Islam's Death Culture

Michael Hirsh in Newsweek:

Exploring Islam's 'Death Cult' Muslims must find a way to remove the cancer infecting their religion.

A very worthwhile read, in my opinion. And then, while not an atheist, there's this:

When Philadelphia's board of education voted in 1843 to allow Catholic children to be excused from religious exercises and Bible readings, Protestants rioted. Catholic churches and the homes of Catholic families were burned. Thirteen people were mercilessly killed.

This was the worst incident, although smaller incidents broke out across the country as the years progressed. In 1854, a missionary priest in Maine was tarred and feathered for daring to urge a parishioner to fight a local school board regulation forcing all students to read the King James Bible. Eventually, the violence in communities all over the country was a principle cause behind the creation of the Catholic school system.

Fortunately, we had and still have a system of government in place in America today that diffused theocratic-based violence as demonstrated above. But that system is being tested today, as extremists within radical Islam are very effective at exploiting secular democracy's inherent weakness, which is also its strength, by the way - religious tolerance. That is a confounding problem. If solid Muslim leadership, as opposed to front groups like CAIR, doesn't emerge to start combating radical Islam within the religion itself, ultimately the consequences of that will be felt more by Muslims, than any other group. If Islam will not police itself and Islamist violence grows in America, the religion would seem to require policing from the outside. Accomplishing that legally and morally could well be the greatest Constitutional challenge of our time.

But I also know this - you can take elements from any religion, or religious tract and parse them to demonize that religion. Apparently, Michelle Malkin has opted to give Robert Spencer a forum at Hot Air where he does just that regarding Islam.

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 2, “The Cow,” verses 211-221

I have tremendous respect for Michelle's accomplishments in new media and she seems well on her way to similar success in cable TV via her work with Fox. Still, I find the process of doing the above to any religion repulsive and utterly un-American. It saddens me to see such practices taking hold on the Right and, if linked to the conservative movement as a whole, it will do us little good as a movement. But then, any movement that would cultivate such ignorance and intolerance wouldn't really deserve much of a future, I suppose.

As with Islam, the Right sometimes appears lacking in principled voices of its own. And that's a shame.

Update: Lifted from comments: Is separation an option? I believe all it would require is a repeal of the first amendment, or one-tenth of the Bill of Rights - however, you care to phrase it. It's difficult to imagine that happening. But we are heading into uncharted waters, it would seem.

I subscribe to the now tiny but, I believe, some-day-to-be prevalent Separationist School of Western-Islamic Relations. We separationists affirm the following:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

But we cannot destroy Islam.

Nor can we democratize Islam.

Nor can we assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Comments

[horatio]

Separation

Per Lawrence Auster at View from the Right - http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html

I subscribe to the now tiny but, I believe, some-day-to-be prevalent Separationist School of Western-Islamic Relations. We separationists affirm the following:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

But we cannot destroy Islam.

Nor can we democratize Islam.

Nor can we assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Keep Reading - http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html

[Layer Seven]

Permit me to disagree.

Media actively censors news of facts it thinks detrimental to Islam.

The whole truth is needed.

Spencer's sites seem to be well documented, and he seems scrupulously careful with facts. Is this not true?

[Dan Riehl]

"Spencer's sites seem to be well documented, and he seems scrupulously careful with facts. Is this not true?"

I didn't question his document management capabilities. I could accumulate historical documents, including Christian religious tracts, and present them in a manner that made Christianity look evil. The issue is one of interpretation and Spencer's work has no practical extension except as a rationale for banning a religion. That, as I said, is un-American, assuming you embrace the Bill of Rights for everyone, as opposed to only for non-Muslims, of course.

[horatio]

> Lifted from comments: Is separation an option? I
> believe all it would require is a repeal of the first
> amendment, or one-tenth of the Bill of Rights -
> however, you care to phrase it. It's difficult to
> imagine that happening. But we are heading into
> uncharted waters, it would seem.

In times of war - and despite the "head buried in the sand attitude of our PC leaders", we’ve been at war since 1979 when Iran declared itself at war with us - we should consider what Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson opined - "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_of_Rights_is_not_a_suicide_pact

We are NOT in a war on terrorism - we are at war with “modern day” Islam whether we want to acknowledge this reality or not. Not "Islamism" - Islam

[Layer Seven]

Again, I think we need all the facts to determine the truth.

Part of that truth is perhaps a real danger to our freedom, presented by Islam.

Islam may be practiced, but not if its very practice enfringes the rights of others, specifically, let's say, females.

Does Islam enfringe the rights of women? How else can we decide?

[horatio]

I would also refer you to Islam Watch - www.islam-watch.org - a site run by a number of Ex-Muslims. From their site:

We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us had taken a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth. Having scrutinized this religion with meticulous attention, we concluded that Islam is not at all a religion of peace as touted by many smooth-talking, self-serving Islamists and the Islamic apologists. The core of Islam, that is, the Qur'an, Hadis and Sharia are filled with unbound hatred for the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant and exceptionally cruel and merciless to those who dare to deviate an iota from its doctrine. We discovered that Islam is beyond alteration, because Muslims who attempt to modernize and reform its unremitting bigotry, mindless rituals and its barbaric and draconian punitive measures are targeted for annihilation. Our verdict was that the only way to escape from the tyranny of Islam is to leave it for good. That is why we discarded Islam from our lives-to be free, to enjoy a normal, pleasant and humane life, in complete harmony with all people on earth irrespective of their religion, race or creed.

As we thoroughly understood through our meticulous investigation for years to decades that Islam was nothing but a lie, we left Islam silently because of the fear for our lives. Then we felt that it was a responsibility on us to make the 1.4 billion world-Muslims to be aware of the falsity of Islam and its cruelty so that they can also leave Islam and live with love, respect and harmony with rest of the world. As Islamic terrorism overwhelms the world, we also felt it incumbent upon us to let the civilized world recognize the reality about Islam and take timely precautionary measures against this religion of terror, hate and mayhem. We want to tell the world that the current Islamic terrorism is not an aberration of the so-called 'peaceful Islam', rather it is the real Islam preached and practiced by the alleged Prophet Muhammad. This can be confirmed from a thorough study of the Qur'an and Hadis. We, therefore, have launched this website to expose the real Islam-the Islam that is determined to replace the current civilization with the 7th century Arab Bedouin barbarism, which is peddled as the Islamic Civilization. Let the world watch Islam through www.islam-watch.org and be warned.

Islam Watch is run by a bunch of Muslim apostates. Hailing mainly from South Asia, some of us left Islam after the 9/11. As explained above, we realized that Islam is false and felt that Islam need to be emasculated, marginalized or eliminated al-together if Muslim world wants to come out of its current backwardness and quagmire, characterized by poverty, corruption, illiteracy, violence, misrule and tyranny, in which they have been thrown in due to Islamic indoctrination.

[Fred Beloit]

Personally, my thinking on the war on "terrorism" (read fanatical Islamism) is primarily from a military point of view. "Separation" is inherently defense with no offense. We can't win any kind of war that way. Therefore, I oppose separation if that is the priority. As a part of the overall we win they lose effort, however, it would seem to me to have a place. Just as defense, while it should never be the main consideration (do the name Maginot Line or Dien Bien Phu strike a familiar note?), has a place in war. As to the view of Dan's that most religions can be made to look bad by an unsympathetic reading of their core documents, one supposes that is correct. However, if that is an unfair practice, so it is also unfair NOT to look at the modern-day actions of a religions' practitioners. On these two grounds together, how can one clearly exonerate Islam?

[horatio]

"We win. They lose."

I have no problem with this.

[MJ]

"Spencer's work has no practical extension except as a rationale for banning a religion"

I respectfully disagree. Thousands of people die every year by those who CLAIM to kill in the name of Islam. If thousands died every year at the hands of those CLAIMING to be Christian, I'd want that issue explored. I as a Christian would take steps to ensure that a) no one in leadership in my church agreed with the murderers, and if they did I would leave that congregation or advocate that leader be removed and counseled, and b) I would publicly denounce it and make sure to do whatever I could so that such atrocities were not committed in the name of MY value system.

I beleive what Spencer is doing is to explore their depravity and their justification to expose their motives. Exposing the truth is quite different than advocating for censorship.

But, I don't know everything or have time to read everything on anybody's blog or web site, so can you educate me by publishing the links to the posts where Spencer has advocated banning Islam? Thanks.

[Robert Spencer]

MJ, I do not advocate banning Islam. I argued just the opposite of banning Islam here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015157.php

Riehl says “But I also know this - you can take elements from any religion, or religious tract and parse them to demonize that religion.” And that that is what I am doing, and that someone could do it with Christian sacred texts also.

Go ahead, Dan. Blog the New Testament, going through what it says and adding in copious references to Christian commentators of all sects.

Because that’s all I am doing here.

Does quoting the Qur’an and quoting Ibn Kathir and other Islamic commentators amounts to “demonizing the religion”? Either I am reporting accurately on mainstream understandings of the Qur’an, or I am not. If I am not, show where I am wrong. If I am, and you think the picture I am painting is an exercise in demonization, maybe the problem lies within the content of the texts themselves, and how you regard that content.

If you think you could Blog the New Testament and Christian commentaries and come up with a similar “demonization,” then by all means go to it, and I will read it with great interest. But the bottom line is that I did not originate the doctrines of war and supremacism, and contempt for unbelievers, that I suspect make you characterize this as a “demonization.” They were there already. Millions of Muslims arund the world believe just these things, and don’t think there is anything “demonic” about them at all. And they didn’t hear them from me.

You are shooting the messenger, rather than having to deal with unpleasant facts. I certainly hope that thoughtless smears and prejudice such as yours don’t become common in the conservative movement.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

[southdakotaboy]

Radical Immams need to be delt with the way that the Southern Poverty Law Center deals with the leaders of the KKK. The victims of muslim terrorism need to start sueing these mosques for allowing the preaching of hate. Have the courts start to sieze the mosques and other property that belongs to so called charities. We are over looking a great weapon that we can be useing against the radicals. We need to get lawyers (horror of horrors) involved.
The islamic charities and mosques have lots and lots of money. As we all know you wave money infront of a lawyer and they will go into a feeding frenzy. We need to make it very clear that if we find out that they are supporting or even just ignoring these radicals, they will lose that which is important to them. If an Imman preaches hate in the mosque get a victim to sue and take their house the mosque and anything else they can.

[Arizona]

Spencer defends himself adequately but I would like to add something, as one who disagrees with at least some elements of his outlook.

He is trying to debunk the foolish idea that "Islam is a religion of peace". Mainstream Islam, from its beginnings to the present day, has an aggressive character which, in its beneficial form, can foster self-confidence. If you live inside the Muslim world, much of this aggressive character is also seen as good security, hence the seemingly common Muslim love of "strong leaders".

To pretend that there is no clash between Christian and Muslim values is foolish. Of course there is. An eventual peaceful resolution of this problem lies in free and open discussion and scholarship of the type that Spencer pursues. A bunch of bigotted and goonish leaches have become attached to him but that is not his entire responsibility. As he has said himself, there is much in the mere content of Islam that provides fuel for this bigotry. He does interpret, it's true, and pretty consistently in a negative way but the interpretations are fair, in my view, and if you think differently you should challenge him on a particular.

Where Spencer fails, in my view, is in his own Christianity. He doesn't consistently or emphatically apply the Christian teachings on how to deal with an enemy. He doesn't try to get inside the Muslim mindset and understand what makes it tick. He doesn't try to understand how Islam might, in fact, *complete* the one-sidedness of Christianity. Just as there is a time for war and a time for peace, so also, in the deity, there is a side for war and a side for peace.

Having said that, it is probably not God's calling to Spencer that he undertake that Christian task of coming to love the enemy. He does what he does with skill and enthusiasm and deserves applause for that much.

[Robert Spencer]

Arizona:

Every Christian is called to love his enemy. I am sure I have failed in this many times. Insofar as not trying to get inside the Muslim mindset, in fact I attempt to do that, and perhaps fail, in all my writings about Muhammad and the Qur'an. As for completing the one-sidedness of Christianity, I do not believe that Christianity is one-sided, or needs completing in this way. Above all, regarding "love your enemy," I do not consider Islam my enemy, although many Muslims regard me as such, but in any case I do not believe that a requisite component of authentic love is to accept polite or politically correct fictions about someone. Love is not incompatible with looking at someone or something realistically and accurately. If Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers, as it manifestly does, it is not loving to ignore these or deny their existence, even though many people, such as Riehl, evidently believe that pretending that these things don't exist, or that they exist equally in any religion, makes them "broad-minded" and not tending toward "demonization."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

[Tahoblue]

you want a car bomber? check out a muslim site before you do a Methodist site!
You want a suicide bomber? do the same
You want a violence prone area? do the same

just by elementary street logic it would appear that Muslim Areas are more prone to 7th Century acts of violence than say, a Nordic country or a South American Country that does not have Muslims.

Your logic is confusing.

I don't see England, Scotland, Spain or France being attacked by the Vatican.

The Episcopalians are not blowing up the bars in Thailand.

Yep, your logic is confusing

[old trooper]

a Death Cult?

Yes it is. The largest issue that I have with that is those dirty bastards want to take
some very good folks with them on their trip to hell.

Islam is a lie. It was basicly founded by an illiterate murderer, pedophile, thief and documented liar.
After having spent years in the dirt poor and enslaved Middle East, I can say that with no caveats.

Got Issues?

Get your ass over there and take a look.
Otherwise shut your pie hole.

[seekeronos]

"If an Imam preaches hate in the mosque get a victim to sue and take their house the mosque and anything else they can."

Watch how fast that gets turned around against a Christian preacher who preaches against sexual sin, and how the LGBT lobby will rail for vengeance and lawsuits against him because he wants his congregation to be lead of godly, God-fearing men who are married to one woman, as opposed to ordaining gay and lesbian "pastors".

Because preaching to keep LGBTs out of the pulpit can be equated to "hate speech"... never mind gay marriage or any of the other LGBT positions.

Or for lawyers agitating against a preacher to preach the Bible and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the literal six-day creation (not my particular thumping point, but one that many Christians hold dear).

But otherwise, that would a be a good way to go after the Muzzie preachers in general. The scope of what constitutes "hate speech" would need to be measured against very careful criteria to ensure that it doesn't take down peaceful activists or other people whose activities and preaching do not entail enticing people to riotous behaviour.

[southdakotaboy]

I understand some of your caution about this idea seekeronos, but this has been used to take land from the KKK so it is not new. The key is to establish a direct like between the act of violence commiteed by the terrorist , the victim and the preaching imman. If the imman openly advocates violence against nonmuslims and there is an attack by a member of their congragation, sue the crap out of them.
This should have been done as soon as the attacks of 9/11 happened. This would be a good place to start since there is apply evidence and it would be rather easy to find a jury willing to convict and a victim willing to sue.

[Satellite Dude]

It is funny that you refer to CAIR as a "front group" when such organizations are accused of apostacy by the "Islamo-facists." I always wonder why people think Muslims are out to get them. Why would you want to destroy Islam? Why must it be democratized? Must you attempt to run the religion as YOU see fit?

[seekeronos]

On the face of the argument as to whether or not it is fair to criticise Christianity as being as bad as Islam for violence and anarchic mayhem and other crimes against humanity, one must take in the scope of time, and whether the people who carried out those atrocities in the names of their respective gods are acting within the mainstream of their chosen faiths.

Islam, as explained above by some of the other commenters... is at its MAINSTREAM, a murderous and evil system. It gives no choice, no preference, and no way to unhook the ideology, the religion, and politics from one another. Islam = the state = the way of life for its adherents. And to those who buck that system, it has proven to be quite literally "off with their heads".

This is not to say that there are not individual Muslims who find the ideas behind the "external" or "lesser" Jihad of exterminating or converting the enemies of the Ummah (the global body of Muslim beleivers) abhorrent, much less terrorism or advocating for the replacement of our secular government with Sharia Law... but such "liberal" Muslims are much closer to being "apostates" from true Islam than they are to even being on the fringe; and as a matter of survival in some cases, they cannot open their mouths against what they see as injustice perpretrated by their Muslim brothers against the kuffar (unbelievers).

Muslims in America are much more likely to be closer to that fringe, much as we have "Cafeteria Catholics" and "Backslidden Baptists"... it is much safer for them to be lax in their faith here. Nevertheless, few, if any of them, speak too loudly against the actions of their more fundamental co-religionists: it would be like unto them denouncng their own faith.

Not that Catholicism or Protestant Christianity have had their moments: but they generally run to being the exceptions far more often than the rule, and premeditated violence and murder have never been endorsed by Christ, or His apostles in the manner we see in the writings of the Hadiths or the Quran.

I'm sure someone here will trot out the Crusades (defensive wars to keep the Caliphate from expanding into Asia Minor & the Levant, and later, Europe herself) or the internecine wars between reformation Protestants and the Roman Pontiffs, or actions against the Ashkenazi/Khazarian Jewish populations (along with the Roma) - which was more ethnic in nature than religious.

But those wars and ethnic squabbles lasted only a few centuries and smoldered out, especially after the wider body of the Gospels were once again available for everyone to read (after the Textus Receptus was made available by Erasmus, and rendered into German by Martin Luther, and into English in various renditions such as the Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, and ultimately, the King James (Authorized) Version.

No longer a mysterious thing in Latin controlled solely by Roman prelates, the commands of Christ made widely known helped to temper mankind's general bloodlust, and those energies were in turn directed into nobler enterprises, some of which resulted in the Rennaisance and the Industrial Age, among others.

Coming back to my original point, the test of a religion should be whether or not its scriptures and the observance of its teachings seek the betterment of its adherents and the societies that it lives in and borders upon... or whether it does harm.

I'd say that Islam tends to harm its followers and non-followers more than improving their lots.

Christianity posts a benefit to its beleivers by encouraging them onto good works and sound morals by the guidance of the Bible and God's Holy Spirit; Jesus's followers do so not out of compulsion, but out of love. They spread their gospel, and seek to do good to the poor, the orphans, and the widows... while encouraging able men to work to provide food for their families.

[seekeronos]

Satellite Sweeper said:

"I always wonder why people think Muslims are out to get them."

Read the Qu'ran through, especially those nice bits where it instructs Muslims to "ambush the unbelievers wherever they find them", and to "strike the unbelievers on the neck with the edge of the sword".

Then look at what the typical mainstream muslim - i.e., one who follows the Quran and the Hadiths as holy writ from Allah - and tell me if there isn't something that needs to done to prevent them from spreading their sick, diseased "religion" into our nation.

The typical Jihadist isn't the abberation. He IS the mainstream of Islam.

[bloodrage bob]

...and as for those moderate muslims who "must find a way to remove the cancer infecting" their barbaric little stone-age pseudoreligion....

how many have tried? 5? 6? shall we take it up an zero or two? 500, maybe? gee. out of a "billion faithful adherents of The Religion Of Peace", that doesn't seem like much, does it?

what kind of results have those reformers reported? great success? frank & honest discussion in the mosques?

no, they've all been either killed, or threatened into silence, or sent into hiding to avoid being murdered for their stances, haven't they. but the honorable politicians; and the honorable moslem apologists; and the earnestly fair bloggers all assure us that islam isn't the problem, right?

and we should believe them all, for they are all honorable men, are they not? shall we then ignore the evidence reported to us by our own eyes? shall we just keep our heads bowed, desperately trying not to offend the hypersensitive mohammedans, while we wait - perhaps for a century or two, perhaps longer - for the "islamic reform" movement to take hold?

or - since we're *Americans*, not mere lowly european bootlickers - should we take a more vigorous approach?

[Arizona]

Robert,

Thank you for your comments. I agree that a true lover should be realistic and open to seeing faults (or warts) in the beloved. Imagine a man who notices a lump on his wife's breast and says nothing in case she is offended. Later, when the cancer kills her, he will regret this negligence. I am glad to read that Christianity is complete for you. I am only asking that you consider how it might seem incomplete for others, such as Muslims.

Keep up the good work,
Arizona

[Pierre]

Gee Dan now you are trying to compare Christians to Muslims? We can easily discern which ones are following the example of their founder. Christians who murder are certainly not following the example of Jesus...Muslims who murder are...ooops.

And I love the part where you try to get the ball rolling to censor Robert Spencer. You don't seem to know much about Islamic history or the Quran and based on your fingers in your ears and blindfold over your eyes you don't seem to want to know anything. Afraid of what you will find?

And I second the wish that you start blogging on the violent acts of Jesus.

[IslamoLlama]

"And I second the wish that you start blogging on the violent acts of Jesus."

He wasn't very nice to those money changers in the temple. Or to that fig tree. Just say'n.

[seekeronos]

Jesus didn't kill the moneychangers nor does the Bible account say that He beat them within inches of their lives. He simply drove them out of the temple, which was considered holy to His Father.

As for the fig tree... last time I checked, fig trees weren't either people nor animals that can perceive pain nor understand emotional distress. Moreover, that tree was cursed as an object lesson to the disciples concerning God's will for His creation to bear fruit (whether it is a fig tree bearing figs, or a Christian preaching the gospel of Christ and living a solid Christian example, in order to win lost souls to Christ).

[IslamoLlama]

He cast the demons out into the swine, which wasn't too nice to the swine. And there was that other time where he got everyone at the wedding liquored up by spiking the water with wine.

[rwilymz]

A few things:

1] Most of the "christian excesses" qua religion are historical.

2] The "muslim excesses" qua religion are both historical and contemporary.

3] Christianity is the only one of those two religions to undergo a reformation which de-literalized their literal gospel; without a literal religion, a religion's adherants can better tolerate doctrinal dissent.

4] Whether you wish to view the historical figure of Joshua bar Joseph as a legitimate savior or not, it is virtually inescapable to all but the literalist christian that actions and words attributed to same have come to us through the filter of those who wrote down those words and actions, and who were entirely subject to the sentiments of the time they did the writing. Which is to say: if it "played in Peoria" in the 4th Century AD to have "Jesus" kill a fig tree that didn't bear fruit and have a hissy fit about bankers in Temple, then figs and bankers beware.

[seekeronos]

The thing with the Bible (for Christianity) is that not everything in it is 100% applicable to the modern Age of Grace Christian; moreover, the matter of interpreting Scripture (for the Christian) is best left to the Holy Spirit, who dwells within born-again (saved) Christians.

We (Christians) do believe that the Holy Spirit (literally) inspired certain individuals to write the various books, letters, and collections of documents that form the present day body of Scripture. By convention, that is limited to the 66 books of the canon (39 Old Testament books/27 New Testament) as determined at the Council of Nicaea and confirmed at later councils.

Not all Scripture is "literal", in the sense that it must be literally understood. There is a fair amount of Scripture that cannot be correctly grasped if read literally.

The Bible has parts that are:

- Historical. The Pentateuch or first five Old Testament books, often called "the Books of Moses" detail history from the time of the Creation through the beginnings of the conquest of Canaan, and contain the delivery of the Torah Law to the Hebrews. I accept much of this literally.

- Prophecy. Some of it is literal (for example, where a prophet foretells a specific event happening to a specific person, or of specific events happening to the nation (of Israel). For Christians of today however, it turns to more of a combination of history and allegory, illustrating in the persons of the prophets and those they preached to, what is God's mind toward people who are in similar circumstances. Even unfilled prophecy (such as the Revelation of John) has substantial allegorical value, as we look for the fulfillment of Christ's promise to return.

- Poetry. David's Psalms stand the test of time of his devotion to the LORD, and his close walk with the LORD.

- Didactic. The Gospels and Paul's Epistles in particular are full of instruction and teachings for living a God-pleasing, godly-principled life, and especially so in the matter of living according to the Holy Spirit's leadership. These should probably be understood literally more so than any other part of the Bible.

I do hold the entire accepted canon of the word of God - by faith - to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God - miraculously preserved by His will. Even though I do not claim to understand it all (some things fall under the Deuteronomy 29:29 rule) -- the parts that Jesus has made clear, by all means, Christian- follow them!

What matters most with the Word of God is (a) receiving it (b) believing it and (c) applying it to one's own life.

For me - in terms of how the Scripture is handled by non-Christians - it means not to get my feathers too ruffled because some chucklehead wants to twist a event that Jesus used to teach a point out of its original context.

[ThomasD]

Yep, we never should have let Martin Luther nail his Theses to that church door.

After all, they had no practical extension beyond the banning of a religion.

[Dan Riehl]

Martin Luther

Nice bit of BS, TD. Luther was a monk within the church at the time. Had a Jew nailed them there, more likely he would have been nailed right next to them, than the reformation begin.

[ThomasD]

Luther was a monk within the church at the time.

So what?

Do you really want to go down that path? Where we only extend legitimacy to a select few? Are we to only recognize criticisms from those with a priviledged position? I'll grant you that's a very 'conservative' position. Old world conservative. As in pre Enlightenment, monarchies, divine rights of kings, etc. Not so strangely it is also becoming the preferred standard of the elitist left. A narrative is so much easier to control when there are less voices involved.

Do you honestly think Luther or any other reformers limited their discussions and ideas to those promulgated solely from within? Are you saying their statements and acts would have been less valid had they been outsiders? Sure they might have been less welcome but that only speaks about popularity not merit.

Would the Declaration of Independence been less valid had it not been written by a British subject?

I can understand how you might think this is all 'BS' because it is apparent you really haven't thought this through with any rigor.

[rwilymz]

"Are we to only recognize criticisms from those with a priviledged position?"

Don't have kids, doya?

Never dealt with a group of petulant, self-serving young "adults", havya?

It's not about intellectualizing a proper response to a factually determinable set of circumstances; it's about the emotional effrontery of having someone from the outside look in at you and tell you what you're doing wrong.

It is critical that institutional change come from within. Imposed institutional change tends to be extremely violent and deadly. God knows the Reformation was deadly enough as it was; can you imagine what would have happened had the jews or muslims pulled a Martin Luther on a catholic church door?

"I'll grant you that's a very 'conservative' position. Old world conservative. As in pre Enlightenment..."

What a coincidence you should mention the Enlightenment. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Renaissance and the Reformation appeared essentially together?

You can't get religious reformation that will stick in a culture which has no concept of individual liberty -- been tried; they're called "heretics" and they're burned at the stake. Can't get cultural enlightenment in a culture which still has a literalist religion -- god forbids it.

They have to come together.

"Do you honestly think Luther or any other reformers limited their discussions and ideas to those promulgated solely from within?"

Irrelevant.

"Are you saying their statements and acts would have been less valid had they been outsiders?"

Are you advertising ignorance of human nature?

"Sure they might have been less welcome but that only speaks about popularity not merit."

"Merit" is determined by popular acceptance. It was no less "meritorious" in the 1780s to prohibit slavery than it was in the 1860s. So why wasn't it done?

"Would the Declaration of Independence been less valid had it not been written by a British subject?"

It would have been meaningless if it were written by people who had nothing to declare independence from.

"...it is apparent you really haven't thought this through with any rigor."

Oh, that much is true, yes. That much is defintely true.

But not how you seem to think.

[Al in St. Lou]

Dan,

Take a deep breath, and then log on to Amazon and buy a couple of Robert Spencer's books. Frankly, I was planning on calling your demonization of Spencer idiotic and promising to leave. However, after reading Spencer's excellent replies and your lack of rejoinder, I'm staying. If Spencer finds you worth reading, you must be.

[Dan Riehl]

"Spencer's excellent replies and your lack of rejoinder"

I don't disagree with his scholarship, I disagree with his tactic and have no intention of arguing it out in blog comments, I don't do that with any issue. Just ain't my thing. He has his position and I have mine.

[Jane Abraham]

Gee Dan now you are trying to compare Christians to Muslims? We can easily discern which ones are following the example of their founder. Christians who murder are certainly not following the example of Jesus...Muslims who murder are...ooops.

How many Christian being killed or injured by Muhammad compare to the number of Christians being slaughter by Paul the Murderer.

Matthew 10:34-36
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against
his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her
motherinlaw- a man's enemies will be the members of his own
household.

Matthew 10:21
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 49:53
I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were
already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I
am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth?
No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family
divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against
daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Oop, many who called themself Christians don't even read and understand what are written in the bible

[Al in St. Lou]

How is teaching people what Islam actually preaches a tactic? I think it's something called education. I also think that you're conflating some cave-man "Christians good; Muslims ba-a-a-a-ad" caricature with Spencer's real message. It's your loss.