Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, here's a question for you as an atheist.

The last two times the West had to stand up to Islamic expansionism, it was under the authority of the Christian Church that they were stopped and driven back.

Given that the West has now mostly abandoned our Christian heritage to secular humanism, do you believe we will have the courage, strength of will, and so forth that it will take to stop and drive back this new wave of Islamic expansion.

Posted by Astrosmith at July 26, 2006 12:14 PM

[Looking around...]

Nope. No atheists here. Skeptic, yes, but not atheist. I have no religious beliefs in the conventional sense.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 26, 2006 12:49 PM

Yet, there is no question in anyone's mind that they would never resort to such an option unless they were somehow faced with annihilation themselves.

Not that I agree with them, but for those who are upset about Israeli action and US inaction, I think there is a question in their mind as to what Israel would do if unconstrained by the US. I've read many who suggest Israel would annihiliate all Muslims if left unchecked by the UN and International community (unless you are an US Democrat - non Kosola drinker - then US policy holds them back as well).

That said, it is unfortunate not enough people recognize the point made in the third paragraph. I do believe there are few who doubt that radical muslims would wipe out all dissenters if they had the power to do so. Unfortunately, there are doubters, and their desire to ignore reality is disturbing.

Posted by Leland at July 26, 2006 01:05 PM

I'm a Christian, but I'll answer.

No, I don't think we have the "courage, strength of will and so forth" to confront Islamic Fascism. And it isn’t necessarily because of the ascendance of secular humanism, although that is a contributing factor (IMHO).

Western civilization has come to believe that humanity is by nature “good”. This belief leads people to think we can negotiate and come to a peaceful agreement with those who we have differences with, in ALL cases.

But Islamic Fascism, like any other form of fascism or dictatorial system, cannot be negotiated with in good faith because (in the words of Ronald Reagan) “they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime; to lie; to cheat.”

There are enough people (a group that includes, IMHO, most Europeans and American liberals) that believe Islamic Fascism can be confronted/contained/appeased through negotiation that they will hamper any efforts by others (Conservative Americans, Israel and a few Brits) to use other more aggressive methods to confront them.

The “less aggressive” methods of confrontation will fail if history is any guide (and I believe it is) and only serve to further embolden Islamic Fascists resulting in more attacks such as 9/11. And given the inevitable spread of nuclear technology and materials (along with chemical/biological warfare material) there will eventually be an attack (or more likely multiple attacks) that will dwarf 9/11. Only then will the West find the wherewithal to respond with anything near the “intensity” that is required by the threat Islamic Fascism represents.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 26, 2006 01:26 PM

I think it's a silly and historically muddled column. If by the "Great War" he means the conflict between Muslim and Christian starting with Muhammed, peaking with al Andalus, and terminating when the Turks were defeated in front of the gates of Vienna -- well, that was a pretty conventional conflict between states with armies and invasions and what-not.

I think there's very little comparison between modern Islamic terrorism and that ancient conflict. (Indeed, if there were, his last point would be totally wrong: the armies of the Prophet conquered quite a bit of the Christian world, and did not exterminate anyone. The conditions of the Jew or infidel under the Caliphs were arguably better than the conditions of the Protestant in Catholic Spain or France at the time.)

I suggest Islamic terrorists would kill every Jew more because they're terrorists than because they're Islamic. They'd exterminate every Christian or Westernized Arab if they could, too. That's because they're insane. I suppose it's fair to say that Islam is a religion that's easily adaptable to the insane viewpoint. But the border between religious fervor and raving madness has always been lightly guarded and easily crossed.

Posted by Carl Pham at July 26, 2006 02:21 PM

As is typical of WND, the piece is a mixture of the obvious and the superficial; having said that, I do agree that we are in a new phase of a very old conflict. To shamelessly quote myself from the fourth anniversary of 9/11:

... you'll have to read Chapter XII, "The Tottering World Balance, 1700-1850 AD," and in particular section C, "Moslem Catalepsy," of McNeill's The Rise of the West to appreciate the chain of causation --

"Nothing in the past had prepared the Moslem world for such disasters. Until the end of the seventeenth century, the age-long conflict between Islam and Christendom had generally tended to favor the Moslem cause. Nothing less could be expected by followers of Allah, whose Prophet had declared victory in battle against unbelievers to be clear and distinct evidence of divine favor. Therefore the abrupt reversal of the trend of history [near-simultaneous weakening of the Ottoman empire and collapse of the Mogul and Safavid empires -- JDM], setting in so unmistakably and massively with the beginning of the eighteenth century, presented Moslems with a desperate and insoluble puzzle. Had Allah deserted them? And if so, why? And no matter what the shortcomings of the community of the faithful might be, how was it conceivable that God should favor Christian dogs and unbelievers?"

-- and to reflect on what a nightmare it would be if the Wahhabi (among the sects which formed in reaction to those events) ever gained money and power. Well, welcome to the 21st century. And in that connection, I commend the latest Bill Tammeus column in the KCStar, Stanch one Saudi flow, which concludes:

"An accurate criticism of American foreign policy is that we haven’t finished the job in Afghanistan.

"But it’s also true that we never really started the job in Saudi Arabia — no, not of bombing and invading it, but of insisting that the Saudis own up to their festering pipelines of faith-based terrorism and stop the flow."

(I note that over in this Universe, the job is well under way.)

Posted by Jay Manifold at July 26, 2006 03:22 PM

Sorry for misunderstanding your atheist/agnostic/areligious status, then, Rand.

Posted by Astrosmith at July 26, 2006 04:27 PM

"The conditions of the Jew or infidel under the Caliphs were arguably better than the conditions of the Protestant in Catholic Spain or France at the time."

Unless you are referring to the historically dubious Ottoman caliphate, Carl, I think that you will find that the Caliphate died in the very year that Luther nailed his theses to the cathedral door at Wittenberg.

Moreover, it can certainty be asserted the position of the Huguenots under the Edict of Nantes was far better than that of the Ottoman millets.

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at July 26, 2006 04:38 PM

Carl Pham:
"But the border between religious fervor and raving madness has always been lightly guarded and easily crossed."

If only we could get the Israelis guarding THAT border.

Posted by W. Ian Blanton at July 26, 2006 07:09 PM

From my experience the culture of the region, (not just the Muslims), at both the personal and regional level, tends to one of continual challenging for dominance, continual trying to put one over other people. (In a zero sum game one gets ahead by stealing from one’s neighbour – a tendency to such behaviour has become culturally ingrained in this region.)

From the perspective of the West it is a bit like managing a dangerous dog, if the dog is not continuously told who is boss, then it will assume that the master is weak and challenge it. Hence the Arab world is instinctively compelled to challenge Israel every ten years, (after it has regained its strength), independent of the historical record. This type of culture instinctively thinks that if a dominant culture does not continually beat them up then it must be weak and therefore open to challenge.

They just do not get why many nations in the west and beyond no longer feel inclined to war and why the West is so insulted by being forced into such wars as to respond in an almost genocidal manner, (compelled by the Western desire for a permanent solution, again an objective that does not translate). The West lies to these people in that it feigns weakness, so as to invite attack, only to respond disproportionately with over whelming force and annihilation when it is attacked. This is not playing by the rules, it is dishonest, dishonourable and very confusing to such people. Not surprisingly this results in deep and ongoing resentment.

Perhaps the Arab world does need nuclear weapons – perhaps then they would get why war is no longer acceptable.

Posted by Pete Lynn at July 26, 2006 07:58 PM

Why is it assumed on the part of neo-con leaning people that it is necessary to be christian in order to fight off an enemy like islamofacism? Why do assume because we are a bunch of atheistic, libertarians that we do not have the will or the stomach to get rid of the islamofacist if they should present themselves as a problem for us?

I really would like an answer to this question.

Posted by Kurt at July 26, 2006 10:18 PM

Why is it assumed on the part of neo-con leaning people...

Why is it assumed that anyone in favor of fighting back against Islamists is a "neo-con." I wish that this term could be banished from the discourse, because it generally indicates a brain turned off.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 26, 2006 10:24 PM

Because the neo-cons are the most vocal advocates of it, although they are not the ONLY advocates of is. In any case, I would still like an answer to my question:

Why is it necessary for me to be christian in order to have the will to fight against an enemy such as "islamofacism"?

Posted by Kurt at July 26, 2006 11:12 PM

Because the neo-cons are the most vocal advocates...

You seem to have missed the point of my question. What is a "neo-con" and why do so many invoke it? I certainly don't consider myself one (but then, I eschew labels in general).

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 26, 2006 11:20 PM

Why do some people insist on tacking the prefix "neo" in front of conservative? Do they think it is an insult to call someone a latecomer to conservatism?

I am NOT a neo-con; I am a conservative, and have been for as long as I could form a politically oriented thought.

And Kurt it isn’t necessary for you to be Christian in order for you to have the will to fight, I don’t believe anyone said otherwise.

But you would have to admit that generally speaking if you divided the western world (or even just the US) into two camps, those in favor of strong willed action against Islamic Fascism and those opposed, there would be a higher percentage of atheists in the latter camp than in the former. Atheism is more a trait of liberals than of conservatives (again, generally speaking).

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 27, 2006 05:07 AM

> Why is it necessary for me to be christian in order to have the will to fight against an enemy such as "islamofacism"?

It isn't necessary. However, we still don't know if you're willing to fight against islamofascism.

The scare quotes suggest that you're not. Are you actually more concerned about christians, neo-cons, the jooos?

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 27, 2006 07:49 AM

That Book

you'll have to read Chapter XII, "The Tottering World Balance, 1700-1850 AD," and in particular section C, "Moslem Catalepsy," of McNeill's The Rise of the West to appreciate the chain of causation --

Ignores the almost complete destruction of the entire Moslem world east of the Euphrates in the late 1200's by Ghengis Khan's armies.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 27, 2006 08:19 AM

I think there's very little comparison between modern Islamic terrorism and that ancient conflict. (Indeed, if there were, his last point would be totally wrong: the armies of the Prophet conquered quite a bit of the Christian world, and did not exterminate anyone. The conditions of the Jew or infidel under the Caliphs were arguably better than the conditions of the Protestant in Catholic Spain or France at the time.)

**************

Then I guess that you never saw any of the reports from archelogical digs in Palestine and Egypt where entire cities were razed and the mass graves fround from the original conquest in the 600's. I guess you never heard of the Janasarries, which were the castrated sons of Christian's from Constantinople that were taken from their families and turned into the occupation forces in that region. I guess you have never traveled to Turkey and seen the ruins of the churches there, the churches that are now mosques, and that little year 1453 when all contact with China was severed due to the fall of that City and the ending of the spice road trade. Indeed America was found because the Venetian traders could no longer carry on trade with China directly and had to find a new pathway.

Read a little history.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at July 27, 2006 08:25 AM

Dennis - You are of course correct about Temujin (Genghis), but McNeill's point relates to the specific stimuli that led to the rise of the Wahabbi. And before anybody else says it: KHAAANNN!

Posted by Jay Manifold at July 27, 2006 09:57 AM

Andy, Perhaps I view "islamofacism" as a threat. Perhaps, I think it a boogieman that the christian right is throwing up to promote their domestic agenda that is not purely "classical liberalism". I actually have not made up my mind on this issue.

If the christian right wants to convince me that islam really is the threat to fight against and that we all need to work together, they should first start by anouncing that they will put their domestic agenda on the back burner until we have eliminated the islamofacist threat, even if this takes 50-100 years. By doing this, they are showing their sincerity in fighting "islamofacism". If not, we know they are simply the new Joe McCarthy. All hot air and no substance.

If islamofacism is a real threat, then I agree with you, it needs to be eliminated and I am more than willing to help accomplish this task (I actually have some ideas on how to do this - ideas based on biotechnology and neurobiology). However, I think the real root of the problem of tyranny and facism is the notion that the individual does not own his or her self. I believe that ANY belief system, ideology, or philosophy that refuses to recognize the principle of individual self-ownership has the potential to become a threat to liberty. As such, I think that ALL of these must be eliminated if we are to be truly free.

Posted by Kurt at July 27, 2006 11:14 PM

The reason why I think the christian right is way off base is bacause I think all of thier ranting and raving about "social decay" is pure myth. There is no reality to it. If our society is decaying, why is it we still continue to experience economic growth? Why does technological innovation continue in our country? If our country really was falling apart, the economy would be crashing, not growing. Technological innovation would slow and then stop. This is clearly not the case.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. It is considered the least "christian" part of the U.S. Yet, we have less crime and lots of technology companies here. The quality of life is generally better than the rest of the country.

Also consider East Asia. I lived in Japan and Taiwan for 10 years. Neither of these countries have many christians in them, yet they are successful, prosperous societies that are technolgically dynamic.

It would seem that christian belief system is not necessary for a prosperous dynamic society. Since it requires that I surrender my personal autonomy and does not offer me any tangible benefit in return, I see no reason why I should believe in it or lift a finger to protect it.

There are your average run-of-the-mill christians on the street. Most Americans are this. They believe in their religion, but have a "live and let live" attitude towards people like myself who want nothing to do with it. These people are perfectly fine and healthy. I have no beef with them. I believe the vast majority of muslims to be the same. I have no beef with them as well.

However, there are subsets in each of these groups. These people I call the "fundamentalist". My definition of a fundamentalist is someone who not only believes in a a particular religion, but actually believes that their religion has some kind of "jurisdictional rights" over other people who may or may not want anything to do with it. In other words, my definition of a fundamentalist is someone who does not have the "live and let live" mentality towards others. They do not accept the "cosmopolitan libertarianism" that is the defacto standard in modern society.
These are the people I consider to be a threat to liberty and need to be dealt with.

I consider such fundamentalism to be a form of mental illness. I believe that it can be cured.
I think that there are certain neurochemical and/or neurostructural characterisitics that make these people different from the rest of us. I that that an effective form of gene or nano therapy can be developed (some people call this "enhancement") to cure these people of this illness so that they can continue to live peacefully in a free society.

I believe that the positive future of the human race depends on developing the technology (biotech and nanotech) to effect such a cure. This is the true, cost effective solution to islamic fundamentalism. It would definitely be cheaper than the $500 billion (so far) that we have poured into that middle-eastern rat-hole.

Posted by Kurt at July 28, 2006 12:00 AM

Read a little history.

Oh I have. But, alas, people reading the same data are always able to come to remarkably differing conclusions about what it means.

For example, I'm unimpressed that cities were razed by the Muslims as part of the Muhammedan conquest. This was normal for the times. You have heard what the Romans did to Carthage, right? Or to Jerusalem after both Jewish revolts? Or the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople? Or the Greeks to Troy, for that matter? The armies of the Prophet were not unusually cruel by ancient standards.

Certainly I've heard of Janissaries. May I assume you also know who rowed Spanish galleys, and their typical fate? Is it the castration that wigs you out? You are aware that the Byzantines practised it, too, right? Or that the Holy Office did most unpleasant things to heretics? The administration of justice and retribution a thousand years ago tended to be a little...rough.

As for the destruction or neglect of churches in Asia Minor when the Turk took over -- sheesh, give me a break. This is hardly evidence of cultural cruelty on a grand scale, or that exceeds that of European cultures towards each other, let alone toward those for whom they felt contempt.

But do bear in mind I am not saying that the Arab conquest wasn't as cruel as any other ancient conflict. It was. It wasn't unusually cruel, however, or unusually contemptuous of the distinction between combatant and civilian (a distinction which, by the way, arguably didn't exist at all before the Middle Ages, and which has been set aside in modern times whenever necessary, e.g. by the Eighth Army Air Force over the Third Reich and B-san over Tokyo).

My main point is that the ancient conflict between Islam and Christianity was a conflict fought by organized states in the usual way of war, and has little in common with a modern news-media-centric mostly propaganda/psy-ops conflict between disorganized distributed groups of madmen claiming to represent the cutting edge (so to speak) of Islam and the forces of (largely Western) civilization trying to suppress them.

Posted by Carl Pham at July 28, 2006 05:46 PM

John Braue, I don't know why I added "at the time" to my comment. Brain fart, I guess. I didn't really mean to suggest the comparison was contemporaneous. I meant to compare Christians in the Caliphate (e.g. the Copts in Egypt) at a much earlier time (before 1000) with Protestants or Catholics (or heretics) during the wars of religion in Europe. I'm aware that at some points the religious minorities fared better than at others, but you would certainly agree, I hope, that often enough during the wars of religion the majority oppressed minorities very cruelly indeed.

There's a reason, after all, that many of them were willing to come all the way to a wild and dangerous North America and try their luck living among the beasts, Indians, and violent weather.

Posted by Carl Pham at July 28, 2006 05:55 PM

Post a comment