The Islamophobia Debate

There seems to be a disturbance in the force of the Right blogosphere after Dean Esmay enacted what some are calling a purge. At outset, I'll add that I think this is one of those nuanced debates in which all nuance gets lost. And both Dean and his opponents end up hurting the entire Right. More on that after some quotes.

You can be an Islamophobe, or you can contribute to Dean's World. You cannot do both.
This is meant for front-page contributors, submitters, or even commenters. It is time for you to make a choice, and to live by that choice. Because I certainly intend to.

Simply put, you must agree with all of the following assertions:

1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.

Blogs for Bush agrees with Dean:

I'll have to be in agreement with Dean here - too often these days there is too much of a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality. This in contrast to the other side of the argument which can't see anything wrong with Moslems blowing up innocent people, as long as there's a chance an American soldier will be killed as well.

Bryan at Hot Air does not and, in my opinion, doesn't leave it there. I'd rather see the discussion without the personal attack.

Dean Esmay and Andrew Sullivan want different things, but neither has the credibility to make any of the demands either makes, so they might as well get together and form their own party.

You can see that plenty of others are weighing in via Technorati.

The language of bloggers is often less precise than it could be, mine included. President Bush warned of turning the war on terror into a religious war - and he was right to do so. The notion that any form of Islam is incompatible with the secular state is a misguided idea born more from focusing on radicalism, than Islam as a whole.

There are billions of Muslims living in the world, no small number of them happily living in secular states. At the same time, there is undoubtedly a significant movement within the religion which would prefer to live under sharia law.

Right now many of us suffer from a similar problem which even still occurs as regards Blacks in America. The news coverage focuses on the criminal or poor elements of Black America so much, it becomes easy to lose sight that the vast majority of Black America has long ago left the ghetto behind and is working its way up the economic ladder, just like the rest of America.

Denouncing a religion practiced by billions as a failed religion in need of, I assume, destruction, is a recipe for disaster, one I would hope very few actually embrace. At the same time, pretending that significant elements of said religion, some domestic, at that, aren't determined to destroy our secular democracy would be another disastrous mistake. And it's more likely loose language around a complex debate fueling more of the current debate than anything else.

Personally, I don't like that Dean has determined a particular voice isn't acceptable for his blog - but it is his blog, and that's his right. The mistake may have been inviting them in in the first place. At the same time, taking an opposing position which, by definition, suggests all of Islam must be wiped out, is just as wronged headed as anything else in this debate.

James Joyner weighs in here.

Comments

[Bryan]

At the same time, taking an opposing position which, by definition, suggests all of Islam must be wiped out, is just as wronged headed as anything else in this debate.

That's some pretty loose language itself, there, Dan. It certainly doesn't describe the position I took in that post or anywhere else. And it's just falling into the false dichotomy that Dean sets up, the false choice between blinkering ourselves to the potential for jihad within Islam itself, and the choice to just eradicate all Muslims. Dean often accuses people like Robert Spencer of advocating that second choice--the choice you cited in your last sentence--but when pressed to prove it he can't. Because they don't and never have.

[Dan Riehl]

Bryan - I said in my post I am gulty of using loose language, too. You want to attack me for that now? Your correct to suggest Dean somewhat sets up his opposition. And I'm correct in pointing out you took the bait, and somewhat angrily at that. At least that's how I read your post, which surprised me, somewhat.

I haven't been involved in any on going back and forth over this, nor do I plan to remain so. I have plenty to say against radical Islam. Much of Spencer's stuff is good stuff, but he also has given the impression of being over the top sometimes.

But, as I stated, I think it's more about loose language all around. At heart, I happen to think we're all on the same page.

[Zifnab]

*blinks*
That's perhaps the sanest thing I've read on these boards (that didn't involve trashing a pop-icon) in some time. I may very rarely agree with you, Dan, but I'm happy you're keeping your head above the red tide. Its exhausting to hear people rail on and on about how ever Muslim in the world wants nothing more than to strap C-4 to his chest and give an American a hug. Or that Mosques stockpile AK-47s. Or that the Koran is an evil holy book. Or that Mohammad was the anti-Christ. And so on...

Getting away from the policy and trapped in the rhetoric was what lead us down this dangerous path. Getting away from the rhetoric will, hopefully, get us closer to a reality-based solution to the world's conflicts.

[scarshapedstar]

So will you stop linking to LGF?

[Bryan]

I'm not attacking you, Dan, just pointing out that you've fallen for Dean's trap. Disagreement is not an attack, big guy. It's just a disagreement. Dean set up a false choice--his way or "eradicate them all"--and you bought into it. As for sloppy language, if anyone is guilty of using it it's Dean Esmay. Read through any debate he has with Robert Spencer and you'll see what I mean. Robert lays out chapter and verse patiently, and Dean just insults him and accuses him of saying things he hasn't said. When he's lost the debate he just screams "Islamophobe!" That's all he's doing now. That's all he ever does when debating anyone about Islam.

As for the tone of my post, come on. It's not anger, it's snark. The same kind of snark you hurl at Gleen Greenwald all the time. And yes, Esmay deserves that kind of snark for comparing himself to William F. Buckley for having the incredible courage to oust a couple of people from his blog. He deserves it for mischaracterizing the positions of people who know more than he does, but with whom he happens to disagree. And he deserves it for accusing other bloggers of being liars or whatever happens to strike his fancy in attacking them that day.

[Dan Riehl]

It's not anger, it's snark

Fair enough. But I didn't "buy into Dean's argument." I said "I don't like that Dean has determined a particular voice isn't acceptable for his blog." And I meant it, so obviously I'm not condemning those commenters, or posters. I also acknowledged it was something of a trap, see my earlier comment. But the way the debate is being framed now feeds into the false notion that the Right wants to destroy Islam.

[Jeff]

I've got to say that what I believe Bryan was trying to get accross was that we can't treat Islam as all bad, but we must be weary because over the past decade Islam has reared it's ugly side far more than once. Am I right?

I think that we mustn't thrown caution to the wind and just hope that treating the religion of Islam (not Muslims) well suddenly makes them stop hating us. That doesn't happen, they want us dead.

I take exception to one thing that you say Dan. Comparing this to blacks in America. To me this plays well into the hands of Islamo-fascists who would love nothing more than assume the position of permanent victim as portions the black community has. If the American Muslims and would-be terrorists can be the victim, before they are attacked it puts them at an ideal position a) for cultural tropism, saying "we have been oppressed for so long, now pay us repairations ect. You have been unjust and the hen is coming home to roost. We have taken your abuse..." b) Remember the six flying Imams and "flying while Muslim"? I am still convinced that CAIR is nothing but a terrorist front group. If a Muslim, or an Arab goes to an airport and they are the victim, what happens? They won't be allowed to be searched, will won't be allowed to touch their turbans etc. What does this lead to? Terrorism, from those who swear by killing the Jew in accordance with the Qu'ran. We helped the Jews, therefore, the Qu'ran in their misguided light says they can kill us.

Notice I said misguided. And I saw nowhere that Bryan said that all Muslims were bad. I don't think that is true.

However I believe that Islam is violent by nature, so it needs to be controlled or reformed.

But its midnight, I'm dead tired... More tommorrow...

In the meantime, Bryan, could you clarify if you are agreeing in a sense with your "rivals" that Islam by nature is peaceful, or is some, or all of it evil?

And Dan, could you answer the same.

I think that we all need to remember Reagan's 11th commandment about not speaking evil of another Republican. I think that this is mostly a misunderstanding - perhaps more than that, and I know it sounds juvenile, but we see Democrats fighting all the time in the New Media, and its disgraceful, I would hope that this trend doesn't cross into the Conservative side... I think that as Republicans we need to be careful (and this is speaking of no one in specific) not to divide ourselves. Again, perhaps I am being over simplistic and dreaming.

[Bryan]

"But the way the debate is being framed now feeds into the false notion that the Right wants to destroy Islam."

Which is of course why the Right is advocating sticking to the plan of building a democracy in Iraq, against massive and sustained opposition from the Left. It's why we on Hot Air highlighted the everyday Muslims we met in Iraq and Jamal Miftah, the Tulsa Muslim who spoke out against terrorism. If we wanted to destroy Islam, the Right's current centerpiece strategy is an awfully roundabout way of doing it.

Only people like Dean actually think that anyone credible on the Right wants to destroy Islam. He's perfectly free to think that, but it's silly of him to pretend that he's taking some brave stand. He's just kicking people off his blog that he no longer wants to lose debates to.

[Bryan]

Jeff, to answer your question to me, as a Christian I don't think Islam is true. I do think that the latter half of the Koran, taken literally, lends itself to violent interpretation. Islam seems to be undergoing a reformation right now, since the 18th century or thereabouts. And the dynamics of religious reformations are not usually trends to embrace "modernity," but rejections of modernity and efforts to get back to that religion's roots. In the case of Christianity, this led over time to more of an emphasis on grace and less on works, and the end to obviously unscriptural practices like indulgences. It led to more of an emphasis on the writings of Paul and less on the Old Testament. In the case of Islam, if the usual dynamics hold true, you'll get a "reformed" Islam that's based more on the second half of the Koran than the first, which means it will be more violent and less tolerant. The trend of sharia adherence in the Islamic world is a good benchmark to use in watching all of this. Answer me this: Are there more countries using sharia now than there were 40 years ago, or less? There's your Islamic reformation.

That doesn't mean that all Muslims are bad or should be killed. I don't think that and never have, and haven't advocated anything like that anywhere. But if you ask Esmay, I'm probably an "Islamophobe," which means literally that I fear Islam. I don't. Appending "-phobe" is a way of stifling discussion, another hallmark of Esmay's style.

[Dan Riehl]

Bryan, I don't think you advocate wiping out Islam. As to Jeff's question, personally, I don't believe any major religion is inherently good, or bad. As they all demand some human interpretation fo the word of God, human fraility can intervene and distort a message of peace, or love, into a call for war.

America is a secular democracy and we are tasked with judging individuals, not their religions. I always try to preface my comments on terrorism with "radical" Islam. Some do not always use that convention and that, imo, is a mistake.

I do not believe that all Muslims are destined to be radicalized.

[seekeronos]

I think that Islam in general poses a danger in its essence:

If a "backslidden Christian" suddenly "gets religion", he stops doing certain things - perhaps tossing out the porn, going back to church, not gambling, and he starts doing other things, like reading his bible, trying to find out what Christ would want him to do (love his neighbors, do nice things to others, pray, talk to others about the Saviour who loved us all to His own death.

If a "backslidden muslim" gets religion, he looks into his Koran, and sees a need to rain death and destruction against anyone who dares stand in the path etween Islam and its dominion over the world.

[Phoenix]

"Religions seek to be compatible with their understanding of God,"

(Bryan - Hot Air)

It looks to me as if everyone is doing a lot of lumping with this thing. We're talking about 2.1 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims. You can't generalize about that many people no matter what religion they claim. In the end it comes down to people who decide what they want is what God wants and turn that into an excuse to insult and demean, or kill, other people. Religions don't seek, people do. And to say 2.1 billion people all want the same thing, or 1.2 billion people think the same way - well, it's just ignorant.

So is making a big deal about some guy saying stop making ignorant comments on my blog.

[Vinnie]

Dan, ol' buddy. America isn't a secular democracy. It's a representative republic founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

[Steel]

I just added THIS SITE to my sidebar and I think serendipitous vis a vis this debate.

[Steel]

Oops, I forgot.

Try this ...

http://www.freemuslims.org/

[ZionistYoungster]

"President Bush warned of turning the war on terror into a religious war - and he was right to do so."

He was wrong to do so, and he's paying for it every day, electorally.

First: "turning" - the assumption that it isn't a religious war, and people are trying to turn it into one. I have evidence to believe otherwise. Let's start, for example, with the absence of Hinduphobia, Buddhophobia, Taophobia and so on. Let's also focus on what's going on in Southern Thailand right now. Now, I realize the thought of religious war is unbearable to many, conjuring as it does the ghosts of centuries past (though many neglect to note that it was secular ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries that drew far more blood than religion-based conflicts), but there's our feelings and there's the truth and the two may not always coincide.

Second: Bush's steering away from religion in this conflict has been the singular cause of his failure in Iraq. He has tried to import to Iraq the outer shell of democracy, namely elections, without importing the inner essence necessary for sustaining it, namely freedom of the mind. Result: the various Iraqi sects used their newfound electoral power to vote theocratic parties. Iraq is more, not less, religiously-governed than in Saddam's rule, and the Christians there are heading toward extinction.

Victory is possible, but it cannot be achieved by any politically correct means. The war is with a fascistic ideology taking the form a religion. Until the leaders of the non-Muslim world take that into heart, and act upon it, 9/11's and Iraqs and cartoon riots will keep being the order of the day for us. And the tiny minority of moderate Muslims (another terrible truth that a lot of people wish to suppress) won't help us--not when they see even non-Muslims cowering before the demands of the extremist majority.

[Jeff]

Bryan, I see where you are coming from, and you hit the nail on the head. I also agree that Islam is getting more extreme, you just have to look at WWII. In the Second World War, the Muslim countries were largely sympathetic of the Jews, Iran, Iraq, and Egypt all sided with the Allies. I guess you could ask, what has changed since then? The Ottoman Empire was pretty nothing by 1919, Iraq was only independant in 1932, Iran's first constitution was only 1909. So could it be that the fact these these were "baby" countries have made them quiet? Maybe. The Persian, and Islamic countries before the past 20-30 had little if any power at all. Even Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) only declared independence from the Netherlands in 1945. So you could say that because these countries had little power that extremism was impossible. If I were a Muslim, and I saw how a country as powerful as Germany got destroyed, I would just shut up. but as I said earlier, the Muslim countries were largely supportive of the Jews.
So something internal had happen. I think that when the Islamic countries, during Carter's presidency figured out the power of oil they could sharpen their rhetoric. And they did - slightly. Then came the Gulf War. Then the Israel Palestine coflict heated up, and America took Israel's side. A young man hungry for power, considered charismatic in the Muslim world, named Osama bin Laden, using technologies that were new to that region got a large following, and attacked Western entities all over the world. Then came 9-11, when the Muslim world would surely hear the message of Osama bin Laden, most didn't follow it but some did. Even more started to become extreme.
I think that Osama bin Laden unfortunatly is setting the tune for Islam, and it will only get worse. In the past when a group of people were in a large Democracy and were a threat, they were removed - Christians from Japan, Jews from Italy, England, Spain, Arabs from Portugal. Today, there is no threat of that, so people feel free to say what they want - they insight violence to the West and know that they can get away with it, and its a shame. I am not advocating deporting Muslims - I am saying I wish that there was a way that we could combat extreme Islam. But I don't think that there is.
I agree with you Dan, not all Muslims will be radicalized, be there is no doubt that Islam is less peaceful than any mainstream religion. When Islamic apologists want to refute this they mention the Crusades. The difference is that no Christian feels that the crusades were justified. Many Muslims feel that 9-11 was. I read a poll from Canada that said that about 80,000 canadian Muslims believe that the planned attack where the Prime Minister would be beheaded, and the Parliament blown up was acceptable. Being from Canada I saw in high school that the Muslims had no desire to fit it, they tried to separate themselves in any way they could, and they were allowed to - not Canada has a problem. 800,000 Muslims, and 80,000 hate Canada. So, Dan, obviously a good number of Muslims, even in the West, where it is supposedly not permitted are radicalized - maybe not to the point of actually attacking us, but their mind is there, and that's the first step of course.
I would like to just mention how this makes me feel as a Christian as well since Bryan brought it up first. As a Christian, I try to view Islam as I do any other religion. If I am talking about buddism, I can find good in it, but of course, I don't think that it is the way to Heaven. I view Islma the same way - except I have read about 1/4 of the Qu'ran and its not a peaceful book, there is lots of hatred towards Jews, more than I have seen in any other religion. I feel bad for Muslims because I think that they have been misled, and according to my faith they are going to Hell. (I'm sorry if it offends you, but I am talking theologically)
So I guess my final opinion would be Islam is inherently violent - but not all Muslims are violent - However Islam is growing increasing extreme making for the fact that more and more Muslims would hold extreme views - just look at 10% of Canada's Muslims.

[Terry Gain]

Islamophobe- someone whose ability to do simple math isn’t overwhelmed by Politically Correct Insanity, i.e. 1.3- 1.6 Billion Muslims, say conservatively it’s 1 billion. One tenth of one percent of 1 billion = 1,000,000 potential hijackers of ROP = a serious problem that we overlook at our peril.

I have no desire to think ill of any person or group but doing my best to face situations as they are and not as I wish they would be I do not think it is wise not to be vigilant.

It is a mistake not to recognize that the fascists who wish to take over the world use their religion as motivation and justification and the majority of adherents to that religion, while peacefully going about their own lives, have little to say to the extreme practitioners of their religion and certainly have not denounced or even renounced the "holy scripts" which justify the extremism.

[Seferas-H.]

Wow, understanding the actual history of the formation of Islam has nothing to do with this bogus "Islamophobia" crap. The historical facts are there to prove just how Islam was formed and how conquerous and violent it was.

Allow me to educate: Started in the 7th century with the visions Muhammad claimed to have been given. Back then the majority of the Arabians (which is where Muhammad began) were polytheists while a pretty sizeable number was divided between Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism.

Muhammad claimed he was "correcting" the original faith that he said the Jews and Christians perverted and debased. Obviously anyone who has read the Torah (first five books of the bible) can pretty much gather Muhammad was rather off base, but peope followed him anyways. Muhammad then began his rise in Mecca, which was mainly a christian city and was ruled by a Christian king, but the people and the king had him removed from the city because of religious dissention and dischord. Muhammad then fled to Medina where his extremist views on faith were more accepted. He then pitted the two cities against each other.

The first major conflict was a stalemate and Muhammad was forced to return to Medina, however after assimilating more of the surrounding tribes in to Islam he returned and took on Mecca once again. The force that came back to Mecca completely outnumbered the Christians and the King so to spare bloodshed the city surrendered to Muhammad...they were completely taken over.

After these events Muhammad had gained a sizeable empire. This was eventually seperated in to the four caliphs. Under these four caliphs the word of Islam spread (through force might I add) across the entire middle east.

The Ridda Wars - Which were uprisings of the Bedouin Arabs against Abu Bakr.

The Battle of Yarmuk - Where the Muslims crushed the Byzantines which then led to them spreading and conquering the Egyptians and Syrians. So, there went three previously magnificant civilizations in to the hands of Islam. Once great....now nothing.

Battle of al-Qādisiyyah - Where the muslim warriors defeated the Sassanid Empire. After that battle the muslims then overwhelmed the Persians (now the Iranians) and then all of Mesopotamia.

Battle of Nihawānd - Finally sealed the deal against the muslims and the persians. After this battle the entire Persian empire was assimilated in to the nation of Islam.

In time the muslims then conquered (with force remember this, you know....not peaceful) numerous countries and cities.

The List: Spain, Egypt, Sicily, Anatolia (christian roman city), Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem. The last four were recaptured during the first crusades, but Saladin then retook Jerusalem later. The later crusades were launched against Islam to retake most of the othe holy lands but all that did was leave the crusaders stretched and Constantinople was weakened. In it's weakened state it was easily taken over by the Muslim armies and that is why we have Istanbul today.

So, after time Islam created a massive Empire. One section of this whole was the well known Ottoman Turks that invaded Greece. Remember the Parthanon? (Sp) time did not destroy that....powder kegs placed by the Ottomans did. They blew it up to remove religious edifices of the Greek polytheistic religion. Just another example of that "peaceful" spread of islam we hear so much about.

[Alex]

Seferas is absolutely right. And you know, while we're at it, let's discuss some other parts of the violent Muslim past -- like that time they killed damn near the entire population of Central and South America and forced the remainder to convert. And then there was that whole African slave trade thing, where they forced everyone they'd already forced into bondage to convert, then there's that whole "Inquisition" thing in Spain, and then there's their various and sundry efforts in China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea...

Oh. Nevermind.

[Jeff]

And Seferas, a friend of mine to a trip to Israel and Palestine, he went to the room where Jesus ate the Last Supper, and all evidence of the last supper he was told were destroyed by Muslims who converted it into a shrine for Mohamed. Muslims are just revisionists, they destroy the evidence they don't like, and replace it for something they do.

[Jeff]

So what's your point Alex? Since the British and Spanish empires did wrong we should give Islam a free ride?

[Alex]

Not at all. More like something along the lines of "let he who is without sin..."

I wouldn't call it racism, necessarily, to accuse Islam of a multitude of bad deeds and then ignore the fact that several other major religions did the same damn thing. But it is blindness.

Reminds me of a debate I had with a fellow Jew recently -- she sent me an article about a Ugandan who had seen Jesus on the top of a telephone poll, and was laughing at said Ugandan. I thought it was pretty funny too, but when I pointed out that one major tenet of Judaism is that Moses talked to a bush that was on fire and thought it was God, she got quite offended.

[Seferas-H.]

I'm quite familiar with what the British and Spanish empires did. I'm also well aware of the "WitchHammer" days of the crusades as well. That's all old news and quite frankly the majority of the people in the world looked back and said "Ya know...that was pretty stupid". However, they allow the muslims a get out of jail card because Islam plays that "your the oppressor" card.

Oh, as for that slave trade thing? The slaves were ALREADY slaves to their african masters. Plus, the Islamic empires in northern and middle africa had already created a rather notorious slave trade themselves, so i'm pretty sure they don't get off scott free in that catagory either.

Oh, and the muslims did move in to China and farther over towards Indonesia. By that time, however, the Islam empire was formidable and when the muslims came down the silk road to China the Tang Dynasty (I think that was it) welcomed them. Islam began assimilating China as well until the Qing dynasty was formed and they removed the influences there.

I'm not giving any civilization a free-ride here. They've all done some pretty heinous stuff over time, but as far as religious spread goes....Islam is by far the most commanding and most violent. They convert by oppressive force and their faith claims they are right in doing so. Also, last time I checked World-Domination wasn't on the lists of the British and Spanish empires. Well....one european country did try that world domination thing once, but I guess thats water under the bridge now too huh? Well...at least to Islam it is.

[Alex]

"They've all done some pretty heinous stuff over time, but as far as religious spread goes....Islam is by far the most commanding and most violent. They convert by oppressive force and their faith claims they are right in doing so."

I'm sorry -- how is it, then, that Christianity spread world-wide? Ponies and flowers?

[Jeff]

I think that it needs to be reiterated, that the vast majority of Christian have condemned the Crusades, I have never talked to one that has said it was a good thing. However thee are many Muslims who believe that killing innocent westerners and Jews is a accpetable.
We have Muslims out there currently who are plotting the destruction of Israel, now, if I were Jewish, I would be at least a little but concerned about the future holocaust that is being planned.
And Alex, about the scripture you quoted, I find one thing very interesting, you quote scripture, and then later you describe slightly mocking the Bible. Do you just side with something when it is convenient? Also I wasn't throwing stones, I was pointing something out, which is true, that Islam is inherently violent.
Alex, it really seems like you aren't bringing anything to the table, I mean, you main argument is that "other people have done it" so what the Muslims are doing is OK.
And Seferas, are you talking about the Caliphate, or the goal to bring Shari'a law everywhere is the world?

[Jeff]

"I'm sorry -- how is it, then, that Christianity spread world-wide?"

I can't make one post without you saying something dumb. No.

Missionaries. I have gone to El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Uganda, and to Pakistan. During a trip to El Salvador, over 5,000 people chose to become Christians, and we didn't even need to decapitate their friends to help them along.

Christians are more passive, we do crazy things like tell people what we believe, and we offer it to them.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is currently being largely spread through violence?

[Terry Gain]

Christ and Mohammed - Compare and contrast.

[scarshapedstar]

"I can't make one post without you saying something dumb. No.

Missionaries. I have gone to El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Uganda, and to Pakistan. During a trip to El Salvador, over 5,000 people chose to become Christians, and we didn't even need to decapitate their friends to help them along."

I think Alex is talking about a little earlier in history. You know, the days of Christian emperors, of conquistadores. He never said "currently".

[Gary Maxwell]

Lets see, because one madman tried to take over the world using some pretty inflamatory rhetoric and was stopped by overwhelmingly Christian peopled countries, this means that to point out some equally inflammatory rhetoric and violence filled activities with an explicited stated goal of again taking over the world, is verbotin? How is that again cuz its not filtering through my irony meter very well.

[Dan Riehl]

is verbotin?

It isn't verbotin here. I think it's a bad choice by Dean, as he already invited the people on to the blog. That said, as I recall, Polipundit once did the same thing for a diffeent reason.

[Gordon]

"As for the tone of my post, come on. It's not anger, it's snark. The same kind of snark you hurl at Gleen Greenwald all the time. "

This coming from the thin-skinned proprietor of Hot Air. Sheesh.

"I'm sorry -- how is it, then, that Christianity spread world-wide?"

This intense former rabbi, Paul, travelled the Roman world and preached in both synagogues and town squares. His message was so compelling that it spread like wildfire.

Yes there were many forced conversions in church history. But unlike early Islam, Christianity's power was in the message, not the sword.

[Alex]

"During a trip to El Salvador, over 5,000 people chose to become Christians, and we didn't even need to decapitate their friends to help them along."

Wait, wait... you're saying that in a Latin American country, you were able to find 5,000 people that didn't already identify as Christian? And then convert them? Frankly, I find that hard to believe. (Unless, of course, you define "chose to become Christian" as "chose to become evangelical Protestant instead of Catholic," and that I can believe, and think it takes a little less skill/persuasion.)

"And Alex, about the scripture you quoted, I find one thing very interesting, you quote scripture, and then later you describe slightly mocking the Bible. Do you just side with something when it is convenient?"

I was being ironical.

And no, I am not suggesting that Christianity is currently being spread by violence, but at one point that's how it was spread. Islam is not currently being spread by violence, either. The violent means are used for different ends, currently.

However, suggesting that Christians have stopped being violent about their religion is absurd on its face. I seem to recall this one country that had a major terrorist problem over a Catholic/Protestant issue some 475 years after the Reformation.

[Dan Riehl]

F/ck, I shoulda know'd better than to start a discussion on religion.

Gordo - Good to see you.

[Alex]

"This intense former rabbi, Paul, travelled the Roman world and preached in both synagogues and town squares. His message was so compelling that it spread like wildfire."

Yes, I'm familiar with Paul, and how appealing his doctrine was, especially as it got rid of most of the laws that made Judaism unappealing. But, tell me -- did Paul make it to South America? Africa? East Asia?

[Gordon]

"especially as it got rid of most of the laws that made Judaism unappealing"

And offered a moral alternative to the headonistic Roman pantheon.

"did Paul make it to South America? Africa? East Asia?"

Of course not. Nor did he make it to Ireland or Detroit.

I'm not sure what your point is. That Christianity spread to South America, Africa and East Asia by violence only? Christianity is a religion that self-replicates.

Alex, my observation is that people are nasty in general. Killing in the name of Jesus? Yes it has happened. Ditto in the name of Mohammed. But I've frankly grown tired of the cliche that "more people have been killed in the name of God..."

People have been killed en masse in the name of tribalism, socialism, communism and atheism.

[Seferas-H.]

"People have been killed en masse in the name of tribalism, socialism, communism and atheism."

That basically trumps anything else I have to say right there. 100% correct Gordon.

[Alex]

"Alex, my observation is that people are nasty in general. Killing in the name of Jesus? Yes it has happened. Ditto in the name of Mohammed. But I've frankly grown tired of the cliche that "more people have been killed in the name of God..."

People have been killed en masse in the name of tribalism, socialism, communism and atheism."

Gordon, that's exactly my point. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me, the decrying of Islam as being this exceptionally violent thing when the fact of the matter is that people are generally violent for many different reasons, other religions than Islam being on of them. Castigating Islam while ignoring the beam in your own eye exposes you (second person, not specifically you, Gordon) as someone willing to ignore historical truths for the purpose of demonizing a given religion you don't happen to like.

[Gordon]

I know I'm going to sound gay* for saying this - but I appreciate the dialogue with you.

I guess if I have an agenda, it is that poeple acknowledge that there is a very violent strain of Islam and that at some level it must be confronted.

*Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Dan Riehl]

Gordo, if you're going to start having "precious moments" with guys in comments, you really should consider doing it on a Liberal blog. LOL

[Gordon]

What, you want me to start talking religion again?

[Dan Riehl]

Is there a difference between religion and sex?

[Alex]

"I guess if I have an agenda, it is that poeple acknowledge that there is a very violent strain of Islam and that at some level it must be confronted."

Fine, as long as you acknowledge that there is a very violent strain of American conservatism and that at some level it must be confronted.

(Not wholly serious, just making sure you don't love me too much... I know how you conservatives get about that whole man love thing.)

[Gordon]

I enjoy the similarities.

Say, don't you have a blog to run ;-)

[Bill Adkins]

I'm leery of Moonies and Snake Handlers, too.

[Dan Riehl]

"don't you have a blog to run"

Geesh, sorry. I take it that means you two want to be alone. Ha!

Later.

[Gary Maxwell]

Guess I need to clarify. the verboten comment was not directed at you. Now Dean and several of the commenters haunting your site, here should probably consider it dead on for them. The one guy here bringing up Hitler to excuse, nay deny the ability to condemn the excesses of at least a very vocal part of the Religion of Peace should respond to it directly, if he can make a cogent argument.

[seekeronos]

Paul traveled throughout much the known world (which to him, was the Mediterranean coastal nations and Asia Minor).

Originally, he was quite a zealous rabbi named Saul, who, while in the grip of his most fervent zeal, sought and got letters of permission from the Sanhedrin (the Jewish religious authorities of the day) to arrest, persecute and even kill members of a particular abberant sect of Judaism (which followed some supposed "prophet" who had come from an otherwise un-notewrothy Judean town called Nazareth).

Yet, Jesus (that selfsame "prophet" so held in derision by the worldly and religious authorities of the mid-seventh century _ab urba condita_) appeared before Saul/Paul and gave him, shall we say... a rather eye-opening experience. Immediately, Saul/Paul recognized that it was no mere mortal or even an angelic prince he was in the presence of; he knew he had met his Lord.

Paul's message - as inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, brought a new light into the darkened hearts of men. It was a message that compelled people to hold fast to Christ, even as they were made to suffer derision and humiliations, and even to the point of death - sawn in two, ripped to shreds, burnt alive, and fed to lions for sport.

Because it was a message of eternal life, a message of hope. A message that held promise of salvation from eternal death, salvation from hell, and freedom from the surly bondage of sin.

In time, Paul's message would make it as far as India (arguably diluted somewhat with Nestorian teachings) by the 3rd. Century AD, and possibly making an appearance even in the Land of Wa (Japan) before an early Heian court.

The interference of man's corruption in government, and man's willingness to stray from truth, along with the temptations represented by the empowering of a paricular proto-branch of Christianity (the Decree of Constantine, which empowered the regional bishoprics of which ultimately, Rome gained ascendancy over) unmistakeably sowed the seeds for an expansionist Roman Church, which for a great length of time was arguably quite distant from the "faith once delivered to the saints" of old.

This period gave maximal power to the Holy See (Popes) as they saw themselves as temporal lords as well as spiritual leaders; furthermore, the crisis they faced at odd times by the Caliphate pressing in toward Europe helped to embed a solid church/state relationship which gave rise to the Crusades (largely a defensive effort to provide for the welfare of pilgrims traveling to the Holy Lands, with less abuses than movies like "Kingdom of God" would have us believe).

Then the reformation (resulting in the inital Protestant schism) and after that, a Catholic counter-reformation (leading to the Inquisition and the reform of some question practices like the sales of indulgences) and then finally, the Enlightment, which saw the beginning of the end for the state-churches (regardless of thier alignment to Rome).

A few nations (Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, France) were slow to pick up the ball for reformation, but were quite handy at exploring the New World, and had managed to carve out a nifty empire, conveniently splitting the world in two (the treaties of Tordesillas and Zaragoza), for the material gain of Spain and Portugal, and the gain of "Holy Mother Church" in Rome. In many cases, the monks and missionaries tended to come after the military suppression of the indigenous empires (it was Cortes and an alliance of non-Aztec Indians that defeated Moctezuma and Cuauhtémoc, and Pizarro who subdued the last Grand Inca... not a group of Crusaders looking to set up a Holy Kingdom of Christ in the New World.) These guys (the Conquistadores) were more about grabbing gold and making a name for themselves, with only the thinnest veneer of religion to make it right in the eyes of their masters.

To say that they could not have easily crossed the Atlantic of thier own means, but needed the backing of Spain and Portugal would be true. Of course, shadowy groups in Rome had a lot to do with it as well, so to be accurate, the gospel was spread after the sword had largely done its work.

The nations that disagreed with Rome on "articles of faith", had to make do with sailing toward Asia, and hoping to land in areas that the Spanish and Portugese had overlooked (North America, Coastal Africa, Dutch East India, British East India, Hong Kong, Singapore, and bits and pieces of Indonesia), or take advantage of situations where Spain and Portugal had already worn out much of their welcome (Japan, bits and pieces of China). Since the Reformation/Enlightment ideas had greater affect in those nations (largely Holland and the UK, and the Hansa League) - religion played much less of an impact in the landgrabbery that followed. In many cases, the ministers and preachers came some time after the mercenary captains and the military governors had set up shop.

So in a very roundabout way, Paul's message - or more accurately, Christ's message: has indeed made quite some distance into the world, both Old and New.

[seekeronos]

"I guess if I have an agenda, it is that poeple acknowledge that there is a very violent strain of Islam and that at some level it must be confronted."

"Fine, as long as you acknowledge that there is a very violent strain of American conservatism and that at some level it must be confronted."

Acknowledged. Anything can be taken waaaaaaaaaaaay out to the outfield and made into a dangerous thing.

That said, I tend to think that Americans on the whole are far more balanced than much of Islam is. It just seems far more easy for the Islamists to radicalize than it is for a bunch of American conservatives to get worked up into a murderous froth over an issue.

It is just that radical Islam is much more a potential threat to the average American than radical Christianity is; if a "christian" goes off the deep end (for example: the "Reverend" Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) - he is almost universally despised and shunned. And thus far, Phelps and his gaggle of loons has remained relatively harmless. Socially repugnant, but harmless all the same. Very few people (mostly his relatives) take him seriously.

However, if a Muslim decides it is his time to become a martyr for Allah, then many people around him will suffer. Like Sulejman Talovic and the 5 dead/4 wounded in SLC, the Beltway Killers and the dozen or so people they killed, the 19 people involved in 9-11 who killed 3,000+ people...

As for me, if "things start happening" here in the USA in the same frequency and intensity as in France, or we have some of the same militancy of radical Islamist agitation as the UK is experiencing, I'd have no problem with massed deportation of potential troublemakers. Profiling? Yes, you bet.

But in the meantime, radical Islam is acting under "al-Taqiyya" and other provisions in the Koran for subverting our culture and government, and has not resorted to large scale open violence. Yet.

Islam is probably not going to go away any time soon, (save for nuclear mayhem, or the Second Coming) so the best thing to do for now is continue to inform people of its inherently dangerous nature (particularly that violent part of the Koran composed _after_ Mohammed established his Caliphate over Mecca, along with the jihadist Hadiths), agitate in Congress and in courts against subversive groups like CAIR, and win folks to the gospel of Christ.

[Jeff]

Hey Dan, I'm glad we are discussing religion. It's very interesting to hear different people's views. It's a very intellectual discussion, and as far as I have seen its remained peaceful. (Notice a couple regular posters missing?) I personally think that this is one of the best discussions in while.