I didn’t want to offend you, but I guess Marcfrans is right. A further discussion between the two of us will lead nowhere. We’re too far apart from each other. I’m doing my best to understand people I discuss with. Try to get acquainted with their point of view. But I honestly can’t displace me into the mind of somebody justifying everything what is written in the OT, let alone somebody who is claiming the historical truth of it.

This summer I was standing in a church in San Gimignano, looking at the ancient paintings on the wall together with my little girl of 5 years. It was the story of Job depicted in a sort of cartoon. We were standing at the picture were Satan destroyed Job’s house. You could see chopped off heads and hands, women crying and weeping, children smashed. My girl asked me were the story was about and suddenly I realized how horrible it really was. I made up something. About a disaster happening and God coming to rescue everybody afterwards. What else could I do?

@marcfrans,

Fair enough, I'll refrain from further commenting on the PR views. A Christianity forgetting the Old Testament (apart from a few peaces that should be taken allegorically) and that focuses on the New Testament is a Christianity I can live with. If we could get rid of some of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, I might even accept it as the basis of my own culture.

@ KO

Sorry, KO, there was no "purport" intended with the reference to the Plains of Abraham.  Hopefully you did not wrack your brains over it. 

My explanation goes as follows.  I imagined how Pvdh must have felt after reading Pale Rider's most recent contributions, especially # 3 with its strong Old Testament flavor and its various references to "Abraham".   In Pvdh I (think I) 'recognise' a lot of my own younger self and, undoubtedly, he and I grew up under quite similar cultural circumstances and influences in Flanders.  However, I have the 'advantage' of (1) age (in the sense of being a generation older) and (2) of having grown up in an educational environment which (though under great stress already) was not yet as moral-relativistic as his.  I may be wrong about this, but that is how I see it.  In Pale Rider I see the (still early, but hopeful) beginnings of a new younger generation which is (surprise?!)... rebelling against the flotsam of the preceding generation of (presumed)  'adults'.  Oftentimes the 'old' understand better why the 'young' are rebelling against the in-between generation of 'adults'.

So, I tried to ease the atmosphere by suggesting a vacation to the Plains of Abraham, in order to forestall pvdh from responding to the Old Testament stuff and to the religious beliefs of PR, and to re-direct the focus on what is relevant to the (questionable) message conveyed in Mr Elst's article.   This came to mind because I had recently the opportunity to visit Quebec City again, with its citadel (with the Plains of...) etc...  

Finally,  there are no "hard feelings" among 'real' (identity-conscious) Flemish people about the "great victory of the English over the French" on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec.  The Flemish have benefited greatly from both French and English influences over the centuries, but it seems clear to me that - at least in the past two centuries - the freedom of the Flemish people (such as it is) has been served much better by the English than by the French.  That may well change in the future, though.

To return to that presumed "great victory" on the Plains of Abraham,  right next to those 'Plains' stands the Quebec Parliament.  When I visited it two months ago, I saw only 2 flags flying over the building: the flags of Quebec and of France.  No Canadian, no American and no British flags in sight.  And on the licence plates of the cars on the street one could clearly read: "Je me souviens".

Now, KO, as a good Canadian that you are, could you explain what it is that the Quebecquois are remembering?

@ pvdh

Like Bill Clinton "I feel your pain", and I suggest that you take a vacation to 'the Plains of Abraham' in Eastern Canada/Quebec.   Pale Rider has given his own testament to the enduring power of 'faith' in our world, which must come as a bit of a surprise to postmodern Europeans who seem unaware of the 'christian' character or foundation of their own civilisation.  However, Samuel Huntington (Clash of Civilisations) wouldn't have been surprised at all.   

Now, seriously, I feared that this is what would happen when you started quoting Old Testament verses.  A generation and a half ago, catholic 'higher' education in Belgium downplayed literal reading of ancient texts.  It stressed the importance of biblical 'interpretation' (translating from ancient to contemporary situations/dilemmas) and the need for attempting to deduce enduring values (for individuals!) from ancient texts.  Your commentary, as that from the typical 'younger adult' in Belgian media today, suggests that this is no longer the case.   

Putting aside the religious aspects (in the sense of 'beliefs related to personal salvation') of Pale Rider's fascinating epistles, let's focus on two important valid points of his. 

- First, he said that you "should not apply modern standards to those (ancient) peoples").  I agree but I would add that we must insist on applying them to contemporary people, and it is those that the article of Koenraad Elst is concerned with.  If we don't, his optimism about the contemporary winds blowing through the Muslimworld may not be justified.  And you, Peter vdh, should stop equating or comparing the god-beliefs of "ancient Israelites" with those of contemporary Bin Ladens, ayathollas or any other radical islamists. You are inappropriately mixing ancient apples with contemporary oranges.   

-- Second, Pale Rider reminded us that the idea of separating religion from the state was essentially a 'christian' idea, and historically achieved in the West.  Instead of blaming 'religion' for this achievement, secular statists like yourself, should be more discerning and be grateful to the christian religion for this (irrespective of watever else they may dislike about that or any other religion).  That would be the proper historical and 'intellectual' perspective.  It's not this or that particular church prelate (who may have opposed separation of church and state) who matters, but rather the gradual realisation of the biblical idea that made it possible.  Furthermore, it helps to underscore/justify the need for limitation of all state power.  If you want people to 'behave' you must strengthen the belief that there is a 'greater'  (superior) power than themselves. This applies even more so to powerful political leaders than to you and me.        

As for the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan, perhaps you should read up on the issue before claiming that God committed a Holocaust. The Holocaust was committed by man, but the ancient Israelites were given the land by God. As to why they received the land of Canaan, I will attempt to explain. First, God made a covenant with Abraham that he would receive the land of Canaan (among other things). Second, Canaan, a son of Ham, and his offspring, was cursed (see Genesis 9). The Canaanites themselves had defiled themselves as mankind had done before the Flood with fallen angels, as it evident from the presence of giants in the land as well as the numerous laws in Leviticus against demonic rites and practices (sacrificing children, for instance) which shows that the Canaanites were in every way depraved and evil. The penalty for sin is death. The sins committed by the Canaanites were of such a serious nature that God decreed that they be wiped out from the land of Israel so that the land would be clean and the Israelites would be able to dwell there safely, thus fulfilling the promise God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their offspring.

In the days of Abraham, God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorra due to their abominable practices and sins they committed. The Sodomites even asked of Lot that he give them the men (angels) who accompanied him so they could fornicate with them. Who are you to claim that God was wrong to destroy these evil peoples while He always remained faithful to His chosen people and the Covenant He made with Abraham? Is not God All-knowing and Sovereign? It is clear from the Bible that God has a divine redemptive plan with the world. He became Man and innocently died on the cross for the salvation of many, in the person of Jesus Christ. I don’t think we’ll see this guy named Allah becoming flesh to atone for the sins of mankind any time soon! Lay ambush on the infidels, that's his "gospel"!

As for the book of Job, God allows evil to happen but He is not the author of sin, or else God would not be holy. Satan himself brought dispair upon Job, not God. The world is fallen. God has a redemptive plan with the world but until Judgment Day when God creates a new heavens and earth for His elect, the world will remain in bondage to sin, and good and evil men alike will continue to face hardship. However, God also allows the rain to fall on earth (i.e. to allow for harvest and prosperity) over both good and evil men (or, by extention, nations). The story of Job changes nothing about that.

How all of this relates to the original topic, I don't know. But since you brought it up I thought I might as well try to answer it. I hope we can get back on-topic now.

@ KO: I think much of what I have written here should more or less answer your reply. I agree pretty much with what you have written. I am not opposed to the crusades in principle, although I am sure that you'll understand that I am critical of the atrocities or excesses that were committed by the crusaders, as well as the papal claims that crusaders would get to heaven by participating in the battle against the Muslims. As for Orosius, I'm not familiar with him but thanks for bringing him to my attention.

For your information, many Sandinistas in Nicaragua also claim to be [Roman Catholic] Christians but they hold to the plainly heretical Liberation Theology to justify their activities, which even the late pope John Paul II has condemned. The majority of the Germanic tribes that invaded the Roman Empire were Arians who rejected the Trinity and claimed that Jesus is a lesser divinity. And yet they also claimed to be Christians and they forced their subjects to accept their heresy or die.

Western Christianity, despite having defended the truth against the Arians and others, later began to pervert Christianity itself by claiming that people can buy their way into heaven and that the bishop of Rome somehow had primacy over other bishops (in the 19th century this lead to a doctrine that claims the pope is infallible in theological matters). The 16th century Reformers protested against these perversions but they were never allowed to reform the Church as they were excommunicated.

Most Western states in those days had adopted Christianity as the official religion, which replaced their original pagan religions. I do not think that was wrong to do. We can't apply our modern standards to those people. It must have seemed logical and good to them to replace their pagan religion with Christianity. The idea of separating religion from the state was alien to virtually every ancient people I have ever heard of. However, it did lead to a situation where it was possible for the State to commit atrocities in the name of Christianity (invoking the belief that the king derived his power from God, and abusing Romans 13 / 1 Peter 2 to justify their own sins). Certain men manipulated Christianity to accomplish their own goals and to justify their own corrupt rule. That is why others like Samuel Rutherford argued in Lex, Rex that corrupt "Christian" rulers are not devinely appointed, and that rulers must conform to moral law themselves in order to have any valid claim to divine authority. So next time you praise the Enlightenment, do spare a thought for this 17th century Presbyterian preacher and orthodox Christian.

Does the fact that Christianity was abused mean that Christianity itself is a corrupted religion or that all Christian rulers were corrupt? No. It also does not mean that all wars that oficially Christian countries waged against other nations or invading forces were wrong. Were Christian nations somehow to allow themselves to be overrun by hostile invaders? Of course not. What is to be condemned is excessive and unncecessary violence or cruelty. The Allied Forces also committed crimes on the battlefield, does that mean we should have refrained from fighting the Nazis?

There is no such concept in Christianity as a Christian holy war. This is alien to true Christianity. The Christian is to wage a spiritual warfare armed with the Word of God against false doctrines and man-made religions and the corruptions of his own flesh (2 Co 10). Any notion that the Church is to wage war on infidels and that Christians have the right or the duty to forcibly convert pagans to Christianity, is a damnable perversion of Christianity. Have such things been committed in the name of Christianity and of the Church? Most certainly, yes. Does that mean, however, that Christianity is essentially a pacifist religion and that Christians are therefore not allowed to engage in any type of violence, ranging from warfare to personal self-defense, or that there is no just war? Absolutely not.

As I have written here before, violence is not inherently evil. God commanded the ancient Israelites to take possession of the land of Palestine and to exterminate its inhabitants. And not without reason, because its inhabitants were in every way corrupted. This was God's will for the Israelites. The Mosaic Law did, however, exhort the Israelites to be friendly toward strangers as they had been strangers in the land of Egypt also. The Mosaic Law also clearly condemns theft, envy, corruption, rape, and murder - many of which are punishable by death. Nowhere does the Bible condemn personal self-defense and the protection of one's family, tribe, nation, or one's possessions - even if this involves the killing of the offender. Abraham and his servants were trained in warfare but they did not engage in unnecessary violence (Gen 14). The Bible tells us to avoid violence in general and I believe it does forbid Christians to commit excessive violence or cruelty as well as unnecessary violence and vengeance (Lev 19:17-18, Ps 94, Lk 6:28-30, Lk 18:7, Rom 12:19, 2 Thess 1:7-9, etc etc). In addition, the Bible tells Christians to submit to the lawful authorities and to obey the law (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2), except of course when the authorities defy the law themselves and demands from Christians that they commit things that are contrary to the Christian faith, or that they give up their faith altogether and face execution if they do not. If the Bible told us to blindly obey the nation then there would not be any persecuted Christians and martyrs, for instance the Christian converts in the Islamic World, China, etc.

As far as war is concerned, contrary to what the Anabaptists teach, the Bible does not command or even suggest that a Christian cannot serve in the military. Indeed one of the first Christians we hear of in the Gospels is a Roman centurion (see Matthew 8). When Jesus died on the cross, another Roman centurion confessed that He was truly the Son of God (Matthew 27). Again, Christians must submit to the authorities and the laws that govern his nation. It ends there when the authorities command a Christian to commit sin against God and forsake the Christ and His Church. After all, a Christian is first and foremost part of the universal body of believers which transcends earthly nations; submitting to the lawful authorities does not equal a blind adherence to some nation-venerating political cult (i.e. idolatry). However, this spiritual reality should never be an excuse to deny earthly realities and forsake one’s duties in the here and now.

I agree that religion is very adaptive.  I also agree that religious maxims, and ethical or moral considerations notwithstanding, religious communities must resort to violence in certain instances if the religion and the community are to survive.

Bhuddism will not be extinguished, but Tibetan Bhuddism may be.  A handful of celebrities aside, the peaceful response to Chinese occupation, colonization and cultural destruction, has not made Bhuddism particularly attractive.  Indeed, Tibetan non-violence has only encouraged Han Chinese oppression.

Christianity definitely tends towards peaceful co-existence with other communities, however, the inclusion of various Scriptures (mainly the Old Testament), allow for interpretations that permit crusades against non-Christians and "heretical" sects. 

Your complement is noted and reciprocated.

It is true that a Christian is not precisely a pacifist. He will take military action when he has not seen far enough ahead to prevent the need for violence in the first place. When violence is needed, the genuine Christian leader will fight until he has achieved his goal, and then stop, saddened at the need for bloodshed and with resolve to foresee better into the future. Why can't Taoists agree with that? 

Any statistics on war casualties are 'deeply flawed', of course. Yet, in the history of warfare I don't detect much effort for non-violence by the Christian inspired warlords. And Stalin and Hitler were doubtlessly Christians as they were educated in that sense. They indeed relayed on the presupposition of 'moral duty of violence', they even constructed ideologies on it.
PS: what's the contrary to 'naïve over the top'?
He who conquers others is strong;
He who conquers himself is mighty. Lao-tsé

I’m glad to read these optimistic notes, Mr Elst, but I can’t say I full heartedly believe them. History shows that religion comes with waves. Successful religions as Christianity and Islam have built in defense mechanisms that make them adapt at all times. If they hadn’t they wouldn’t have survived for so long. In times the enemies come from the outside, one can read in Bible and Koran verses that call for the destruction of the external enemy. In fact these are the easy times for those religions. Religiosity flourishes in hate for the other. In good times religions show their peaceful faces of non-violence and tolerance. This often leads to a reduced interest in religion, causing a threat from the inside. When the threat comes from the inside, one has often different defense mechanisms. One is called “renewed mysticism”, and is the least harmful of them all. It stems from a refusal to give up the peaceful nature of the religion, but it is mostly not very successful. The other one is fundamentalism and comes with a lot of psychological violence. Indoctrination, reduction of women rights, expelling of the community, hate speech and the creation of external enemies are the most common symptoms. One can trace all these different waves easily in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

I thought as you did that the fruits of science would finally proof to be a working anti-dote against the excesses of religion. Certainly in Europe we witnessed a sharp retreat of religiosity. But religion proves to be much harsher then I thought. New-age religions and fundamentalist churches coming from overseas are on the rise. Suddenly creationism and intelligent design are pushing sound and thorough scientific founding’s as evolution in to defense. I’m not so optimistic as you are Mr Elst. Not for Islam, and not for Christianity.

Apparently, there is here a Western perverse self-hater who seems to think that the leadership of the Japanese Imperial army and the Chinese Politbureau (in Mao's time), as well as Stalin and Hitler, were "Christians".  He/She also seems oblivious to (or ignorant of) the respective contents of the New Testament and of the Koran.

As to the so-called "Iraq war", the same person sheepishly parrots manifestly-false information, and consciously ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi 'victims' were casualties of intra-Arab and Kurdish violence.  But, it is probably true that the Iraq-Iran war (in the 1980's) caused more than 1.5 million victims.    

Finally, any serious moral judgement - not to be confused with citing true or false statistics - about "violence" cannot be divorced from the underlying reasons and purposes of said violence. Sometimes, "violence" can be a moral duty.

The answer to your question is to be found in a correct interpretation of the statistics you offer in support of your own anti-Christian and deeply flawed hypothesis.

Don't make me laugh:
Napoleonic Wars 3,5 million
Crimean War 0,4 million
World War I 22,5 million
World War II 61 million
Korean War 2 million
Vietnam War 4,2 million
Iraqi War 1,32 million
... are there any 'non-christian' comparable figures?

@ Erdebe

It is not clear what it is exactly that you agree with me on.  I certainly do not agree with your message.

My message was addressed to Westerners, not to muslims. And my message was that "Westerners better focus on restoring their own lost freedoms in the West itself and on asserting their own traditional Western values, both at home and in the international arena".   

I agree with marcfrans here. I think its all a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap! The only way to get out of Islam is by its total destruction. I think the solution is to give the muslims the same choice Islam gives us: convert or die!

Whereas Islam endorses killing and violence, Christianity rejects these.  If Christianity informed any of Europe's "wars of religion", it was in a perverted form.

Western values are being assaulted on two fronts the primary adversary being the invisible chains of totalitarinism that is cultural relativism.  

The second and more tangible adversary is Islam exploiting the moral vacum created by the mockery of christianity and the flight of spirituality, the average European has no concept of religious fervour or of understanding the power of religious extremism and therefore has no way of gauging the mortal danger he now faces. The space where there was once moral fibre now acts like random memory - open to suggestion, volatile and prone to corruption.

The answer maybe to fight fire with fire, religion with religion.

"We don’t have much to fear from the Islamic aggressor."

This is true enough. Our real problem isn't Islam. It is the lack of unity and self-confidence here in the West. A West that was united against Islam, a West that was willing to do whatever it took to prevent Islam from making many inroads here, would not be having these problems. Instead, Islam would be under attack (as Christianity is) from secularists and atheists. Think about how the Han Chinese recently had no hesitation in seeking revenge against Muslims in western China.

But as it happens, many here in the West suffer from guilt about the West and are bending over backwards to help immigrant Muslims (even the reactionary Muslims). And these people aren't the little people who don't have power. They are the ones who control our media and schools. These people got a bit of a shock recently when they realized that it was people like themselves who were protesting against Ahmadinejad in Iran, thus proving that being anti-American doesn't automatically make one a "progresive." But they will soon return to their mindless ways.

Dr. Elst,

Freedom in this instance entails de-constructing Islam.   However, Muslims have not proven particularly keen on defecting from Islam, and the experience of Muslim apostates is indicative of further difficulties.  Firstly, Islam is a force for unity.  Islam bridges divides, and burning the bridges might permit the establishment of liberal Western-oriented enclaves, but beyond these "free cities", anarchy and chaos would reign.  Contemporary Islam cannot prevent Shias and Sunnis from massacring one another in orgies of sectarian violence, nor Salafist and Wahhabist jihadis from plotting revolutionary terror against "sheikhists"; it can only act as a damper.  In the absence of Islam's unifying force, these conflicts will escalate and intensify, and countless "frozen" ones will blaze once more.

Secondly, Muslim apostates tend to embrace atheism or another religion (mainly Christianity), rather than more fluid alternatives pre-dominating in the West e.g. nominal religiousity, agnosticism, etc.  This move from one fixed position to another, suggests that the apostates are uncomfortable with the socio-psychological vacuum that Islam once occupied.  They fill it with atheism or religion.  Atheism is as filling as religion, especially considering atheist apostates' efforts to enlighten their former co-religionists.  Islam therefore defines their lives, whether they are practicing or opposing it.  The process of diluting or moderating Islam suffers from a lack of supporters and in many areas it is still in its infancy.

This leads me to conclude that if de-Islamification is to be successful, re-construction not de-construction is the solution.  Islam must be supplanted by an ideology to which Muslims can transfer their allegiances, but one that enables peace and prosperity not only within and amongst Islamic societies, but also between these and the West.

The notion of a hopelessly fractious Islamic world may be tempting.  But as any coordinated and international Islamic threat is far from existential, the Pashtun clans will remain warlike, the Persians will vie for regional hegemony as before, and the banileues won't improve, the notion quickly loses its appeal.  Which is why I concur with marcfrans that there is no "easy way out".

1)  The article makes clear that Clenardus failed "to liberate Muslims from the mental prison of Islam" in the 16th century, but expresses the belief/hope that contemporary Westerners will be more succesful in that endeavor.  That is a rather optimistic vision, and the empirical evidence to support it seems, at best, mixed. 

If one makes the broad comparison between today and one generation ago, the following trends should be obvious:

-- In the West itself, Islam is more sheltered from criticism today than it was a generation ago.  That is particularly visible in Western Europe were 'speech' is less free today than then.  And, the election of Obama in the US, less than one decade after 9/11, is not a hopeful sign either in that respect. 

-- In the Muslim world, there is little sign of a 'mellowing' of the islamic establishment.  Rather, one sees the opposite in terms of greater accomodation of Islam by (presumed) 'secular' autocrats.

-- In the international arena, particularly within the United Nations and its numerous affiliated institutions,  the growing weight of nonwestern authoritarian regimes and cultures goes hand in hand with an increasing gap between 'words' and 'deeds'.  In fact, the degree of hypocrisy and the abuse and misuse of language has never been greater, since the founding of the UN at the end of WW2.

2)  The thesis that globalisation ("the impact of knowledge", presumably knowledge about the outside world) will eventually lead to more freedom in the islamic world seems remarkably similar to another belief that is commonly (but, I think, mistakenly) held by many Westerners, namely the belief that globalisation (and associated economic growth) would lead to more freedom in the former communist giants, China and Russia.  There is little evidence for the latter.  Just like Marxist leaders make their accomodations (and alliances) with 'big business', so do Muslim autocrats make their accomodations with the clerical establishment.  But, in neither case, is freedom for individuals around the corner in the foreseeable future.

3) One could say that it is largely a matter of time perspective, but that is a cop-out.  The question is whether there are clear signs of progress, and I do not see them in the Muslim and the ex-communist world.  At the same time, there are clear signs of decline in the (former) 'free world' of the West.  Before Westerners can even begin to contemplate to help "liberate Muslims from the mental prison of Islam", Westerners better focus on restoring their own lost freedoms in the West itself and on asserting their own traditional Western values, both at home and in the international arena.       

I agree 200% with your position, specifically the last 2 paragraphs.
I had to laugh when Wikipedia called Cleynaerts a traveller.