Britain sixty years ago would have crushed the Islamo-fascism in their midst.
The "Moral vacuum" the Doctor spoke of has the effect on a society that the HIV virus has on the human body.
This selfish hedonism and lack of moral clarity weakens the non-muslim society's resistance to a foreign, hostile political ideology. It has caused me many a sleepless night wondering if the West has the will find the stomach to
destroy Islamism once and for all.

In short, if the warriors of jihad had picked their fight with us back at the start of WWII, we wouldn't be having this
conversation right now, for we would have crushed jihad and Islamic supremacism and swept it into the dustbin of history, like we did with Nazism or the Bushido cult of Imperial Japan.

@ Atheling

1) Note the reference to "Poland HAD the biggest jewish population in the world etc.....". The use of the past tense reminds us of what happened in the holocaust (still in my life time!!!) and the active collaboration of many Poles in the execution of the plans of the nazis in that respect. 

2) It is interesting to observe that the objection to the term "judeo-christian values" seems to be widespread in Europe accross the ideological spectrum.  On this blog this objection seems to be shared by, for instance, the 'monarchical and fundamentalist Polish christian' who calls himself "Monarchist", as well as by a manifest secularist and self-declared republican (and certainly anti-clerical) Kapitein Andre, and by others as well.   It is no surprise to me that manifestations of anti-semitism (very clearly observable in many past discussions here on Israel and Middle eastern politics) seem to go hand in hand with manifestations of racism (clearly observable here in numerous discussions on European immigration problems).  They are two sides of the same coin.  

3) Once again, Jesus was a 'jew' (though a 'rebellious' one), and the (christian) New Testament was built on the (jewish) Old Testament.  Christianity broadly has always recognized that christian morality is largely a matter of virtues embedded in the biblical 'parables'.   At its core are the notions of the moral equality of all human beings (as 'children of God') and the notion of individual conscience (from which derives human freedom and the obligation of self-responsibility).   

Atheling,please,calm down!   : )

 

Now,perhaps,you see why I don't allow myself to be drawn into these fractious 'debates'.Been there,done that Oh so many,many,MANY times before...

Well, yes, in an IDEAL world "people need moral leaders to respect and follow, and not...".

In the REAL world, however, there is no guarantee that "leaders" will be such moral leaders, independent of whether these leaders are elected, hereditary, or in power through some 'power grab'.  In fact, historical empirical observation, shows clearly a shortage of great "moral leaders" under all these circumstances.  And, it is only common sense to assume that elected leaders have IN GENERAL a somewhat greater 'incentive' to work for the common good of the people than power grabbers and inheriters.   

Hence, democracy is difficult, rare and 'messy', but it is the least bad system around for humans. And like everything else human, it usually does not last.

Now, for a return to another phantasy planet, read Monarchist's further comments that are sure to follow........

The most ridiculous thing of course is the notion of a 'safe workplace' when it comes to soldiers and emergency services personnel...

The Independent: Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester, […] but, as his name suggests, he is from a largely Muslim family background. […] Interestingly, Dr Nazir-Ali does not simply blame the Saudis, or other foreign governments who might have been funding militant Islam in the mosques of Great Britain, for the rise in Muslim chauvinism in this country.
 
This attitude is not surprising given his ethnic and religious heritage. Though I do not doubt his commitment to the Christian faith, his 'other affinities' cloud his judgement with regards to relations with Islam, Anglicanism and issues of race and nationality.

The Independent: He blames the British people themselves, arguing that there has been a catastrophic collapse in Christian-based morality and spirituality in this country over the past 40 or so years and that this has created a "moral vacuum" in society as a whole, which has been increasingly filled – at least in the minds of impressionable youth – by fundamentalist Islam.
 
In Western countries, the practice of Islam is almost entirely dictated by descent or intermarriage. Not only is the number of non-Muslim Westerners who convert to Islam statistically insignificant, but it is dwarfed by Muslim defectors (globally) to Christianity, agnosticism and atheism. Therefore, one cannot argue that fundamentalist Islam is filling any sort of 'moral vacuum' created by the decline of Christianity in the United Kingdom or the West for that matter. Even if all non-Muslims in the UK were ardent religionists (e.g. Christian, Jew, etc.), this would not impact radical Islam. Moreover, if British Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity, they would simply to immigrate in the first place.

The Independent: Here, as a leading figure in the Church of England, Dr Nazir-Ali is swimming in dangerous waters. Is it the British people who should be blamed for deserting, in their millions, the once-dominant Church of England? Or should not the Church of England look at its own performance and try to understand why it has lost such a vast proportion of its audience – at least as defined by regular churchgoing, rather than notional affiliation?

 

I was under the impression that the Church of England was not in a popularity contest with other religions and philosophies or lack thereof and that it was not obligated to compete for members, anymore than the Queen needs to get press by behaving like Paris Hilton.

 

The Independent: An astounding statistic in a recent Policy Exchange pamphlet, The Hijacking of British Islam, shows that while Muslims make up no more than 3 per cent of the British population, there are now more Muslims who attend a mosque regularly than there are regular attenders in the pews of the Established Church. Fundamentalist Islam can hardly take all the blame for that extraordinary reversal.

 

I fail to see how Christianity and Islam are so linked. Certainly atheists and agnostics can oppose Islamization or radical Islam without converting to Christianity. Perhaps liberal democracy, rationalism, scientific inquiry and capitalism will take the wind out of British Muslims' sails also...

 

In conclusion, the mere fact that the Church of England is allowing Pakistanis and Africans to occupy high positions is indicative of the condition of Anglo-Saxon Christianity.

Atheling, I used the term 'archaic' in its meaning "characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time", and continued with "stupid 'religious' rules from ancient Arabia", unwilling to grace the movement in question with the word 'religion'.

The more I've read about it, the less I feel like calling this a religion at all.

Being an established religion isn't fatal, in most instances.    However, in the late 20th century, being "established" anything, whether its media (BBC, PBS), universities, churches, charitable funds, has meant it attracted liberals, who then recruit their own.   

For churches in particular, social liberalism is a quick death, very quick, one generation will clean out all your converts and leave the greyheads to slowly close the place down.   My uneducated guess is that social liberalism carries a negative presumption of how the world works if left to itself that repels people, just the opposite of Christian optimism.

 

 

Atheling, for the record, I own and read copies of:

• Noble Quraan (from Islamic University of Medina)
  
• Ibn Ishaq: Life of Muhammad
  
• Al-Tabari: History vol. 6-9 (Muhammad again)
  
• Serge Trifkovic: Sword of the Prophet, Defeating Jihad
  
• Robert Spencer: Politically Incorrect Guide, Religion of Peace?, The Truth About Muhammad etc.
  
• Craig Winn: Prophet of Doom
  
• Daniel Pipes: Militant Islam Reaches America
  
• Mark A. Gabriel: Islam and Terrorism
  

- as well as a stack of more specialized litterature.

 

After all this reading, I got more - not less - letssay 'categorical' about people paying reverence to crazy religious laws and criminal 'prophets'.

Sometimes, it just makes more sense to focus on real problems than those made created by adherence to strange, old books and the people described therein. Thus the little rant...

@ Rob the.....

 

It is true that in his speech Romney made the point that state-sponsorship of religion has harmed religion in Europe.  But, that is really about the fairly distant past.  I thought that his more important point (and of more contemporary relevance) was that secularism as the new state-sponsored 'religion' - i.e. the banning of all religious concepts from the public sphere in Europe - had done more damage in terms of undermining the public's adherence to moral virtues. 

Perhaps, we should take a new look at the actual speech?

What we need is a way out. Focus, analysis, debate, action. One of my 'holy grails' is energy independence from Middle East, Russia, Sudan etc. It'll be a Herculian effort, but it's a great common task to unite our societies. Those who prefer to discuss archaic religions can go burn themselves on the stakes. We have important work ahead of us and cannot afford to waste our energy on adopting stupid 'religious' rules from ancient Arabia.

The CoE has for a long time made its own problems. By failing take its theology seriously and consequently harboring within its clergy many outright atheists, it has made a mockery of the faith it ostensibly professes. Because of its close connection with the Crown, and its dependence on the government for support, it has been unable to be the independent, prophetic voice that it should have been. The process for choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury, wherein it is largely up to the Prime Minister, makes the choice entirely political where it should be ecclesiastical. The folly of this process is abundantly evident in the current incumbent, Dr. Rowan Williams, who is totally unsuited for the position (also known as the ArchDruid of Canterbury).

This is particularly sad when one considers that Anglicanism itself is a significant, growing faith around the world. It is particularly vigorous in Africa, Latin America, and the Far East. These are all places that the faith was taken to by missionaries sent out from England in times gone by and it has taken root and prospered. But now the Mother Church, the Church of England, has withered and is on its death bed, essentially by its own hand.

The loss of faith that has swept all of Europe following WWII seems to have hit England just as hard as any of the other countries. Secularism, materialism, socialism, and greed seem to be big factors in what has happened. The CoE was in trouble theologically long before these more recent problems came along in terms of having agnostic clergy, so it was just totally unprepared to cope with these new challenges. 

The outcome of all of this may be a "new" CoE that is no longer an arm of the state, a disestablished church. This would be a major change, probably a healthy change, but a difficult step for a church that has always enjoyed considerable comfort (the comfort level would drop considerably!). There is tension within the CoE regarding the possible ordination of women to the episcopate, and this raises talk of a possible third province (the first two being Canterbury and York) that would be under the Archbishop of Canterbury but not under any women bishops. The homosexual issue, both for clergy and parishioners remains a hot topic within the CoE. There are a number of things brewing that could tear the CoE to pieces on Rowan's watch, and he is poorly equipped to deal with any of them.
 

In his speech yesterday on the 'Mormon question' Mitt Romney made a point of using Europe's empty churches and growing jihadism as a warning against going down Europe's road. He contrasted the free market approach of the US with religion against the European approach of state-sponsored religion. When the state turns against the religion, it has little ability to survive on its own, because it's never had to compete.

The Church of England has a lot to answer for. It's never stood for much theologically speaking (the best definition comes from the Irish playwright Brendan Behan, who in a famous quatrain said that its foundation stones were "the b***s of Henry the Eighth"); attendance has had, very often, a lot more to do with social conformity than with religious devotion, and in the last few years the CofE has, rightly, become the laughing stock of television programmes. It's basically a bunch of cretinous, politically correct semi-atheists who haven't got the guts to follow their non-belief to its logical and honourable conclusion, i.e. resign and get a real job somewhere.

Dr Nazir-Ali seems to be an honourable exception in this sea of dhimmitude and vacuous do-goodism; hopefully he'll try to explain to his brethren that Muslim religious leaders are not going to change from bigots to reasonable people just because of a few invitations to tea and bickies.