[lit-ideas] Re: Mike's acumen in judging Spencer
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:29:17 -0500
>>Well, Mike, you don't have it quite right about Christianity. You have the
>>time frame wrong. After the Peace of Westphalia in 17th century, the
>>Catholics and Protestants were still in power -- that is, those who were in
>>power were either Catholics or Protestants<<
Yes, but the power and influence of the papacy was dramatically reduced by the
end of the 17th Century. It was primarily the Catholic Church that for at
least 600 years waged terrorist warfare against those she thought opposed to
the faith. Since the beginning of the 17th Century, except for the Papal
States in Italy which remained (more or less) under the sovereignty of the
Papacy until 1861 (and Vatican City to this day), no Western country has been
under the rule of or had to share power with a religious leader -- not so far
as I know, but I readily admit that my knowledge of history is spotted. That's
not to say that there weren't crimes against humanity committed by both
Catholic and Protestant kings and queens who under the principle cuius regio,
eius religio were only too willing to chop off the heads of the other. But
then it was all about secular power, not religion, though religion was often
the pretext for the assault. Is it any better to die for the state than for
God? No, but the state is more accessible to control than religion.
>>School is still out as to whether Secularism is making a better world for us
>>in the West than the Christianity it is replacing.<<
For you it may be still out, but not for me. I know beyond any doubt that I
don't want any priests, preachers, mullahs or rabbis in charge of the police.
Thank you very much.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mike's acumen in judging Spencer
and the village atheist was still a strange fellow living alongside the
village idiot. Secularism was strong in the 19th century but didn't come into
its own until the 20th. One strange phenomenon is that people, even people
in the West, don't really like being atheists and are turning in droves to the
first thing handy: UFOs, astrology, Palm reading, and in Europe;with its influx
of cheap labor from North Africa, Islam. But that's another discussion.
As to Spencer, I must confess his titles did seem especially strident to me.
That, and because I thought they would be too partisan and too simplistic
caused me to reject the idea of reading them. I know Spencer through his
publication "Jihad Watch." I appreciate what he's doing there. I can think of
reasons not to read Spencer's books. It was your particular reason I found
difficult. Also, I do appreciate his "in your face" attitude, his willingness
to challenge the Jihadists and Islamists -- if not all of Islam. There should
be Islamic Traditionalists willing to do that with the radicals -- and maybe
there are here and there in the West, but not in the Middle East.
Spencer does seem to be taking on all of Islam; which a lot of conservatives
are seeing as the proper approach. Dinesh D'Souza (another Conservative) on
the other hand thinks we, even we Christians, should side with the Islamic
Traditionalists against the radicals. D'Souza thinks Christians and Islamic
Traditionalists have (or can have) much in common and we should join forces.
After D'Souza published his thesis, The Enemy at Home, he and his thesis were
roundly criticized by every Conservative reviewer I read. I would like to see
D'Souza given a better hearing but a weakness in his argument is that there
don't seem to be any Islamic Traditionalists out there in the Middle East
wanting to side with Christianity against the radicals. He says they exist,
but he needs to produce them and we need to hear from them. Since he is from
India and is familiar with the Muslims there, perhaps he has India's Muslims
too much in mind. Maybe they can side with Christians as he suggests, but I
don't see how that is going to improve the situation in the Middle East. It is
there amongst Arab and Persian Muslims that we have the most serious problem.
And it is there that we see a dearth of reasonable, Islamic moderates and
traditionalists.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, Aug-9-2007 6:29 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mike's acumen in judging Spencer
As I said previously, I haven't read these books and doubt that I ever will,
so I can't comment on them specifically. I can, however, state my belief that
the titles of the books give me little hope that they are a serious critique of
Islam, but rather the assertions of a bigot in pursuit of a personal agenda.
You realize don't you, Lawrence, that there are one and a half billion Muslims
in the world. To try to characterize Islam is about as meaningful and trying
to characterize Christianity. One can sumarize a few common beliefs among the
multitude of Christian sects, but the import of those beliefs in the moral and
ethical life of the adherents is so disparate as to be meaningless.. The
assertion that Christianity is a religion of peace is laughable. From the time
of Charlemagne to the Peace of Westphalia was a period of relentless
bloodletting by the Christian Church. Heretics, Jews, Muslims, witches,
infidels, for a thousand years all were butchered in furtherance of the
Christian faiths. Just 60 years ago the Christian nations of Europe (and
America) threw themselves into an orgy of death of destruction unparrelled in
human history. Peaceful? We do tolerate each other's beliefs now -- somewhat
-- but not because Christianity is peaceful, rather because the peoples of the
Western nations threw off the yoke of religious leadership for secular
leadership.
>> Is that what you think, Mike? That the Christians shouldn't have opposed
the onward expansive march of Islam? That would explain a lot if that's what
you think, since that is what present day Islamism is about, i.e., resuming
Mohammad's Jihad that is supposed to end only when the entire world has bowed
its knee to Allah and Mohammad.<<
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't a
serious question.
>>The last title [The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most
Intolerant Religion.] suggests that Spencer is going to be critical of Mohammad
himself...But what is there in this that makes Mike think Spencer an intolerant
bigot? Because he attacks the founder of a religion and the religion itself?<<
The title of the book, Lawrence, says it all. Surely even you can see that.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:20 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Mike's acumen in judging Spencer
I took the dogs for an extra-long walk this evening and as I was tiredly
winding down here on the Left Coast my mind flitted about for awhile and
finally settled upon Mike Geary's remarkable acumen. From just the titles of
Spencer's books, and knowing nothing else about him, he was able to determine
that he was an "intolerant bigot," unless of course he was being ironic. I
believe we can safely eliminate the possibility that his titles are ironic
which leaves Geary's "intolerant bigot." Let's review these titles:
1) The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims,
2) Religion of Peace?; Why Christianity is and Islam isn't,
3) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and
4) The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant
Religion.
I haven't read these books either but it is easy to see in book number one
that Spencer doesn't believe Islam is a tolerant religion. Does this title
mean that Spencer is an "intolerant bigot"? An intolerant bigot for arguing,
as I assume he does, that Islam is not tolerant? I can't follow Mike's
thinking if that's the case, but perhaps he didn't have that title in mind even
though he said "titles."
In Title number two, Spencer apparently will be arguing that Islam is not a
religion of peace while Christianity is. Is there something intolerantly
bigoted in such an argument. The official position of the Christian church in
all its denominations, pretty much since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (if my
old memory serves me) has been one of tolerance. Tolerance is built into
present day Christianity -- at least the bulk of it. Some minority sects have
taken an intolerant stance on single issues, but by and large Christianity is
tolerant in the sense of letting non-Christians do whatever they like. But
perhaps Mike thinks Spencer is an "intolerant bigot" for suggesting that Islam
is not a religion of peace. Perhaps all those killings, mutilations, fatwas
etc have tricked Spencer into thinking Islam is not a religion of peace. It's
late and I'm getting tangled up. Maybe Mike should explain why he thinks Islam
is a religion of peace and Christianity is not. Maybe some vengeful priest or
nun has put a fatwa out on him.
In Title Three we can't tell too much other than he probably doesn't take
the popular view about Islam and he probably thinks Islam was more to blame in
the Crusades than the Christians. Actually, Islam was moving right ahead
conquering mile after mile of land that once belonged to Christians until the
latter very ineptly and reluctantly fielded some armies to oppose them. That
isn't a popular view among Leftist non-scholars (not to mention Islamists and
Jihadists). They prefer seeing the Islamic armies as somehow justified in
being wherever they managed to get and the nasty Christians perverse for
challenging them.
Does that make Spencer an intolerant bigot? If so, I recall Mike
attacking Christianity. Does that make Mike an intolerant bigot? Mike never
claimed not to be an intolerant bigot, but he seemed to view that state with
disapproval -- at least he seems to apply that term to Spencer in a pejorative
sense. But maybe one is only an intolerant bigot if one attacks Islam. Maybe
if one attacks Christianity one is merely taking a position that is true. I
know the Islamists and the Jihadists would agree with Mike on that . . . if
that's what he's saying.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, Aug-8-2007 1:30 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's
LH:
>>If I have offended your Leftist sympathies for the Jihadists and
Islamists, feel free to send me your fatwa.
No, you haven't offended my leftist sympathies for anyone or anything, I
was just curious as to why you sent the post. Was it just another rant against
Islamists? That's what I assumed at first, but then you did quote from someone
as if that were evidence of something. -- I couldn't figure out what the
something is. I've never heard of Spencer so I can't comment on whether or not
I think the lawsuit is justified or not. The titles of his books suggest that
he is an intolerant bigot, but one can't go by that, perhaps he was being
ironic. If your motive was to get a good laugh at the idiot who spoke of
ripping Spencer's spine, etc, well, you know, we have Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, they have their idiots as well. Trash talking is the
solace of the impotent. I pay it no mind.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's
Mike
Well, the point I thought was obvious, namely that the Jihadists aren't
able to make the logical connection; they can't think logically -- or they
don't give a rat's ass about logic. The offense (according to the Islamists)
was that Spencer argued that Islam isn't tolerant, and isn't a religion of
peace. The Islamists responded by the fatwa ""May Allah rip out his spine from
his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do
it over and over" which demonstrates Spencer's point. Such a Fatwa is neither
tolerant (they don't want Spencer to write any more such books) and isn't
peaceful. I find this amusing. My point is that it is funny. This is one of
the funnier sequences moving from the offense (Spencer's books and articles) to
the response (which proves the point of Spencer's books and articles).
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, Aug-8-2007 12:14 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's
What's your point, Lawrence?
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:31 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] One of the better fatwa's
One of the most active anti-Islamists I've run across is Robert
Spencer. He wrote such books as The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law
Treats Non-Muslims, Religion of Peace?; Why Christianity is and Islam isn't,
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth
about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
Anyway, the Islamists have had enough of him. They've filed a lawsuit
against him: "A powerful Washington, D.C. law firm told YAF that Robert was,
in essence, a hate-filled liar and that CAIR had ordered the law firm "to purse
every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and
defamatory statements that made" at the conference." [sic]
And I suppose to distance themselves from the hate-filled Spencer,
they've issued a fatwa: "May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split
his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over."
You've got to love their thought processes: You say we aren't peaceful
and tolerant? You can't get away with that: May Allay rip out your spine from
your back and split your brains in two, and then put them back, and then do it
over and over. You've got to love it.
Lawrence
ps: Where did I get this information? I was sent a letter asking me
to contribute to Spencer's legal defense fund. It was in that letter.
Other related posts:
