bay was Puritan and not open to religious freedom as such, there came a time (1641) when Puritan John Winthrop, first governor of the colony, was voted out of office on the grounds that he declared his authority to rule was one in accordance with the Bible. (Do you see a smilarity to Islam here about religious authority to rule?); those narrow-minded Puritans opened up their minds and established the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which limited and defined the powers of government without reference to any religion. What started as a move to the New World for religious liberty evolved into increasing emphasis on individual liberty! [Information from The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]
Anyway, the above, combined with my previous comments, is something for you to mull over and may help you to understand where I stand.
PS: God will, one day, defeat Islam on a spiritual level. It's my job as a responsible Christian citizen (I find the basis for citizenship in my Bible; others find their elsewhere, and the source very much matters!) to fight evil in this world, particularly within the boundaries of my own country. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to make sure that the rule of civil law predominates. [Damn that recognize-Ramadan bill in Congress! I don't want a Christian one either, for that matter. This nation is not a theocracy!] Islamism allows only for the rule of Koranic law.
PPS: There is some good info about Islam over @
www.TheTruthProject.blogspot.com
It's an all-inclusive site: Christianity, Buddhism/Sikkhism, agnosticism, atheism; and the site is a work in progress. I also highly recommend Sixth Column, to which Jason has a link in the right sidebar.
Just a few quick thoughts:
1. Sufism isn't really innocuous, but it is the least militant sect. Mysticism within organized religion usually has little impact on the total religion. Personally, I see Sufism as an attempt to modify Islam into something acceptable. Yet even in Sufism, anti-Semitism is inherent because one cannot escape those Jew-hating verses in the Koran. Maybe Jason will address the matter of Sufism; he knows more than I.
2. Certain groupgs of Christians, particularly the evangelicals, don't buy into the concept of moral relativism; other Christians, those of the inter-faith variety, do, however. Also, some non-Christians don't buy into moral relativism, for different reasons--usually because they value individual freedoms, but individual freedoms reined in by the rule of civil law. Moral relativism does not recognize evil.
3. For Christians, God alone is sovereign. Any being, human or angel (Lucifer), who tries to usurp God's authority is evil. Sin can be defined as lack of recognition of God's sovereignty. Man loves to elevate himself, and from such comes the sinful state, lack of submission to the will of God. Yes, one could say the matter is one of ego if one wanted to speak in terms which are not specifically Christian.
4. As long as all Muslims in a given area worship in the same mosque, the radicals can predominate. The few extremists can dominate the others, the ones who are lazy about their faith or who have rationalized their faith into something it was never intended to be. Problem is, the Koran itself and Mohammed himself were radicals, so when those searching for that something I've mentioned come into contact with something which seems of God, they grab on. I believe that jihad is the face of the original Islam. The leader of a faith tells us much about the original intentions thereof? What were Mohammed's intentions? That Islam dominate the world, by the sword. Such were not the intentions of Jesus, as I've explained.
Bothersome: OBL and the jihadists seem to be at peace with themselves. I think I know why. See
http://alwaysonwatch.blogspot.com/
2005/07/sleeper-cells-may-not-be-problem.html
A friend of mine wrote this one and I posted it @
http://alwaysonwatch.blogspot.com/
2005/08/did-you-know.html
I have a busy week, but will try to get back here to chat with you.
PS: I've been researching Islam since 9/12/01. I just had to know why the 9/11 jihadists did what they did. I didn't want to believe what I was finding out. I fought against it. I still hesitate to say some things as strongly as I should. But researching and personally visiting all three 9/11 sites helped me to understand. I can't explain exactly why, other than to say the Holy Spirit drew me into this and opened my eyes. Then I had a serious car accident in May of this year and was tied down to the computer because I couldn't do much else. The first truth-about-Islam blog I found was this one, when Jason commented over at Jihad Watch. And here I am! As a Christian, I don't take the credit, of course.
We all come to our realization of truth in our own way, don't we? And it took me over three years of research until I felt able to talk coherently about what I had learned. You are way ahead of me on the personal timeline of knowledge!
<< Home