Friday, July 27, 2007

Vatican warns of ‘the Islamisation of Europe’

Cranmer is grateful to his communicant Mr Voyager for bringing to his attention the fact that Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, private secretary to Pope Benedict XVI, has issued a stark warning over the danger of the ‘Islamisation of Europe’. His status in the Holy See and proximity to the Bishop of Rome inclines Cranmer to believe that he speaks with the full authority of His Holiness, and that his message is fully sanctioned by the man who, after Regensburg, can no longer voice such concerns in public. This comment is aimed at western governments, who are tending to capitulate entirely to accommodate Islam at whatever cost to their Christian heritage.

But the theme is clearly Benedict’s, and concerns the desperate need for Europe to rediscover its ‘Christian roots’ as the only bulwark against ‘attempts to Islamise the West’. In defending the Pope’s Regensburg address, Mgr Gaenswein says: ‘The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness’. Regensburg, he insists, was an attempt to ‘act against a certain naivety’, observing the increasing reluctance (BBC, take note) to juxtapose Islam and violence, when they are quite plainly linked in both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus does the Monsignor speak of Islam as ‘not being a single force but a religion of extremes’, with extremists who ‘turn to rifles for their goals’.

You see, Islamists do not need to constitute a majority in any country; they simply have to possess bombs and guns, and be dedicated to ‘jihad’. If Ulster is anything to go by (or South Africa, or Israel), such a strategy will eventually lead to participation in government and the fulfilment of one’s religio-political objectives.

Of course, one needs a pope like Benedict to make such points, especially when archbishops like Rowan are still on ‘study leave’, but there is an inescapable tension for the Roman Catholic Church in the articulation of such views.

It was not so long ago that Roman Catholics were the demonised minority religion in England, and suffered as a consequence of their religio-political convictions. Jews, of course, have suffered similarly for centuries. Talk of an Islamic take-over of Europe is a precursor to hysteria, which, if left unchallenged, leads at best to alienation or stigmatisation, or, at worst, to the abhorrent persecution and genocidal tendencies associated with fascism.

And it is not as if Islam, unlike Roman Catholicism, has a single leader under whose unified authority the worldwide brotherhood sits. Islam is divided and disparate; it is secular and religious; it is obsessive and indifferent. But it is unified in its cult, and the object of its reverence is Mohammed. And it is the imitation of his 7th-century exploits which constitutes either the ‘extremism’ or ‘devotion’.

But speaking as one who suffered directly at the hands of Roman Catholic extremists, Cranmer would remind the Pope of Rome that his predecessors were once quite happy to burn people who did not toe the party line, and wage 'holy war' against the infidel. Islam is now where Rome was until just four centuries ago, and since Islam is about four centuries younger than Roman Catholicism, a little more understanding of the struggles and traumas intrinsic to the process of reformation might be in order.

16 Comments:

Anonymous dafydd said...

"Cranmer would remind the Pope of Rome that his predecessors were once quite happy to burn people who did not toe the party line"

Ahem - as indeed was your Grace.

27 July 2007 at 10:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

To add the exact words in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung Magazine

Alle seine wichtigen Texte schreibt der Papst selbst, auch die Rede von Regensburg mit dem umstrittenen Zitat aus einem historischen Buch über einen Disput mit den Muslimen. Warum hat den Text niemand gegengelesen?
Ich halte die Regensburger Rede, so wie sie gehalten wurde, für prophetisch.

War das Erschrecken groß, als die wütenden Attacken aus der islamischen Welt bekannt wurden?
Dass es einige grobe Reaktionen gab, hörten wir erstmals nach der Rückkehr aus Bayern am Flughafen in Rom. Es war eine große Ãœberraschung, auch seitens des Papstes. Der mächtige Wirbel war zunächst durch Zeitungsberichte entstanden, die ein bestimmtes Zitat aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen und als des Papstes persönliche Meinung dargestellt hatten.

Im real existierenden Islam, also überall dort, wo diese Religion Staat und Gesellschaft beherrscht, werden Menschenrechte mit Füßen getreten. Die Verfolgung von Christen hat dramatisch zugenommen. Und der Präsident der islamischen Republik Iran hat gerade wieder erklärt, der Countdown für die Zerstörung Israels habe begonnen. Ist die Vorstellung von einem echten Dialog mit dem Islam nicht allzu naiv?
Die Islamierungsversuche im Westen sind nicht wegzureden. Und die damit verbundene Gefahr für die Identität Europas darf nicht aus falsch verstandener Rücksicht ignoriert werden. Die katholische Seite sieht das sehr klar und sagt es auch. Gerade die Regensburger Rede sollte einer bestimmten Blauäugigkeit entgegenwirken. Festzuhalten ist, dass es den Islam nicht gibt, und er kennt auch keine alle Muslime verpflichtend-bindende Stimme. Unter dem Begriff versammeln sich viele, unterschiedliche, teils untereinander verfeindete Strömungen, bis hin zu Extremisten, die sich bei ihrem Tun auf den Koran berufen und mit dem Gewehr zu Werke gehen. Auf institutioneller Ebene versucht der Heilige Stuhl, durch den Päpstlichen Rat für den interreligiösen Dialog Kontakte zu knüpfen und Gespräche zu führen.


SZ






8

27 July 2007 at 11:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

A short translation:


Q. The Pope writes all his own speeches including the Regensburg Speech which so upset Muslims. why did noone review the text ?

A. I consider the Regensburg Speech as delivered for prophetic.


Q. Was the vehemence of the Muslim counterblast a great shock ?

A. That there was any reaction first became known when we arrived at the airport in Rome. It was a great surprise even to the Pope. The situation was inflamed by newspapers which plucked a quotation from The Pope's Speech and portrayed it as if these were his own words.



Q. In Real-Existing Islam (NB. Real-Existing Socialism was the term used for the GDR) that is everywhere that Islam dominates State and Religion human rights are brutally crushed. The persecution of Christians has increased dramatically. and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran has recently repeated that the countdown to the destruction of the State of Israel has commenced. Is the notion of a worthwhile dialogue with Islam simply naïve ?


A. The attempted Islamicisation of The West cannot be denied. And the danger to European Identity cannot be downplayed for reasons of sensitivity. The Roman Catholic side sees the danger and states it publicly. The Regensburg Speech should serve as a warning against naivety. The one thing to bear in mind is that there is no one Islam that binds all Muslims to the same path. It encompasses many different strands antagonistic towards one another right up to the violent extremists who enforce their view of the Koran with guns. On an institutional level The Papacy attempts to conduct a dialogue through the Papal Council for Inter-Faith Dialogue.

27 July 2007 at 12:09  
Anonymous The recusant said...

I was gripped by your commentary up to the fishing expedition in the last paragraph, Your Grace will have your joke, I hope you catch one or two. On the European field it does appear the French Nicolas Sarkozy along with the Poland twins have heard Monsignor Gaenswein’s warning. It is telling that this article appeared in the Sueddeutsche Magazin the Telegraph, Scotsman and Jerusalem post have reported on it but the BBC’s silence is deafening.

27 July 2007 at 12:47  
Blogger Ian Hall said...

Dafydd ,
The scale of Popery's slaughter of Protestants was far in excess of anything that may attributed to His Grace.
www.protestant-gazette.blogspot.com

27 July 2007 at 14:12  
Anonymous Observer said...

Yes but those of us facing the future have no wish to suffer the fate of our forefathers.....forewarned if forearmed as they say...Europeans have a terrible track record on plunging into disaster

We have the President of France offering nuclear technology to Libya and proclaiming the right of Arabs to have (French) nuclear technology....perhaps the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle too when he gets round to it

27 July 2007 at 16:03  
Blogger Jomo said...

Do we have the time to wait for change? Is a transformation of jihadists into ecumenical partners likely in the next fifty years?

Jihad again poses a direct threat to the whole of Western Christendom. I not sure it is helpful to roll out the sectarian grievances of the past.

There has been a largely naive response by the British government to deal with the threat. Blair thought he could talk them round and Brown appears to think a change in the language used to describe the threat will make it disappear.

The Country was lucky a few weeks ago. The response since has been inadequate.What will it take for the government to wake up

27 July 2007 at 16:49  
Anonymous dafydd said...

Beside the point, Mr Hall, whether true or not.

27 July 2007 at 18:43  
Anonymous dafydd said...

What is more his Grace was involved in the excutions of protestants as well as papists.

27 July 2007 at 18:45  
Anonymous najistani said...

As the Pope implied in his Regensberg address, viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter.

Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!

And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.

To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.

If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.

This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.

Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:

- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.

- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.

- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.

- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.

- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.

- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.

Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.

Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.

The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.

- Najistani

28 July 2007 at 00:40  
Anonymous najistani said...

Ooops! 0/10 for spelling. I meant 'Regensburg address'

28 July 2007 at 00:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.bartleby.com/103/91.html

29 July 2007 at 10:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the story so far.

The Euro left, especially the French for historical reasons have always hated the church, The reason they have always hated it is that it represents (or they see it as representing) Conservatism, as opposed to their "progressive" ideals.

So they know that they cannot say this as it would enrage most Europeans, so the Euro elites, do what they always do, they seem to embrace it, offering it influence but on the sly side opening up Europe's borders to build alternative communities to counter that influence, diluting the mix if you will.

The Catholic church goes along with this, as it sees in the European political project as a way to protect and project its influence and power, after all its much easier doing business with just a few people at the top of the EU tree than lots of elites scattered about the place, Multi-nationals think in exactly the same way.

Slowly over time, the governments of Europe with the EU cheer leading introduce social reforms that cut the churches legs from under it, finally resulting in the Euro constitution's exclusion to the dismay of Rome, in the pre amble affirming Europe's Christian heritage.

The penny drops and Rome finally sees that it has been in a deadly embrace with the political European project, of course it does not want to admit this, who does admit their failings of policy, they are to some extend politicians too, and they are now very wary of the power of political Europe, the advantage is now with the EU and its elites, just as they now have the whip hand over their electorates regardless of what they think too!

The lessons of history is very simple, you centralise power in any form then that power will grow into an empire of its own and will seek out rivals in order to destroy them to protect its own power base, be it the vilification of "crazy Euro skeptics", or the undermining of the Church, and so too the rabid anti-Americanism you see in the European media, different tactics but the same desired effect, its not a conspiracy theory, its the result of the underlying philosophies that hold the EU's political project together, BUT the sting is in the tail, they have let in a bigger monster, a religion with imperialist visions and ambitions of its own, a real rival for their power, as they say the best way to defeat your enemy is not to kill them but to out breed them, and if you think this is mad, then spend a little time watching the Arabic satellite news stations, some days the Islamisation of Europe is all they talk about.

29 July 2007 at 21:13  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Most of the bureaucracy of the EU is francophone. The structures of the EU Directorates are French in orientation and design. It is hardly surprising that in operational terms it replicates French ideology

29 July 2007 at 22:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islamification of Europe.

http://bfbwwiii.blogspot.com/2007/10/frankfurt-subversion.html

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/10/3/3269034.html

31 October 2007 at 00:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

our Followers must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

In addition I undretstand MI5 says they are tracking around 2000 Potential Terrorists. but they cannot pick them up because they havent done anything (yet)


But you can all rest easy, I understand there are going to be heavier penalties for speeding.




but yo can all rest easy

10 November 2007 at 06:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older