Secularism is not the solution

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
So it's not Christian-right Bush, but you eeevil godless anti-Christian secularist liberals who are causing the war! :razz:

By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, February 19, 2007

For many Western liberals—and even some conservatives—the war on terror is a clash of opposed fundamentalisms: Christian fundamentalism vs. Islamic fundamentalism. So, in this view, Christian and Muslim religious fanatics are once again fighting each other, as they have done in the past.

From this perspective, the best solution is for America to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. But in reality secularism is not the solution. Secularism is the problem. It is the West’s agenda of secularism that is alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp.

The common understanding of the battle as one between two rival fundamentalisms is superficially supported by Bin Laden’s rhetoric declaring a religious war of civilizations. Bin Laden speaks of the world being divided into the “region of faith” and the “region of infidelity.” At times Bin Laden defines the clash as one between the Muslims and the crusaders.

But the context of Bin Laden’s arguments clearly shows that Bin Laden is not speaking of a religious war between Islam and Christianity. In the same videotaped remarks where Bin Laden posits these conflicts, he praises Christianity. In one statement Bin Laden observes that Islam respects the prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam “without distinguishing among them.”

In the classical Muslim understanding, there is a fundamental distinction between Jews and Christians on the one hand and polytheists and atheists on the other. According to Islam, Judaism and Christianity are incomplete but genuine revelations. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have historically been entitled to Muslim respect and even protection. In every Islamic empire, from the Umayyad to the Abbasid to the Ottoman, Jews and Christians were permitted to practice their religion and in no Muslim regime has it ever been considered legitimate to systematically kill them.

By contrast, polytheists and atheists have always been anathema to Islam. The Koran says, “Fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together” and “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” These passages, which Bin Laden frequently quotes, do not refer to Christians, because Christians are not considered pagans or idolaters. Rather, they refer to those, like the Beduins of ancient Arabia, who worship many gods or no god. Muslims are commanded to fight these unbelievers, especially when they threaten the House of Islam.

Muslim radicals could repudiate the entire Islamic tradition and argue that Christians and Jews are no different from atheists and deserve the same treatment. But this claim would undoubtedly alienate traditional Muslims. Sheikh Muhammad Tantawi, head of Al Azhar University, recently argued the traditional view that “Islam has never been and will never be at war with Christianity.” For Bin Laden to declare war against Chrsitianity would even divide the radical Muslim camp. The influential radical sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi has said that as Muslims, “We believe in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Our Islamic faith is not complete without them.”

Islamic radicals like Bin Laden make their case against America and the West on the grounds that these cultures have abandoned Christianity. In his May 2006 letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad faulted America not for being Christian, but for not being Christian enough. Many years earlier, the radical theoretician Sayyid Qutb made the same point. The main reason for the West’s moral decay, Qutb argued, is that in the modern era “religious convictions are no more than a matter of antiquarian interest.”

Other Muslim radicals today echo these arguments. The influential Pakistani scholar Khurshid Ahmad, leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami, argues, “Had Western culture been based on Christianity, on morality, on faith, the language and modus operandi of the contact and conflict would have been different. But that is not the case. The choice is between the divine principle and a secular materialistic culture.”

Even though Christianity has eroded, Muslim radicals contend that the ancient crusading spirit now infuses the pagan culture of the West. When Bin Laden calls America a crusader state, he means that America is on a vicious international campaign to impose its atheist system of government and its pagan values on Muslims. How? My supporting secular dictators in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And by exporting a secular culture that undermines the traditional values of Islam.

In this way, Bin Laden argues that America is hell-bent on destroying the Muslim religion. The rallying cry of Islamic radicalism is that “Islam is under attack.” In his 1998 declaration Bin Laden called on Muslims to “launch attacks against the armies of the American devils” and to kill Americans whom he identified as the “helpers of Satan.” In a 2003 sermon, Bin Laden praised the September 11 hijackers and compared the twin towers of the World Trade Center to the idols in the Kaaba that the Prophet Muhammad destroyed in the year 630 upon his victorious return to Mecca.

Thus the doctrine that the war against terrorism is a battle of two opposed forms of religious fundamentalism is false. This is not why the Islamic radicals are fighting against America. From the perspective of Bin Laden and his allies, the war is between the Muslim-led forces of monotheism and morality against the America-led forces of atheism and immorality. Secularism, not Christian fundamentalism, is responsible for producing a blowback of Muslim rage.


Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/02/19/secularism_is_not_the_solution
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
That explains some of the 'firebrand fundamentalists' leaders, but most regular people need some bombs dropped on their home, sanctions, maybe some white phosphorous on their kids before they're REALLY ready to kill infidels...
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
Yet another fundementalist retard that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest. Amusing, in that if he could, he would see that his very own arguments indicate fundementalist retards are still fully, and solely, responsible for this war on terror.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Yet another fundementalist retard that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest. Amusing, in that if he could, he would see that his very own arguments indicate fundementalist retards are still fully, and solely, responsible for this war on terror.
Well said, lol. Don't leaders need followers?
Osama sure wasn't sitting on any of those planes...
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Yet another fundementalist retard that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest. Amusing, in that if he could, he would see that his very own arguments indicate fundementalist retards are still fully, and solely, responsible for this war on terror.
That's certainly not what the argument says.

Parsing aside, the point is that it is not the fundamentalists they hate but the liberal "progressive" (haha) secularists who are the stinking rotten fish in the barrel sliming our entire country. For examples, just check out Hollyweird any day of the week...it's full of secularist retards. Of course they have legions of retarded secularist followers who think they're so :cool:
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
That's certainly not what the argument says.
His argument states, and restates, that the hate these retards possess is derived directly from their very own fundemetalism.

Parsing aside, the point is that it is not the fundamentalists they hate but the liberal "progressive" (haha) secularists who are the stinking rotten fish in the barrel sliming our entire country. For examples, just check out Hollyweird any day of the week...it's full of secularist retards. Of course they have legions of retarded secularist followers who think they're so :cool:
But it's not their secularism that is "sliming our entire country"--except in the eyes of retarded fundementalists bent on a theocratic aggenda.
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
His argument states, and restates, that the hate these retards possess is derived directly from their very own fundemetalism.

But it's not their secularism that is "sliming our entire country"--except in the eyes of retarded fundementalists bent on a theocratic aggenda.
Yes, but you say fundamentalism as if it is a bad word. Maybe it is to you. Both Muslims and Christians (fundamentalist or not) hate America's "secular sin". This basic agreement is found in all major religions. Today's secularism is opposed to most religious beliefs which are only based in centuries of life and living. You only need to look at the fruits of today's secularism to see how wrong it is for society. So who are actually the "retards" here?

Christians in this country are not "bent on a theocratic agenda". They do want a "good society" however. This does not mean they think people should follow any particular religion but that they should follow rules that seek the "higher good" for society - which is something ignored by today's secularists as they primarily engage only in selfish pursuits which become destructive both to themselves and society.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
This does not mean they think people should follow any particular religion but that they should follow rules that seek the "higher good" for society - which is something ignored by today's secularists as they primarily engage only in selfish pursuits which become destructive both to themselves and society.
Sounds like Christians would be super environmentalists, and all for closing the income gap... awesome.

But, as a secularist I feel the same way. I also think (secularly) that we should have a peaceful, inclusive and healthy society... how exactly is that self-destructive?
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Sounds like Christians would be super environmentalists, and all for closing the income gap... awesome.

But, as a secularist I feel the same way. I also think (secularly) that we should have a peaceful, inclusive and healthy society... how exactly is that self-destructive?
Well then there aren't many like you. Why is that? Most people seem to find secularism and its accompanying relativism as an excuse for not following tried and true traditional principles and laws that have been promoted primarily by religious people since our country was founded. Wake up and look around you. Ever since secularists started running things our country has been living in the gutter. Destruction is everywhere.
 

nukeman

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
56
Points
28
Sounds like Christians would be super environmentalists, and all for closing the income gap... awesome.

But, as a secularist I feel the same way. I also think (secularly) that we should have a peaceful, inclusive and healthy society... how exactly is that self-destructive?
I think Scamingeagle's point is that a lot of secularist are all for the hedonistic life style. If it feels good why not do it. this is not the same thing as a healthy society.

I would also add that you can not have total inclusion for a healthy society either. If you were to let in every fanaticle nutball where would society be. Unfortunately that is exactly what a lot of the "Liberal" "free thnking" "hedonistic" secularist think we should do.

This will ultimately be the down fall of the US as I see it. We will be so blinded by our own freedom's we want, that we wont see all the subversive coming in and slowly eroding our freedoms by saying you have to repect my beliefs because I might be offended if you dont (gee kinda sounds like now)

This is what comes from being all inclusive. that is the biggest problem..
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Well then there aren't many like you. Why is that? Most people seem to find secularism and its accompanying relativism as an excuse for not following tried and true traditional principles and laws that have been promoted primarily by religious people since our country was founded. Wake up and look around you. Ever since secularists started running things our country has been living in the gutter. Destruction is everywhere.
Specifics please... look at northern Euro nations, with less religious populations, Sweden, Norway I believe - are they secular, hedonistic destructors? Are they wallowing in self-destructive sin?

How many secular people do you know? Most people I know are not that religious, and we all agree on the rule of law, human rights, ecology, peace, etc. I don't want to live in a crack house, I don't think pedophiles should run free, I don't want to poison the planet.... in fact NOBODY I know does.
Even without God...
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
His argument states, and restates, that the hate these retards possess is derived directly from their very own fundemetalism.

But it's not their secularism that is "sliming our entire country"--except in the eyes of retarded fundementalists bent on a theocratic aggenda.
It appears that you just made his argument.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Specifics please... look at northern Euro nations, with less religious populations, Sweden, Norway I believe - are they secular, hedonistic destructors? Are they wallowing in self-destructive sin?

How many secular people do you know? Most people I know are not that religious, and we all agree on the rule of law, human rights, ecology, peace, etc. I don't want to live in a crack house, I don't think pedophiles should run free, I don't want to poison the planet.... in fact NOBODY I know does.
Even without God...

I'd be interested to know where you live, because here in North Carolina very few people I know are not religious. You don't have a monopoly on human rights, peace, and rule of law either.
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
To screamingeagle.........REALITY CHECK.........secularists/athiests ARE NOT THE ONES FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. Those are RETARTED RELIGEOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. It's CHRISTIAN FUNDIES who RAPED/PILLAGED IRAQ NOT ATHIESTS/SECULARISTS. For all your talk of morality, YOU CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM FUNDIES ARE THE MOST UNCIVILIZED SAVAGES IN THE WORLD.


WAR WAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! The language of religeous RETARDS.
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Specifics please... look at northern Euro nations, with less religious populations, Sweden, Norway I believe - are they secular, hedonistic destructors? Are they wallowing in self-destructive sin?

How many secular people do you know? Most people I know are not that religious, and we all agree on the rule of law, human rights, ecology, peace, etc. I don't want to live in a crack house, I don't think pedophiles should run free, I don't want to poison the planet.... in fact NOBODY I know does.
Even without God...

Specifics? Well then, let's take a close look at the secular "progressive" (haha) liberal movie industry promoted by both the secular Eurotrash and the secular Hollywierdos. If you don't see destruction here you just want to remain blind.

A leading Hollywood film director is predicting that major Hollywood movies will be showing explicit sex within 10 years.

John Waters is famous for his work with Harris Glenn Milstead aka "Divine" on movies such as 'Pink Flamingos'. Walters, like adequacy.org is no stranger to controversy, so we should pay attention to him when he sends out a prophetic warning like this: "by the end of this decade a Hollywood star will show penetration"

Normally, I would not pay any attention to the pronouncements of a pornographer such as Waters, as I have no interest in listening to the lurid rantings and ravings of a Baltimore-based moral bankrupt. But then I thought of America's children, and I realised that something must be done to protect those poor innocents from the rising tide of Hollywood filth.

With every year that goes by, Hollywood's output grows more and more obscene. What is controversial and cutting edge one year is passé and 'unhip' the next. Hollywood's pornographers and smut-peddlers are locked into an escalating erotic arms race, which shows no signs of slowing. In the same way that so-called "soft" drugs like marijuana act as a gateway to harder drugs like cocaine and ecstacy, so the prurient movies Hollywood puts out today lead the audience on to demand more hardcore images to satisfy their voyeuristic lusts.

A dangerous precedent has already been set (by those moral degenerates of Europe - the French of course). Billed as "The most controversial film of the year", Patrice Chereau's Intimacy is a porno film masquerading as 'art'. I won't go into the scenes of utter depravity contained in this movie, as I don't wish to give it any free publicity. The French continue to promote the "pornoization" of cinema with Virginie Despentes' truly dreadful "Baise Moi" and Catherine Breillat's extremely offensive "Romance".

Europe has shown that the public can be brainwashed into accepting hardcore porn as 'art', it looks as if America will be next.

Imagine if Water's predictions are correct. Cinema-goers could soon be treated to the sight of Michael Douglas's erect penis in full technicolor blown up to an auditorium-filling 10 meters on the silver screen. America is simply not ready for this.

When I go to the movies I want to be entertained. I don't want to see Michael Douglas's aging erection. I am not a prude, but there is a time and a place for everything, and the place for Michael Douglas's penis is in his boxer shorts, not blown up to ludicrous proportions in a movie theater. It was bad enough having to look at his flabby buttocks in "Basic Instinct".

As if that wasn't bad enough, I predict that the ongoing pornoization of Hollywood movies will lead to more expensive movie tickets, as the big stars demand extra 'nudity money' to compensate them for participating in the variety of depraved acts the perverted directors dream up. After all, if full blown intercourse is allowed past the censors, what next ? Teabagging ? Bagpiping ? Felching ? I don't even want to think about it.

Before the moral collapse brought on by the liberal anything goes 'free love' culture of the sixties, America's movies were governed by something called the Hays Code. Amongst other things, this very fine set of rules protected our children by mandating that certain levels of decency prevailed on our screens. Here are some extracts to give you an idea of the moral strength of the code:

Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.

Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ - unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.

No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful.

Nowadays, modern cinematographers seem to take the Hays code, and invert it. They don't feel as if their movie is complete, unless it has scenes of impure love, disrespect for the flag, and blasphemy. This sorry state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.3.16.147.96548.html
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
To screamingeagle.........REALITY CHECK.........secularists/athiests ARE NOT THE ONES FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. Those are RETARTED RELIGEOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS. It's CHRISTIAN FUNDIES who RAPED/PILLAGED IRAQ NOT ATHIESTS/SECULARISTS. For all your talk of morality, YOU CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM FUNDIES ARE THE MOST UNCIVILIZED SAVAGES IN THE WORLD.


WAR WAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! The language of religeous RETARDS.
Religious fundamentalists are not necessarily retarded. Those that kill are dangerous. Christian fundies today do not do so. Radical Muslims do.

REALITY CHECK.....more people were killed in the 20th century by atheist/secular fascist and communist regimes than in all the previous religious wars put together.

REALITY CHECK....it is the secularist retards who are aiding and abetting today's savage radical Muslim infidels.
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
"REALITY CHECK....it is the secularist retards who are aiding and abetting today's savage radical Muslim infidels."


May I ask how you came to this conclusion? WE HATE FUNDIES and you think we support them?? Can you get any more retarted than this??
 
OP
ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
"REALITY CHECK....it is the secularist retards who are aiding and abetting today's savage radical Muslim infidels."


May I ask how you came to this conclusion? WE HATE FUNDIES and you think we support them?? Can you get any more retarted than this??

Then explain why the SPs (secular progressives(haha)) want to check little old grandmothers while the 25yo Muslim boards the plane unchecked?

Explain why SPs want to play down the many reports of Muslim attacks across the U.S.?

Explain why SPs want to set free the Muslim fundies in Gitmo?

It goes on and on....
 

MissileMan

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
2,939
Reaction score
223
Points
48
Specifics? Well then, let's take a close look at the secular "progressive" (haha) liberal movie industry promoted by both the secular Eurotrash and the secular Hollywierdos. If you don't see destruction here you just want to remain blind.
When someone breaks into your house, hauls you to a movie theater, chains you into a seat, puts your head in a vise, and props your eyes open with toothpicks to force you to watch a movie, you'll have a valid complaint. Until then, I suggest that you are perfectly free to avoid anything you might find offensive. We don't need legislation to protect idiots who aren't smart enough to figure out the movie rating system or those who are too lazy to monitor what movies their kids go to.
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
Yes, but you say fundamentalism as if it is a bad word. Maybe it is to you.
Maybe fundamentalists have made the word bad with their behavior.

Both Muslims and Christians (fundamentalist or not) hate America's "secular sin". This basic agreement is found in all major religions.
I'll allow you to demonstrate that God has commanded us to be governed by theocracies.

Today's secularism is opposed to most religious beliefs which are only based in centuries of life and living.
no it's not, it only opposed to theocracy.

You only need to look at the fruits of today's secularism to see how wrong it is for society.
Name one. Just be absolutely sure your example is derived from keeping religion from being government and keeping government from being religion.

So who are actually the "retards" here?
the fundementalists that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest; the same fundementalists that cannot understand that being anti-secular, when referring to governement means being pro-theocracy.

Christians in this country are not "bent on a theocratic agenda".
I didn't say they were. I said fundamentalists that cannot, or refuse to, parse the difference between secular and athiest are bent on a theocratic aggenda.

They do want a "good society" however.
So do secularists--even the Christian secularists.

This does not mean they think people should follow any particular religion but that they should follow rules that seek the "higher good" for society - which is something ignored by today's secularists as they primarily engage only in selfish pursuits which become destructive both to themselves and society.
This is a complete denial of the reality of what anti-secular fundamentalism is, and what these particular fundementalist retards are all about.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top