Our Bads

Another line from the Weekly Standard, a different article than the previous post: The Peace Party vs. the Power Party (Jan 1/Jan 8, 2007):

One's views of America correlate strongly with one's views of American power. In 2004 Pew asked ... whether U.S. "wrongdoing" might have "motivated" the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifty-one percent of Democrats--and 67 percent of liberal Democrats--agreed with that sentiment, compared with only 17 percent of Republicans.

Of course, one's view of 9/11 on that score makes a huge difference in how one views the world today. If it was our wrongdoing, then the proper response is to stop doing the wrong thing or wrong things that resulted in the attacks. Note: not just certain "things" we did that resulted in the attack, but things we did that were just plain wrong, bad, or to use another word, immoral (maybe sinful?). Of course, it would be interesting to know just exactly what things should go on the list of sins committed that the terrorists wanted to punish us for. (Hint: on the top of list might be an item that starts with Is and ends with el.)

Comments

[coco]

Why should the reason bad guys committed that atrocity have any bearing on how the US defends its interests?

If I fill in the blank with "ra", does it not coincide with the US's stated interests to defend the only real democracy in that region? Is it a "diplomatic" sin or a real moral failure?

Maybe I'm missing the point here...

[Judy Warner]

Since then, the left has gained so much influence that the crackpot view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the Bush administration has become widespread. According to a Scripps Howard poll taken last August, more than a third of the American public believe or suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.

[James A. Altena]

Several years ago NY Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote something to the effect that the USA was the greatest force for evil in the entire world.

A far more qaulified candidate for that dubious distinction would be the NY Times.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why should the reason bad guys committed that atrocity have any bearing on how the US defends its interests?<<<

Good point. Let's consider how current notions would play out in 1941. The U.S. was meddling in the Japanese sphere of influence. It was overtly siding with China against Japan (to the point of providing aircraft and pilots to the Chinese air force in contravention of the Neutrality Act). It was tacitly promoting colonial interests in Asia. It staged a number of provocations to get the Japanese to shoot first. So, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we most certainly had it coming, and rather than declare war on Japan, we should have issued an apology, and reimbursed them for the cost of the bombs, the 29 airplanes and six midget subs expended, as well as any aviation gasoline and bunker fuel their fleet used in steaming to Pearl Harbor.

Over on the Atlantic side, the U.S. had overtly sided with the British in contravention of the Neutrality Act and had in fact issued "sink on sight" orders to the Navy with regard to German U-boats and surface ships in international waters. So, when Hitler declared war on us on 11 December, we should not have reciprocated, but admitted the error of our ways and surrendered unconditionally.

And the world would be a better place, right?

[GL]

I agree with Coco and Stuart that whether our sins motivated the attacks, we must still defend ourselves againt those who attacked us. Nonetheless, the nation has done much to earn to enmity of others in the world, though what I believe those things to be are likely different than what the Democrats polled would identify. We have spread the worst of our culture to much of the world, the very things which those who post to Mere Comments also condemn in our culture, pornography (hard and soft), out-of-bounds consumerism, materialism, secular humanism, contraception, abortion, etc. Christians in our land have responded, as we should, we verbal condemnation and calls for repentance. Bin Laden and his ilk have responded with acts of physical violence.

Those sins are not the sole cause of the Islamofascists' hatred for us, but they are part of it. To the extent that it is, however, our own debauchery as a society has contributed to our current difficulties. As Christians, of course, we can only respond as we have, with verbal condemnation and calls for repentance, but we must not ignore the sins of our society and how they are contributing factors to the hatred we have engendered.

As to our support for Israel, we should support them when they are in the right and chastise them when they are in the wrong. Like all nations, they are some of both. Israel does have a right to exist and to defend its territorial integrity. While I have great sympathy for the *peaceful" Palestinians and recognize that the last 60 years has devastated the Christian population of Palestine, it must be remember that the Palestinians have had more than one opportunity to have their own homeland and have repeatedly refused it because of their insistence that Israel has no right to exist. Until the Palestinians are willing to accept a compromise that assures Israel's right to exist and to defend its territorial integrity, they have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of peace.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Nonetheless, the nation has done much to earn to enmity of others in the world, though what I believe those things to be are likely different than what the Democrats polled would identify. We have spread the worst of our culture to much of the world, the very things which those who post to Mere Comments also condemn in our culture, pornography (hard and soft), out-of-bounds consumerism, materialism, secular humanism, contraception, abortion, etc. Christians in our land have responded, as we should, we verbal condemnation and calls for repentance. <<<

That's right--WE made them into the gluttonous, guzzling fornicators that they are today. Until we showed up, they were as pure as the driven snow.

This is just a modern take on Rousseau's "noble savage" myth--white guys are responsible for all the evil in the world, because the benighted heathen all live in a blissful state of nature.

>>>While I have great sympathy for the *peaceful" Palestinians and recognize that the last 60 years has devastated the Christian population of Palestine, it must be remember that the Palestinians have had more than one opportunity to have their own homeland and have repeatedly refused it because of their insistence that Israel has no right to exist.<<<

But, as has been said of them, "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Or, to put it another way, they hate the Jews more than they love the idea of having their own country. Or, to put yet another spin on it, it's much more fun to shoot people and blow things up than it is to deal with stuff like sewers, paving, hospitals and tax policy.

[coco]

GL, I would add (to my understanding) that the Palestinians' neighbours deliberately exacerbated the situation over decades by keeping the Palestinians in permanent camps on the borders of that troubled state.

[Judy Warner]

I am reading Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. I recommend it as must reading. When you look back over the history he presents, which I have no reason to disbelieve, you see that from its very beginning Islam has been an expansionist and brutal religion. Its goal, stated in many places, Koran and otherwise, is to take over the world.

(These are my thoughts not Spencer's now.) The reason Islam was more quiescent in previous decades was not that America was a more moral place and thus did not inflame Muslims' hatred. It was that we were the "strong horse" and Islam was weak. Since Vietnam we have shown that we are internally divided, full of doubts about the goodness of western civilization, and hesitant to use our power. The Iranian revolutionaries reacted by taking Americans hostage in 1979; Islam then had to retreat when Ronald Reagan changed their view of America's willingness to use our strength (though he made some serious mistakes through not understanding Islam's goals). Since then they grew in strength while the weak Bill Clinton was president, resulting in 9/11 and their further efforts to take over more areas of the world.

I do not believe that our morality has anything to do with the Muslims' many-centuries-old drive to expand by force. Their success now has to do with our weakness, Europe's low birthrates, and the Saudis' massive funding of radical Wahhabi schools and mosques all over the world. They will use anything at hand to inflame their followers. In our present state of relative weakness, they use our immorality because that is an obvious thing to use. If we were weak and moral, they would use our pushing Judeo-Christian morality down the world's throat as an excuse.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am reading Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.<<<

His new book on Mohammed is outstanding and should not be missed. A review follows; I've read the book and concur.

Religion of Peace?
Robert Spencer asks the hard questions.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Islam is quintessentially tolerant. Its adherents are hospitable to liberty, equality, and pluralism, the rudiments of modern democracy. Those committing terror in its name are heretics — a fringe which has “hijacked” a “religion of peace.”

This conventional wisdom brims over the mainstream media’s daily servings. It is, moreover, the not-to-be-questioned premise of U.S. policy on a host of paramount issues: everything from how the war on terror is conceptualized and prosecuted, to the wisdom of negotiations with Iran, a sovereign state for Palestinians, agitation for freedom and popular self-determination throughout the Middle East, and the assumption that our own growing Muslim population will seamlessly assimilate.

But is it true?

Emphatically, the answer is “no.” So argues best-selling author and Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in The Truth about Muhammad — Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery, 256 pages, $27.95). And he does not expect you to take his word for it.

Painstakingly, Spencer has crafted a biography Islam’s Prophet from the authentic Muslim Sunnah, comprised of: the Koran, which is taken by believers to be the verbatim word of Allah, dictated to Muhammad in Arabic by the angel Gabriel; the tafsir, or Koranic commentary; the hadith, which are lengthy volumes recording the words and traditions of Muhammad (there are six different collections, dating from the eighth and ninth centuries); and, finally, the sira, authoritative biographies of the Prophet, including what remains to us of Ibn Ishaq’s hagiographic account, written about 150 years after Muhammad’s death in 632.

The picture that emerges is complex but not ambiguous. Muhammad was a dynamic figure — necessarily, among the most dynamic in history, having formed from scratch a movement that ultimately dominated lands from the Near East to Central Asia (to say nothing of pockets of Europe, Africa, and the Far East), a movement that today claims over a billion adherents. He was also, through and through, a product of Arabia’s tribal antiquity — a fact often stressed by Islam’s modern sympathizers to explain, if not smooth, the Prophet’s many rough edges.

In such a life, unsurprisingly, one finds episodic acts of tolerance and benevolence. But there are episodes and then there is trajectory. The arc of Muhammad’s life tends decisively to intolerance and inequality. His was, ultimately, a bellicose, us-versus-them world of conquest and booty. This cannot help but imbue the religion he founded. In it, his example is normative: the scriptures revere him as “an excellent model of conduct” (Sura 33:21), who exhibits an “exalted standard of character” (68:4) and obedience to whom is repeatedly adjured — indeed, is made equally as essential as obedience to Allah Himself (4:80). Recalling the Muslim fury over Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2005, Spencer points out that in the Koran “again and again Allah is quite solicitous of his prophet, and ready to command what will please him. To the mind of someone who accepts the [Koran] as an authentic revelation, this places Muhammad in a particularly important position.”

CONTRADICTION AND AMBIGUITY
The Prophet of Islam was born in Mecca, a member of the Quraysh tribe which did a lucrative trade in pilgrimages to the local shrine, the Kabah — now the central locus of Islamic worship but then home to numerous pagan idols. Both Muhammad’s parents died in his early childhood. In his twenties, he was hired as a traveling salesman by his distant cousin Khadija, an accomplished merchant woman whose wares he deftly traded in Syria. Though fifteen years his senior, Khadija proposed marriage, becoming the first of Muhammad’s many wives (biographers peg the number at between eleven and thirteen, with Muhammad having claimed to be “given the power of sexual intercourse equal to forty men”). Eventually, she also became the first Muslim.

Muhammad’s prophetic career spanned about 23 years after he received, at age 40, what he came to believe was his first revelation. Initially, the call to Islam was a straightforward summons to monotheism — to worship only “Allah,” who, Spencer explains, may have been the tribal god of the Quraysh (and thus one of the many local deities).

As further revelations fleshed out nascent Islam, there was transparent borrowing from the Bible, the Torah, other Jewish and Christian sources (including heterodox strains of Christianity then abundant in Arabia), Zoroastrian writings from Persia, and local pagan ritual. The resulting similarities discomfit Muslims, who often insist that they represent not emulation but happenstance, the Koran having been recited to Muhammad (who was illiterate) by Allah in His original language of Arabic. Beyond that, any seeming Judeo-Christian influence is attributed to Jews and Christians being fellow “People of the Book,” whose God Muslims share and whose heritage they claim to supersede. It is, in fact, an enduring tenet that Jews and Christians are, as Spencer puts it, “sinful renegades from the truth of Islam,” who corruptly altered their scriptures to elide foreshadowings of Muhammad’s coming.

One of the seeming contradictions of Muhammad’s life is the contrast of his early hospitality toward Jews (and Christians) with his final position of unremitting enmity. Contradictions, of course, create ambiguity. This is useful for Islam’s modern apologists, who incessantly underline a few isolated episodes of tolerance and even kindness as if they could bleach away Muhammad’s legacy of arch hostility toward non-Muslims — a legacy built, for example, on the Koran’s admonition that Muslims “take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and protectors” (5:51); on Muhammad’s vision of the end of the world: marked by Jesus returning to abolish Christianity and impose Islam, while Jews are killed by Muslims (with the help of trees and stones, which alert the faithful, “Muslim, … there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him”); and on the Prophet’s deathbed call for the total expulsion of unbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula — a desire the Saudi government honors to this day, particularly in Mecca and Medina, cities closed to non-Muslims.

Spencer cogently explains, however, that there is no real contradiction or ambiguity. Especially in the early phase of his prophesying — the Meccan period before Hijra, when the Muslims were forced to flee to Medina — Muhammad had great reason to be solicitous: He was building a movement. Arabia’s powerful Jewish tribes (the Qaynuqa, Auf and Qurayzah, among others) were among those the Prophet most energetically called to Islam. Thus we find Muhammad “situating himself within the roster of Jewish prophets, forbidding pork for his followers, and adapting for the Muslims the practice of several daily prayers and other aspects of Jewish ritual.” Muhammad, moreover, struck a treaty with Medina’s Jewish tribes — grandiosely regarded by Muslims as “the world’s first constitution” — which described them as “one community with the believers” (though tellingly, even in this amicable period, the pact drew sharp distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims).
In fact, this adaptability, when exhibited in Muhammad’s similarly earnest efforts to convert his native Quraysh to Islam, resulted in the nearly ruinous “Satanic verses” incident (made infamous in modern times by Salman Rushdie’s book and the consequent murder fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini). Desperate to be reconciled with his own people, Muhammad convinced himself that he’d received a revelation allowing Muslims to pray to three pagan goddesses favored by the Quraysh as intercessors for Allah. The Quraysh were thrilled, but the Prophet, upon a countermanding revelation from an angry Gabriel, soon realized he had not only contradicted the core of his monotheistic preaching but potentially undermined the entire Islamic enterprise by raising the possibility that his revelations were not authentic. Allah forgave Muhammad, observing that Satan’s interference had been an occupational hazard for all His beleaguered prophets through the ages. Still, the incident is sufficiently embarrassing that Muslim scholars and apologists continue ferociously to discredit it, although, Spencer concludes, the evidence preponderates against them.

BRUTAL CONQUEST
In any event, good will between Muslims and non-Muslims proved fleeting. Muhammad’s overriding aim was Islamic hegemony not ecumenical coexistence. Upon resettling in Medina, Muhammad became as much a political and military leader as the apocalyptic preacher of his first 13 years of prophesying. The Jews, like the Quraysh, many Christian communities, and other non-Muslims declined to heed his call. Rejection of Islam was construed as attack upon Islam, for which the prescription was jihad.

Incontestably, jihad is a central imperative (in fact, the highest obligation) of Islam. Muhammad’s career as a fierce and, at times, brutal warrior illustrates the futility of efforts to render congenial to modern sensibilities this command to struggle against perceived enemies. Yes, the Koran famously asserts that there shall be “no compulsion in religion” (2:256). But however hortatory this injunction may be, it is ahistorical. Islam was spread by the sword.

The Prophet’s military feats began with attacks, many of which he led personally, on Quraysh caravans. These raids, Spencer explains, were not merely acts of vengeance against those who had rejected Islam; they further “served a key economic purpose, keeping the Muslim movement solvent.” Booty would be central to Muslim militancy, and thus grew rules for its division (such as one-fifth of the haul set aside for the Prophet, and the propriety of using female slaves as concubines). Asked by a follower about the legitimacy of nighttime attacks given the probability of endangering women and children, Muhammad indicated these were permissible because such noncombatants “are from them” (i.e., the unbelievers).

It is due to this and other lessons that the battles of early Islam resonate today — creating a major hurdle (I fear, an insuperable one) for reformers hopeful of convincing the ummah (i.e., the worldwide Muslim community) that it’s the terrorists, not the reformers themselves, who are doctrinally wayward.

The Prophet, for example, directed “martyrdom” operations. Martyrdom, Spencer elaborates, was understood exactly as it is by today’s jihadists: “referring to one who (in the words of a revelation that came to Muhammad much later) ‘slays and is slain’ for Allah (Qur’an 9:111), rather than in the Christian sense of suffering unto death at the hands of the unjust for the sake of the faith.”

Muslims were authorized by another revelation to break treaties — particularly with the Jews — when there appeared advantage in doing so (8:58). And in the tone-setting “Nakhla Raid” against the Quraysh, a timely revelation helped Muhammad overcome his initial reluctance to accept booty derived from killings committed by his followers during the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting was forbidden. Those murdered had disbelieved Allah. This, the Prophet learned, was the greater evil. Of course, the collateral lesson, as Spencer relates, was that “[m]oral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency.”

Believers were instructed to fight and behead non-believers (47:4), and did so mercilessly. After the out-numbered Muslims decisively triumphed over the Quraysh in the “Battle of Badr,” for example, one captured Quraysh leader pled for his life, asking, “But who will look after my children?” “Hell,” replied Muhammad, ordering the man killed. Another leader’s head was brought as a trophy to the Prophet, who expressed delight and gave thanks to Allah. (No wonder then, Spencer interjects, that when al Qaeda’s strongman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, decapitated American hostage Nicholas Berg, he declared, “The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in Badr and to kill them…. And he set a good example for us.”) (Brackets in original.) Allah, in fact, expressed anger at Muhammad after Badr because the Prophet agreed to take ransom from some captured Quraysh leaders rather than beheading them as his companion, Umar, had urged.

In Medina, the Muslims were pitted against an alliance of the Quraysh and the Qurayzah Jews in the “Battle of the Trench.” During the Muslims’ building of the defensive trench, Muhammad’s pick blows are said to have emitted lightening flashes, which drew cries of “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is greatest” — the “Islamic cry of victory” for Spencer) and were interpreted by the Prophet as a sign that Allah would eventually make Islam triumphant beyond Arabia in the east and west. Opining that “war is deceit,” Muhammad directed one of his followers to appear as a sympathizer to the enemy factions, while sowing discord between them. It worked: the Quraysh abandoned the field and the Muslims laid siege to the Jews, whom Muhammad called “brothers of monkeys.” (Spencer notes three places — 2:62-65, 5:59-60 and 7:166 — where the Koran records that “Allah transformed the Sabbath-breaking Jews into pigs and monkeys.”) When the Qurayzah surrendered and sought mercy, Muhammad agreed with the assessment of his follower Sad bin Muadh that “their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” In the execution, Muhammad personally participated in the beheading of between 600 and 900 captives — including all males who had reached puberty.

This incident was not unique. Spencer recounts that Muhammad ordered a Jewish poet, Kab bin al-Ashraf, killed because the Prophet took offense at “amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women.” After the murder, he commanded the Muslims: “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” When Muhammad ordered the expulsion of the Nadir Jews with whom area Muslims had a treaty, Muhammad’s emissary declared, “Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants.” When the Jews declined to leave, Muhammad construed this to mean that “[t]he Jews have declared war” — another reminder that whether Islam is “under attack,” the trigger of jihad, is ever in the eyes of the beholder. In the ensuing siege, the Prophet ordered the earth scorched, refuting his own prohibition against the wanton destruction of property so often cited by Islamic apologists. And in the “Raid at Khaybar,” Muhammad directed that a Jewish leader, Kinana bin al-Rabi, be tortured to extract the location of tribal treasure; when al-Rabi stood fast, Muhammad had him beheaded, and later, when more hidden treasure was located, the incensed Prophet — as he had done with the Qurayzah Jews — directed that warriors among the Khaybar Jews be killed and the women and children taken as slaves.

WHY MUHAMMAD MATTERS
Why rehash these and other chilling episodes in the meteoric, militaristic rise of early Islam? Because, Spencer maintains, they are crucial to appreciating the dual challenge faced by Westerners and Islamic reformers.

Americans, told incessantly by their elites that Islam is a “religion of peace,” watch in bewilderment when, for example, a Muslim convert to Christianity is subjected to a death penalty trial in the “new” Afghanistan, liberated from the Taliban due to great American sacrifice. How, they rightly wonder, could the “moderates’ now in charge abide such a thing? The answer is as simple: Islam’s prophet made death the penalty for apostasy. (“Whoever changed his Islamic religion,” said Muhammad, “then kill him.”) There is a crying need, Spencer observes, “for Westerners to become informed about the words and deeds of Muhammad — which make the actions of Islamic states much more intelligible than do the words of Islamic apologists in the West.”

The foundation of American policy, furthermore, is the conceit that moderates represent the Islamic mainstream, that they reflect the authentic image of a Muhammad — the “highest example of human behavior” — who championed the values of democracy and equality. “But,” as Spencer cautions, “if the jihad terrorists are correct in invoking his example to justify their deeds, then Islamic reformers will need to initiate a respectful but searching re-evaluation of the place Muhammad occupies within Islam — a vastly more difficult undertaking.”

And this must be said not just of jihad terrorists. Spencer, for example, is understanding about the actions of Muhammad, then aged 50, in taking Aisha as a wife when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine. This was, after all, in the spirit of the times. Nevertheless, for believers, the Prophet’s example transcends its time, and thus child-brides are a commonplace in the Islamic world. Muhammad’s Islam, moreover, still confines women to a subordinate status — the Koran likens a woman to a “tilth” to be used as a man wills (2:223); a man may take four wives and have sex with slave girls (4:3); a woman’s testimony is valued at half that of a man (2:282); and so on. There is, moreover, simply no credibly denying the denigrated status of non-Muslims, reduced by Muhammad and his successors to humiliating dhimmitude and, as we have seen, brutalized.

Individually, countless Muslims have evolved past these notions. But Islam has not — certainly not in a dominant or convincing way. If anything, atavism is at least as strong a current as reform. Is it realistic to believe the tens of millions (more likely, hundreds of millions) of Muslims whose compass is Muhammad’s belligerent, hegemonic vision of Islam — a vision that has endured for 14 centuries — will abandon it in favor of an Islam that embraces liberty, self-determination, and equality based on our common humanity? Anything, one imagines, is possible … but such a seismic shift is not going to happen any time soon.

Robert Spencer graphically illustrates the depth of our folly in thinking — or, rather, blithely assuming — otherwise. An alarming book, and a necessary one.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[James Redden Jr.]

An article in The American Conservative, "MTV Made Them Do It" provides a balanced approach on the West's confrontation with Islamic terrorism that doesn't resort to "with us or against us" or "the great American Satan" extremes. You could find that article here http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/review.html

As a patriotic American who has served his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it would be hard to classify me in the "give peace a chance" crowd that blames the U.S. and the west for all of the world's ill's, particularly 9/11. As an Orthodox Christian who takes a theistic view on things, it's not hard for me to imagine that the Islamic response cannot be reduced to a matter of economic and political exploitation (although I won't deny this has happened). As a reader of history (particularly Bernard Lewis and Trifkovic), I would agree with Judy Warner that the historical record reveals Islam to be a religion of expansionist violence rather than a religion of peace.

With all of this in mind, it is my belief that the United States is the only country that can provide the necessary leadership to confront Islamic terrorism effectively and that it is justified in using its power to combat it. Nevertheless, the U.S. - like any country run by fallible human beings - can use its power in unjust ways that only make the problem worse. Bombs are not the only means whereby we can project our power throughout the world. Our confrontation with Islam is not primarily a political one. It certainly isn't nor shouldn't it be a military one. It is a cultural one, and until the the U.S. and the West in general recovers its Christian culture - particularly as it relates to our attitudes on life and procreation - no amount of bombs and soldiers will bring us victory. The solution is not to invade Mecca with America's military might but to exclude Mecca from America with the might of a recovered Christian culture.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The reason Islam was more quiescent in previous decades was not that America was a more moral place and thus did not inflame Muslims' hatred.<<<

Not quite. Ibn Qutb, the intellectual and spiritual godfather of the modern Jihadist movement, came to America in the 1950s and was apalled by the moral laxity (men and women dancing! TOGETHER!!!) and our apparently feckless materialism. He returned to Egypt to preach a return to Islamic purity--the Old Time Religion, as in Bring Back the 7th Century--and the concomitant destruction of the West and all its pomps and all its works.

He failed at the time, and the Islamist movement was kept in check, because the Arabs at that time were pursuing another false god--Pan-Arab Socialism--helped along with a lot of easy money (and tanks and MiGs) courtesy of the USSR. With guys like Nasser and Asad wielding the whip, the Islamists were kept in their place (Ibn Qutb was hanged in Cairo in the 1960s). When that god failed--as it was bound to do--the Arabs were left without any sort of intellectual or philosophical underpinnings, and turned naturally to Ibn Qutb's brand of militant Islamism.

So it is not possible to say that it is OUR immorality that causes the Muslims to hate us. They hated us all along, and they will continue to hate us, even if we all became incarnations of the saints. They hate us because we are not Muslims, and Islam (if you have read Spencer, it is apparent) preaches hatred and revulsion against all unbelievers, no matter how moral their lives. Christians benefit only insofar as they aren't Jews.

[Judy Warner]

Stuart, I don't get how your last comment contradicts the comment of mine that you quoted. Did you skip over the "not"?

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

Given that GL is consistently one of the most thoughtful, reflective, nuanced, patient, and gentle people to post on this site, you might consider that before placing such a tendentious interpretation on his words.

GL is not trying to advance either a Rousseauian notion of the aboriginal noble savage corrupted by Western civilization, nor is he trying to offer an apologetic for the "blame/hate America first" crowd. What he is doing is to suggest that, while we are completely justified in acting in self-defense, we are *not* justified in self-righteously congratulating ourselves on being morally superior to the rest of mankind. Indeed, there is a real sense in which we stand specially condemned before the throne of grace. As a nation and culture (as well as particular persons) we bear the name of Christ, yet we produce a veritable sewage flood of sins (some of which GL cited) that nail our Lord and Saviour anew to the Cross every day. In God's justice and Providence, such sins inevitably find us out and bear bitter fruit.

Just as with OT Israel, the guilt of the whole nation brings evil upon the innocent few, and the wickedness of the few can serve to bring divine wrath and retribution upon the entire nation. Sin invtieews divine retribution, and (as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon show) God can use manifestly wicked powers for His ends in this regard.

We therefore do not have much room for complaint if the heathen identify as "Christian" the moral turpitude that our country exports to the world as one of its chief cultural commodities, and they react accordingly with condemnation. That does not justify their violent reactions beyond condemnation; but it does means that we have cut out the moral ground from underneath our own feet.

Part of the burden of the Cross is that we as Christians must bear patiently, on behalf of the guilty whole, suffering that we as particular persons have not deserved. That does not mean that we forfeit the right to seek justice and defend ourselves. It does mean both bearing suffeirng pateintly, and not living in an illusory world of self-denial regarding the number and extent of our own sins and the degree to which they can become an occasion for unrighteous retaliation as well as righteous punishment.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What he is doing is to suggest that, while we are completely justified in acting in self-defense, we are *not* justified in self-righteously congratulating ourselves on being morally superior to the rest of mankind.<<<

I don't know anyone who does--quite the opposite in fact, we beat up on ourselves in a way that would make a Stalinist samokritika session look mild. Which is something of the problem: we're so busy pointing to the mote in our own eye that we ignore the beam in our neighbor's. Bad as we are--and here is quite a lot that IS bad, we are, on the whole, quite a lot better than any of the alternatives on the block, on any of the other continents, to say nothing of our own. And we had better begin to realize it quickly, or we won't retain enough moral fibre to defend our own culture.

>>>We therefore do not have much room for complaint if the heathen identify as "Christian" the moral turpitude that our country exports to the world as one of its chief cultural commodities, and they react accordingly with condemnation.<<<

But even in the halcyon days of our youth, they were doing the same thing. They were doing the same thing in the Middle Ages, they were doing the same thing in the 7th century. It isn't what we present as Christian that arouses their ire--it is the mere existence of Christianity. That is the entire point: theirs is a culture entirely lacking in introspection, that reflexively considers itself not only superior but normative, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We, on the other hand, are blessed (and cursed) with introspection in abundance. Only in Western culture could a conversation like this even happen. It NEVER happens in Japanese, Chinese, Indian, or Muslim culture. Their culture is best. They know it, and thoughts to the contrary never enter their minds. We may have some stuff that they want, but deep down they know that they are the only REAL people, and the rest of us are infidels or barbarians.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I don't get how your last comment contradicts the comment of mine that you quoted. Did you skip over the "not"?<<<

Maybe so.

[Bill R]

I see merit in the points raised by GL, Stuart, and James. I would just add that the real objection raised by radical Muslims against the West is not so much our decadence (which, as GL and James note, is quite real), but our openness in displaying our decadence--the necessary consequence of a free society. Any Muslim society would appear equally decadent if it were open--witness what we know of the behavior of the 9/11 terrorists on the days before their deadly actions--but what radicals want is absolute control over what is publically displayed. All men are sinful, but not all societies are open. We Christians must accept the display of our decadence because we accept the premise that our society must be free and open. The radical Muslim, on the other hand, knows that he can shut down any such display in a Sharia-based society, living contentedly in his hypocrisy and believing that he has created a "more moral" society.

[Joe Long]

"Our confrontation with Islam ....certainly isn't nor shouldn't it be a military one. It is a cultural one, and until the the U.S. and the West in general recovers its Christian culture - particularly as it relates to our attitudes on life and procreation - no amount of bombs and soldiers will bring us victory. The solution is not to invade Mecca with America's military might but to exclude Mecca from America with the might of a recovered Christian culture."

I agree about the importance of the recovery of our Christian culture, but not about the cause-effect relationships posited here. Islam would mandate conflict between Moslems and a renewed Christian America, no less than with a decayed, secular America. They find the second choice an easier foe, but certainly would not relent in their malevolence were we to more thoroughly Christianize. In fact the better our civilization is doing, the angrier theirs has to be.

Our confrontation with Islam IS largely a military one, by the Islamosphere's choice (the aggressor gets to pick, unfortunately). I can hardly tell a man shooting at me, "Our contest is really a moral one" and expect my superior arguments to serve as Kevlar.

Bombs and soldiers, properly used, might allow even the secular West to defeat Islam, actually. Whether the victory would be hollow when our own cultural decline is considered, is another question. But Islam, which has prospered by the sword, certainly may be destroyed by it in the end, as well. Happened to Japanese "Shinto-militarism", after all.

[Reid]

Could the U.S. be the greatest force for evil in the world? In Revelation 17 & 18, Babylon the Great, Babylon the Prostitute, is the great city that rules the kings of the earth, dominating the world by by seduction, force, and above all wealth, driving the economy of the world by her insatiable appetite for luxury. It is not hard to make the argument that this prostitute is the greatest force for evil in the world.

There is, of course, much debate about the meaning of this prostitute. My own take is that she is the spirit of the world, usually diffuse, occasionally becoming incarnate in a particular city or kingdom of uncommon might, wealth, and depravity: Sodom, Egypt, Nineveh, Babylon, Rome. In our own day America is certainly the dominant nation of the world in might and wealth, and her depravity, if not the greatest in the world (I think of China's forced abortion policy, for instance) is certainly among the frontrunners. I read the long list of Babylon's treasured commodities in Revelation 18, ending with "the bodies and souls of men," and I think of America's abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I read that Babylon's merchants were the world's great men, and I think of America's captains of industry (to use the old phrase). I believe one might plausibly conclude that America is the modern incarnation of the prostitute.

Are there not Christians in America? Is not the church here? Yes, of course. And Lot lived in Sodom. And Joseph went down to Egypt. And Jonah preached (successfully for a time) to Nineveh. And the Jews (even Daniel) lived in Babylon. And our Lord brought forth His Church in a backwater corner of Rome. But the call of Revelation is "come out of her my people so that you will not share in her sins" (an allusion from Ezekiel, I think). The presence of the faithful does not necessarily negate the reality of the nation's sin.

So GL, regardless of whether America is the modern Babylon, I think your point is well made. America has spread and promoted wickedness by the means you list: materialism, pornography, abortion, etc. As you say, it is not the sole reason for the animosity toward the U.S., but it certainly appears to be one reason, and certainly the best reason.

Stuart, I disagree with your comment about the "noble savage." I do not see anyone here arguing that American debauchery has corrupted previously upright societies. The argument here is more that America has exported plenty of wickedness, increasing its grip on those already subject to it. In Proverbs 7 the simple (in the sense of morally aimless) young man puts himself in the neighborhood of an adulteress, who is all too happy to nurture his simpleness into full-blown folly and death. He has no one but himself to blame, and yet her sin strikes me as the greater. It would not astonish me if he comes to hate her, and I might even think him justified in doing so.

I'm not arguing that those terrorists who murder Americans in "vengeance" are in any way justified. These murders simply add the terrible weight of unjust bloodshed to their already long list of sins. Their only right action is, as we all know, to repent and seek the mercy of God offered through Jesus Christ. At the same time, as long as protecting hersef from terrorists remains higher on the list of America's priorities that repenting of her own abominations, I suspect, "It will go easier with al-Qaeda on the day of judgment than with her."

[GL]

That's right--WE made them into the gluttonous, guzzling fornicators that they are today. Until we showed up, they were as pure as the driven snow.

This is just a modern take on Rousseau's "noble savage" myth--white guys are responsible for all the evil in the world, because the benighted heathen all live in a blissful state of nature.

Stuart,

That is not what I said. If you disagree with what I said, by all means do so, but don't misrepresent what I said and then attack the strawman you have constructed as if you are attacking what I actually said. I am resolved not to be as confrontational in my blogging going forward as I have been in the past, but I will point out misrepresentations, whether or not intentional, of what I said. If we honestly disagree with each other, let's honestly say so, but let's not look for opportunities to create disagreements where there are none. We are, after all, brothers in Christ.

Let me be clear of my views on the United States in the month of January 2007 and for some years in the past. We are a deeply debauched and depraved a culture, rapidly decending into neopaganism. Like all cultures, we have always been debauched and depraved, but because of our current position in the world and because of modern technology, we are now more capable of exporting our own wickedness to the rest of the world, a world which has more than enough of its own wickedness without our contribution. While we have done much good in the world, we have also done much evil, the most egregious of which is spreading our own debauchery and depravity to the rest of the world. While I would by no means identify the U.S. with the whore of Babylon, I agree with Reid that we fill many of her characteristics and it makes my blood run cold whenever I read her described in Revelation and then compare her to our own nation. While we are not her (at least I hope not), looking like her is a condition for which we should be ashamed.

Is that disloyal? No more so than when the ancient prophets told the truth of the moral and spiritual condition of ancient Israel.

Is our debauchery and depravity the sole or even the primary cause of Islamic hatred of us? No. Is it a contributory factor? Yes. Do we as a nation serve our cause well by continuing it? No. Would we serve ourselves well were we to repent of it? Yes. Are we capable of doing so? I don't see how, absent the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holland's Young Hope thread gives me some hope, however.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We are a deeply debauched and depraved a culture, rapidly decending into neopaganism. <<<

And when have we NOT been? When has any ostensibly Christian culture NOT been?

>>> we are now more capable of exporting our own wickedness to the rest of the world, a world which has more than enough of its own wickedness without our contribution.<<<

My contention would be that every culture is debauched in its own way. Not one Muslim country in the world today is not a cesspit of depravity. Worse, every last one has been a cesspit of depravity since long before the first Englishman set foot on Virginia soil in 1607. As compared to those cultures today, I would assert that we are (a) more humane; (b) more charitable; (c) more sexually modest; (e) more just and equitable. Sure, we have a lot raunchy stuff, but the main difference between us and them is that ours is out in the open, theirs is behind closed doors. We have images of women as sex objects; they treat women as sex objects. We at least hold to the notion of the ontological equality of men and women; they make no such claim--men are superior, women inferior, end of discussion. I really can't think of ANY virtues of Muslim society anywhere in the world. I can think of quite a few Western virtues. The vices of our society are really just the vices of all societies throughout time, but our virtues are our own. We at least try to live up to them from time to time. They denegrate them as decadent and depraved.

>>>While I would by no means identify the U.S. with the whore of Babylon, I agree with Reid that we fill many of her characteristics and it makes my blood run cold whenever I read her described in Revelation and then compare her to our own nation. <<<

We really should have kept that book out of the canon. But, for the sake of argument, could one not look at any nation at any time in history and see its image reflected in the Apocalypse? Have not Christians preachers from the. well, first century been doing just that? Rome, Byzantium, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, America--at various points in history, someone somewhere has been saying, "Look--it's the Whore of Babylon!". To me, all it says is that all men sin, all nations are sinful, and this world is NOT the Kingdom of God.

>>>No. Is it a contributory factor?<<<

Sorry, but it ain't--unless your idea of depravity is Leave It to Beaver and My Three Sons. Because that's what Ibn Qutb saw, and that's what he denounced as depravity. You need to understand--anything that deviates from 7th century Arabian norms is by their standards depraved. Which means, coincidentally, that 7th century Christian norms were depraved (they were tritheists and idol worshipers), as were, of course, 7th century Jewish norms (pigs and monkeys who suppressed the true word of God). Thus, no matter what we do, other than become Muslims with the same outlook they have, will cause them to hate, fear and despise us.

It isn't us, it's them. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can get down to business. Moral regeneration doesn't require a pragmatic rationale like winning Muslim hearts and minds (I doubt they are for sale). On the other hand, surviving long enough for moral regeneration to occur requires a very clear-eyed view of our enemies and their motives.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

Your responses are evading rather than addressing the points made by GL, myself, etc. The issue is not a historical one of whether or not there has ever been either any Western Christian or any Muslim nation that has not been in some ways debauched. Of course they all have -- that's original sin for you. The issue is the moral and spiritual one of downplaying our own debauchery in favor of self-righeous assertion of ourselves as inherently superior before the throne of grace, and a corresponding implicit presumption that we *deserve* to triumph over Islam. To which the brief answer is: God deserves to triumph over Islam (and will), but we do not.

To use an illustration that may generate less heated sentiments --

When my parish was involved in the litigation with TEC in which we lsot our property, our rector Fr. Ousley rightly warned our congregation against thinking that we deserved to win the legal action because we were orthodox and the other side was heretical, because we were morally and spiritually "better" than them. After one such admonition, a fellow parishioner (and very sweet woman) came up to me and said, "I don't understand. We *do* deserve to win. We *are* better than they are." In her case it was innocent confusion, but it shows how deep and subtly the deception of the sin of pride, of self-justification rather than being justified by Christ, can take root in the human mind and heart.

That is what is being addressed here by GL, myself, etc.

Some years ago, one Carlson Gerdeau, the then canon of the Episcopal cathedral in Chicago under then diocesan Bp. Frank Griswold, preached a sermon that attracted wide attention. In it, he argued that Christians and the Church could no longer be concerned with matters of personal holiness of life, because issues such as nuclear disarmarment, world hunger, abortion and gay rights, etc. were too important and took precedence in claims on our time and energies. Too often I sense a parallel heresy to this from the other end of the theological spectrum -- just substitue "holiness of society/nation" for "personal holiness" and "Islam" (or Communism, or whatever) for the pet issues of the ideological Left.

The question is how we are to wage spiritual warfare, let alone any other kind, if our own spiritual strength is so decaayed from within.

We must fight, yes; but we cannot discount the very real possibility that we are under divine judgment, and will be suffered by God to lose the worldly wars, because we have not first sought earnestly enough to confess our own unrighteousness and purify our own hearts and minds.

"We really should have kept that book [Revelation] out of the canon."

This is open heresy. Anyone who set up his own private judgment in this fashion against the judgment of the undivided church that has received this book as Scripture some 1,500 years ago cannot be trusted to read and interpret the Scriptures rightly with the Church. (Which is one reason why I don't cotton to Luther.) Nor can he have any complaint with the Protestant principle of "sola scriptura," since he seeks not just the private interpretation of Scripture, but beyond that private judgment as to what even constitutes Scripture. In short, he is a "church" unto himself.

[GL]

As compared to those cultures today, I would assert that we are . . . more sexually modest . . . . Sure, we have a lot raunchy stuff, but the main difference between us and them is that ours is out in the open, theirs is behind closed doors.

It is the fact that "we have a lot raunchy stuff . . . out in the open" which causes me to disagree that we are "more sexually modest." "Sexually modest," in any degree, is the last thing I would call our culture.

Without engaging you in a debate over your entire post (which, frankly, I have been trying to avoid), I will only point out where, hopefully unintentionally, you appear to be creating a strawman and then attacking it as if it were my position when it is not. You wrote:

>>>We are a deeply debauched and depraved a culture, rapidly decending into neopaganism. <<<

And when have we NOT been? When has any ostensibly Christian culture NOT been?

In the sentence which *immediately* followed the one you quoted, I wrote, "Like all cultures, we have always been debauched and depraved." So see, when the sentence you quoted out of context is put in context, we agree.

You also wrote the following:

>>>While I would by no means identify the U.S. with the whore of Babylon, I agree with Reid that we fill many of her characteristics and it makes my blood run cold whenever I read her described in Revelation and then compare her to our own nation. <<<

We really should have kept that book out of the canon. But, for the sake of argument, could one not look at any nation at any time in history and see its image reflected in the Apocalypse? Have not Christians preachers from the. well, first century been doing just that? Rome, Byzantium, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, America--at various points in history, someone somewhere has been saying, "Look--it's the Whore of Babylon!". To me, all it says is that all men sin, all nations are sinful, and this world is NOT the Kingdom of God.

I'm trying to figure out where you think we might disagree here. At the end of the paragraph you quoted, I wrote, "While we are not her [the whore of Babylon] (at least I hope not), looking like her is a condition for which we should be ashamed." I would assume you would agree with that. I would hope that Christian citizens of "Rome, Byzantium, Britain, France, Italy, [and] Russia" were and/or are ashamed when they saw/see their own cultures mirrored in description of the whore of Babyon.

Finally, I am at a lost to why you think that we have done nothing to earn even a modicum of the hatred that the Muslims have for us and our culture. But if that is your view, we will just have to disagree on that.

[GL]

As to James, last post:

Ditto.

[GL]

As to our being more virtuous than the Muslims, I am reminded of the Pharisee who compared his righteousness to that of the tax collector. He was looking at the wrong point of comparison. Had he looked at God as his point of comparison, he too, like that tax collector, would have beat his chest and cried for mercy. That is what the Christian citizens of the United States need to be doing.

While trying to avoid sounding like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I too have wondered if the attacks of September 11 and the current war are not signs that God is judging our self-righteous, haughty nation, many of whose citizens think we are better than the rest of the world. If we could see us with God's eyes, we would immediately lose our high opinion of ourselves. I would put the worldliness and self-righteousness of Christians, whose claim to know make us more culpable, at the top of the list of our depraved condition.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is open heresy. <<<

Not really, James. The issue was an open one well into the fourth century, and Revelations is still excluded from the Byzantine, Coptic and Syrian lectionaries. If one definition of canonicity is "a book that is read as part of the liturgy", then the Apocalypse of St. John is not in our canon. On the other hand, we love its liturgical imagery and incorporated a lot of it into our own worship. So, at best, the book has an abiguous position in the Eastern Churches. While the West was getting wrapped around the axle with Donatism and Pelagianism, we were wrestling with Montanism and its offshoots, where every Tom, Dick and Harry claimed to be a new prophet, and was waving Revelations around to prove his point. After a while, the Greek Fathers just got tired of it, and our attitude towards Revelations is the fruit of that frustration. When I see what far too many Christian cultists have done with it (paging David Koresh), I think they really did have a point.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As to our being more virtuous than the Muslims, I am reminded of the Pharisee who compared his righteousness to that of the tax collector. He was looking at the wrong point of comparison. Had he looked at God as his point of comparison, he too, like that tax collector, would have beat his chest and cried for mercy. That is what the Christian citizens of the United States need to be doing.<<<

We can do both. We most certainly need to approach God as repentent sinners, and not for nothing is the most common Byzantine prayer "God have mercy on me, a sinner". On the other hand, its delusional to create a moral equivalence between our culture and their. It is, in fact, at the root of a lot of our current problems. To say that our culture's general sluttiness is no worse than a culture that treats women not as metaphorical but as actual property, that does not merely wink at sexual abuse, but condones it, that holds chastity in such high regard that it punishes women with death when they are raped--well, that's just an inability to make moral distinctions of any kind.

Recognizing our own shortcomings, we need also to place ourselves on a continuum of good and evil, and recognize towards which end of the spectrum we fall.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I would hope that Christian citizens of "Rome, Byzantium, Britain, France, Italy, [and] Russia" were and/or are ashamed when they saw/see their own cultures mirrored in description of the whore of Babyon.<<<

Most certainly. On the other hand, none of those civilizations went so far as to say, "Look how depraved we are. We'd be much better off if we were conquered by the barbarians, or the Persians, or the Arabs or the Turks". Once a culture decides that it isn't worth defending, it dies. It either dies quickly by the sword, or it dies slowly by internal decay. Europe is in the midst of the latter. We seem to want to go by the former.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Finally, I am at a lost to why you think that we have done nothing to earn even a modicum of the hatred that the Muslims have for us and our culture. But if that is your view, we will just have to disagree on that.<<<

Because they hated us even before they knew us. You're acting like this is some new phenomenon. It's not--it's merely a continuation of the 1400-year struggle between Islam and Christianity (cultural Christianity, in many cases, but in their eyes, Christianity nonetheless). Our virtue or vice matters not at all to them, because it is not relevant to the essential dynamic of Islam--to bring the entire world under Sharia. The Quran doesn't say, "Leave the virtuous Christian or the virtuous Jew alone", it requires Jihad against both the righteous and the sinner. In fact, because we are not Muslims, there is no way in their mind that we CAN be righteous (no righteous gentiles in their book). Therefore no matter how good or bad we are, the result is the same. We could become the Pilgrim Fathers tomorrow morning, it would make not one whit of difference to them. It might make things worse (since if we were all highly convinced Christians, there would be no real talk about compromise with Islam, an eminently secular idea).

Furthermore, if you want a more secular, intellectual and mundane answer, sociological surveys of Islamic radicals indicates they know very little about the United States. A disturbing number of the Jihad's ideological leaders were educated in France and in fact are revolting not against U.S. hegemony, but the failure of France to assimilate its Muslim minorities. We just happen to be the big dog on the block, whereas the French are reduced to poodledom. We go around the world trying to maintain a modicum of order, which means blocking the aspirations of the Jihadists (as my younger daughter used to say, "You always don't let me do what I want to do"). For that reason, we get the brown end of the stick.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "Sexually modest," in any degree, is the last thing I would call our culture.<<<

Sexually modest is the last thing I would call Muslim culture, too. They just have a different style, one which still recognizes the double standard, in spades.

[Bill R]

"We must fight, yes; but we cannot discount the very real possibility that we are under divine judgment, and will be suffered by God to lose the worldly wars, because we have not first sought earnestly enough to confess our own unrighteousness and purify our own hearts and minds." - James Altena

Entirely correct, James. I agree with the points you and GL have raised, but I sense that the points the two of you have made on the one hand, and the points Stuart has made on the other, are in danger of sailing past one another. There is a virtuous basis for American ideals, however much we may fail to live up to them. On the other hand, Islamofascists ARE living up to their ideals--their evil "ideals." You are correct that we must repent AND fight, but Stuart's point that we must fight boldly mustn't be lost. It is right and good that we do so, even if we don't ourselves live up to our ideals.

When the Vandals approached Hippo, St. Augustine undoubtedly called for all Romans to repent of their tragic failures before God. He also undoubtedly believed that the Vandals were, in a sense, God's agent of vengeance for Roman decadence. But I don't recall that he ever suggested that Romans should have any moral qualms about vigorously opposing all barbarian aggression.

[GL]

"Look how depraved we are. We'd be much better off if we were conquered by the barbarians, or the Persians, or the Arabs or the Turks".

Stuart,

I really believe that we are in basic agreement and have been all along. I think you are misreading my belief that we have much for which we need to repent as an excuse not to fight. If I can borrow, your language, my position is that we should say, "Look how depraved we are. We must repent and fight for our lives and those of our families, neighbors and countrymen."

I see only one point of disagreement between us, the degree to which, if at all, our debauchery and decadence is a factor in Muslim hate of us. I think it is and you think it is not. I don't know how anyone could prove which of us is right. Whether I am or not, it certainly is used by our enemies in exhorting the masses. I do agree with you that our need to repent has *far* more to do with our need to seek God's forgiveness than any hope that it will assuage Muslim rage. It will not do the latter. In any event, this is all academic in that I don't expect any such self examination and repentance, not unless we suffer much more than we have to date, if even then.

You are correct that we must repent AND fight, but Stuart's point that we must fight boldly mustn't be lost. It is right and good that we do so, even if we don't ourselves live up to our ideals.

Bill,

I believe James and I have been clear about that all along. I'm the one a few days ago who on the thread about the Hussein's execution called those calling for us to leave Iraq the "tuck-tail-and-run crowd." I expect we will withdraw before we finish the job there and I expect we will live to regret that. Some folks can only learn the hard way. Unfortunately, we will all pay the price for our weak-will as a nation.

[JRM]

"we need also to place ourselves on a continuum of good and evil..."

A fair summary, at last, of of GL's point.

"If one definition of canonicity is "a book that is read as part of the liturgy"

Let's go with the well-recognized definition of "canonicity" as "in the Bible" and put an end to that issue.

[James Redden]

"Bombs and soldiers, properly used, might allow even the secular West to defeat Islam, actually."

I actually agree with much of what Joe Long says in response to my post. I would emphasize "properly used." I wouldn't classify our current involvement in Iraq (since the Bush administration insists that it's apart of the larger war on terror) as properly using our military - both in tactics (largely conventional against an assymetrical enemy) and objectives (democracy in an Islamic state - the two just can't exist). There's no getting around that military conflict with Islam is inevitable. I just don't think it should be our primary approach.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Let's go with the well-recognized definition of "canonicity" as "in the Bible" and put an end to that issue.<<<

But WHY are some books in the Bible and others are not? If one discounts the Bart Ehrman "conspiracy of the hierarchy" theories, it comes down to two things, according to Bruce Metzger: (1) a consensus on apostolic origin; and (2) congruency with the Church's rule of faith; i.e., its worship. Because of (2), the canon really consisted of those books that were read "in church", during worship. Throughout the first four centuries, there were three classes of inspired writings: those that all agreed were suitable for use in worship; those that some thought were suitable and others unsuitable; and those that were not suitable (because they were not apostolic) but were otherwise orthodox and acceptable. Among the first were the four canonical Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the core Pauline Epistles, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John. Books that were not universally accepted included 2 Peter, Hebrews, 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse. Books that were highly regarded but not in the canon (except in a few local Churches) were the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement (the latter especially in the Church of Corinth).

Over time, there was a convergence as Churches unconsiously coordinated their list of books, so that by the fourth century, there was general agreement on almost all--3 John and the Apocalypse were among the last to be accepted by all major Churches. And even then, as I said, the Eastern Churches did not include the Apocalypse in their lectionaries, which makes it an "ambiguous" book, both "in" and "out" as we see it. Just as many Protestants don't attach as much weight to James as do the Catholics and Orthodox, so the Eastern Churches do not attach as much weight to the Apocalypse as do the Western Churches (particularly some of the more charismatic Protestant ones).

[Judy Warner]

I agree with those who say we must repent. But isn't it weird that we seem to be the first civilization in history whose elites repent for what is good about us rather than what is wrong? They repent for western civilization while we here repent for our own sins. I guess it's easier to repent for other people than for oneself. Bill Clinton was a good example of that, as he went around the world apologizing for things Americans did many years ago.

[Christopher Hathaway]

the Eastern Churches did not include the Apocalypse in their lectionaries, which makes it an "ambiguous" book, both "in" and "out" as we see it.

There is a reason why they did not include it, which has nothing to do with any ambiguous canonicity. They beleived it was too difficult a scripture for the uneducated layman to hear. A Christian must first be well versed in the Gospel and Christian doctrine before reading it, lest he be led astray by his own interpretation of its symbolism. I think the wild eschatologies of those who make this book the cornerstone of their theology bears out the wisdom of such caution. There was similar Jewsih caution with regard to the Song of Solomon.

But Stuart, do you have any church father who would reject the standing of the Apocaplypse as being a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ to his Church, a father after the church recognized the closing of the canon? If not you are very like a Protestant, deciding on the authority of biblical texts soley by your own reasoning on the evidence of history.

[Bill R]

"Bill,

I believe James and I have been clear about that all along. I'm the one a few days ago who on the thread about the Hussein's execution called those calling for us to leave Iraq the "tuck-tail-and-run crowd." I expect we will withdraw before we finish the job there and I expect we will live to regret that. Some folks can only learn the hard way. Unfortunately, we will all pay the price for our weak-will as a nation."

I know, GL, and I respect that. What I meant by "sailing past" one another is that, while you and James are quite correct to point out that we must repent of our sordid failings as a nation, those failings are almost entirely beside the point for the Islamofascist, who hates us quite as much for our strenths as for our failings. That, I believe, is Stuart's point, and it is one with which I strongly concur. The Islamofascist hates us for being Christian and Western, not merely for being moral failures. Pointing out the latter is a tactical device of our enemies, and it is often quite successful because it is, of course, true.

[Bobby Winters]

Comment 1: I love reading such energetic articulate discussion as above. Good-hearted, God-fearing people each and everyone one of you.

Comment 2: Revelation belongs in the Bible because is gives us a nice broad-brush summary and vision. The coded language is a perennial problem, but that just keeps things lively.

[James Redden Jr.]

"I'm the one a few days ago who on the thread about the Hussein's execution called those calling for us to leave Iraq the "tuck-tail-and-run crowd." I expect we will withdraw before we finish the job there and I expect we will live to regret that."

GL,

The U.S. should regret even invading Iraq in order to set up a free and open democratic society in a largely Muslim state (if that really was the Bush administration's real reason for invading). The mission from the beginning was flawed, and I don't see the purpose of us "staying the course" when the course is impossible to carry out to begin with. Maybe we need to find a secular strong man like Saddam to bring down his iron fist on Sunni/Shiite/Jihadist violence... and give us cheap and abundant access to Iraqi oil in the process. I'm afraid that's the only answer for American interests in the chaos that is Iraq today. Hey, I think it was Stuart who said this world is not the Kingdom of God...

Leaving Iraq is not "tucking our tails and running," it's an act of self-survival and common sense. Some say this will give aid and comfort to the enemy. I say placing more American soldiers within the cross fires of Jihadists gives them aid and comfort. I think the current struggle in Iraq is yet another example where war is not the answer, at least on our part.

[Christopher Hathaway]

How is our survival at stake by being in Iraq? I understand that our soldiers live's are at risk, but that is the nature of the military, and we are suffering far fewer casualties than other wars. We have just become intolerant domestically at dealing with casualties.

What real risks we suffer staying should be weighed against the risk of dealing with the aftermath of a failed state in Iraq and the Iranian takeover of the region that would unquestionable follow.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There is a reason why they did not include it, which has nothing to do with any ambiguous canonicity. They beleived it was too difficult a scripture for the uneducated layman to hear.<<<

The issue is more complex than that, especially as the Church does not admit of "esoteric" or "hidden" knowledge. On the other hand, the gnostics and Montanists did--and caused considerable trouble for the Churches in the East between the second and fourth centuries. They also used their own interpretations of the Apocalypse to justify their theology (just as many Christian apocalyptic sects do today), which led the Fathers in the East NOT to include it in the lectionary. The idea that one must have a grounding in Scripture to understand the Apocalypse may be true, but on the other hand, it is through the lectionary that the Church, particularly the Church in the East, passed on knowledge of Scripture.

The entire matter is covered by Bruce Metzger in his book, "The Canon of the New Testament".

>>>But Stuart, do you have any church father who would reject the standing of the Apocaplypse as being a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ to his Church, a father after the church recognized the closing of the canon? If not you are very like a Protestant, deciding on the authority of biblical texts soley by your own reasoning on the evidence of history.<<<

Quoting from Metzger, pp.104-105:

If it appears that little or no Montanist influence intruded itself into the New Testament, the same cannot be said of the pressure that was negatively, arising from an anti-Montanist reaction. It is understandable that, in the give-and-take disputation between the orthodox and the followers of Montanus, a kind of backlash would make itself felt. In the Great Church, there developed a certain mistrust of all recent writings of a prophetical nature. Not only did such a feeling tend to discredit several apocalypses that may have been, in various parts of the Church, on their way to establishing themselves, but also, as was mentioned earlier, even the Apocalypse of John was sometimes brought under a cloud of suspicion because of its usefulness in supporting the 'new prophesy'.

One such instance involved a vigorous anti-Montanist named Gaius (or Caius), said by Eusebius to be 'a very learned man' (Hist. eccl. VI.xx.3) and evidently a very respected Roman presbyter. Early in the third century, Gaius published a notable disputation against the Montanist Proclus, in which he seems to have been the spokesman for extreme anti-Montanism. As such, he was not content with rejecting the new scriptures of the Montanists, but in order to undermine and undercut their practices, he went to the extent of revising the New Testament. Gaius not only denied the Pauline of the Epistle to the Hebrews--an Epistle which, with its declarations of the hopelessly lost condition of the apostate (5:4-6), must have had the effect of justifying the Montanists' harsh penitential practices--but he also rejected the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John, the latter with its reference to the promised Paraclete. The reasons alleged for not receiving the Apocalypse had to do with its garish imagery and millenarianism. . .

On p.119, writing of the canon as it was known to Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 180), Metzger reviews references to New Testament books in the works of that Eastern ante-Nicene Father, and concludes thus:

By way of summary, we may conclude in Theophilus' time the New Testament at Antioch consisted of at least three of the four Gospels [Matthew, John and Luke], the Acts of the Apostles, a collection of Pauline Epistles, and possibly the Apocalypse.

On p.150, Metzger notes the "impassioned" defense of Revelation by Hippolytus of Rome, an indication that the book was not universally accepted at that time (ca. 235) in areas connected with Rome and Africa. At the same time, Hippolytus did not consider Hebrews to be "scripture", showing just how fluid the canon was at that time.

A review of Irenaeus (ca.180) on p.154 ff. shows that Revelation was widely cited in the West, indicating its acceptance in that part of the Church. This is interesting in that Irenaeus himself was of Eastern origin. Irenaus not only considered Revelation to be scripture, but also the Shepherd of Hermas. A look at Tertullian show that he accepted the Apocalypse in the early third century in Africa, but of course, Tertullian became a Montanist himself. Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the third century likewise accepts Revelation as Scripture--Montanism not being a serious problem in the West, despite Tertullian.

Looking forward into the fourth century, various "canons" are promulgated by different Churches. The Decretum Gelasiarum is broken into five parts, "one of which gives a list of the books included in the Old Testament and the New Testament (the latter is without the book of Revelation)" [Metzger, p.188].

Turning to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, pp. 202 ff., Metzger notes that the historian (and Church Father) divided all the holy books in circulation in his day into different categories: those whose authenticity and authority are conceded by all; those that were rejected by all; and those on which opinion was divided.

In the first category, Eusebius included the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 Peter and 1 John. "In addition to these", Eusebius wrote, "should be put, if it really seems proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the differing opinions at the proper time". In other words, Eusebius himself would like to include Revelation in the undisputed books, but cannot due so because there is a considerable body of contrary opinion. In fact, later he actually includes Revelation in his list of "illegitimate" or "spurious" books, together with the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews (Metzger, p.204).

Metzger points out that Eusebius' taxonomy includes books that are "orthodox" but "spurious" (notha), "non-canonical but not heretical". As Metzger writes,

Such an interpretation helps us understand how Eusebius can place Revelation conditionally intp two different classes. As an historian, Eusebius recognizes that it is widely received, but as a churchman he has become annoyed by the extravagent use made of this book by the Montanists and other millennarians, and so is glad to report elsewhere in his history that others consider it to be not genuine. (p.205)

In Chapter IX of his work, Metzger deals with attempts to close the canon in the East during the 4th-5th centuries. The chapter begins as follows:

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the Eastern Church as reported by Eusebius about AD 325 was in considerable doubt concerning the authority of most of the Catholic [universal] Epistles, as well as the Apocalypse. Steps to overcome this unsatisfactory condition were taken later in that century, as can be seen by the several lists of sacred books drawn up by such diverse churchmen as Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nanzianzen, Amphilocius of Iconium, Didymus the Blind and Epiphanius of Salamis. These lists, unlike the testimonies of preceding generations, most of which were occasional allusions or casual statements, arejudgements purposely delivered in order to delineate the limits of the canon. (p.209).

Metzger then goes on to review each list in turn, starting with Cyril of Alexandria's Catechetical Letters (AD 350):

Cyril declares that the New Testament contains only four Gospels, and warns his hearers aganst other gospels that are forged and hurtful. Following the four Gospels are Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, and, Cyril concludes "as a seal upon them all, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in church, do not read these even by yourself (iv, 36)".

It is noteworthy that the Book of Revelation is not included as one of the books of the New Testament. Such is the state of things in Jeruselem in the middle of the fourth century. (p.210)

Mezger then goes on to mention the canons of the Council of Laodicea (AD 363), which published a canon scripture, "first of the Old Testament books, then of the New--the latter corresponding to our present canon, with the omission of the Book of Revelation". (p.210)

Athanasius, on the other hand, does include Revelation in his canon of Scripture, ca. 367. But Gregory Nanzianzen, ca. 389, drew up a list that excludes it. This list ends, "In these you have all. And if there is anything outside these, it is not among the genuine [books]". Quoth Metzger, "Although Gregory thus excludes the Apocalypse from the canon, he knows of its existence, and on rare occasions in his other works, he quotes from it". (p.212)

Similarly, Amphilocius of Iconium (ca. 394) produced his own canonical list in a poem entitled "Iambics for Seleucis", that recounts the disputes about the Catholic Epistles and Revelations. In it, he rejects 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and--the Apocalypse of John.

Didymus the Blind (d. 398) seems to accept Revelation, but rejects 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter.

Epiphanius agreed with Athanasius in his Panarion (AD 374-75), but also, strangely, included Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus as part of the NEW Testament.

Chrysostom did not produce a canon of Scripture but he did write voluminous homilies and commentaries, and it is noteworthy that of all the books in the New Testament, he writes NOT ONE WORD about 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and--Revelation. As Metzger puts it, "In other words, his canon of the New Testament appears to be the same as the Peshitta, the Syriac version current at Antioch in his time". (p. 215)

Theodoret of Cyrus (d.466), one of the last Fathers of the Antiochean school, apparently had the same canon as Chrysostom, for like John, he did not write any commentaries on or quote from the minor Catholic Epistles or the Apocalypse.

The entire matter of the Canon, in fact was not settled in the East until the Quinisextunct Council in 692, which brought us to our current situation by recognizing the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, but not allowing the latter to be used in church. In so doing, it sides with Athanasius and the Council of Carthage, and against the Council of Laodicea, Canon of the Holy Apostles 85, and the opinions of most of the prominent Greek Fathers who put forth a view on the matter. In so doing, the Quinisextunct opted for convergence and unity with the Western Church, while preserving Eastern reservations about Revelation. It was neatly done.

Metzger concludes this chapter by examining the number of extant Greek manuscripts of various books of the New Testament, and demonstrates that very few (228) manuscripts or fragments of Revelation exist, as compared to copies of the Gospels, the Epistles and Acts. He thus concludes:

From these figures it will be seen that the testimony of the copies of the Scriptures that have survived is more eloquent, in some ways, than the Fathers, and more positive than the Councils on questions relative to the canon. It is obvious that the conception of the canon of the New Testament was not essentially a dogmatic issue whereby all parts of the text were regarded as equally necessary (the Gospels exist in 2,338 copies; the Book of Revelation in 287 copies). The lower status of the Book of Revelation in the East is indicated by the fact that it has never been included in the lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern. (p.217)

[Christopher Hathaway]

That's a good summary of Metzger, Stuart.

But it doesn't really answer my question. Am I to take it that you do not have any father from after the acceptance of the Apocalypse in the East that will claim it is not divine scripture?

If you don't have anyone in the church to support that view upon what basis do you say it shouldn't have been included? Are you saying that the church made a mistake and you know better? Luther would agree with you.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

While your quotation from Metzger and other arguments may appear impressive, they are in fact misleading and do not address the point I made, which is the chief issue.

To restate that point plainly --

There are no grounds on which a genuinely orthodox Christian can *now* wish for a book that has been accepted in the canon of Scripture not to be there. To do so is, frankly, the heresy of "the canon within the canon" at best, and outright rejection of the holy oracles of God at the worst.

First off, most of the material you cite from Metzger deals with the period before the canon was decisively closed. As with any other issue, there is a distinction to be made about what person X thought of issue Y *before* the Tradition decided on it, vs. *after* the Tradition had decided on it. You are living some 1500 years *after* the consensus of the fathers decided this point. You have no grounds on which to reject the Tradition here.

You yourself have often stated (and I have agreed) that Scripture is the chiefest part of the Tradition. To wish for some part of the accepted canon of Scripture not to be part of the canon is simply to reject a part of the Tradition. Yours is simply the appeal to private judgment explicitly condemend in II Peter 1:20 -- or are you going to inform us that you reject this as part of the Scriptures as well?

Furthermore, you can cite only one church father (Theodoret of Cyprus) as late as the 5th c. A.D. who *may* not have accepted Revelation as part of the canon of Scripture -- and even then, it is a tenuous inferential argument from silence rather than one from actual positive evidence. Christopher Hathaway erred in asking you to cite just one father, since one can almost always dig up the eccentric exception. The issue here as always is the *consensus* of the fathers, which is what constitutes the Tradition.

So, Stuart, I will pose his question as should originally have been done: can you show us a consensus of the Orthodox fathers subsequent c. 440 A.D. that explicitly rejects the book of Revelation as part of the NT canon?

Second as for: "If one definition of canonicity is 'a book that is read as part of the liturgy', then the Apocalypse of St. John is not in our canon." --

While Bruce Metzger does cite as two criteria that influenced the shape of the canon -- "(1) a consensus on apostolic origin; and (2) congruency with the Church's rule of faith; i.e., its worship" -- your following sentence -- "Because of (2), the canon really consisted of those books that were read 'in church', during worship" -- is a non-sequitur that distorts Metzger's thesis. First, it simply bypasses point (1). Second, Metzger did not assign the two points equal weight. Rather, it was precisely belief in their apostolic origin that led to certain books being read in the liturgy. Reading in the liturgy was more a reflection of a prior belief in canonical status than a determining criterion of such status, though it inevitably did have a reflexive effect of reinforcement. The question about Revelation was in part whether it actually issued fom the pen of St. John the Apostle. The final consensus of the Church was that it did (and even so acute a "modernist" NT scholar as Westcott agreed).

Furthermore, the patristic lectionary has settled into place on many details by the 3rd c., before the boundaries of the canon were being formally determined. Thus the presence or absence of certain NT books from that lectionary is largely an accident of historical chronology, and cannot simply be used as a straightforward criterion for determining their canonicity. You can only argue otherwise by rejecting the subsequent consensus of the Church, the Tradition -- in which case you must also reject it on identical grounds for the catholic epistles that simiarlry achieved later recognition and acceptance.

Thirdly, you cite the misuse of the book of Revelation by e.g. heretical sects as reason to avoid that book. Well, if abuse is to be cited as grounds for forbidding right use, we'd better get rid of all the ikons that have been subejcts of idolatry rather than right veneration, hadn't we???

Circumspect use of Revelation is by no means confined to the Eastern Church. The classical Anglican lectionaries (e.g. that of 1559, which I use in a revised form as the basis of my own daily offices) specifically note omission of that book except for a few specific lections. (And I suspect it was done for similar reasons -- misuse by millenarian fanatics.) But circumspection in use is something utterly different from outright rejection of canonical status.

Fourth, you also attempt to defend your error by a certain fallacy of equivocation. Which is to say that, when it suits you, you appeal to (1) the Church universal, and then when it suits you elsewhere, you appeal only to (2) the particular use of the East, but in so doing act as if (2) is identical to (1). It won't wash here. First, the entire Church, both East and West, has formally admitted Revelation into the canon of Scripture. Second, different jurisdictions of the Church are permitted liberty in determining their respective lectionaries, just as e.g. they determine their respective celebrations of Easter. However (except for a few fringe nutcases) in so doing neither disputes the authenticity of what the other is doing. The fact that the Eastern Chruch does not generally make use of Revelation in its lectionary does not constitute an adverse judgment upon the West for making such use, much less a denial of the canonical status of the book. Furthermore, since you are a Byzantine Rite Catholic, you of all people are particularly ill-situated to make any such criticism.

Fifth, while they are the exception rather than the rule, there are Eastern churches that do use Revelation for readings during Holy Week -- see:

http://www.orthodox.net/ustav/lectionary-for-the-kellia.html

http://www.coptic.net/articles/CopticLectionary.txt

I would also note that the classical Orhtodox lectionary also does not include several other books such as Leviticus, Numbers, Esther, most of the Minor Prophets, etc. On your argument from lectionary use, these too should be disqualified from the canon of Scripture.

Sixth, no less a figure than Fr. Thomas Hopko has published (on tape) a set of lectures on the place of Revelation in Orthodoxy as Scripture:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/product.php?productid=17569

Apocalypse [audio CDs]

The Book of Revelation in Orthodox Christian Tradition
retreat lectures on compact disk
4-CD Set

The accompanying blurb states:

"These lectures offer a fresh approach to reading the Book of Revelation and understanding its complex messages. While Fr Hopko notes that 'everything about the Apocalypse is controversial‚ not only in modern scholarship but also in church history,' he grounds the place of this cryptic writing within the context of ongoing life in the Orthodox Church. In particular, he draws attention to the symbols and words originating in the Hebrew scriptures and demonstrates that the Book of Revelation not only has inspired the Liturgy of the Church but also has been inspired by it. Fr Hopko transforms the typical, modern exegesis of this biblical text from one of literal fundamentalism and futuristic prophecy to one of experiencing eternal life, here and now, in the worship of the Church."

The Book of Revelation
CD 1: Historical Context
CD 2: Signs and Symbols
CD 3: Apocalyptic Images
CD 4: The Last Days and Redemption

Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko is Dean Emeritus of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary and a world-renowned lecturer.

ISBN: 0-88141-305-4
Price: $29.00

This hardly suggests any rejection of or reservation about Revelation by the Orthodox as being part of the canon of Scripture!

Finally, I will let Rvelation speak for itself here:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19)

I suggest that you ponder carefully the words of the holy apostle John here before you speak so dismissively of the Holy Scriptures.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There are no grounds on which a genuinely orthodox Christian can *now* wish for a book that has been accepted in the canon of Scripture not to be there. To do so is, frankly, the heresy of "the canon within the canon" at best, and outright rejection of the holy oracles of God at the worst.<<<

We can wish for a lot of things. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. I am perfectly happy with the ambiguous status of the Apocalypse, which informs our liturgical rites and our liturgical theology, but which otherwise is kept (rightly, in my opinion) in the background.

You also ignore the fact that the bulk of the Eastern Fathers--both ante- and post-Nicene, had serious reservations about the Apocalypse, and most either did not consider it part of the canon, or at the least, saw fit not to quote it or write homilies and commentaries on it. As I noted, Canon 85 of the Holy Apostles omitted it, as did Cyril of Alexandria and a host of others including Gregory Nanzianzen the Theologian. In the end, the Apocalypse was included in the canon of Scripture in the East, but NOT in the full sense of the word, which, like it or not, really comes down to "books that are read in church". In this regard, it stands in stature somewhere between the Protoevangelion of James and the other books of the New Testament.

As to why "a book read in church" is at the end of the day the defining criterion of canonicity, I go back to the fearsome Cyril of Alexandria: "And whatever books are not read in church, do not read these even by yourself". If a book was canonical, it was read in church, either as part of the lectionary, or wrapped into the text of the liturgy itself. If it was not canonical, it was not read in church, and it did not become part of the text of the liturgy.

>>>I would also note that the classical Orhtodox lectionary also does not include several other books such as Leviticus, Numbers, Esther, most of the Minor Prophets, etc. On your argument from lectionary use, these too should be disqualified from the canon of Scripture.<<<

There are three responses to this. First, that originally they were, but that the Old Testament readings were dropped out of the Divine Liturgy to make room for the Troparion and Kontakion, which creates the anomaly that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy alone does not have Old Testament readings, but only the Apostol and Gospel. Second, that many of these texts are in fact included in the readings of the other liturgies and are incorporated into the texts of various services as well. Third, that the entire canon of the LXX was accepted by the Churches of the East and included in EVERY list of canonical books from the third century onward.

Now, the West has its own Tradition and its own approach to the canon, including which books it wanted to include. For reasons of its own, the West decided that Revelation was part of the canon at a relatively early stage, despite Gaius of Rome, probably--Tertullian not withstanding--because Montanism and "new prophesy" were not the problem in the West that they were in the East. I'm perfectly happy for the West to have its way in this matter within its own Churches and communities, but in return, I think it only fair that the East be permitted to follow its own Tradition as well.

As for Christopher, he asks:

>>>Am I to take it that you do not have any father from after the acceptance of the Apocalypse in the East that will claim it is not divine scripture?<<<

Considering that the Apocalypse is not really accepted in the East (and then only in an ambivalent manner) until the Council in Trullo (692), there aren't really many Fathers left after that point, are there? Maximos Confessor and John Damascene are already gone, which leaves only Simeon the New and Gregory Palamas among the Greek Fathers yet to come. They didn't write much about the Apocalypse, nor did they make any attempt to insert readings from that book into the lectionary, which means that they accepted the status quo.

But, if you want to go back through a list of the Eastern Fathers, we can summarize as follows:

For the Apocalypse: Athanasius, Epiphanius, Didymus the Blind

Against the Apocalypse: Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nanzianzen, Theodoret of Cyrus, John Chrysostom, Amphylicus.

Councils against: Laodicea

Councils for: Carthage, Trullo

Canons against: Holy Apostles 85

>>>"These lectures offer a fresh approach to reading the Book of Revelation and understanding its complex messages. While Fr Hopko notes that 'everything about the Apocalypse is controversial‚ not only in modern scholarship but also in church history,' he grounds the place of this cryptic writing within the context of ongoing life in the Orthodox Church. In particular, he draws attention to the symbols and words originating in the Hebrew scriptures and demonstrates that the Book of Revelation not only has inspired the Liturgy of the Church but also has been inspired by it.<<<

Well, gosh, isn't that what I have been saying all along?

[Christopher Hathaway]

James, I think you misrepresent my argument if you are suggesting that I would be satisfied by a single father speaking against the Apocalypse. I hold to the consensus of the church, which once having spoken no individual's dissent has authority. I simply didn't believe Stuart had any sources for his opinion, and if he did whip out an obscure crank that alone would have demonstrated the paucity of his position.

Stuart, I think James puts his case against any support for your position from Tradition much better than I. But I have one question that he didn't touch upon: Do you believe that Revelation is a true word of prophecy to John from Jesus Christ for his Church? If you say yes, I don't see what relevance your quibling has about the "ambiguous" status of Revelation. If you say no, you may be in danger of denying the authority of the Holy Spirit. That's good enough reason to not to speak against Holy Writ, isn't it?

[James Redden Jr.]

"How is our survival at stake by being in Iraq?"

By over-extending our military on a mission that has little to no possibility for success (if that mission means establishing a free and open democratic society in Iraq). And yes, casualties are a necessary part of military life, but the morale of the troops has a tendency to go south in regard to this when the mission is flawed.

"What real risks we suffer staying should be weighed against the risk of dealing with the aftermath of a failed state in Iraq and the Iranian takeover of the region that would unquestionable follow."

I think that's where my solution to the problem comes in: putting a secular strong man in power who will maintain order between the Sunni's and Shia's and eradicate Iranian influence in the process. Or we could set up our own police state over there, which is our only other option, and it's not a good one. Ultimately, I believe this is a problem that only the Iraqis can handle. You are right though that if the U.S. military redeploys and leaves things up to the Shiite Maliki government, an Iranian takeover is inevitable, which means that the war in Iraq definately has become apart of the war on terror, thanks to us.

[Brad]

"I think that's where my solution to the problem comes in: putting a secular strong man in power who will maintain order between the Sunni's and Shia's and eradicate Iranian influence in the process."

Shucks. We just hung the guy.

Brad

[James A. Altena]

Dear Christopher,

I didn't misunderstand your position -- I pointed out that the way you asked the question gave Stuart a loophole to make his case by citing just *one* father instead of a consensus of the fathers. You certainly asked the right follow-up question, however!

Dear Stuart,

Once again you evaded the point. (You do this so often in debate that I assume it's part of your training as a military analyst.) You just keep citing fathers from *before* the canonicity of Revelation was settled. And it is settled -- for both East and West. And there are plenty of fathers from after c. 440 -- or are you also jettisoning the 5th - 7th Ecumenical Councils as well???

E.g., Eastern commentaries on Revelation from after c. 440 A.D. include those by Andrew of Caesarea, Oecumenius, and (if N. Africa is included in that sphere) Primasius.

And I have already refuted your false claim that reading in the lectionary is what determines canonicity, or create a lesser "canon within the canon."

So, once again, the question is: where is your positive proof (not lame argument from silence or lectionary use) that the consensus of the Eastern Orthodox Church has denied and rejected the canonicity of Revelation since its settled accepatance into the canon by the Tradition from c. 440 A.D. onward?

And no, you haven't been swaying the same thing as Fr. Hopko. He does not deny the canonicity of Revelation, or wish that it was not part of hte canon.

And, as I also pointed out, it is likewise illegitimate to appeal only to the Eastern fathers alone, though for the sake of argument I gave you that option. You claim to believe in a undivided church of the Tradition, but in fact it has long been apparent that you only believe in an Eastern Church, and one of your own private idiosyncratic intellectual construction rather than the one of history.

And if you can wish that Revelation is not part of the canon, then you have no grounds to argue against the revisionists who wish away the Scriptures against homosexual conduct, or abortion, or priestesses or any other issue. You are in fact a theological revisionist yourself.

To wish for some portion of Scripture not to be Scripture is to wish for God's will to be other than it is, which is to wish for God Himself to be something and someone other than He is. It is the sin of Satan himself in setting himself in opposition to God. You are playing with spiritual fire here, Stuart.

Finally, Christopher asks the right follow-up question. I ask you to answer that for us as well. Do you affirm or deny that "Revelation is a true word of prophecy to John from Jesus Christ for his Church?"

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do you believe that Revelation is a true word of prophecy to John from Jesus Christ for his Church?<<<

Yes.

>>> If you say yes, I don't see what relevance your quibling has about the "ambiguous" status of Revelation.<<<

Just this: it is a very dangerous and misunderstood book, which I feel should not be read by just anyone without the aid of a spiritual father of proven wisdom and holiness. Just as it was used to sypport "new prophesy" in the patristic era, so it has continued to be used by every crank and sharlatan who comes down the road, causing great harm both to individuals and to the Body of Christ. I believe that the Fathers of the Eastern Churches therefore showed great wisdom in relegating the Apocalypse to a state apart from the other books of the New Testament, being both "in" and "not in"--a typically Eastern solution to a sticky problem.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You just keep citing fathers from *before* the canonicity of Revelation was settled.<<<

In the East, the canon was not closed until the Council in Trullo in 692. That's the very END of the patristic period (John of Damascus is generally considered to be the last of the Greek Fathers, unless you want to extend that courtesy to Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas), so the list I presented is pretty comprehensive. And the solution reached by Trullo is typically ingenious and annoying to Western sensibilities: Yes, Revelation is one of the books of the New Testament. No, we don't read it in church.

[Christopher Hathaway]

it is a very dangerous and misunderstood book, which I feel should not be read by just anyone without the aid of a spiritual father of proven wisdom and holiness.

I would grant that it is very misunderstood, and that it should be read by the mature or under mature guidance. I would not call it "dangerous", as the whole of the Bible copuld be called that. Revelation is God's last word to his church. It should be treasured and not treated either with familiarity nor with disdain. It is like the ark of the covenant. Do not come to it without proper respect and preparation.

But I wonder what respect you have for it. It seemed to me in your responces on it that you so fear a misunderstanding of it that you would settle for no understanding of it among the people. Do you read it yourself? Do you not see in it portions that would be very comforting to the Church, especially one under persecution?

Given the fact that the Eastern Church has been under persecution either by the turks or the communists for so long I would think this book would be highly prized there. It is so often misundestood here in the West because we are not a suffering church, not yet. Perhaps when real persecution reappears a more sensible exegesis will dominate.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I would not call it "dangerous", as the whole of the Bible copuld be called that.<<<

Aslan is not a tame lion. On the other hand, there is dangerous, and then there is perilous. Having seen firsthand what can happen to someone who assays a spiritual work like the Ladder without some guidance, I think that Revelation is in some ways even worse, since it lends itself to universal (vice personal) application by people who do not understand how apocalyptic writings work. The tendency in this country at any rate has been to use it as a roadmap to the future, or a cookbook for the eschaton. Innocent people have suffered greatly, and not a few have died, as a result. This puts Revelation on a different plain than, say, Philemon or Song of Songs.

>>>But I wonder what respect you have for it.<<<

Tremendous respect for what it is, and for what it has given the Church. That does not mean I cannot look upon it as a "mixed blessing"--as did many of the Fathers.

>>>It seemed to me in your responces on it that you so fear a misunderstanding of it that you would settle for no understanding of it among the people.<<<

Frankly, I'm not sure how well our priests and bishops understand it, so rightly I am worried about what the people would do with it. I would have them derive their understanding of it through the proper medium of catechesis, which is our Liturgy, a Liturgy that, of course, takes much of its imagery and theology from St. John's Apocalypse itself.

>>>Given the fact that the Eastern Church has been under persecution either by the turks or the communists for so long I would think this book would be highly prized there. It is so often misundestood here in the West because we are not a suffering church, not yet. Perhaps when real persecution reappears a more sensible exegesis will dominate.<<<

In the Orthodox Church, Revelation has been a source of comfort but also a source of great mischief. For example, during the Nikonian reforms of the 17th century, the Old Ritualists turned to Revelation to explain what they saw as a harbinger of the end of the world, with Nikon cast in the role of Anti-christ. With their mistaken apocalyptic vision informed by the Book of Revelation, many Old Believer communities chose self-immolation (the subject of Mussorgsky's great opera, "Khovanshchina") in their churches rather than submit to changes they saw as inspired by Satan. That can't be good. Throughout Orthodox history, the people have tended to use Revelation in a very superstitious manner, a tendency that could only have been exacerbated had it also been in regular liturgical use.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Stuart, could it not be that misuderstanding is better corrected by more teaching rather than less? I just last year taught a course on this book for ault Sunday school where I attend. Most had never heard any understanding of the book accept what you would get from the Left Behind series. They naturally thought that that was the only logical meaning of the book. I gave them a much broader understanding whicj i hope better equiped them to not fall for the Dispensationalist nonsense.

It's in the canon, so if you don't want them to misunderstand it you need to focus on teaching it because the wild theories are out there and you can't say respond by hiding the book or rejecting it.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Most had never heard any understanding of the book except what you would get from the Left Behind series.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>tuart, could it not be that misuderstanding is better corrected by more teaching rather than less? I just last year taught a course on this book for ault Sunday school where I attend. Most had never heard any understanding of the book accept what you would get from the Left Behind series. They naturally thought that that was the only logical meaning of the book. I gave them a much broader understanding whicj i hope better equiped them to not fall for the Dispensationalist nonsense.<<<

You may be right. The toothpaste is, sadly, out of the tube, so perhaps more intensive catechesis is the only way out. A deeper appreciation of the Liturgy, its connection to the vision of St. John, and its meaning in our daily lives is the logical place to start.

[Christopher Hathaway]

morale of the troops has a tendency to go south in regard to this when the mission is flawed.

The way I see it, James, morale goes south when the troops see their country no longer supporting what they are doing. There are two ways to solve that problem.

I think that's where my solution to the problem comes in: putting a secular strong man in power who will maintain order between the Sunni's and Shia's and eradicate Iranian influence in the process.

I think that will only increase islamic radicalism in the region and hatred for us. The long term solution is encouraging moderation among muslims. Our support for tyrants in the region out of short term expediency is what has gotten us in the fix we are in.

[Stuart Koehl]

My mentor, Edward Luttwak, had an interesting op ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday. He's a Romanian Jew raised in Sicily; I'm a Romanian Jew who's half Sicilian--no wonder we think alike:

AT WAR

Two Alliances
President Bush has managed to divide and conquer the Middle East.

BY EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.

It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power. Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy.

On Dec. 4, 2006, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of Iraq's largest political party, went to the White House to plead his case with President Bush. The son of an ayatollah, and himself a lifelong militant cleric, Mr. Hakim is hardly a natural partner for the U.S.--while living in Iran for 23 years he must have declaimed "death to America" on many an occasion. But as the chief leader of Iraq's Arab Shiite population, he has no choice. Each day brings deadly Sunni attacks, and just as the Sunnis are strengthened by volunteers and money from outside Iraq, the Shiites, too, need all the help they can get, especially American military training for the Shiite-dominated army and police. For President Bush, the visiting Mr. Hakim brought welcome promises of cooperation against his aggressive Shiite rival Moqtada al-Sadr as well as the Sunni insurgents. It no longer even seems strange that the best ally of the U.S. in Iraq is Mr. Hakim's party, the Sciri: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose very title evokes the Iranian model of radically anti-Western theocracy.

Just as the Sunni threat to majority rule in Iraq is forcing Sciri to cooperate with the U.S., the prospect of a Shiite-dominated Iraq is forcing Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan, to seek American help against the rising power of the Shiites. Some Sunnis viewed Iran with suspicion even when it was still under the conservative rule of the shah, in part because its very existence as the only Shiite state could inspire unrest among the oppressed Shiite populations of Arabia. More recently, the nearby Sunni Arab states have been increasingly worried by the military alliance between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah of Lebanon. But now that a Shiite-ruled Iraq could add territorial contiguity to the alliance, forming a "Shiite crescent" extending all the way from Pakistan to the Mediterranean, it is not only the Sunnis of nearby Arabia that feel very seriously threatened. The entire order of Muslim orthodoxy is challenged by the expansion of heterodox Shiite rule.

Although it was the U.S. that was responsible for ending Sunni supremacy in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, it remains the only possible patron for the Sunni Arab states resisting the Shiite alliance. Americans have no interest in the secular-sectarian quarrel, but there is a very real convergence of interests with the Sunni Arab states because Iran is the main enemy for both.

At this moment, it is in Lebanon that the new Sunni-U.S. alliance has become active. With continuing mass demonstrations and threatening speeches, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is trying to force the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to give way to a new coalition which he can dominate. Syria and Iran are supporting Mr. Nasrallah, while the U.S. is backing Mr. Siniora. He has the support of the Druze and of most Christians as well, but it is also very much as a Sunni leader that Mr. Siniora is firmly resisting so far. That has gained him the financial backing of Saudi Arabia, which is funding Sunni counterdemonstrations and has even tried to co-opt Hezbollah, among other things. It was in their Arab identity that Hezbollah claimed heroic status because they were not routed by the Israelis in the recent fighting, but evidently many Sunni Arabs in and out of Lebanon view them instead as Shiite sectarians, far too obedient to non-Arab Iran. That suits the U.S., for Iran and Hezbollah are its enemies, too.

The Sunni-U.S. alignment in Lebanon, which interestingly coexists with the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq, may yet achieve results of strategic importance if Syria is successfully detached from its alliance with Iran. Originally it was a necessary alliance for both countries because Saddam's Iraq was waging war on Iran, and periodically tried to overthrow the Assad regime of Syria. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to either country, Iran still needs Syria as a bridge to Hezbollah, but for Syria the alliance is strategically obsolete, as well as inconsistent with the country's Arab identity. True, Syria is ruled primarily by members of the Alawite sect that is usually classified as a Shiite offshoot. But that extremely heterodox faith (it has Christmas and the transmigration of souls) is far different from the Shiism of Iraq, Lebanon or Iran--where it would be persecuted; and besides, at least 70% of Syrians are Sunnis. That may explain why the Syrian regime has not used its full influence to overthrow Mr. Siniora: His stand against the Shiite Hezbollah resonates with his fellow Sunnis of Syria. But another reason may be the promise of substantial aid and investment from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for Syria's needy economy, if the regime diminishes its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, or better, ends it altogether. The U.S., for its part, is no longer actively driving Syria into the arms of the Iranians by threatening a march on Damascus, while even the unofficial suggestions of negotiations by the Iraq Study Group made an impression, judging by some conciliatory Syrian statements.

The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally. At the same time, the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq has been strengthened in the wake of Mr. Hakim's visit. The Sunni insurgency is undiminished, but at least other Shiite groups are jointly weakening the only actively anti-American Shiite faction headed by Mr. Sadr.

When the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the U.S. Iran and Iraq were already declared enemies, Syria was hostile, and even its supposed friends in the Arabian peninsula were so disinclined to help that none did anything to oppose al Qaeda. Some actively helped it, while others knowingly allowed private funds to reach the terrorists whose declared aim was to kill Americans.

The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same.

Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace" (Belknap, 2002).

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Judy Warner]

Oddly, I clicked on your post, Stuart, right in the midst of reading the Luttwak article, which a friend had emailed me. And oddly, my father's family were Luttwaks, or Litvaks, meaning Lithuanian Jews, although they were actually from nearby Byelorus. I wonder how a family named Luttwak ended up in Romania.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I wonder how a family named Luttwak ended up in Romania.<<<

Chased. Then chased again, to Palermo, where Edward was born in 1942.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

We're drawing closer together, perhaps. I agree that Revelation is an especially difficult book, and has proved dangerous in ignorant and misguided hands. But I do not see that we have therefore the option of wishing that it -- or any other difficult portion of Scripture -- had not been given to us as Scripture. That was the sole source of my original objection. Like Aslan, Scripture is not a tame lion. But we do not therefore wish that there was no Aslan. It would now appear that you simply expressed yourself too rashly in your original statement.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It would now appear that you simply expressed yourself too rashly in your original statement.<<<

Probably. One of those unfortunate traits I share with Cyril of Alexandria, I suppose.

[James Redden Jr.]

"I think that will only increase islamic radicalism in the region and hatred for us. The long term solution is encouraging moderation among muslims. Our support for tyrants in the region out of short term expediency is what has gotten us in the fix we are in."

Agreed. On second thought of my "solution," it also seems like it's predicated on a return to some totalitarian political philosophy like Arab socialism, whose time has past (thanks be to God). I don't think we could play the game of propping up despots in that region, seeing that our hand has been revealed time after time, and we can no longer bluff...

I like Luttwak's plan and analysis on the region also in that it takes into account the situation on the ground and doesn't jump to the extemes of a complete re-deployment on the one hand and an escalation on the other. It takes into account that the U.S. has no other choice but to remain involved in the region and provide leadership. After all, we were the ones to screw it up in the first place, not the Iraqis, and as the article indicates, a better good may come out of this (I hope).

"The way I see it, James, morale goes south when the troops see their country no longer supporting what they are doing. There are two ways to solve that problem."

It's not that I don't support what they're doing. I think they're doing the best job with what they've been given by Washington. I don't support the policies behind what they're doing, and I think it's important for Americans to point this out and say that the emperor has no clothes rather than living in a delusional fantasy (I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh!). What are those two ways to solve this problem, btw?

[James Redden Jr.]

"I think that will only increase islamic radicalism in the region and hatred for us. The long term solution is encouraging moderation among muslims. Our support for tyrants in the region out of short term expediency is what has gotten us in the fix we are in."

Agreed. On second thought of my "solution," it also seems like it's predicated on a return to some totalitarian political philosophy like Arab socialism, whose time has past (thanks be to God). I don't think we could play the game of propping up despots in that region, seeing that our hand has been revealed time after time, and we can no longer bluff...

I like Luttwak's plan and analysis on the region also in that it takes into account the situation on the ground and doesn't jump to the extemes of a complete re-deployment on the one hand and an escalation on the other. It takes into account that the U.S. has no other choice but to remain involved in the region and provide leadership. After all, we were the ones to screw it up in the first place, not the Iraqis, and as the article indicates, a better good may come out of this (I hope).

"The way I see it, James, morale goes south when the troops see their country no longer supporting what they are doing. There are two ways to solve that problem."

It's not that I don't support what they're doing. I think they're doing the best job with what they've been given by Washington. I don't support the policies behind what they're doing, and I think it's important for Americans to point this out and say that the emperor has no clothes rather than living in a delusional fantasy (I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh!). What are those two ways to solve this problem, btw?

[James Redden Jr.]

"I think that will only increase islamic radicalism in the region and hatred for us. The long term solution is encouraging moderation among muslims. Our support for tyrants in the region out of short term expediency is what has gotten us in the fix we are in."

Agreed. On second thought of my "solution," it also seems like it's predicated on a return to some totalitarian political philosophy like Arab socialism, whose time has past (thanks be to God). I don't think we could play the game of propping up despots in that region, seeing that our hand has been revealed time after time, and we can no longer bluff...

I like Luttwak's plan and analysis on the region also in that it takes into account the situation on the ground and doesn't jump to the extemes of a complete re-deployment on the one hand and an escalation on the other. It takes into account that the U.S. has no other choice but to remain involved in the region and provide leadership. After all, we were the ones to screw it up in the first place, not the Iraqis, and as the article indicates, a better good may come out of this (I hope).

"The way I see it, James, morale goes south when the troops see their country no longer supporting what they are doing. There are two ways to solve that problem."

It's not that I don't support what they're doing. I think they're doing the best job with what they've been given by Washington. I don't support the policies behind what they're doing, and I think it's important for Americans to point this out and say that the emperor has no clothes rather than living in a delusional fantasy (I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh!). What are those two ways to solve this problem, btw?

[Christopher Hathaway]

It's not that I don't support what they're doing. I think they're doing the best job with what they've been given by Washington. I don't support the policies behind what they're doing

That's a distinction without a difference. What they are doing is implementing the policy.

The two ways of solving the problem is to 1. pull them out so that they are no longer engaged in a task the country doesn't support (but this still has the effec of lowering their morale) and 2. start supporting them. argue about how best to accomplish the task and stop describing their work as a war crime etc.

[Reid]

Well, I wasn't trying to provoke a discussion on the inclusion of Revelation in the canon, but what a fascinating discussion it turned out to be. Thank you all for filling in so much history and theology of the canon of Scripture that I might have searched years to find otherwise.

That said, I was not really trying to say that America is Babylon in some particular eschatological sense (though I think that case can be made) so much as to say, as GL said so nicely, that the resemblance is shamefully strong. Eschatology aside, the images of Babylon in Revelation reflect many OT images of the world and its empires raging and plotting in vain against the Lord and His Anointed. America's sins are hateful to God, whether or not we identify her as Babylon.

Men are fallen and nations are fallen, all in need of God's mercy and grace. In this sense we are all equally wretched and needy before God. At the same time Enoch walked with God, Noah found favor with God while the world abandoned itself to wickness, there was no one like Job on the earth, and the nation of Israel sometimes enjoyed God's blessing for its faithfulness and sometimes suffered under His curse for its disobedience. There is a place for distinguishing degrees of righteousness and wickedness in the lives of men and nations. Our Lord warns that those who disobey willfully will be punished with many stripes while those who disobey ignorantly with few.

It is seldom profitable to make such comparisons in order to make ourselves look better than someone else. Consider the Pharisee and the tax collector. On the other hand we may well benefit by making such comparisons when they show us more accurately our own depravity, for this may help quench our pride. America in particular, and the West in general, may be unusual in their inclination to introspection, but introspection and even self-criticism are not humility. Self-criticism leads to self-improvement (at best), but humility leads to repentance.

If I read Scripture aright, few sins are so hateful to God as the shedding of innocent blood.We all recognize the unspeakable wickedness of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, murdering some 3,000 men, women, and children. But on a typical day Americans murder closer to 4000 of their own unborn children. And they have done this not only on 9/11/01, but on every day of every year since January 1973, killing some 47 million to date. If the murder of 3,000 is unspeakable, what is the murder of 47 million? We rightly consider Saddam Hussein a monster for the murder of half a million (it is a number widely publicized -- I do not speak for its accuracy). We rightly consider Adolf Hitler a monster for the murder of nine million innocents. What then shall we make of a nation that kills 47 million of its own children, not under compulsion but for convenience, profit, and the concealment of unchastity?

This is to say nothing of a nation that treats representative democracy (but not Christianity) as something holy and spreads capitalism and consumerism as gospel, that makes adultery not merely legal but profitable (you can divorce your wife in favor of your mistress, and with the right lawyer force that ex-wife not only to accept the adulteress as stepmother to your children but to go to work and send you child support), that makes divorce a national sport, that declares vile sexual perversion to be a form of holy marriage, that raises children in the place of father and mother through government schooling, and that orders all such government schooling to be atheistic (not through the active teaching of atheism like the Communists practice, but through the perpetual failure to mention God's relevance to any aspect of human knowledge).

So, yes, I think there is a plausible, if not conclusive, case that the U.S. practices greater wickedness and spreads it farther and more effectively through media and public policy, than its adversaries do. All nations are fallen, but have many fallen this far? Repent and defend? I don't know. To my mind the extreme need for repentance overwhelms other concerns. When Jonah preached to Nineveh, the Ninevites forsook even food and water for the sake of repentance. And while many in the U.S. government call for defense, I hear none calling for repentance. I doubt that the Church really needs to emphasize the need for defense.

That said, plainly the sins above are not the faults that critics of the U.S. have in mind when they charge the U.S. with earning the animosity it faces. Plainly islam is violent, following in the footsteps of its founder, and will happily take advantage of any opportunity to attack the U.S. for being non-islamic, regardless of whether the U.S. turns to righteousness. If the U.S. should become islamic, some muslims will no doubt attack it for being the wrong kind of islamic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So, yes, I think there is a plausible, if not conclusive, case that the U.S. practices greater wickedness and spreads it farther and more effectively through media and public policy, than its adversaries do.<<<

Americans who believe this demonstrate a perverse kind of chauvinism, which I can only attribute to their innate provincialism. Perhaps they have not had the opportunity to watch a Brazilian variety show, or seen what passes for game shows on French, German or Italian television? Perhaps they have not bothered to go to le cinema Francais lately, or looked at Page 3 in a British tabloid? Walked down the beach at St. Tropez, observing people getting sunburned in places where, as a rule the sun don't shine? And, if you really want to invoke the gag reflex, go watch the Berliners soaking up some of the scant rays that penetrate the clouds, lying out in the altogether like a vast herd of albino sea elephants. Finally, so that Dirk doesn't accuse me of slighting the Benelux countries, I offer one word: Amsterdam.

When you get down to it, the Europeans and the Latin Americans have us beat three ways from Sunday in the decadence sweepstakes. And they have done so for decades, long before you could see more of American television abroad besides thirty years of I Love Lucy reruns. In other words, we get blamed for what they do, since most Arabs (or, more broadly, Muslims) don't really see much American television or know much about American culture. What they DO know is French TV, French culture. What they really hate is France, but of course, everybody hates France, and it's no big deal. On the other hand, it's more fun to hate America, because sometimes we kick back.

[James Redden Jr.]

"or looked at Page 3 in a British tabloid?"

What's on page 3 of a British tabloid? Enquiring minds want to know!

[JRM]

"What's on page 3 of a British tabloid? Enquiring minds want to know!"

Google "page 3" (not at all safe for work!)

[Ethan Cordray]

Might the America-Babylon question be solved with resort to a little typology? One needn't be the eschatological Babylon per se to partake of its nature. Egypt, Assyria, Edom, Philistia, all received similar treatment to Babylon in the Prophets, and I don't see why we would be any different. It's the quality of sinfulness that's important, not the identity as Babylon. Maybe Europe is worse than us; maybe Latin America is too, at least sexually (this relatively minor sin is often so much more visible than certain worse ones). But maybe they're just the Assyria to our Edom, or choose the comparison you will. Is it up to us to put their houses in order? We ought to do what we can to correct ourselves, practicing on a social scale Jesus' command to look primarily to our own eyes.

Now the issue of domestic social morality is not wholly divorced from the issue of national security, as we do see Biblical evidence of God judging nations for their depravity through invasion and destruction. Yet they are not, I think, as directly tied as some might think, as though our enemies would simply disappear if only we became more righteous. Rather, I think we would be more able to confront our enemies if we were more righteous, less likely to succumb to the enervation of King Belshazzar.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One needn't be the eschatological Babylon per se to partake of its nature. Egypt, Assyria, Edom, Philistia, all received similar treatment to Babylon in the Prophets, and I don't see why we would be any different. <<<

There's a bit of a difference, though: throughout the Old Testament, the great empires are usually seen as instruments of God's divine wrath against Israel for its violations of the Covenant. The Babylonians, according to the Bible, were doing God's will by razing Jerusalem and carrying Israel off into captivity. If we extend that typology to the United States, then it is our duty to smite down those who oppose God's will, even though we might not quite know that's what we're doing.

In the New Testament, Babylon is used as a code name for Rome (the Romans not taking kindly to being called a plague upon the world), yet even there, Rome is seen as fulfilling an important part in the divine plan, and consistently Christians are called to submit to Roman authority to the extent this is compatible with Christ, and when they can't, to stand up bravely and take the consequences in witness to their faith. If we use the New Testament model, then America as "Rome" has a duty to rule the world, and we as Christians have an obligation to submit consistent with our witness to Christ. Even the decadence of Rome denounced by St. John in his vision plays an eschatological role. If you want to be consistent, then rather than discouraging analogies of America to "Babylon", we should do all we can to encourage the trend, and thus imminentize the eschaton.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One needn't be the eschatological Babylon per se to partake of its nature. Egypt, Assyria, Edom, Philistia, all received similar treatment to Babylon in the Prophets, and I don't see why we would be any different. <<<

There's a bit of a difference, though: throughout the Old Testament, the great empires are usually seen as instruments of God's divine wrath against Israel for its violations of the Covenant. The Babylonians, according to the Bible, were doing God's will by razing Jerusalem and carrying Israel off into captivity. If we extend that typology to the United States, then it is our duty to smite down those who oppose God's will, even though we might not quite know that's what we're doing.

In the New Testament, Babylon is used as a code name for Rome (the Romans not taking kindly to being called a plague upon the world), yet even there, Rome is seen as fulfilling an important part in the divine plan, and consistently Christians are called to submit to Roman authority to the extent this is compatible with Christ, and when they can't, to stand up bravely and take the consequences in witness to their faith. If we use the New Testament model, then America as "Rome" has a duty to rule the world, and we as Christians have an obligation to submit consistent with our witness to Christ. Even the decadence of Rome denounced by St. John in his vision plays an eschatological role. If you want to be consistent, then rather than discouraging analogies of America to "Babylon", we should do all we can to encourage the trend, and thus imminentize the eschaton.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Perhaps they have not bothered to go to le cinema Francais lately, or looked at Page 3 in a British tabloid?<<<
I think that if you would care to look up the money generated by the American porn industry, you would be amazed. Compared with that, a French film or a page 3 girl are kids stuff.

>>>we get blamed for what they do, since most Arabs (or, more broadly, Muslims) don't really see much American television<<<

I don't think it's the television that does it, never heard an Arab complain agaist a game show, more likely the bombs and rockets marked 'made in the US' and the dictators supported by the US.

It's easy to concentrate on sex and the media, and to pass over the economic, political and military powers. This is conservatism as it has been through the ages.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't think it's the television that does it, never heard an Arab complain agaist a game show, more likely the bombs and rockets marked 'made in the US' and the dictators supported by the US.<<<

You're so full of it, Dirk, that if I poured you on a tulip bed I'd win a prize for my bulbs. You apparently don't even pay attention to what is going on under your very nose.

>>>It's easy to concentrate on sex and the media, and to pass over the economic, political and military powers. This is conservatism as it has been through the ages.<<<

Is that your way of conceding that Europe doesn't cpunt for a boot full of urine on the geopolitical stage today? I can see how you would like being a free rider on the backs of American military and economic power--it frees up more time for Europeans to indulge their penchant for deviancy on the personal level.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I can see how you would like being a free rider on the backs of American military and economic power--it frees up more time for Europeans to indulge their penchant for deviancy on the personal level.<<<

So, Stuart, are you working in your spare time as a travel agent for trips to Europe? ;) How does it compare to Vegas?

[David Gray]

>I don't think it's the television that does it, never heard an Arab complain agaist a game show, more likely the bombs and rockets marked 'made in the US' and the dictators supported by the US.

Indeed. The Islamic world was a garden of ordered liberty prior to the advent of US dictator support.

>can see how you would like being a free rider on the backs of American military and economic power--it frees up more time for Europeans to indulge their penchant for deviancy on the personal level.

Stating the obvious in a stylish way.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So, Stuart, are you working in your spare time as a travel agent for trips to Europe? ;) How does it compare to Vegas?<<<

Vegas is an oasis of wholesome family entertainment in comparison.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Vegas is an oasis of wholesome family entertainment in comparison.<<<

If you're not just pullin' a hayseed's leg, all I can say is "Wow." No wonder the Muslims are mad.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If you're not just pullin' a hayseed's leg, all I can say is "Wow." No wonder the Muslims are mad.<<<

I wish I was, and you have hit the nail on the head. The hotbed of Islamic terrorism is not in the Middle East, it's in France, Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy. It is not driven by poverty, or socio-economic injustice, or by the plight of the Palestinians. It is headed by second- generation children of immigrants, mostly from privileged or middle-class backgrounds, who are utterly alienated from the European society around them, whcih has failed to assimilate them or give them any stake in their society. Most come from moderately religious or non-observant families, and their Islamic radicalism is something they put on in late adolesence or adulthood, which means to everything else they add convert zeal. They look around and see a society that disgusts them, but having no real alternative to it, they latch on to an eschatological vision that is, paradoxically, nihilistic at its core, because it just is not possible to turn back the clock to the seventh century--nor could they actually do it without reliance on the modernity which the decadent West makes possible, and that infuriates them all the more.

[GL]

If we extend that typology to the United States, then it is our duty to smite down those who oppose God's will, even though we might not quite know that's what we're doing.

*If* we are a type of ancient Babylon, that is a perfect analogy. *But if* we are a type of ancient Israel and the Islamofascists are a type of ancient Babylon . . . . Of course, neither the United States nor the Islamofascists are in the position of ancient Israel. Neither they nor we are the Chosen People of God. The Church is the Chosen People.

So if we are looking for a type of ancient Israel in the analogy, the Church fits that role. Now let us compare the Church in the West (Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand) to ancient Israel during the days just before the Babylonian captivity. Go back and read any number of threads posted on this blog site during the past couple of years. Pick any of the main branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Mainline Protestantism and Evangelical Protestantism. Consider the sometimes scathing criticism the editors and bloggers have leveled against each of those traditions as currently existing. Let's consider the Anglican/Hindu rector or Lee Podles' recent posts on his Church or Gene Robinson or Ted Haggard or the overt wordliness, demonstrated in different ways, by large numbers of the membership in each of those traditions. Then look at King Manasseh, the religious practices of his day and the wordliness of the people of Judah.

Who better fits the type of ancient Israel: the Islamofascist, the United States or the Church in the West? Who better fits the type of ancient Babylon: the Islamofascist, the United States or the Church in the West? Just a point to ponder.

[GL]

"wordliness" should be "worldliness"

[craig]

>>>I don't think it's the television that does it, never heard an Arab complain agaist a game show, more likely the bombs and rockets marked 'made in the US' and the dictators supported by the US.<<<

As Stuart Koehl noted above (Jan 12, 2007 12:22:38 PM), the founder of the Moslem Brotherhood was aghast at the licentiousness of 1940s America -- i.e., it doesn't take much to provoke those who are predisposed to be provoked.

True, America is (at least de facto) attempting to convert the world to consumerism, primarily through Hollywood product that is exploitative, nihilistic, and unchaste, and secondarily through Internet pr0n that is more openly so. But the nihilistic and unchaste aspects of these were seen first in European cultural output and are still more openly displayed there. It is a shock for the American visiting Europe for the first time to see explicit sexuality on TV, street advertisements, etc., and public nudity in the city parks. We aren't exactly living under the Hays Code here, but with respect to sex in culture America is forty years behind Europe -- what is "edgy" here is old hat there. America gets blamed first because of her power and wealth; as the new Rome bestriding the world, she is assumed to be the source and instigator of it all.

As for the bombs etc., there is not the same degree of outrage toward Russia, France, or China for supplying dictators with like goods. This accusation is mostly a proxy for Arab outrage over America's sympathy for the Jews.

[dirk van glabeke]

We Europeans are amazed at the way Americans condone the most atrocious scenes of violence on film and tv but are shocked at some nudity on the beach. And that while the US porn industry is one of the biggest in the world. There is a big market for repressed sexuality.

[Judy Warner]

And we Americans are amazed at the way Europeans consider legitimate self-defense to be violence and have removed both the means and the philosophical underpinnings of defending both one's person and one's country.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We Europeans are amazed at the way Americans condone the most atrocious scenes of violence on film and tv but are shocked at some nudity on the beach. <<<

I've seen a few European films whose violence puts ours in the shade.

>>>And that while the US porn industry is one of the biggest in the world. There is a big market for repressed sexuality.<<<

I could be snide and say that's because in Europe porn is the mainstream, but let's just note that kiddie porn is Denmark's second largest export product (and might well be the first, if it were legal and we could see the ledgers).

And, if shedding the blood of Muslims was the principal cause of Islamic violence, Dirk, then perhaps the Muslims should stop pointing to the mote in America's (or Israel's) eye, and look more at the beam in their own, for Muslims have shed much more Muslim blood in the last half century than the U.S. and Israel combined. In fact, Dirk, which country shed its own blood to protect Muslims from Serbian aggression, not once but twice? Which country shed its own blood to feed starving Muslims in Somalia?

In fact, whenever blood has to be shed in defense of anyone, who seems to get the call, Dirk? You Europeans have been free riders since 1945, and your smug sanctimoniousness grates on American nerves, especially those of us who still take the trouble to visit our military cemetaries in YOUR country.

As a Dutchman recently said, "I never had to fight to preserve my freedom and I'm too busy enjoying it to start now".

[dirk van glabeke]

this is getting a europeans versus americans debate
but remember you started it

>>>And we Americans are amazed at the way Europeans consider legitimate self-defense to be violence and have removed both the means and the philosophical underpinnings of defending both one's person and one's country.<<

well we are not so keen on youngsters murdering their schoolmates
can you blame us
oh did you see 'Bowling for Columbine'?

Stuart,

You come regularly to Europe, a place filled with history, art, beauty and all
you seem to remember is sex, sex, sex
This says more about you than it does about Europe

>>>And, if shedding the blood of Muslims was the principal cause of Islamic violence, Dirk, then perhaps the Muslims should stop pointing to the mote in America's (or Israel's) eye, and look more at the beam in their own, for Muslims have shed much more Muslim blood in the last half century than the U.S. and Israel combined<<<
you just try to teach that history lesson to the Palestinian whose brother, father, mother, child was just killed by an American produced bomb.
or to the Muslim who heard that American jailers flushed the Quran through the toilet.

>>>In fact, whenever blood has to be shed in defense of anyone, who seems to get the call, Dirk?<<<
If I remember correctly it was a large number of European countries that were against the war in Irak. A war which is probably the biggest drive for terrorism at present. Yes we shouldbe very greatfull to the US government.

>>>The hotbed of Islamic terrorism is not in the Middle East, it's in France, Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy.<<<

let me remind you about the history of al qaeda:
The origins of the group can be traced to a few weeks after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when a cadre of foreign Arab Mujahideen, financed by bin Laden and independent wealthy Muslim contributors, joined the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani ISI, in a program called Operation Cyclone[17][18]. The U.S. took advantage of this militant movement's ambitions and bred them to suit their needs.
again we say: thank you US government, thank you

about WOII. We are gratefull but that doesn't mean we should lay forever on our knees for the US. Let me remind you that it was fought on our lands, and that our people suffered the most. Where would the US be with a Europe in the hands of the Nazis and an Asia in the hands of Japan? Don't portray it as a pure altruistic enterprise.

I'm not against the American citizens but some of you seem blinded on one side

[Bill R]

Dirk, I almost feel sorry for you. I think I hear Stuart coming down the hallway...

[craig]

>>>We Europeans are amazed at the way Americans condone the most atrocious scenes of violence on film and tv but are shocked at some nudity on the beach. And that while the US porn industry is one of the biggest in the world. There is a big market for repressed sexuality.<<<

If it were merely nudity at the beach, it wouldn't be noteworthy. The point is, you have to pay extra in America to see TV channels showing the smut that comes on European channels as a matter of course.

And while it may be an old left-liberal argument that Western societal problems are the result of sexual repression, if it was ever true then (it probably wasn't) it can hardly be said to hold true today. The less "repressed" we get as a society, the more domestic bliss eludes us -- "every child a planned and wanted child" is a lie from hell crafted to destroy the expectation that family intrinsically has claims upon us, such that logically if we don't have to take care of the babies we don't want, we don't have to take care of the wives and husbands and elders either. At least Americans are still having babies, which is more than can be said of Europe; P.D. James in "Children of Men" got it right in saying that sex separated from conception degenerates to pointless, unsatisfying acrobatics.

Now, excessive scenes of violence may be a legitimate complaint in some instances (Tarantino is positively pornographic, IMHO), but that's not a complaint Islamic societies are making. Al-Jazeera has no qualms about showing real violence American TV won't. For my part, while I don't care to see gratuitous violence onscreen, everyone knows that cinematic violence is intrinsically fake; it is not exploitative of the actors in the way that sexual scenes must be.

[GL]

Dirk, I almost feel sorry for you. I think I hear Stuart coming down the hallway...

I for one am looking forward to it. :-) Having been skewered by Stuart myself from time-to-time, I can only say that it is a lot more fun when one is the spectator than when a recipient.

Stuart,

Please don't disappoint me!

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>Dirk, I almost feel sorry for you. I think I hear Stuart coming down the hallway...<<<

as long as it's in good humour

I'm used to visiting a.o. a few catch forums, but I've got to admit there is more movement here : )

[Christopher Hathaway]

or to the Muslim who heard that American jailers flushed the Quran through the toilet.

It is physically impossible to flush a book of any kind down a toilet. That should tell you that such stories as that were nothing but lies to whip up hysteria among muslims, and among their useful idiot dhimmi-friends.

And do you honestly think anyone who has been bombed really cares who made the bomb? They only care who dropped it.

And as for school shootings, well, we didn't have them twenty years ago, and we haven't gotten more armed as a society since then, so perhaps other factors are involved. And there was one school shooting here cut short by a guard...with his gun.

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk,
You have a point that US involvement in WWII was not completely altruistic (though we did have a fairly strong isolationist minority). However our involvement in Serbia certainly was. We didn't really gain by it and we really didn't have anything to lose in it. It was a European mess that Europeans really couldn't bother themselves enough about to clean up. (Not that the Flemish in particular really had a lot to do with it.)

[Judy Warner]

Not the Flemish, but the Dutch did. From an article last month in the Daily Mail (UK):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=420642&in_page_id=1811

Bosnia's three-member presidency officially protested to the Dutch government for awarding citations to its peacekeepers who failed to protect the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica and prevent the slaughter of thousands of Muslim men and boys, the presidency said Tuesday.

...Around 450 soldiers on duty in Srebrenica stood by helplessly and even assisted in separating women from the men and boys who were then taken away in buses by the Serb forces.

The Dutch troops returned home to scathing charges of cowardice or incompetence. Many soldiers required long-term trauma therapy. Some did not attend Monday's ceremony.

An independent study later cleared the Dutch troops of most blame, noting they were outnumbered, lightly armed and under instructions to fire only in self-defense.

The 2002 report assigned partial blame to the Dutch government for setting the troops up to fail, prompting the Cabinet of Prime Minister Wim Kok to resign. The study also found that a French U.N. general inexplicably failed to send air support when it was requested, as had been agreed in advance.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>let me remind you about the history of al qaeda:<<<

Actually, the fairy tale you tell is interesting,but not at all the truth. But I excuse you, since your knowledge of recent Middle Eastern and Central Asian history seems to have been culled from the BBC and Michael Moore.

>>>well we are not so keen on youngsters murdering their schoolmates
can you blame us
oh did you see 'Bowling for Columbine'?<<<

What you know about America seems also to be derived from Michael Moore. Perhaps you need to look at some European crime statistics before pointing fingers at us. London and Paris both are far less safe than New York or Los Angeles (or even Washington, DC, for that matter. Schools in America are quite safe, the number of violent incidents very small indeed, when you consider that our country is the size of your puny little continent. And, need I remind you, Europeans have their school shootings as well--to say nothing of honor killings, terror bombings, car torchings, the occasional riot whenever someone thinks about perhaps requiring someone to work for his welfare benefits, and of course, whenever President Bush, or the World Bank, or the IMF are in town.

>>>You come regularly to Europe, a place filled with history, art, beauty and all
you seem to remember is sex, sex, sex
This says more about you than it does about Europe<<<

Actually, Dirk, it's kind of hard to avoid in some cities. As for the art and history, I know it better than most of the residents, who seem blithely unaware or perhaps vaguely ashamed of what they have.

>>>We are gratefull but that doesn't mean we should lay forever on our knees for the US.<<<

Actually, you should. And not just for World War II, but for rebuilding your pathetic dung heap afterwards and protecting you from the Russian Bear for the forty years after that--often against your will. But the next time, don't bother to call. Take care of it yourself. The way, e.g., you took care of the Balkans. Ha.

>>>Let me remind you that it was fought on our lands, and that our people suffered the most.<<<

Let me remind you whose festering little ethnic squabbles and putrid ideologies caused it in the first place. You sound like someone who sets his own house on fire, then takes the fireman to task for not having "altruistic" motives ("If you didn't save my house, the city would have burned down"), and then wraps himself in his own victimhood ("After all, I'm the one whose house got burned").

>>>It is physically impossible to flush a book of any kind down a toilet. That should tell you that such stories as that were nothing but lies to whip up hysteria among muslims, and among their useful idiot dhimmi-friends.<<<

Dirk is prepared to think the worst of us, to the point that simple empirical evidence is not going to convince him. In a sense, though, it's all just transference: to Dirk, we're unreconstructed Europeans who have not yet come to grips with the ramifications of World War One. Europeans are the way they are today because they haven't forgiven themselves for the sin of butchering large numbers of Europeans. Thus, they try to atone by becoming the wussiest of wussies, unwilling to defend themselves or their culture, because, in their own minds, it just isn't worth saving.

[Gene Godbold]

If you're down about Stuart's post, Dirk, cheer up: I, at least, think your culture worth saving. :-)

(Really, though, I do hope you realize that Michael Moore isn't a credible source. Even staunch liberals in this country have taken him to task for his exceedingly sloppy--I'm being generous here--way with "facts". He's really in the business of making propaganda, not documentaries.)

[David Gray]

>You come regularly to Europe, a place filled with history, art, beauty and all you seem to remember is sex, sex, sex

I found the history, art, and beauty occasionally obscured by large numbers of yobbos staggering out of pubs, vomiting and cursing. But that's just me.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>And do you honestly think anyone who has been bombed really cares who made the bomb? They only care who dropped it. <<

I guess you never saw an interview with Palestinians. They aren't dumb you know.

>>>And there was one school shooting here cut short by a guard...with his gun.<<<

schools with guards. That says it all. But you don't see it, or maybe you don't want to. No school has guards over here.

>>>However our involvement in Serbia certainly was<<<
I never denied that. I'm not anti-american. Just critical. Nothing wrong with that.

>>>Not the Flemish, but the Dutch did.<<<
so what? I don't deny that it happened.

>>>Actually, Dirk, it's kind of hard to avoid in some cities. As for the art and history, I know it better than most of the residents, who seem blithely unaware or perhaps vaguely ashamed of what they have.<<<

oh boy, you must wear blinkers when you visit or else you just 'happen' to visit those quarters of town, quite innocently

>>>You Europeans have been free riders since 1945, and your smug sanctimoniousness grates on American nerves<<<

this week a member of the Belgian squad that defuses bombs, got wounded while on mission in Lebanon. Today this squad cleaned up it's 10.000th small cluster bomb. You know that these bombs mainly kill civilians. The US is one of the great manufacturers.

Some transfers of cluster munitions have occurred as surplus munitions are phased out of active service and provided to allies at little or no cost. As an example, the United States transferred over 61,000 artillery projectiles containing 8.1 million submunitions to Bahrain and Jordan between 1995 and 2001 as this type of ammunition was being phased out of the U.S. inventory. These transfers are detailed in the following table:

Transfers of Excess U.S. Cluster Munitions to Bahrain and Jordan,
1995-2001
Recipient
Year of Transfer
Munition Type
Quantity of Projectiles
Total Number of Submunitions

Bahrain
1995
M509A1 DPICM
6,000
1,080,000

1996
M509A1 DPICM
3,000
540,000

1998
M509A1 DPICM
12,000
2,160,000

1999
M509A1 DPICM
6,000
1,080,000

2001
M449A1 ICM
2,000
120,000

2001
M483 DPICM
1,000
88,000

Jordan
1995
M509A1 DPICM
3,000
540,000

1995
M483A1 DPICM
28,704
2,525,952

61,704
8,133,952

This information displayed above is contained in public records maintained by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency. According to the results of life-cycle testing compiled by the U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety, the dud rates for the submunitions contained in the types of artillery projectiles range from 4.8 percent (M509A1) to 14.27 percent (M449, M483). Thus, the potential exists to create over 600,000 hazardous dud submunitions if these projectiles are ever used.

As you see I don't just get my info from BBC and Michael Moore (just one of Stuarts little demagogic tricks)

>>>grates on American nerves<<<
again, here our friend Stuart is trying to paint his opinion as the opinion of all americans (trick, trick, trick)

on WOII: your counterargument is seemingly to try and make me look ridiculous (again one of your demagogic tricks. I wonder if you are aware of them, or do they just come naturally?)

>>>but for rebuilding your pathetic dung heap afterwards and protecting you <<<
I could claim this too was not devoid of a certain self-interest.

Talking about protecting I'm reminded of how you protected Chili and supported Pinochet. I guess the families who's members were thrown out of helicopters above the ocean are still gratefull to you. But in your eyes, probably not enough.

>>>Dirk is prepared to think the worst of us, <<<
didn't knew you thought you were a mind reader, not a good one I have to say
Portraying me as anti-american is, need I to say it?, just a demagogic trick.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>I found the history, art, and beauty occasionally obscured by large numbers of yobbos staggering out of pubs, vomiting and cursing. But that's just me.<<<

where do you go? It's beyond me, and I've visited quite a bit of Europe.

on the flushing down the toilet, I have to admit, I expressed myself a bit carelessly there. But my point is not, as an intelligent reader must be aware, the fact itself but the way in which these stories affect the muslims opinion of the US. (I could just as well have taken Abu Ghraib as an example)
The subject was: why do they think so badly about the US. To react with a counterargument about the physical impossibility is so besides the point, it makes one despair. : )

To show that my statement was not so far from the facts (and also not from the BBC or Moore):

Earlier Allegations Guards Threw Koran in Toilet
By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:14:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Here's an update to our earlier post skeptical of Newsweek's retraction of last week's Periscope item(about a military report stating that Guantanamo personnel had flushed a detainee's Koran down the toilet to get him to talk):

There are dozens of news articles referencing detainee allegations that guards threw korans in the toilet prior to the Newsweek article. Here's a sampling, all are available on lexis.com.

The Miami Herald March 9, 2005.

Yet recently declassified court documents allege that, as far back as 2002, some of Guantanamo's staff cursed Allah, threw Korans into toilets, mocked prisoners during prayers and deliberately took away prisoners' pants knowing that Muslims can't pray unless covered. Imagine a U.S. prisoner of war who is a devout Christian having his Bible tossed into the toilet or his rosary taken away. The U.S. government would rightly denounce such offenses as human-rights violations.

The Miami Herald March 6, 2005

Captives at the Guantanamo Bay prison are alleging that guards kicked and stomped on Korans and cursed Allah, and that interrogators punished them by taking away their pants, knowing that would prevent them from praying.

Three Kuwaiti captives -- Fawzi al Odah, 27, Fouad al Rabiah, 45, and Khalid al Mutairi, 29 -- separately complained to their lawyer that military police threw their Korans into the toilet, according to the notes of Kristine Huskey, a Washington attorney.

Guards also mocked captives at prayer and censored Islamic books, the captives allege. And in one incident, they say, a prison barber cut a cross-shaped patch of hair on an inmate's head. Most of the complaints come from the recently declassified notes of defense lawyers' interviews with prisoners, which Guantanamo officials initially stamped ''secret.'' Under a federal court procedure for due-process appeals by about 100 inmates, portions are now being declassified.

Philadelphia Inquirer January 20, 2005

Twelve Kuwaitis held for about three years at the detention center at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been physically and psychologically abused, their attorneys said yesterday after their first visit with the detainees. The men were "all very thin, almost emaciated," and most were being held in isolation, with 45 minutes of exercise a week, only the Koran to read, and no medical treatment, said Tom Wilner, who visited his clients last week.

Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey, who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information. "All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line," Wilner said.

Hartford Courant (Connecticut) January 16, 2005
Book review of GUANTANAMO: AMERICA'S WAR ON HUMAN RIGHTS by David Rose

In March, the government released five British men from Guantanamo after holding them nearly three years. They had been captured in Afghanistan, where they had gone to offer humanitarian aid. Rose interviewed them the same month, two months before allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq first surfaced, and they described captivity that seems eerily similar. They said they were punched, slapped, denied sleep, had seen other prisoners sexually humiliated, had been hooded, and were forced to watch copies of the Koran being flushed down toilets. Eventually the pressure proved too much -- they gave false confessions that the British intelligence service later showed to be untrue. On their return to the United Kingdom, they were released by Scotland Yard without being charged.

[David Gray]

>where do you go? It's beyond me, and I've visited quite a bit of Europe.

Well I was referring to when I lived there and pretty much any major urban area of England would qualify. In particular I was thinking of Cambridge.

>the way in which these stories affect the muslims opinion of the US

Much like Goebbels' stories got our German friends excited.

[dirk van glabeke]

well David, the English youth do have a custom called binge drinking. Drinking as much and as fast as you can. I visited Wales, London (a few times) and Scotland but never witnessed it. Sadly enough it exists.
But I don't think even the English want to be seen as the essential Europeans.