Monday, July 24, 2006

The Vatican confronts Islam

The Roman Catholic Church has confronted the threat of Islamofascism head on. Monsignor Velasio de Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, has effectively ditched the teaching of Jesus by declaring: ‘Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves.’ The Vatican is, of course, no stranger to the convenient rejection of scriptural commands when it suits it, but de Paolis is simply voicing what many are thinking: ‘The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century … and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.’ It is time for the Church to speak up and defend its own; time to confront the enemies of Christ with something other than quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement.

There are some 40 million Christians living in countries dominated by Islam. They have dwindling rights, face daily persecution (even death), and suffer economic decline. The Vatican has observed that they are simply second-class citizens, discriminated against in education, employment, and the courts. As a result, millions are fleeing their ancestral lands, and the number of Christians in Muslim countries is in free-fall. For the first time since the Early Church, neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem have Christian majorities.

There is no reciprocity between the two traditions. While Muslims can build mosques, proselytise, and worship freely in the Western world, such rights are not granted to Christians in the Islamic world, and consequently Islam is winning in the West. Pope Benedict XVI has articulated the crucial difference between the Judeo-Christian tradition and that of Islam: For Jews and Christians, ‘God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world.’ Jews and Christians can therefore take what is good in their cultures and traditions, and the teachings of the Torah, Prophets, and the New Testament can be adapted and applied to new situations. The Qur’an, however, is something that ‘dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied.’ This immutability is the problem, because ‘Islam is stuck…with a text that cannot be adapted.’ It is a 7th-century religion with a 7th-century mentality, and we may be waiting centuries for adaptation and accommodation... We all remember what upheavals the Church had to endure before it reached reformation, and engaged with enlightenment.


Blogger wrinkled weasel said...

In my 30 or so years of being a Christian I have seen common perception of my faith, in this country, range from derision to indifference, but now it has geared up a notch. We now seem to be in the realm of open hostility.

Archbishop Cranmer is right to cite the lack of reciprocity regarding Islam on its own turf, but surely we as Christians are being traduced here, by the evidently one-sided and absurd stance of the pc liberal elite, who, not content to denigrate Christians at every turn, are willing to openly support militant Islam in the name of "multiculturalism".

I was disappointed to read the article about the GPa's "In the name of the father" campaign. This only serves to show how far the pendulum has swung.

It is time to fight back. "Enough with turning the other cheek." Indeed.

25 July 2006 at 00:18  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I am not one to praise Rome, but on this occasion I shall. By declaring enough is enough, they have voiced the thoughts of the Christian community worldwide, and in the UK in particular. Multiculturalism has become the means by which Militant Islam has undermined the foundations of culture and faith in the UK, aided and abetted by the Government. What has the Church of England said? Who has heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I never thought I'd say this, but (on this issues at least) thank God for Rome!

25 July 2006 at 08:10  
Anonymous Rick said...

I have never understood why Christians have been so weak in defence of their faith. Jesus Christ has been rendered a product of 4 Gospels but if so he is not The Messiah spoken of in Isaiah.

The basis of Christian Faith is that Jesus emerged from The Old Testament and was a Jew not a Roman, nor a Greek, but a Jew brought up to be Torah-observant - were he not he would have posed no threat to The Temple nor would he have been credible to The Pharisees.

Christians should not be "all things to all men" they were intended to be The Elect on Judgment Day not the doormats saying "Welcome" upon which others might wipe their feet

25 July 2006 at 08:50  
Anonymous billy said...

We Christians have turned the other cheek and had it smitten. It is time to fight back.

25 July 2006 at 09:02  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Cranmer this is so wrong, and some of these posts are just completely unbiblical. Jesus didn't say 'turn the other cheek except for the Romans', or 'turn the other cheek unless it's a Pharisee, in which case you can hit them back'. He told his disciples to turn the other cheek, to be humble, to be loving, to take the moral high ground, if you like. Just hitting Islam back reduces Christianity to the level of Islam. How can that be a good example?

25 July 2006 at 09:03  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

In the Christian West we have a false view of Jesus as a man in a white nightdress who doesn't bother to shave of get his hair cut, who wanders about mouthing platitudes about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.

It is one thing to be winsome to win some converts, but when confronting evil (like the hypocritical Pharisees, or Herod, or those using the Court of the Gentiles for profiteering) Jesus uses strong language and even violence. Islam is a manifest evil in the world and does not require a milksop response.

25 July 2006 at 09:05  
Blogger Croydonian said...

My very favourite Islamic 'argument' is that Christians etc should not be allowed into Arabia as the entire peninsula is the equivalent of a church.

25 July 2006 at 09:07  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Terry Hamblin,

You are most welcome to Cranmer's blog, and thank you for your contribution.

Cranmer agrees - people appear to ignore Jesus' violent outburst, or his insult-hurling. Clearly, in order to communicate incisively, Jesus did not always 'turn the other cheek'; he confronted head on. Of course, he paid the price. And so did I. Is it that there are now too few Christians willing to take up their cross?

25 July 2006 at 09:20  
Anonymous Old Red Socks said...


Just a thought. Do you and Sir Thomas More, an earlier martyr, who has most assuredly long pardoned your esteemed self, ever converse on what might have been; and more important, what should be done now?

25 July 2006 at 11:15  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Old Red Socks,

Our paths do occasionally cross. But if you could refer me to anything written by the former Lord Chancellor that indicates anything along the lines of a 'pardon' for what his lot did to me, I would be most interested to hear of it. I remain, as far as I am aware, a 'heretic'.

25 July 2006 at 11:32  
Anonymous Rick said...

One of course assumes that Sir Thomas More has received full redemption for his own sins which were many.

25 July 2006 at 11:53  
Anonymous old red socks said...

Your Grace,

But for a short period didn't you renounce your heresy, only to resume it when, um, the heat was on?

But enough of such persiflage. I admire this place, and warmly (sic) associate myself with most of the judicious sentiments found herein. My joy is all the more unconfined on those occasions when you find yourself in accord with the Bishop of Rome.

(I suspect you would view a 'smiley' as hideously vulgar)

25 July 2006 at 11:58  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rick,

Indeed the sins of the former Lord Chancellor were many (as they are of the present one...). Curiously, only last week I was reading a biography of Chancellor More - the section dealing with the torture chamber he possessed in his own cellar, for the sole purpose of 'persuading heretics'. Still, the hagiographical 'A Man for All Seasons' made the man a saint, and I sadly have had no such film account of my life (see my profile).

Mr Old Red Socks,

But for a short period didn't you renounce your heresy, only to resume it when, um, the heat was on?

I remember it well... as if it were yesterday. The heat wasn't quite on at the point I made my unequivocal statement. More's lot tried to trick me. I agreed with very much of their reasoning, but (ultimately) I was double-crossed. It was at my trial (not the stake) that I therefore declared: 'And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefor; for, may I come to the fire, it shall first be burned; and as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy, and Antichrist, with all his false doctrines.'

On uttering this, I was pulled down from the stage and led to the fire. But don't worry. I am now back. (A smiley face here and elsewhere would indeed be vulgar).

25 July 2006 at 13:32  
Anonymous Rick said...

Indeed the sins of the former Lord Chancellor were many (as they are of the present one..

As I recall, until the Great Henry remodelled the Church in England, the Lord Chancellor, his closest adviser was a Man of The Church.............thereafter he was a Man of The Law ( a secular religion)

25 July 2006 at 14:14  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Can I take it that the brutal way you were put to death combined with your non physical existence has lessened your appetite for a good Bef steak cooked over charcoal ?

25 July 2006 at 14:43  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Here lies the conundrum at the heart of Christianity. The Old Testament gives us "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth ..." (Exod. 21:24); but Jesus is reported as saying (Matt. 5:38-9) "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Those who wish to think of themselves as Christians cannot pick and choose what to observe from the precepts in the Sermon on the Mount. A "military chaplain" is a contradiction in terms.

I have no argument with one who wants to defend himself against barbarians who'd murder his children and steal his resources: but he can't then also claim to be a Christian.

Nobody ever claimed Christianity was an easy spoke to follow to the hub. Me, I prefer Buddhism. That philosophy produces fewer casualties.

25 July 2006 at 15:46  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Nope, there's a place for a Just War in Buddhism just as there is in Christianity. In fact, war can be a fulfilment of karma, and therefore acceptable.

I agree with you about a la carte picking and choosing scriptures to suit your taste. The Catholic church is wrong to say it's time to stop turning the other cheek, but as Cranmer says, they've even changed the 10 Commandments, so they're not strangers to it!

25 July 2006 at 16:11  
Anonymous Rick said...

A "military chaplain" is a contradiction in terms.

and I think former soldiers make the best priests - they have exposure to life rather than theory

25 July 2006 at 16:22  
Anonymous Rick said...

The idea of God's Kingdom is found predominantly in the New Testament, specifically the Synoptic Gospels. The kingdom is a spiritual kingdom [10] that is entered through understanding [11], acceptance with humility [12], spiritual rebirth [13], and doing the will of God [14]. It is a kingdom peopled by the righteous [15] and stands in stark contrast to the only other kingdom available to people: the kingdom of earthly things or Satan [16].

The Kingdom of God is a term used interchangeably with Kingdom of Heaven in the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew usually uses the term "Kingdom of Heaven", while Luke and Mark use "Kingdom of God". The standard explanation for this is that Matthew's Gospel was addressed to a Jewish audience who would avoid the direct use of the name of God. Mark and Luke addressed their gospels to a more general audience who would be unfamiliar with the term "Kingdom of Heaven".

in stark contrast to the only other kingdom available to people: the kingdom of earthly things or Satan

Satan you fight

25 July 2006 at 16:28  
Anonymous Rick said...

To pursue this point by reference to Judaism, the religion of Jesus of Nazareth:

Another saying of Jesus on which his supposed pacifism is based is found in Matthew 5:39a. It is usually translated, “Do not resist evil,” or “Do not resist one who is evil.” However, when Jesus’ saying is translated back into Hebrew, it is seen to be a quotation of a well-known Hebrew proverb that appears with slight variations in Psalms 37:1, 8 and Proverbs 24:19.7

This Hebrew maxim is usually translated, “Do not fret because of evildoers,” or “Do not be vexed by evildoers.” Bible translators apparently have supposed from the contexts of this maxim in Psalm 37 and Proverbs 24, which emphasize that evildoers will be destroyed, that the righteous should not be concerned about evildoers or pay them any attention. This supposition is strengthened by the second half of Psalms 37:1 that, as it is usually translated, advises that one should not be envious of such evildoers. It thus appears that the verb translated “fret” or “be vexed” is correctly translated. However, elsewhere in the Bible this verb always seems to have some sense of the meaning “anger.”8 Furthermore, the two parallels to this verb in Psalms 37:8, both synonyms for anger, suggest that the verb in Matthew 5 must also have that meaning.

The verb in question is from the root h-r-h, whose basic meaning is “burn.” From this root meaning is derived “anger,” a sense that all Hebrew words from this root have in common. (Note that in English also, many verbs expressing anger have something to do with fire or burning — be hot, burn, boil, flare up.) In some occurrences of this root, anger is a result of jealousy or rivalry. Saul’s jealousy of David caused him to fly into a rage (1 Sam 20:7, 30). This nuance of h-r-h is also reflected in the use of “contend” in Isaiah 41:11: “Shamed and chagrined shall be all who contend with you” (JPS).

The particular form of the verb used in our proverb is a form for intensive action and thus expresses a passionate anger. This furious anger leads to a response in kind. Such anger results in a rivalry to see who can get the better of the other, and in each round of the competition the level of anger and violence rises. This amounts to responding to evil on its own terms, to competing in doing wrong with those who wrong us.

Do Not Try to Outdo Evildoers

The New English Bible’s translation of Psalms 37:1 and 37:8 is unique:

“Do not strive to outdo the evildoers or emulate those who do wrong. For like grass they soon wither and fade like the green of spring”; “Be angry no more, have done with wrath; strive not to outdo in evildoing.”

This seems to be the only version of the Bible that reflects the Hebrew “anger” verb’s nuance of rivalry or competition. Likewise, the Good News Bible is apparently the only translation of the New Testament that uses “revenge,” or anything similar, to render Matthew 5:38–39:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who does you wrong. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.

It is surprising there are not other versions that translate in the same way. Following “But I tell you,” the context demands “Do not take revenge,” since the first part of verse 39 speaks of “an eye for an eye,” in other words, punishment that is a response in kind.

In idiomatic English, Matthew 5:39a might read simply, “Don’t try to get even with evildoers.”9 Not “competing” with evildoers is very different from not resisting evildoers. Jesus was not teaching that one should submit to evil, but that one should not seek revenge. Jesus’ statement has nothing to do with confronting a murderer or facing an enemy on the field of battle. As Proverbs 24:29 says, “Do not say, ‘I will do to him as he has done to me. I will pay the man back for what he has done.’”

English mistranslation of Matthew 5:39a has created a theological contradiction, but when Jesus’ saying is correctly understood, it harmonizes beautifully with other New Testament passages:

See that none of you pays back evil with evil; instead, always try to do good to each other and to all people. (1 Thess 5:15)

Do not repay evil with evil or curses with curses, but with blessings. Bless in return — that is what you have been called to do — so that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Pet 3:9)

Bless those who persecute you. Bless them, do not curse them. Do not pay anyone back with evil for evil…. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with everyone. Beloved, do not take revenge, but leave that to the wrath of God. (Rom 12:14, 17–19)

Or, as Jesus commanded, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44). Our response to evil does have to be resistance — it is morally wrong to tolerate evil. However, we also must continue to show love for the evildoer.

It should be noted that loving and praying for one’s enemies in no way precludes defending oneself when one’s life is in danger. One is morally obligated to preserve life, including one’s own. Jesus never taught that it is wrong to defend oneself against life-threatening attack. However, he consistently taught his disciples to forgive and not to seek revenge against those who had insulted or wronged them. As Proverbs 20:22 counsels, “Do not say, ‘I will repay the evil deed in kind.’ Trust in the LORD. He will take care of it.” Our responsibility is not to respond in kind to offenses directed against us. That only prolongs and perpetuates the evil. We are not to “be overcome by evil,” but to “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21).

Not only does a pacifistic interpretation of Jesus’ sayings contradict many biblical passages, but pacifism was never a part of Jewish belief. According to Scripture, for example, a person who kills a housebreaker at night is not guilty of murder: “If a thief is seized while tunneling [to break into a house], and he is beaten to death, the person who killed him is not guilty of bloodshed” (Ex 22:2). The rationale is that the thief is ready to murder anyone who surprises him, thus one may preempt the thief.

The Jewish position on this issue is summed up in the rabbinic dictum, “If someone comes to murder you, anticipate him and kill him first.”10 The rabbis taught that if one is in danger of being murdered, he should defend himself, even if there is a measure of doubt about the intention of the attacker. Furthermore, if another person’s life is threatened, one is obligated to prevent that murder, if necessary by killing the attacker.11 The rabbis ruled that a person who is pursuing someone else with intent to murder may be killed.12 In light of this, it is very unlikely that Jesus, a Jew of the first century, would have espoused pacifism.

When we examine Jesus’ words from a Hebraic-Jewish perspective, we can see what has been obscured by mistranslation and lack of familiarity with Judaism. The passages construed to support pacifism actually condemn revenge rather than self-defense. It is not surprising that this interpretation is consistent with Jesus’ other teachings and the rest of biblical instruction.

25 July 2006 at 16:38  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Davidg --

I said that Buddhism produces fewer casualties. Zen scripture in particular is full of enlightened people who are angered by the failings of others.

Religion and politics make a highly combustible mixture, as His Grace is well aware. Hence the lively debate on this blog!

Apropos the Catholic Church: its hypocrisy is on a staggeringly monumental scale. Imagine what benefit just 5% of the Vatican's treasure could bring to the poor and dispossessed: such as the hordes of South American slum-children, living on refuse tips, whose parents were forbidden to use contraception. Should we even listen to anything coming out of the Vatican, never mind take any heed of it?

25 July 2006 at 17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine what benefit just 5% of the Vatican's treasure could bring to the poor and dispossessed

Yes if we sold off the National Gallery and The Tate we could fund a super feast in Africa.

If we socialised all the bank accounts in the United Kingdom and gave away the money to The Third World we could build Real Existing Socialism............

25 July 2006 at 19:24  
Anonymous Rick said...

Thomas Fuller, I thought you mike like John 12:

4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.[b]" 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

You spoke the words of Judas Iscariot

25 July 2006 at 19:32  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Anonymous -- I am not a socialist; far from it. I see the value of art galleries and support public patronage thereof. But I do not see the value of keeping vast sums of money under lock and key. Most of this treasure was bequeathed to the Catholic Church, presumably to do good. The rest has been earned through shrewd investment.

Rick -- I am not a thief or a Judas; you are being needlessly offensive. Can you please tell me what the Vatican wants all its moolah for?

25 July 2006 at 19:40  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rick,

Please keep the conversation intelligent and erudite. This is Cranmer's only rule.

For gratuitous insult-hurling, please migrate to any other political blog, where they fly liberally and passionately .

25 July 2006 at 19:53  
Anonymous Fr Tim said...

According to John Allen in his book, All The Pope’s Men, the reported wealth of the Vatican is, he writes, one of the top five myths about the Vatican. He rather usefully gives details about the Vatican’s wealth. It has, he writes, an annual operating budget of $260 million. To illustrate a comparison he tells us that the annual operating budget for Harvard University is $1.3 billion, which means that Harvard University could run the Vatican five times over. The so-called Vatican Bank has assets of $3.5 billion, but as with any bank, this money belongs to it’s depositors and is not the Pope’s to do with as he wishes. The works of art, writes Allen, are considered by the Vatican as part of the artistic heritage of the world and cannot therefore be sold or borrowed against. Whether that opinion is accepted or not, it means that the great works of art in the Vatican are, by and large, a drain on resources due to the costs or maintenance, restoration and preservation, to say nothing of security.

25 July 2006 at 20:24  
Anonymous Rick said...

Rick -- I am not a thief or a Judas; you are being needlessly offensive. Can you please tell me what the Vatican wants all its moolah for?

Never said you were "a thief or a Judas" merely that you uttered the words used by Judas Iscariot about valuing something purely in terms of money.

I consider St Peter's Rome to be a treasure rather than a building to be sold; I think culture and heritage is determined by more than money. Many of the great private libraries in England were sold to pay gambling debts in the Eighteenth Century; I prefer Oxford Colleges not to sell First Folios from Shakespeare or Newton's Principia Mathematica; nor do I expect Canterbury to sell off the Church Silver - enough was melted down to pay for The Civil War.

The greatest single cause of poverty is an excessive birth rate; England stabilised its population growth in the 19th Century and became an industrial power; Ireland did not and imported Colorado beetle and potato blight. Noone in England could afford the birth rate in Kosovo or Bosnia at 27/1000.

25 July 2006 at 20:45  
Anonymous Rick said...

Mr Rick,

Please keep the conversation intelligent and erudite. This is Cranmer's only rule.

Rule accepted.........and upheld.

25 July 2006 at 20:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's good of Fr Tom to plead poverty, but it's bollocks. Rome dreamed up the biggest money spinner in the history of the world - it sold salvation (and still does) through 'Indulgences'. It rakes in the mega-dollars from poor and rich alike. It's not only the Vatican art that's worth billions, it owns buildings, property, land all over the world. Vast acres in South America and Spain for example. Why not sell off great works of art? They would raise billions. What makes the Vatican the best custodian of these treasures? There are hundreds of philanthropic individuals and organisations who loan their precious works of art for the world to enjoy.

The VAtican should sell all it has and give it to the poor. That's what Jesus taught. It's not too much to expect the church to lead, or maybe it's just a false church that is more obsessed by mammon than it is by God.

25 July 2006 at 20:55  
Anonymous Fr Tim said...

I do not believe I pleaded poverty. To my mind I merely pointed out that the Vatican is not the as wealthy as people think it is. If you don't believe that then c'est la vie. And it's Tim, not Tom.

25 July 2006 at 21:03  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Rick -- Thanks for the clarification. My point is simply that Jesus said "sell what you have, and give to the poor". We are in full agreement about the birth-rate, and perhaps about much else besides.

Why should the Vatican run a bank? Does it have special terms for borrowers unobtainable in the free market? Can anyone enlighten me about how it deploys its money in a Christian way? And, Fr Tim, "Security" seems to belong very much to the notion of laying up treasure on Earth rather than in Heaven ...

25 July 2006 at 21:38  
Anonymous billy said...

"The VAtican should sell all it has and give it to the poor. That's what Jesus taught. It's not too much to expect the church to lead, or maybe it's just a false church that is more obsessed by mammon than it is by God."

Are you writing this as a good Catholic Anonymous, or is it that you feel you have a unique insight into Biblical teachings that allows you to dictate what others should do with their supposed wealth?
I haven't read the Good Book for many years but I'd bet that Jesus didn't mention the Vatican once. As far as I recall he told one wealthy young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Then he went into camels and needles in some depth. Did he say this was a blanket requirement for all rich folk wanting to get into Heaven? I think not. Think of the wealthy, paternalistic industrialists of the 19th century who did so much for the poor and dispossessed; they could not have done their worthy deeds by giving it all away.
You may, however, be correct in thinking it a false church, but I'm a Protestant so what do I know?

25 July 2006 at 21:44  
Anonymous Fr said...

Thomas, by security I was thinking more of protection of the great pieces of art, such as Michelangelo's Pieta which was attacked in 1972 by someone with a hammer who proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ.

Although the notion seems abhorrent to many, it should also be borne in mind that the Vatican is a sovereign state. It seems, to me at least, reasonable, then, that a sovereign state would have a bank of it's own.

25 July 2006 at 22:01  
Anonymous Rick said...

Why should the Vatican run a bank? Does it have special terms for borrowers unobtainable in the free market?

I suspect the Vatican Bank operates much the same as Metallbank did for Metallgesellschaft AG - it handles funding and currency transactions, bond issues, mortgages, leasing arrangements, taxes, payroll and share saves a great deal of money in bank fees.

I worked for a major PLC which ran its own treasury with its own dealing room, instead of paying bank fees - we also ran our own Corporate Finance Dept to save on M&A fees.

You can certainly keep Citicorp in clover by paying their charges, but sensible organisations run their own...............come to think of it companies like GE habe GE Capital and GM has GMAC and Ford has Ford Credit - all are huge banks..........VW has its own bank

25 July 2006 at 22:10  
Blogger Croydonian said...

One might note that GMAC and Ford Credit are the only things keeping those two behemoths afloat at the moment. Others exceeding even my levels of cynicism might wish to draw a parallel.

26 July 2006 at 00:03  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

yo "c"
credit is all that is keeping any of us afloat at the moment
our supposed wealth is an illusion, but I dare say that you know that.
Make sure that you at least have a shotgun , ammo and a water filter.

26 July 2006 at 01:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you expect reciprocity from Islam? Is it not wishful thinking? Worse, is it not delusional?

When, during the past 1400 years, has there ever been reciprocity shown towards Christians by Muslims? And please do not confuse those times and places where Christians were placed under the humiliating yoke of Dhimmitude.

Islam is an imperious faith, or more accurately a personality cult. What lies at its core is Arab supremicism, and it must expand aggressively in order to expropriate the wealth of others that it is incapable of creating for itself.

It is totalitarian, therefore reciprocity would be weakness, and the doubting of its own theology.

Too many contributors to these pages rush to offer limp-wristed explanations for Islam's behaviour and true motives. Their logic is: If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a pussy cat.

28 July 2006 at 07:10  
Anonymous Rick said... is Delusional. The West is consumed with Delusional Behaviour and has created every major conflict in the Twentieth Century by its Self-Delusion. It is the wishful thinking of the abused spouse.

28 July 2006 at 07:20  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

rick ... I was the 'anonymous' poster writing earlier about the lack of reciprocity by Islam.

How's this for western delusional behaviour, which has just been reported:


The Danish embassy in Lebanon was attacked in February by a Muslim mob enraged over the dreaded Mohammed cartoons of blasphemy.

And Ahmed Akkari, the Danish imam who toured the Middle East inciting Muslims against Denmark, has just been evacuated from Lebanon—by the SAME embassy he helped burn down !!!!

[there was a photo associated with this report, see:]

I take the view, this kind of nonsense happens when you internalize female values and emotions, as we (the western societies) have been doing very effectively since the early 1970s.

It's a bizzare form of compassion that one uses to reward those who seek your own violent destruction.

28 July 2006 at 11:34  
Anonymous Rick said...

Agreed. Time to read Christopher Lasch (

28 July 2006 at 11:57  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Interesting to observe that while the Turkish state is loathe to incur the wrath of the Vatican, Turkish Protestants are confronted by a veritable multitude of restrictions in the practice of their faith. Such restrictions if imposed on Muslims in any western country would result in...well, we all know what might ensue.

28 July 2006 at 14:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr GC,

Welcome back. Cranmer thought you had been away, though not in the sense of Mr Al-Amin's 'been away' (he appears to have been supplanted by even lower life).

Could you please be a little more specific on the restrictions imposed on Protestants in Turkey? You may email His Grace if you prefer.

28 July 2006 at 15:45  
Blogger Colin said...

I'm not sure if this is what GC had in mind when he wrote his contribution, but it seems to provide plenty of specific information.

28 July 2006 at 16:16  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Your Grace,
Forgive my recent non-appearance in these parts. It is good to be back...
Please peruse the following re: status of Protestants in Turkey (Many of the recent Progress Reports on Turkey's EU candidacy issued by the European Commission have similarly dealt with the question)-

29 July 2006 at 15:58  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Oh, and this is something that merits a view re:Turkish Protestants.

29 July 2006 at 20:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man this is ridiculous. When you say a muslim could build a mosque in the West is not because of the the BEAUTY of Christianity. Christian law does not even take part in politics. When Christian law WAS politics, not ONE heretic let alone a muslim was able to live. The middle ages were run by christian law, where did Europe EVER help muslims there.
Islam is at least honest, they say we don;t want Christianity in the Arabian peninsula, that's it...WHY OYU CRYING FOR. If Christian law ruled Europe then TALK but now it's democracy and that's the only time muslims were even able to live in Christians was DEMOCRACY not the Gospel.

4 April 2009 at 05:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older