More tripe about terrorists using Canadian passports for convenience. That whole family is trouble, and the fewer of them in the country, the happier a lot of people would be. But of course we can’t trample the rights of the poor dears, can we?
I won’t rehash all of the reasons why it’s a bad idea for people like this (they’re lamentably not alone) to be given a free pass here, but I will put it to you to ask yourself who feels sympathy for this junior sociopath?
Omar Khadr was perfectly capable of killing a US Army medic while still a “Young Offender”, and was part of the Islamist scum that continue to try to keep Afghanistan and other countries in a Wahabbist dark age. The whole group of them are deep into this crap, and yet the former government decided to let them in.
Despite the “concerns” of the kid’s appointed military lawyer, I’m in no hurry for the Canadian government to bail this boil-on-society’s-ass out of Gitmo. Personally, I think he should be put down like the rabid animal he is, but if you’re of a more sporting bent, maybe send him back to Afghanistan where our troops can get another crack at him when he goes back to his old buddies…
Can you tell I’m in a bad mood today? A little more spleen than usual, but hey, why pull punches? I don’t have a lot of other stuff that cries out for comment, but there is a lot happening in the US that could make things the wrong kind of interesting should certain people (like Nancy Pelosi and crew) get more power than they currently have.
I will also over the next few days try to expand the list of links to include a lot of the other blogs that I read, usually linking to them from some of the ones already here. All of this info is out there, and a lot of these spots link further to many interesting sources. Like any sources, they have to be considered, but those of us with a bent for critical analysis can usually smell the B.S. a long way off. These guys usually make sense to me, so I’ll leave it to you.
Thursday 29 March 2007
Monday 26 March 2007
What's your damage?
I saw an article on MSN a few days ago, and unfortunately I can’t locate it any longer. It was obviously derived from the same study as this:
‘U.C.L.A.'s Mendez notes that the study provides evidence that people do not need cultural and social taboos to form morality. "Part of normal development is this emotional responding to another human being," he says. "It's not something you have to learn or you have to go have a specific religious experience to pick up, or have a cultural experience…. It is based on emotionally responding to others, and there's a part of the brain dedicated to that." '
It seems to me that this is the only part of it that stuck with the MSN writer. The upshot of the MSN version is that if you are capable of making moral yet emotionally detached decisions, you must be brain damaged.
I invite you to read the Scientific American article in full (linked from the post title), but here’s what it boils down to:
“Most people see the value in the utilitarian option of harming one if it protects scores of others. But there is also a significant emotional component given that the decision involves hurting another human being. Some neuroscientists theorize that the choice ultimately comes down to a moral tug-of-war between compassion and cold reasoning.
According to a new report, published in Nature, damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC)—a region in the forebrain associated with emotional response—can blunt a person's emotional response to sacrificing a single person to save many others.”
There is significant peril in making associations, and this points to one possibility, however the Scientific American article is much more complete, and makes a good, supported case. Personally, I think that a lot of our trepidation about hurting people for good reason is the result of “cultural and social taboos” as much as a lack of damage to a specific part of our brain, but of course I can’t prove that. There are a hell of a lot of suicide bombers who seem to back up my hypothesis however…
It comes as no surprise to me of course that a lightweight mainstream media source should simplify something to the point of stupidity, and this sort of thing helps explain why so many people are so poorly informed about what happens in the world. Any of you who read this are by definition fighting that trend, since I am usually at odds with stuff that I get from the major news sources.
My main problem with the initial piece (wish I could find it) was that it as much as said that if you were capable of making an unpleasant decision, you must be brain-damaged. Being someone quite capable of squelching my squishy impulses in times of crisis, I naturally take offence to this. The SciAm statement about a “tug-of-war” makes a lot of sense to me, and you don’t need a sharp blow to the head to be able to make a difficult decision.
Sure, if something removes your emotional connection to it, it becomes easy, obvious, really, to do the raw math and make a decision accordingly. However, there are a lot of situations that I can foresee that will have to be dealt with by people whose brains are physically intact, but require a “Mr Spock” solution.
Without the convenient brain damage to provide clarity, you must make the necessary decisions, and do so knowing it’s the right thing to do. Nobody ever said making the tough decisions was easy, but I guess that’s a test of character for us, isn’t it?
‘U.C.L.A.'s Mendez notes that the study provides evidence that people do not need cultural and social taboos to form morality. "Part of normal development is this emotional responding to another human being," he says. "It's not something you have to learn or you have to go have a specific religious experience to pick up, or have a cultural experience…. It is based on emotionally responding to others, and there's a part of the brain dedicated to that." '
It seems to me that this is the only part of it that stuck with the MSN writer. The upshot of the MSN version is that if you are capable of making moral yet emotionally detached decisions, you must be brain damaged.
I invite you to read the Scientific American article in full (linked from the post title), but here’s what it boils down to:
“Most people see the value in the utilitarian option of harming one if it protects scores of others. But there is also a significant emotional component given that the decision involves hurting another human being. Some neuroscientists theorize that the choice ultimately comes down to a moral tug-of-war between compassion and cold reasoning.
According to a new report, published in Nature, damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC)—a region in the forebrain associated with emotional response—can blunt a person's emotional response to sacrificing a single person to save many others.”
There is significant peril in making associations, and this points to one possibility, however the Scientific American article is much more complete, and makes a good, supported case. Personally, I think that a lot of our trepidation about hurting people for good reason is the result of “cultural and social taboos” as much as a lack of damage to a specific part of our brain, but of course I can’t prove that. There are a hell of a lot of suicide bombers who seem to back up my hypothesis however…
It comes as no surprise to me of course that a lightweight mainstream media source should simplify something to the point of stupidity, and this sort of thing helps explain why so many people are so poorly informed about what happens in the world. Any of you who read this are by definition fighting that trend, since I am usually at odds with stuff that I get from the major news sources.
My main problem with the initial piece (wish I could find it) was that it as much as said that if you were capable of making an unpleasant decision, you must be brain-damaged. Being someone quite capable of squelching my squishy impulses in times of crisis, I naturally take offence to this. The SciAm statement about a “tug-of-war” makes a lot of sense to me, and you don’t need a sharp blow to the head to be able to make a difficult decision.
Sure, if something removes your emotional connection to it, it becomes easy, obvious, really, to do the raw math and make a decision accordingly. However, there are a lot of situations that I can foresee that will have to be dealt with by people whose brains are physically intact, but require a “Mr Spock” solution.
Without the convenient brain damage to provide clarity, you must make the necessary decisions, and do so knowing it’s the right thing to do. Nobody ever said making the tough decisions was easy, but I guess that’s a test of character for us, isn’t it?
Saturday 24 March 2007
Act of War, anyone?
A number of things this week, so while I have the opportunity to post, in the interest of my loyal readers (I know there are at least a few of you) I shall do so.
Number One with a bullet, mainly because of the lack of bullets, is the seizing of that British boarding party by the Iranians. This is not the first time they’ve done this, nor will it be the last, since our side has proven repeatedly that we’ll bend over and take it.
There is a lot of foolishness in the news about who was in whose waters, but with current technology I’m sure the Brits knew exactly where they were, and the Iranians did too. The CTV story that I linked to is doing a marvellous job of backing up the Iranian news agencies; I hope Fars gives them an award or something. There’s balanced reporting, and then there is a recognition of who your friends are. This story fails on both counts, as it reads like something the Iranians would have put out, and marginalizes our historic and NATO allies.
Personally I’m disgusted that the boarding party was taken without a fight. Everyone (who matters) knows that Iran is backing a lot of the Shia factions in Iraq who are killing British and American troops. With that in mind, being taken hostage (gee, Iran likes to do that) by an obviously antagonistic power without trying to fight your way out points to a bunch of glaring weaknesses on the Brits’ side.
From a strictly military perspective, sending the boats out where you couldn’t support them from the ship is, in the circumstances, pretty negligent. There is no excuse for not seeing the Iranian boats coming, and REALLY no excuse for not suspecting they’d try something like this given half a chance. If our side doesn’t have enough naval and air firepower on hand to deal with anything Iran might try, we have a serious problem.
Now we just wait to see what happens. Were I Tony Blair, I’d have told the Iranians that if my troops and equipment weren’t returned intact within 3 hours, I would systematically sink every boat in the Iranian navy. If that still didn’t work, then the port facilities, and anything military that my planes could reach. I’d make sure the whole world knew, and then start actually doing it.
I can usually find some Kipling for any situation and I have a piece here:
If there should follow a thousand swords to carry my bones away,
Belike the price of a jackal's meal were more than a thief could pay.
They will feed their horse on the standing crop, their men on the garnered grain,
The thatch of the byres will serve their fires when all the cattle are slain.
But if thou thinkest the price be fair,--thy brethren wait to sup,
The hound is kin to the jackal-spawn,--howl, dog, and call them up!
And if thou thinkest the price be high, in steer and gear and stack,
Give me my father's mare again, and I'll fight my own way back!''
That’s from “The Ballad of East and West”, and it’s about trying to get a stolen horse back from some Afghan chieftain in the mid 1800s. The Colonel’s son has just been captured and is telling buddy “the way things are”. A bit more of that sort of attitude these days and I think less of this would happen.
Ok, and something that encourages me that all is not lost; kudos to PM Steven Harper for telling the Liberals what a lot of us are thinking. It was in the news a few days ago and I can’t find the link, but first telling Dion and Co. that they care more about the Taliban than about Canadian troops, and then refusing to apologize for it shows some real stones and has definitely scored him points with his supporters. Politics are polarizing and fragmenting at the same time in this country. I try to stay out of that, but parts of it are interesting to observe. Perhaps more on that in the near future…
Number One with a bullet, mainly because of the lack of bullets, is the seizing of that British boarding party by the Iranians. This is not the first time they’ve done this, nor will it be the last, since our side has proven repeatedly that we’ll bend over and take it.
There is a lot of foolishness in the news about who was in whose waters, but with current technology I’m sure the Brits knew exactly where they were, and the Iranians did too. The CTV story that I linked to is doing a marvellous job of backing up the Iranian news agencies; I hope Fars gives them an award or something. There’s balanced reporting, and then there is a recognition of who your friends are. This story fails on both counts, as it reads like something the Iranians would have put out, and marginalizes our historic and NATO allies.
Personally I’m disgusted that the boarding party was taken without a fight. Everyone (who matters) knows that Iran is backing a lot of the Shia factions in Iraq who are killing British and American troops. With that in mind, being taken hostage (gee, Iran likes to do that) by an obviously antagonistic power without trying to fight your way out points to a bunch of glaring weaknesses on the Brits’ side.
From a strictly military perspective, sending the boats out where you couldn’t support them from the ship is, in the circumstances, pretty negligent. There is no excuse for not seeing the Iranian boats coming, and REALLY no excuse for not suspecting they’d try something like this given half a chance. If our side doesn’t have enough naval and air firepower on hand to deal with anything Iran might try, we have a serious problem.
Now we just wait to see what happens. Were I Tony Blair, I’d have told the Iranians that if my troops and equipment weren’t returned intact within 3 hours, I would systematically sink every boat in the Iranian navy. If that still didn’t work, then the port facilities, and anything military that my planes could reach. I’d make sure the whole world knew, and then start actually doing it.
I can usually find some Kipling for any situation and I have a piece here:
If there should follow a thousand swords to carry my bones away,
Belike the price of a jackal's meal were more than a thief could pay.
They will feed their horse on the standing crop, their men on the garnered grain,
The thatch of the byres will serve their fires when all the cattle are slain.
But if thou thinkest the price be fair,--thy brethren wait to sup,
The hound is kin to the jackal-spawn,--howl, dog, and call them up!
And if thou thinkest the price be high, in steer and gear and stack,
Give me my father's mare again, and I'll fight my own way back!''
That’s from “The Ballad of East and West”, and it’s about trying to get a stolen horse back from some Afghan chieftain in the mid 1800s. The Colonel’s son has just been captured and is telling buddy “the way things are”. A bit more of that sort of attitude these days and I think less of this would happen.
Ok, and something that encourages me that all is not lost; kudos to PM Steven Harper for telling the Liberals what a lot of us are thinking. It was in the news a few days ago and I can’t find the link, but first telling Dion and Co. that they care more about the Taliban than about Canadian troops, and then refusing to apologize for it shows some real stones and has definitely scored him points with his supporters. Politics are polarizing and fragmenting at the same time in this country. I try to stay out of that, but parts of it are interesting to observe. Perhaps more on that in the near future…
Wednesday 21 March 2007
Making Friends and Influencing People
As much as some people are likely being given an undeserved hard time, I actually take this report as a GOOD sign. Why is that, you may ask? It’s because it looks like Canadians, real, man-on-the-street type Canadians, are getting sick of being told that our way of life isn’t good enough.
I don’t think that if I went to a Muslim country and started whining that my rights were infringed because I couldn’t get Christmas or Easter off that anything (good) would come of it. This country was founded by Europeans (yes, I know we weren’t here first) and theirs is the set of traditions and CULTURE that our system is based on. I capitalize “culture” because I am more than sick of being told either that I have none or than mine has to give over to someone else’s.
This being a CBC report, there is the usual bleeding-heart foolishness. I am 100% certain that my reaction to this report is not what they had in mind, but a critical appraisal of some of the “problems” these oppressed types are dealing with fails to tug at my heartstrings. No women-only hours at the gym, “inconvenient” prayer rooms and having to wash in the (gasp!) public washrooms before prayer; hardly the end of the world. If your faith is so important that you need everything around you to conform to it, I suggest you go somewhere that won’t be an inconvenience for everyone else. But wait, women can’t go to those universities with men at all, can they?
As for “Muslim women cannot take their hijab off in front of men”, that is just for the fundamentalists, and is NOT an essential tenet of Islam. Who exactly is making these complaints?
Well, if you hearken back a couple of posts to the Muslim Canadian Congress, the same sort of people are threatening the MCC. I was listening to the radio this evening, and the leaders of that organization are being threatened with death (“slaughter” was the actual word left in the message). These are the same strain of Islamism that is poisoning most of the world right now, and it’s not a new thing either.
I haven’t finished the book yet (started it today, after all) but I am reading “God’s Terrorists” by Charles Allen. The most interesting (though hardly surprising) thing I’ve read in it so far is the enmity that Wahabbism has engendered within (and without) the Muslim world from its’ earliest inception. Military action was taken by the Ottomans as well as the Raj, but never enough to exterminate it, if such a thing is possible. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are but the latest adherents of this violent and repressive cult.
That crew, the death-worshiping, beheading lot that they are, is what a lot of kufars like myself think of these days when the words “Islam” or Muslim” are mentioned. The reason is simple; they’re getting almost all the press, and are doing their damnedest to take over the world. That last bit is not in any way an exaggeration; read some of their tripe for yourself if you doubt it.
So, again; this is a secular country with a Common Law based on a Judeo-Christian tradition. Anyone who wants to live by those laws is welcome here. Our institutions reflect that, as they should. Your religion has no part of the law, since you’re not bloody special, and the rest of us don’t want to be marginalized for your sake. What’s that line? Oh yeah, if you don’t like it here, go somewhere else. I don’t care if you WERE born here; play nice or get lost.
Rant, rant, rant. In lighter reading, I also just finished “Ender’s Shadow” (Orson Scott Card) and before that was “The Peshawar Lancers” (Steve Stirling). Yes, I do read for fun occasionally too…
I don’t think that if I went to a Muslim country and started whining that my rights were infringed because I couldn’t get Christmas or Easter off that anything (good) would come of it. This country was founded by Europeans (yes, I know we weren’t here first) and theirs is the set of traditions and CULTURE that our system is based on. I capitalize “culture” because I am more than sick of being told either that I have none or than mine has to give over to someone else’s.
This being a CBC report, there is the usual bleeding-heart foolishness. I am 100% certain that my reaction to this report is not what they had in mind, but a critical appraisal of some of the “problems” these oppressed types are dealing with fails to tug at my heartstrings. No women-only hours at the gym, “inconvenient” prayer rooms and having to wash in the (gasp!) public washrooms before prayer; hardly the end of the world. If your faith is so important that you need everything around you to conform to it, I suggest you go somewhere that won’t be an inconvenience for everyone else. But wait, women can’t go to those universities with men at all, can they?
As for “Muslim women cannot take their hijab off in front of men”, that is just for the fundamentalists, and is NOT an essential tenet of Islam. Who exactly is making these complaints?
Well, if you hearken back a couple of posts to the Muslim Canadian Congress, the same sort of people are threatening the MCC. I was listening to the radio this evening, and the leaders of that organization are being threatened with death (“slaughter” was the actual word left in the message). These are the same strain of Islamism that is poisoning most of the world right now, and it’s not a new thing either.
I haven’t finished the book yet (started it today, after all) but I am reading “God’s Terrorists” by Charles Allen. The most interesting (though hardly surprising) thing I’ve read in it so far is the enmity that Wahabbism has engendered within (and without) the Muslim world from its’ earliest inception. Military action was taken by the Ottomans as well as the Raj, but never enough to exterminate it, if such a thing is possible. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are but the latest adherents of this violent and repressive cult.
That crew, the death-worshiping, beheading lot that they are, is what a lot of kufars like myself think of these days when the words “Islam” or Muslim” are mentioned. The reason is simple; they’re getting almost all the press, and are doing their damnedest to take over the world. That last bit is not in any way an exaggeration; read some of their tripe for yourself if you doubt it.
So, again; this is a secular country with a Common Law based on a Judeo-Christian tradition. Anyone who wants to live by those laws is welcome here. Our institutions reflect that, as they should. Your religion has no part of the law, since you’re not bloody special, and the rest of us don’t want to be marginalized for your sake. What’s that line? Oh yeah, if you don’t like it here, go somewhere else. I don’t care if you WERE born here; play nice or get lost.
Rant, rant, rant. In lighter reading, I also just finished “Ender’s Shadow” (Orson Scott Card) and before that was “The Peshawar Lancers” (Steve Stirling). Yes, I do read for fun occasionally too…
Tuesday 13 March 2007
Not shedding any tears...
I don’t now if it’s a good thing, but there are a few things popping up in the news recently that are inspiring me to vent. Well, a muse is a muse…
The recent events that have irked me most are those surrounding the reaction of certain malcontents to the fate of Taliban-type prisoners after we hand them over to the representatives of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan.
Yes, some people are never happy; I may be one of them, but at least I’m consistent. Knowing what I do of the fate of prisoners in that part of the world, it’s hard to imagine that the guys we turn over to the ANP or ANA (Afghan National Police and Army, respectively) get any worse than they’d deal out to our side. That includes our Afghan allies too, and they know better than any of us do who they’re up against. I am willing to believe that due to the fact that the Afghan government has a least SOME oversight, very few if any of the prisoners NATO hands over to them are sodomized to death, beheaded, or any of the other goodies the locals keep in store for kafir prisoners. Just ask the Russians…
Anyway, I digress. There is a definite school of thought that the whole world operates on the same mushy humanitarian precepts that Western universities are so well known to espouse. These people are over-represented in the media, and by extension in the sort of reports the media will make based on the selective choosing of interviewees. The CBC story that the title links to gives excellent examples of a politician (even though he’s a retired General) and a serving soldier (a real one) commenting on the same issue.
Although General Hillier lapses into some sound-bitey gobbledy-gook in his third sentence, it’s the first two sentences that are operative. I doubt that you’d find any of the combat troops over there to (off the record) give a red rats’ ass what happens to the Taliban types they take prisoner, but we all have to make the right noises for the media.
One of the best-known traits of Canadian troops in both World Wars was a lack of interest in taking prisoners. It’s strange that things have changed so much that not only do we go out of our way to take them, but then have to take flak from the media and rights industry about how SOMEONE ELSE is treating them. As you can imagine, I have a really simple solution to this problem, but I’ll let you guess what it is.
Obviously, there is a legal and ethical duty of all soldiers (as opposed to the Islamist scum we fight) to treat all prisoners with dignity. However, life is hard all over the place, and if their fellow countrymen can’t be allowed to deal with them, there is no point in us being there. I’m a heartless fascist pig, but I sure don’t want these scheisskopfs in our system. We have enough criminal and terrorist drains on our system already, the Afghans can deal with their own. The ones we don’t manage to kill outright in combat, that is.
The recent events that have irked me most are those surrounding the reaction of certain malcontents to the fate of Taliban-type prisoners after we hand them over to the representatives of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan.
Yes, some people are never happy; I may be one of them, but at least I’m consistent. Knowing what I do of the fate of prisoners in that part of the world, it’s hard to imagine that the guys we turn over to the ANP or ANA (Afghan National Police and Army, respectively) get any worse than they’d deal out to our side. That includes our Afghan allies too, and they know better than any of us do who they’re up against. I am willing to believe that due to the fact that the Afghan government has a least SOME oversight, very few if any of the prisoners NATO hands over to them are sodomized to death, beheaded, or any of the other goodies the locals keep in store for kafir prisoners. Just ask the Russians…
Anyway, I digress. There is a definite school of thought that the whole world operates on the same mushy humanitarian precepts that Western universities are so well known to espouse. These people are over-represented in the media, and by extension in the sort of reports the media will make based on the selective choosing of interviewees. The CBC story that the title links to gives excellent examples of a politician (even though he’s a retired General) and a serving soldier (a real one) commenting on the same issue.
Although General Hillier lapses into some sound-bitey gobbledy-gook in his third sentence, it’s the first two sentences that are operative. I doubt that you’d find any of the combat troops over there to (off the record) give a red rats’ ass what happens to the Taliban types they take prisoner, but we all have to make the right noises for the media.
One of the best-known traits of Canadian troops in both World Wars was a lack of interest in taking prisoners. It’s strange that things have changed so much that not only do we go out of our way to take them, but then have to take flak from the media and rights industry about how SOMEONE ELSE is treating them. As you can imagine, I have a really simple solution to this problem, but I’ll let you guess what it is.
Obviously, there is a legal and ethical duty of all soldiers (as opposed to the Islamist scum we fight) to treat all prisoners with dignity. However, life is hard all over the place, and if their fellow countrymen can’t be allowed to deal with them, there is no point in us being there. I’m a heartless fascist pig, but I sure don’t want these scheisskopfs in our system. We have enough criminal and terrorist drains on our system already, the Afghans can deal with their own. The ones we don’t manage to kill outright in combat, that is.
Sunday 11 March 2007
Good fences make good neighbours
In order to keep things as close to balanced as I can (or care to, it is MY blog, after all…) I’d like to take this opportunity to point out a Muslim group in Canada that is working on being a good neighbour.
The Muslim Canadian Congress was featured in a CBC National report on 9 March 07, and I have to say they come off looking a lot better than their shaggy-bearded opponents. This means that there is a nucleus of disestablishmentarian Muslims who are more interested in the benefits that Canada offers than in changing it to be just like the benighted “old country”.
These are the sort of immigrants our country wants and needs, and there are a lot of them of various faiths (or lacks thereof) throughout the world. This applies to any “western” country of course, and it’s well within our abilities (and laws) to see that the bad apples are the tiny exception and not a sizable minority.
There is the problem of course, mentioned before, that those willing to cut throats or otherwise threaten more accommodating elements are likely to carry the day through intimidation. There is a lot of eyewash about “dialogue” with interfaith groups, but amid the hand-wringing there are nuggets, such as the MCC here that (appear to) actually stand for the chance to work within the system, rather than subverting it. Be warned that I’ve not done a lot of research on them, but they’re looking good so far.
So, there we go; all the world isn’t an unremitting struggle of mostly good against dark-age barbarians. However, divide and conquer works very effectively against us and our allies, so we have to identify like-minded people and support them before it really turns into that. Like in Europe, for example…
I’m feeling a touch feverish today, so that’s as much as I can keep it together for. More to follow.
The Muslim Canadian Congress was featured in a CBC National report on 9 March 07, and I have to say they come off looking a lot better than their shaggy-bearded opponents. This means that there is a nucleus of disestablishmentarian Muslims who are more interested in the benefits that Canada offers than in changing it to be just like the benighted “old country”.
These are the sort of immigrants our country wants and needs, and there are a lot of them of various faiths (or lacks thereof) throughout the world. This applies to any “western” country of course, and it’s well within our abilities (and laws) to see that the bad apples are the tiny exception and not a sizable minority.
There is the problem of course, mentioned before, that those willing to cut throats or otherwise threaten more accommodating elements are likely to carry the day through intimidation. There is a lot of eyewash about “dialogue” with interfaith groups, but amid the hand-wringing there are nuggets, such as the MCC here that (appear to) actually stand for the chance to work within the system, rather than subverting it. Be warned that I’ve not done a lot of research on them, but they’re looking good so far.
So, there we go; all the world isn’t an unremitting struggle of mostly good against dark-age barbarians. However, divide and conquer works very effectively against us and our allies, so we have to identify like-minded people and support them before it really turns into that. Like in Europe, for example…
I’m feeling a touch feverish today, so that’s as much as I can keep it together for. More to follow.
Saturday 3 March 2007
Crusade vs. Jihad
Having been out of touch with most of what was going on with the world for a month, I’m back. The first thing to do, said I, is find something for the blog. Ok, not first, but it was on the list...
As answer to my ongoing quest, there appeared a number of stories in a couple of newspapers this weekend about the shift occurring in Christianity and although most of this wasn’t news to me, it did get me thinking that I could rile some people up with my unvarnished thoughts on the matter.
Essentially, the power centre of Christianity has shifted from Europe to Africa and Asia. What I hadn’t previously taken note of, being preoccupied with the depredations of Islam on Western society, was what the prognosis is for Islam’s main competition.
According to the stuff I was reading, (my interpretation, at least) the near complete collapse of faith in Europe and erosion in North America has been largely counterbalanced by an energetic resurgence or breaking of new ground in Africa and Asia, particularly South Korea and China.
Personally, I’m not a church-going type, but I recognize that you have to fight fire with fire, or at least brimstone, and secular moral relativism is a lousy counter to Belief (capitals intended). This equates to: if push comes to shove, I’ll back the faith of my ancestors as that’s what got us the advances we have today. Islam is a dead-end, and is completely incompatible with progress, so I don’t want it in charge of any place I live. I don’t want a theocracy of any sort, but Christianity at least acknowledges the idea of separation between religion and state.
This is all my personal view, and at that not based on anything other than “research by osmosis” over the years. It certainly appears that the Muslims causing the trouble (not all of them of course) are un-persuaded of the virtues of dialogue, and they are more interested in forcing people to see things their way. Religion isn’t the best route to an open mind, but something is needed to motivate those of us who don’t want to live under the Caliphate. Also, just maybe, being able to see everyone’s point of view is a bit of problem when one of those views wants you dead or enslaved…
So, it’s a good-news-bad-news thing. The future of Western civilization does NOT necessarily belong to Islam, but the cures for that disease are like chemotherapy, and in any event staving off the Islamist death cults will alter our society significantly. It seems to me that there is a lack of will, even a certain enervation in Western societies that prevents us taking the action required to deal with the root causes of those who wish us destroyed or assimilated. I have a feeling that the push will come from Africa, from the Christian communities directly on the front lines of the “Clash of Civilizations.”
So Secular Humanists, convince me that you have a rallying-cry to defend my way of life. Barring that, consider that the enemy of your enemy is your friend and think about who you have a chance of making common cause with. I’m pretty sure that Bin Laden’s crew and the Mullahs in Tehran won’t make that list, so who will have the stones to take them on? The Pope folded, so the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther may have to do the job.
As answer to my ongoing quest, there appeared a number of stories in a couple of newspapers this weekend about the shift occurring in Christianity and although most of this wasn’t news to me, it did get me thinking that I could rile some people up with my unvarnished thoughts on the matter.
Essentially, the power centre of Christianity has shifted from Europe to Africa and Asia. What I hadn’t previously taken note of, being preoccupied with the depredations of Islam on Western society, was what the prognosis is for Islam’s main competition.
According to the stuff I was reading, (my interpretation, at least) the near complete collapse of faith in Europe and erosion in North America has been largely counterbalanced by an energetic resurgence or breaking of new ground in Africa and Asia, particularly South Korea and China.
Personally, I’m not a church-going type, but I recognize that you have to fight fire with fire, or at least brimstone, and secular moral relativism is a lousy counter to Belief (capitals intended). This equates to: if push comes to shove, I’ll back the faith of my ancestors as that’s what got us the advances we have today. Islam is a dead-end, and is completely incompatible with progress, so I don’t want it in charge of any place I live. I don’t want a theocracy of any sort, but Christianity at least acknowledges the idea of separation between religion and state.
This is all my personal view, and at that not based on anything other than “research by osmosis” over the years. It certainly appears that the Muslims causing the trouble (not all of them of course) are un-persuaded of the virtues of dialogue, and they are more interested in forcing people to see things their way. Religion isn’t the best route to an open mind, but something is needed to motivate those of us who don’t want to live under the Caliphate. Also, just maybe, being able to see everyone’s point of view is a bit of problem when one of those views wants you dead or enslaved…
So, it’s a good-news-bad-news thing. The future of Western civilization does NOT necessarily belong to Islam, but the cures for that disease are like chemotherapy, and in any event staving off the Islamist death cults will alter our society significantly. It seems to me that there is a lack of will, even a certain enervation in Western societies that prevents us taking the action required to deal with the root causes of those who wish us destroyed or assimilated. I have a feeling that the push will come from Africa, from the Christian communities directly on the front lines of the “Clash of Civilizations.”
So Secular Humanists, convince me that you have a rallying-cry to defend my way of life. Barring that, consider that the enemy of your enemy is your friend and think about who you have a chance of making common cause with. I’m pretty sure that Bin Laden’s crew and the Mullahs in Tehran won’t make that list, so who will have the stones to take them on? The Pope folded, so the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther may have to do the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)