Hiroshima - The Last Word
Dean
I enjoyed Neo-Neocon's take. So far as I'm concerned it's the last word on the subject.
I'll just mention again that the Walter Russell Mead essay below more or less explains how most Americans feel about it in their gut. And yes, most Americans do feel that way, and their feeling on it hasn't changed much in the last 50 or so years. See this Gallup poll for example.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Further Info On Mead
- Hiroshima - The Last Word
- The Jacksonian Tradition
- War To The Knife
- Hiroshima
- 60 Years Ago Today
In order to defeat the Japanese, we had to demolish their ideology. I am not so sure the same destruction will not be required before the defeat of militant Islam is accomplished. Winston Churchill had this to say about Islam.
Islam is an Imperial Ideology. Islam is a Supremist Ideology. Islam is a religion driven by sex. In this respect, it is closer to Eastern Mysticism than Christianity. People who claim that Islam is a religion of peace ignore the plain text of the Koran.
Finally, from the perspective of a devout Christian, I think I understand the motivations of devout Muslims more so than secularists. There are some things that are worse than death. Denying God and losing your soul is one of them.
The difference, of course, is what are the imperatives of Christianity versus the imperatives of Islam. For those who lump ALL religions together, it seems hardly relevant to distinguish between the tenets of one religion or another. But as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details." In Christianity, we are to evangilize and preach the Gospel to the whole world.
But... and this is the distinguishing characteristic...
Also, Christians must become Christians by choice, not by force. Freedom of choice is fundamental to Christianity.
Islam does not share these fundamental characteristics. Some claim that we all worship the same God. It is simply not true. Islam is not just an alternative path to heaven. Either it is the truth, or it is a false ideology. Christianity and Islam can never be compatible.
But the greater question for all Americans is which religion is compatible with freedom. Christianity does not threaten non-believers in this life. Islam does. Christianity warns of a future judgement for those who refuse to believe. Islam attempts to impose that judgement in the here and now.
The bottom line is that Islam is diametricly opposed to freedom. Either Freedom or Islam will be triumphant. In order for freedom to triumph, Islam must be smashed in the same manner that the worship of the Emperor was smashed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
How that will be accomplished has yet to be determined. I sincerely doubt that dropping nuclear bombs in the Middle East would accomplish the goal. But at some point, the followers of the prophet must either be disillusioned or destroyed. Ultimately, there is no other path to victory. Unfortunately.
Until the West once again comes to believe in something greater than themselves, it cannot defeat Islam. I world view that elevates the sensual and the self above all else cannot justify the sacrifice required to overcome the power of the Islamic faith. Only a greater faith can defeat it. Whether that is faith in Jesuse Christ, or simply a faith is the righteousness of freedom, a faith that justifies personal sacrifice will be required to overcome the death cult of Islam.
Simply put, there is a differnce betwen the individual and a society. The individual Christian is required to forgive his enemies, pray for them, and hopefully lead them to a true understanding of God. On the other hand, a society has an obligation to protect its citizens from danger, both internal and external. The Bible makes clear that the government is also an agent of God.
So a Christian may not act on his own to seek vengeance. But as an agent of the government, he is required to do so. It is the difference between a vigilante and lawfully empowered police force. Those who cannot see the distinction are willfully obtuse.
Christianity is a faith that historically and scripturally embraces slavery and authoritarianism. It evolved to see things differently only comparatively recently in its history. Whether we look at Christ's claim that all men are slaves (which he actually said) or Paul's strict instructions that slaves should be obedient and that Christians should acknowledge that God put their Kings and other rulers over them and they should not be defied, the fact is that Christianity historically was as much an authoritarian faith as any religion that has ever been.
As for a religion driven by sex: my God, I've never met a people more obsessed with sex in their religion as Christians are. Whether it's masturbation, homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, the obsession with sex is eternal in that faith. As for people having to choose Christianity willingly: give me a freaking break, Scott, Christians spent thousands of years forcing people to either die or become Christian.
As an apostate Christian, I am generally totally unimpressed with Christian generalizations about Islam, Scott. Most of what you attribute to Islam is, historically, a trait perfectly describing Christianity. The variant of Christianity you espouse is NOT Christianity as it has existed throughout most of its history; it is rather a radical, thoroughly modern and highly unorthodox flavor of Christianity, quite new in the scene and bearing little resemblance to the faith as it was practiced prior to oh, about the 18th century or so.
The proof really is in the putting: the fact is that we have liberal and peaceful democracies dominated by muslims, or in which muslims are quite well integrated. The claim that it is otherwise is simply false-to-fact.
And yes, I'm aware that some will tell me that the lake of fire awaits me as a result of saying so. That's fine, I'm at peace with that: any God who'd do that to anyone--even Hitler--is evil, sadistic, and childish deity unworthy of my worship anyway. Not just unworthy of my worship, either: it is unworthy of ANY decent person's worship. Indeed, worshipping such a vicious sadistic monster-god would simply be an exercise in spiritual cowardice, worshipping only out of fear of punishment.
Christianity--including Protestant Christianity--has proven itself capable of much good and much harm. The same is true for Islam. Historical revisionism about either faith's dark side will not do. Neither will cherry-picking quotes out of the scriptures of either faith just to prove something about that faith. Slavery and serfdom can be fully justified using Christian scriptures--and indeed they were for thousands of years. The Christian scriptures, read literally, clearly embrace slavery, serfdom, tyrants and kings, subjection of women, and more. It is in no substantial way that I can discern different from Islam in thse regards--the only difference is that the liberalization of the church over the last few centuries has led to a re-evaluation of what those scriptures really mean to Christians. Muslims haven't gone as far in that process--and not entirely due to their own limitations, given the West's support of Wahhabism in the early 20th century.
My ancestors arrived on these shores in 1630 practicing the same religion I practice today. What you describe as Christianity is more appropriately called Roman Catholicism. And yes, Roman Catholicism has been all that you say it has been.
But the vast historical experience of America has been in the tradition of Protestant Christianity.
As for being obsessed with sex, sex is a powerful motivating force in the world. The Christian is instructed to have control over his physical desires. This includes sexual things (lust of the flesh), greed (lust of the eyes) and personal ambition (the pride of life.) We are instructed to rule over our bodies, not have them rule over us.
There is a point to all this. In the hereafter, according to Christian theology, there is no sex. There will be no male and female. On the other hand, Islam uses the powerful motivating force of sexual lust, promising sexual ectasy in the hereafter, as a reward for heinous crimes today.
Even if what you say is true, consider this. Suppose that all religions are merely rationalizations to justify the world view of a particular society or group of people. The question still remains, are all world views equally valid?
Even if my interpretation of Christian theology is a thoroughly modern incarnation that has no bearing on historical accuracy, you must still answer the question: is Islam compatible with freedom? I say no, it isn't.
I would also like to address your assertion of God being evil. But I was trying to relate my comments to Hiroshima and the dropping of the atomic bomb. I don't want to totally hijack this comment thread. Perhaps we can have a separate discussion about that issue.
Furthermore what I describe as traditional Christian views--that all men are slaves, that slavery and serfdom are the normal state of affairs, that obedience to tyrants and kings is required of all Christians--is not "Roman Catholic" thought, it is standard orthodox Christian thought as practiced by both the Eastern and Western church from at least the time of the first Nicean Council until the 1700s or so--in other words, it describes more than a thousand years of Christian thought.
Moreover, even Protestant Christianity under both Calvin and Luther continued to embrace slavery, serfdom, and rule by tyrants until quite recently--the 1700s or so at the earliest, and there mostly just in America. As a Christian, are you really so arrogant as to think that your thoroughly modern and new variant of Christianity is somehow more important or more true than the faith as it was practiced for thousands of years and around the world?
Historically the most important variants of Christianity in America were what we consider mainline protestantism now: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, and so on, which were faiths that embraced all the same values I described above through most of their history as well.
Indeed, one of the major impediments to the American revolution--which was only supported by about a third of the population by the way--was that most Christians viewed George III as their rightful King, put in place by God's will exactly in accordance with scripture. It took a radical and quite unorthodox flavor of Protestant Christianity to reject that, and in fact most Americans didn't even embrace that radical view at the time.
Radicals like the Baptists were important but were always a minority among Christians in the US--although they're more prevalent today than they were, say, 200 years ago.
As to whether Islam is compatible with freedom: You would simply be incorrect, Scott. Sorry, but the empirical evidence clearly says you're wrong. Not only has the Christian faith proven itself throughout 2000 years to frequently be an enemy of freedom every bit as much as Islam, which it has. But the fact is that there are currently two stable liberal democracies which are more than 90% muslim. Furthermore, muslims inhabit stable liberal democracies around the world. A majority of them now live in either electoral or liberal democracies, and the number is growing not shrinking.
If we were truly at war with Islam, there would be a billion people we're fighting rather than a few tens of thousands of lunatic radicals scattered throughout the world. Prior to 9/11, we could have said without fear of contradiction that Christian terrorists had killed more people in the United States than Muslim terrorists.
I respectifully suggest you read the whole article.
Like yourselves and Winston Churchill, I have known many "Individual Moslems [who] show splendid qualities..." but what I am trying to get at is the effect of that religion on society. I assert that the open society we enjoy in America exists as a direct result of the modern brand of Protestant Christianity, not in spite of it. I doubt that you agree, but that is my opinion.
That argument, the attempt to remove religion from the public square, is the very argument that has been playing out in our politics since the Supreme Court removed prayer from public schools in 1962. It has become the entrenched position in Europe.
But the followers of Muhammed understand that their struggle is a spiritual struggle. And unless or until we once again understand that as a society, we cannot defeat them.
There was a time in America when we did understand the spiritual nature of warfare. We called upon OUR God to help us defeat our enemy. And we did so without embarassment or reservation. Our response to atheist Russia and China was to place "under God" into our pledge of allegiance as short a time ago as 50 years. FDR and Lincoln called for national days of prayer without embarassment.
Can a post-Christian non-spiritual West prevail over a spiritual Islam. I submit that a post-Christian non-spiritual West cannot even sustain itself, much less prevail over a spiritually aggressive enemy. In Europe, the fastest growing spiritual segment of society is Islam. Meanwhile, in the rest of Europe, the post Christians are not even replacing themselves demographicly. In Europe, time is on the side of Islamists.
Will that be the case here in the USA? Well, if we adopt the position that the war is simply a materialistic enterprise, then yes, we can and will lose the war. It may take 100 years, but we will lose.
The Japanese lost their faith in their god when for the first time, they heard his human voice in 1945. For many, it is difficult to comprehend that a mere 60 years ago, there was a major industrial nation who almost in its entirety believed in a living man as a god. But it was so. It took their "god" to cause their surrender. Will it be any less so today and going forward?
Excuse me, but our response to atheist Russia and China was not to place "under god" in the pledge, it was to point 10,000 individually targeted nuclear warheads at them and threaten to obliterate every man, woman and child in either country -- and much of the rest of the world -- if they happened to cut too loud a fart.
Christianity is tolerable and marginally tolerant today because it was beaten down by political forces of various stripes and beaten down as well by secular humanism and its cousin science. When your ancestors came to this country back in the 17th century they were still hanging witches in the name of the Lord, so unless you're involved with some odd extra-curricular activities no, you are not practicing the same faith as your forefathers.
The Christianity you place in opposition to intolerant Islam was given to you by atheists and agnostics, scientists and ruthless secular politicians who, at great pain and risk broke the worldly power of Christianity.
As for the rest, Dean is right (though it pains me somehow to write those words) as a simple matter of historical fact, and you are wrong.
Faith plays an indelible and undeniable part in the politics of a majority of Americans and it always has. It will undoubtedly continue to do so. I view the unique secularism we came to in America not because of the brave action of atheists and agnostics--who have always been a small minority in this society, and likely always will be--but by the pragmatism that came from the various conflicting Christian denominations, who decided to avoid the differences that had caused so many wars between them by instituting a democratic government that gave lip service to the idea of God but refused to let any specific creed or religion dominate.
It is even quite arguable that the entire idea of democratic government in the modern West can be credited to the Calvinist denominations, most especially the Presbyterians, who moved their church from the apostolic tradition embraced by the Eastern and Western orthodox churches into a system where the presbyters took over--essentially, church rule by democracy. It worked so well for the church that some felt it natural to extend the notion to government as well.
It is true that many Americans would never have supported the Cold War if they had not seen Communism as an assault on their spiritual values--which, by the way, it was. But was it an entirely spiritual struggle? I think not. There were lots of cold warriors who didn't care about that and hated communism for a variety of other reasons.
Besides, for over a thousand years orthodox, traditional Christianity rejected all such thinking about Christianity as the religion of "freedom." So did John Calvin and Martin Luther. The standard Christian thinking was then (and still often is now): all men are slaves. You can either be a slave to God or a slave to the devil, but you're a slave regardless. Jesus' yoke is simply lighter. Christ said that himself, which is why I laugh out loud at Christians who try to tell me Islam is a "slave religion." Pot, meet kettle.
The fact is that many objectively-free nations are not now and never have been Christian nations. References? First, see the Freedom House table of combined freedom rankings for the nations of the world, then, look at the ethnic and religious breakdown of countries as described in the CIA World Factbook.
Benin, India, Japan, Mongolia, Mali, Suriname, South Korea, and Taiwan all rank among the freest nations on Earth, and none of them have ever been majority Christian, and some have never had any significant number of Christians to speak of.
Furthermore, a great many more nations are 90% or more Catholic and have never bought into Protestant notions of democratic ideals spiritually--yet are stable and thriving democracies anyway. This would describe much of Eastern Europe today.
If Christians wish to contend on the spiritual battlefield with muslims, I've got no problem: send your missionaries, argue your spiritual arguments. But don't try to tell me I'm at war with the faith of Islam, as it's nonsense. If we were we'd have had to turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot by now.
I would also throw in my own personal conviction that a major influence was the fact that so many of our Founders were practical men of business - farmers, traders, craftsmen - and had a natural suspicion for all forms of authority that tended to obstruct business: governments and their taxes, religious authorities and their blue laws and odd proscriptions.
There are no mentions of Jesus in the Constitution. The authority cited is The People. The Founders had seen quite a lot of the mixing of government and religion. Interestingly, they had seen little of the negative effects of radical secularism: the Terror in France, or later, Communism. When they were writing the Constitution the dangers of religion were clear, the downside of the alternative had not yet been revealed. Christians would do better to argue that case, rather than try and explain how their God ended up entirely absent from the Constitution.
Dean wrote:
"As for a religion driven by sex: my God, I've never met a people more obsessed with sex in their religion as Christians are. Whether it's masturbation, homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, the obsession with sex is eternal in that faith."
As a Gnostic (leaning toward the Jehovanistic rather than the Naturalistic), I must say that that's what I admire about Christianity, especially Catholicism. The obsession with sex -- masturbation, homosexuality (Lesbianism), and sex within the eternal tight bond of marriage -- is eternal with my faith.
Scott Harris wrote:
"As for being obsessed with sex, sex is a powerful motivating force in the world.
And I'm for keeping it that way.
"The Christian is instructed to have control over his physical desires. This includes sexual things (lust of the flesh), greed (lust of the eyes) and personal ambition (the pride of life.) We are instructed to rule over our bodies, not have them rule over us."
The lust of the eyes to me means the sight of a beautiful woman, the desire to continue looking upon her and worshipping her beauty as the image of a Goddess. That I am able to do so gives me pride.
"There is a point to all this. In the hereafter, according to Christian theology, there is no sex. There will be no male and female."
I'm totally against that! That would be Hell, it sounds like the Communist utopia to me. How ugly. I'd rather die or burn in the Lake of Fire than live in such a 1984 utopia.
"On the other hand, Islam uses the powerful motivating force of sexual lust, promising sexual ectasy in the hereafter, as a reward for heinous crimes today."
If that were so, they would not shoud their women in burqas and mutilate their genitals. Islam is anti-sex. I'm against thst.
All that said, I agree with Scott Harris that this War is ultimately a spiritual War. What we need above all else is to elevate and integrate sexuality and the self with the Godhead. The Ego in the Infinite. The Individual striving eternally for the Divine. The total passion for the total height. This thread began with the fireball of a nuclear bomb, and now it is climaxing in the fireball of holy Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology.