As the political Left grows ever more bold, a great lie has made itself felt in political discourse: approval has been conflated with tolerance. And, correspondingly, disapproval has been confused with intolerance. Unless you give your wholehearted approval, your undiluted dedication, to the Cause of the Moment, you are labeled intolerant. No evidence is sufficient to dispel the charge, no apology is abject enough to forgive it, and long years will not wash it away. It is permanent and forever.
Nowhere is this philosophy more applied in modern discourse than the subject of homosexuality. Christians are labeled bigots and haters because many of them do not wish to celebrate the practice, nor to contribute to ceremonial trappings surrounding it. If invited to such things, many will decline, though some will not. Representatives of the church are usually expected to avoid engaging in the practice, though some churches have made exceptions. They are sinners, for their practice is a sin. But all of us are sinners, likewise, differing only in the sins we choose to commit.
Yet, in the pews of the church, homosexuals are made welcome. No church law prohibits them from coming, or from worshiping Christ with their fellows. Indeed, since Christians would regard them as afflicted with a peculiar sin, it is most important that they find Christ. Mark 2:17 explains for us:
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Christ ministered most to those who needed it most, and so if we consider gays to be afflicted with a sin that is difficult or even impossible for them to break, it nonetheless behooves the Christian to minister to him, and to welcome him to Christ’s church. If Christians are supposed to hate gays so much, why would they welcome such people to their own spiritual home? There is no hate here.
Now, this is where SJWs and their ilk will say that we wish to make them self-loathing for their homosexuality. That we want them to hate themselves, and to make them deny their own nature. This is also false. There are sins that I commit frequently, though I won’t bore my readers with a long listing of my personal failings. Nonetheless, I know them to be wrong in the eyes of the Lord, and I repent of them. Yet, many times, I fail to find the strength of will to avoid repeating them.
Most people I know suffer this to some extent. Each of us has those areas in which we are weak. The point is not to deny this, or to hate yourself for doing them, but to understand that you are not perfect, that you are not Christ, and that you categorically will do wrong. From gluttony, to envy, to lust, and host of other sins, we all have failings. Every single one of us will fail, gays included.
No, Christianity does not single out homosexuality for special status in the roster of possible sins. Indeed, homosexuality didn’t even make the Ten Commandments. My frequent use of the Lord’s name in vain, a terrible habit I am trying to curb, is arguably worse. But if you wish to come to the church, and know Christ, and be Christian, then you must acknowledge that you do wrong. All Christians must do this. Homosexuals do not get a special exemption from this.
It is precisely that special exemption which the Social Justice folks have continually demanded. They demand that the Christian participate, under penalty of fine, lawsuit, loss of business, and other ills, in the ceremonies conducted on behalf of gays. To fail to do this, they say, is a form of hatred.
Is it? Is saying “I don’t want to be involved in your business” truly a form of hate?
But beyond that, this is, to the Christian, similar to cheating on your wife, then celebrating it Sunday morning at the church. Yes, many in the church pews may cheat. Some may be serial cheaters, even. There may even be those who practice open relationships, which may still be regarded as a corruption of marriage. Yet should the pastor get behind the pulpit and say that cheating is good, and we ought to celebrate the behavior? Does he preach marriages between one man and many women (or, for that matter, the opposite)? Does he, himself, engage openly in these things and recommend them to others?
No. There is a great difference between knowing that sins of lust are being committed by most people in the room, and celebrating those sins openly, even conducting ceremonies around them. Gays get no special treatment, nor any special condemnation, for this. Welcome to the club, we say, you are sinners too.
Homosexuality is tolerated by most Christians, insofar as they won’t hate you for it, nor expend undue effort to convert you from the behavior. There are even those who may attend your ceremonies, not so much out of Christian belief, but because of close friendship for reasons likely unrelated to your sex life. But the practice is not approved any more than having sex with your neighbor’s wife is approved.
Social Justice has a habit of putting everyone into only two categories: ally and enemy. If you are not one, then you must be the other. An intelligent individual knows that it is possible to be neither, or shades of either. I am probably more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality than most Christians, because of my natural libertarian instincts and because I have DJed for them for a long time, so I have befriended more than a few over the years.
But even I have no patience for those who come and demand that the church change its practices for them. Sorry, pal, I know it sucks, but you’re a sinner too. There are no special provisions for your sins, they are no better or worse than our own. You cannot remake us into your own image. If you wish to be Christian, then I welcome you. But this means accepting your own imperfections, just as I have accepted mine, and not attempting to spin yourself as free of sin. Don’t glorify your sins, or call us bigots when we don’t join you in such glorification.
This entryism is nothing more than a ruse to subvert the church itself, and to twist the message of Christ. It attempts to take advantage of a Christian’s natural inclinations toward peace and tolerance, and steer them into tolerating the destruction of the church, and the handing over of the reigns of power to arbiters of Social Justice, giving to them the power to determine what is good and what is evil, what is approved and what is not approved.
Christianity is not intolerant of homosexuality. It is intolerant of willful attempts to destroy the church.
I welcome gays into Christianity. I hope that more of them find Christ. I do not hate them, nor have I ever hated them. But I do not welcome SJWs, or any other subversive entryists. They attempt to usurp the role of Christ himself, and to take over his church, to dictate right and wrong as if they were the Son of God themselves. It is the same thing they do everywhere else, attempting to gain power and control, and gays are merely their political pawn in this quest. They have long used our general willingness to get along against us. They have weaponized empathy.
But they have forgotten what Christ did when he found the moneychangers profaning the Temple. Remember, Good is not always Nice. And tolerance of the intolerable is merely cowardice.
The older I become, the more abortion bothers me. I used to be vaguely pro-choice, though not terribly concerned about the matter. But the birth of my son really changed my view on it.
Obama once said that he didn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby.” Why is a baby a punishment? Certainly, they are a lot of work, and can cost a lot of money. But people are fond of saying that family and friends are more important than money, right? Certainly your own offspring ought to be, also.
My son is a lot of work, and especially so for my wife right now. He is only 15 months old, and so he is firmly rooted in his “I want mommy” stage. But, nonetheless, he has made our home a happier place, not a more miserable one. When he sees something for the first time, it is with wonder, even if it may be the most mundane thing in the world.
Peter Singer is reputed to have said the following, back in the 70s:
“human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
I dispute this. But there is more. Some suggest that a child is not fully human until 4 or 5 years of age, and it would be ethically permissible to kill them at that age. Now, this is an extremist view, and is not particularly common even among the Pro-Choice crowd. Nonetheless, it goes against my own experience. I have fragmentary memories from before 2 years of age. And by 3, I have very fully-formed memories. I was reading, writing, and thinking for myself to a great extent. The point is, I was a thinking human being at least as far back as my second year of life, perhaps further.
My son is a very inquisitive child. He has an engineer’s mindset, that much is apparent already. He is very good at figuring things out, taking things apart, and making sense of how they work. By the time he could crawl, he had discovered that remote controls worked on the TV. Ever since, he has had a habit of trying to steal them so he can change the channel (something that amuses him greatly).
Before he was even 9 months old, he would point at the back door and yell something rather incoherent, but which we knew was him trying to imitate us telling the dog to go outside. He would look at the dog when he did this, so it was clear he understood what pointing meant, what the back door was for, and that the dog was clearly supposed to go through it when commanded to do so.
He is a thinking human being.
I can’t give you a fixed timestamp for when this occurs, but I do know that the Pro-Choicers are wrong in how they view children, babies, and even fetuses. They see a burden where I see a joy. They see something to fear, when I see one of the few good things the world has to offer.
They see a clump of cells where I see a human.
Happy that he has his toys.
But definitely doesn’t want me to “redistribute” the toys to someone else.
How can anyone say he is not a human being?
Others have summed up the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia better than I can. But I wanted to post something to mark the passing of this man.
I don’t always follow the workings of the Supreme Court as often as I should, because many different things battle for my time and attention. But one thing that always stood about him was how seriously he took the Constitution. Whereas others were inclined to take the Constitution as a roadblock to their own policy wet dreams, Scalia chose instead to look at it as a guide.
“If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, because the juice is not worth the squeeze.”
Judicial activism is one of the major issues of our time. On what basis did the court rule on gay marriage, either in the affirmative or the negative? The Supreme Court is to handle cases of Constitutional law and crisis, and the Constitution makes no mention of the institution of marriage, much less that of specific demographics. Since powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states or the people, it should have been struck back down to the states for resolution.
And if people really wanted a law passed, it could have come via Congress.
Scalia’s own dissenting opinion on the matter is reflective of his understanding of this issue:
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,”
Scalia may have been a child of Italian immigrants, but he was firmly rooted in the Anglo-American tradition of limited government. Were he alive in the Revolutionary period, I am certain the Founders would have found common cause with him.
And I guess that’s why I mourn his passage as I do. He represented what old school Republican government was supposed to look like. He understood the dangers of authoritarianism, and held on to that position despite his appointment to one of the highest offices of the land. In an era of political courts, he was the sole voice of Constitutional reason. His political angle was to go to the Constitution when questions needed answering, instead of going to the opinion polls.
We won’t see his like again for awhile. In an era when even “Conservatives” are forgetting just what they were supposed to conserve, when Socialism and Authoritarianism are all the rage, he was a throwback to the days of the early Republic. Even if we had a Conservative Congress (we don’t, by the way), and a Conservative President, I doubt another could be found to fill his shoes. As it stands, I despair that we’ll find anyone to the Right of Karl Marx.
“God has been very good to us. One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”
He was a Godly man, so I have no doubt that he found his proper reward.
My search for a proper home in Christianity continues. But as that journey continues, I would like to share my thoughts on a Biblical verse highly appropriate for our time:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:12 & 21:13
Socialists love to tout this particular quote as evidence that Christ was anti-Capitalism, and pro-Socialism. “See, look, he hated bankers!” This is, of course, a remarkably self-serving spin on it. They believe themselves capable of interpreting the words of the Son of God, two thousand years ago, in a context that is favorable to their own belief system as seen through the lens of a completely unrelated political ideology. It is extreme solipsism.
I’ve found that much of the New Testament is a study on human nature. So while interpreting Christ’s words in modern political terms is often an exercise in futility, his lessons are nonetheless eternal.
I’ve spoken at length before on the subject of Leftism doing the exact, 180 degree opposite of what is moral and right. They will, for instance, demonize heterosexual sex between husband and wife as “oppressive.” Meanwhile, excuses are made for pedophiles and child molesters. This is the opposite of sense, of moral rightness. Indeed, it’s an inversion of Biblical morality.
This is precisely what was going on in the temple. It was supposed to be a house of prayer, where one was closer to God, and closer to righteousness. It was being used for the exact opposite purpose, to cheat people out of their money. God was turned into a business, and furthermore, that business was turned into thievery.
This is how a Danish woman who defended herself against a migrant rapist finds herself at the wrong end of the law, prosecuted and fined for daring to have the temerity to defend herself.
Christ did not whip the money changers for practicing a business, or making a profit. He whipped them for being thieves and cloaking themselves in God’s own righteousness as they conducted their theft. He revealed them as the impostors they were.
All I can say is, if cloaking one’s self in righteousness while practicing the intolerable is worthy of whipping, we will need a lot of whips to clean out the temple this time around.
A year ago or so, I wrote this post, a short history of why the Crusades happened, what the historical context was. In light of escalating Islamic violence, it bears repeating:
Vox.com is nearly as terrible a propaganda machine as Gawker, or the whole city government of Chicago. It is a machine, spewing lies for the benefit of its paymasters, filled with inane Social Justice Advocates. And they want you to know that Christians and Crusaders are as much a threat as militant Islamics.
Now, before I tear this pithy, oft-repeated argument a metaphorical orifice for the excretion of bodily waste, I will explain why this particular lie enrages me so. The Crusades touches upon a subject that has, in many ways, been my life’s work. The histories of the Byzantine Empire, the succeeding Ottoman Empire and the regional conflicts of Islam and Christianity have immense personal interest to me. In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that I am part Armenian by ancestry. Don’t let that influence you overmuch.
I can’t begin to impart what I have learned on this subject in one post. Forgive this brief summary, but also allow me to recommend some reading material if you want to dig deeper yourself: John Julius Norwich’s three volume series on Byzantium and Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy by Emmet Scott. I have dozens more I can give you if you want to read more than that. If it exists in English and it is a scholarly treatment on the subject, the odds are good I’ve read it.
Now, shall we see the best of Vox.com’s excuse for journalism?
Obama’s point was actually pretty simple. Let’s not pretend that Islam itself is to blame for ISIS or that Muslims are inherently more violent, he suggested, because the problem of religious violence is not exclusive to any one religion. In other words, don’t oversimplify the problem of ISIS to “Muslims are different from the rest of us.”
For an opening salvo in the ongoing Culture Wars, this is pathetic, worthy more of mocking than serious intellectual treatment. You see, Islam is different in this regard. Pew Research is widely regarded as Gospel by the Left. Let’s use their own data against them.
This study is oft-cited by them, because it shows that a majority of Muslims do not support the actions of terrorist groups and suicide bombers. Yet, look at the graphs. Double-digit percentages DO support these actions. In Palestine, support for suicide bombings is 46% (over 60% in Gaza). Even in moderate Turkey, it is 18%. Does anyone on God’s Green Earth think that 18% of Christians in America would support suicide bombings on Muslims? If so, that person is an unrecoverable addict to ignorance. And this is their data, not mine.
Many critics have described Obama’s assertion that Christians are equivalent to Muslims as insulting to Christians. Whether this is because they believe that Christians are inherently superior or that Muslims are inherently inferior is irrelevant. It is not so different from, say, 1960s white supremacists who called Martin Luther King an anti-white racist for asserting that white and black people are fundamentally the same.
Yes, it is different. Because we have data, right there, combined with common-sense understanding that terrorism is more likely to come from a specific source. A Muslim source. Think about it for a moment and chalk up all the terrorism to come from Christian extremist groups. Let’s be fair and include the Irish, quite possibly the only modern instance of organized Christian terrorism in recent memory. Islamic terrorism dwarfs it by orders of magnitude. Not only is identifying this not racist (as Vox.com implies here), but NOT identifying it is proof of a level of ignorance that should not be possible among anyone seriously claiming the title of journalist.
Amazingly, some have tried to dismiss Obama’s comparison altogether by arguing that, even during the Crusades, in fact Christians were the victims and Islam the aggressor.
And here comes the history lesson. It is true that Christians were not the aggressor. Your Social Studies teacher (why don’t they call that class history, I wonder?) lied to you. Your textbooks lied to you. Pop culture lied to you. President Obama is lying to you, right now. To understand the depths of lie, we must go back in history to a time before Mohammed, before Islam even existed, because this lie is so deep, so systemic, its tentacles reach into our entire understanding of European History. It hinges around a nation referred to repeatedly as the Byzantine Empire. Even now, some sense of the thing can be had in the phrase “byzantine politics”. That Empire is a black hole in history textbooks, and Leftists want to keep it that way, because any support for Islam in the West is likely to evaporate like a fart in a hurricane otherwise.
After the first Germanic invasion of the Roman Empire, in the Third Century, it became increasingly apparent that the Empire was too large to be ruled by Rome alone. The old classical civilization we know as “Roman” began to fall apart. Economic damage was great. Plagues and frontier wars increased. Sassanid Persia was a constant threat in the East. New religions (Christianity among them) sprung up all over the Empire. Much of the apocalyptic tone of early Christian writings serves as a dim cultural memory for what life in this time was like.
Christianity, in the person of Constantine, eventually reached the highest levels of State, and the Empire rapidly Christianized. The message of a better life in the next world reached receptive masses of people who knew their civilization was on the decline. Paganism hardly even put up a fight, and was extinguished in the Empire in a few generations. Rome’s syncretic meta-culture merged with Christianity to become what we now call “Western civilization.” Even as the second wave of German invaders entered the Empire, conquering vast territories, they were in turn converted by it.
There is an old quote that may or may not be apocryphal. But it captures the essence of how even the Germans felt about the situation: “An able Goth wants to be like a Roman; only a poor Roman would want to be like a Goth.” The height of the Germanic second wave captured approximately half the old Roman Empire.
500 AD. The classical configuration of the German successor kingdoms. The largest, most powerful realms were the East Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom, the Vandal Kingdom, the Visigothic Kingdom and the Frankish Kingdom.
They were all Christian, by this point. Many had been for over a century. To see how pervasive the Roman influence was, look at a common Spanish surname: Rodriguez. This is a Latin pronunciation of a German name, Roderic (the Latinized variant would be Rodericus). The Germans were speaking Latin, by and large, within the old Empire. They embraced the culture, the language and the religion. Who knows what modern Europe might look like today if this had been allowed to continue? Even then, the Romans were not done.
Scratch two German Kingdoms, and part of a third.
What we call “Western” civilization was actually once Mediterranean civilization. The inner sea had produced a sort of united meta-culture over top the local polities, and the Romans brought them together into one Empire (often through violence, but also often enough through peaceful means). Christianity provided them with one religion. Greek and Latin with two languages. You see, Europe in those days really was a sort of union, not like the pathetic excuse for a modern European “Union”. Even the distant Franks considered themselves to be a part of it.
Islam brought an end to all of this. I cannot overstate the damage Islam did to Western civilization. In the 600s, even the semi-barbaric Lombards, who had established themselves in northern Italy, used gold coinage. The Carolingians, arguably the most powerful successor to the West Roman Empire, could only manage silver coinage, and even then not a whole lot of it. The inner sea became rife with Muslim pirates. Muslim invasions destroyed ancient monuments and wrecked ancient cities. Even after the devastating destruction Rome visited upon Carthage, that city had been rebuilt and repopulated within a few decades. It was even the capital of the Roman province and the Vandal Kingdom.
Carthage was completely destroyed by the Arabs, never to return. Islam flooded the Empire, licking its wounds from a freshly terrible war with Persia. In a century, two-thirds of the Roman Empire was in the hands of Islam. The connection between the Eastern and Western Roman worlds was severed. But, somehow, both survived. Charles Martel defeated the Muslims in France, and the Romans defeated them in two of history’s most brutal sieges at Constantinople.
But the economy was devastated. Literacy rates dropped through the floor, because subsistence farming became the norm. Trade was reduced by an order of magnitude, and it would be almost 600 years before the Italians brought it back. There was no time available for scholarly studies. Only the church could afford such extravagance, and even then only in moderation. Vox.com and the Social Justice crowd would have you believe Christianity is some backward, anti-science cult. The fact remains that the church was the only scholarly light in that age. Modern science would not exist without Christianity. This is how much damage Islam did.
Do you see what he’s working on? Yes. That’s a book. And Monks were pretty much the only ones who had them. Even Emperor Charlemagne was *barely* literate. Things were so bad, even Kings didn’t have time for books.
In modern politics, it is fashionable to think of an Islamic “Golden Age” of learning and prosperity. In reality, this was the final flowering of the conquered cultures. Most great Islamic philosophers and architects were converts to Islam. And Islam was serious about those conversions. Oh, “People of the Book” were periodically tolerated to some degree, but immense economic and social pressure was placed on them to convert. And convert they did. The Persians were also conquered by Islam. They practiced Zoroastrianism. Today, the only Zoroastrians you’ll find are in India, where some of them fled to escape Islam. The religion was equally effective in scouring the Middle East and North Africa of Christians and Jews. By 900 AD, the Islamic “Golden Age” had become a nightmare. The Arabs couldn’t run a whorehouse in port full of drunken sailors, much less a functioning multi-ethnic Empire.
Christianity seems to have done the same, some would say, except that when Christianity took over the Roman World, it did so largely peaceably. Christian nations functioned, and did so even after the population converted. Not so with Islam.
For nearly one thousand years, the rump state of the Roman Empire, which modern history contemptuously dismisses as the Byzantine Empire fought a life-or-death battle with Islam. And, in 1453 it lost. Istanbul, not Constantinople, as the song famously tells us. Anatolia, once one of the greatest bastions of Christianity would henceforth be Islamic. Can you imagine that titanic struggle? It is almost inconceivable to the modern historian, who has no contemporary basis for comparison.
Siege of Constantinople, 1453. You think the Alamo was a good last stand? This was history’s greatest siege, bar none. 7000 Christian militiamen and sailors against 100,000 Turkish soldiers for almost two months. Yet you will never see a movie about it — it would offend Muslims (even though Muslims WON).
Emperor Alexius asked Pope Urban II for help against the invaders. Even he could not have foreseen the response he got (he just wanted to borrow some knights). For a moment all of Europe and even the Byzantines themselves (Eastern Christians and Western Christians were not always very friendly) united against Islam. And Islam lost. Badly. Everywhere, Islam was on the defensive. They lost ground in Spain, the middle East, Anatolia and even Tunisia (where the Normans established an African kingdom in the 1100s). For a short time, it looked like Islam would be kicked out of the old territories of the Roman world, that 500 years of Islamic conquest would be reversed.
Alas, it was not to be. The Christians squabbled among themselves. The Fourth Crusade betrayed the Byzantines and gutted their strength. King Guy proved himself the worst ruler the Kingdom of Jerusalem would ever see, marching out to fight Saladin without even having a secured water supply, in the desert. Only in Spain would the reconquest become permanent, even then that war lasted 800 years. Elsewhere, it was all undone. Not only were the Crusades a defensive measure, a reaction to 500 years of Muslim conquest, they were an ultimately ineffective measure. Christians were their own worst enemies. Shortly after the Crusades were done, the Byzantine Empire would fall, and with it the last great defensive bulwark in the East. The Balkans would henceforth be the plaything of the Ottoman Sultans. The resulting cultural and religious mess (wherever Islam goes, chaos follows) would be directly responsible for World War I, and as a result, indirectly for the World War II. Bosnia still seethes with the aftermath of centuries of Islamic rule.
For some reason, most of this history is censored from public schools and universities. Disdain for the Byzantine Empire is evident going back even to Gibbon’s time. But it metastasized with the advent of Leftism. Analyzed by itself, the Crusades look pretty bad for Christians, but that’s only because modern Social Justice Warriors have expanded on this and censored the entire Muslim Jihad. A millennium of violence was excised from the high school textbooks. Go pick one of those Social Studies books up. See if you can find even a hint of any of this. This is deliberate on the part of Leftist intellectuals. They know this and desire for the West to be destroyed. With the end of the Soviet Union, their best hope for the destruction of the West is Islam. They will suppress the truth at every opportunity in pursuit of their totalitarian, apocalyptic goals.
Islam is a plague, worse than the locusts of Egypt. It destroys entire civilizations, erases history and replaces it all with a religion that hasn’t advanced in 1400 years, a religion whose people have double-digit support for outright terrorism and suicide bombing. Even in Nazi Germany, it’s hard to imagine support levels like that.
To be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama’s historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it’s okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them.
Vox.com conflates hatred of a belief system (Islam) for hatred of a people. Does that mean all Muslims are evil? No. Not even a majority are evil. No totalitarian regime in the history of Earth, not even the Nazis, not even the worst Muslim regimes, have ever managed to excise all the good from people. It is not possible to do. But Islam tries anyway. And that’s the whole point. Christians have done great wrongs, same as any other people. But Islam encourages the wrongs. Islam desires the wrongs. It will not stop until the world is Muslim, until every other culture and belief system has been systematically eradicated, as it has already achieved in its own territories (see: ISIS). And then it will work on those people it deems as insufficiently Muslim. Many of the worst victims of Islamic violence are other Muslims. Go ahead and preach female equality in the Sudan. I dare you.
It must be stopped. The Crusaders tried and failed. Too much petty bickering. Too many bad men seeking only power got involved. But the idea remains.
So let me say what ought to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell: WE NEED ANOTHER CRUSADE. Not some namby-pamby nation building exercise. I mean rapid, violent, and complete destruction whenever *any* Muslim nation dares attack the West. Take ten of them for every one of us. Blow up one of our schools? We blow up ten mosques. They blow up our office buildings? We blow up whole cities. Escalate until even the most pig-headed (pun) Islamic says enough and cries uncle. Imams should fear us. Muslim fathers should hush their children at the first mention of Allahu Ackbar in a public space. Then, perhaps, the moderate Muslims everyone talks about will overthrow their extremist brethren, for fear that we will kill them if they don’t.
Let’s work on reducing that double-digit approval rating for terrorism, shall we?
That was it for the original post.
But there is more to tell. A year ago, I saw very little mention of the Crusades, except the usual Leftist claptrap about how they prove that Christianity was just as bad (but they really mean worse) as Islam. It provided them with an excuse to dismiss Muslim violence: it’s all just payback for a few wars a thousand years ago.
Their point, of course, is that we deserve it, though they rarely say so openly. They’ll weasel out of the position if accused. But we know their hearts on this matter. If they could snap their fingers and make Christianity disappear, they would do so without hesitation.
But today, I see Christians waking up to the threat. I see dawning realization in people that Islam is not the religion of peace. It is the religion of submission, of conquest. And, lastly, I have seen those two famous words echoing within communities of Christians…
In light of how the American government has been caught tacitly supporting ISIS, the new Crusade I call for must begin here. The Reconquista begins at home, as it did for the Spanish centuries ago. And only then can we utter the words that, someday, must be repeated if we are to survive:
There was once a splendid civilization, full of grandeur, the compiled knowledge of the ancient world, the economic hub of entire continents.
History calls it the Byzantine Empire, and, at least for me, it remains an object of intense curiosity. During the erroneously-named Dark Ages, the Byzantine world was the center of Christianity, the last remnant of the Roman Empire. For centuries, it was the medieval superpower of Europe and Asia, and the only nation to ever treat with the otherwise-invulnerable Caliphate as an equal.
It is gone, now, subsumed into the Islamic world and slowly erased over the course of centuries. Echoes of it remain in Eastern Europe, Russia, Armenia and Georgia, but they are just that: echoes.
People forget that Christianity was originally an Oriental religion, born out of the Roman near-east, and spread across Rome, the Middle East, and the Persian Empire. In some respects, it was the final culmination of Hellenism, as begun by Alexander the Great, the synthesis of the Mediterranean West and the Near-East.
All of that legacy is gone.
I speak of this because this legacy is, in some parts, my own. My grandfather spoke of it wistfully, from time to time. Oh, the Byzantine Empire was long gone even in the day of my great-grandfather, Ezra. But Ezra saw its ruins, and in that was intense beauty. He had a sense of living in the ruins of a world that was, in some ways, greater than the one in which he resided.
I will never see it. The legacy of the old Byzantine world is gone.
Islam destroyed it. Its institutions and learning were destroyed, its architecture destroyed or converted to the service of the mullahs. Its penultimate monument, the Hagia Sophia, remains covered in the calligraphy of the prophet.
Progressives often lament the conquest of North America by the British colonists and their successors. Yet, at the same time, the Ottomans were busying themselves lording over the conquered Byzantine world, destroy its culture, converting its people, and doing everything the colonists were accused of doing and more.
And then, as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, they annihilated as many of my own forebears as they possibly could, perhaps out of spite for the impending destruction of their own Empire.
It’s strange, but there are times I dream of it, a place I will never see, and a world I will never know.
This is a warning to the West. Islam is coming for you. Just as the Byzantines once thought themselves invincible, lording behind the impregnable Theodosian Walls, so does the West not understand the danger they face. And like the betrayers of the 4th Crusade, so does the threat to weaken the West lie within, in the form of the Progressives and Social Justice Warriors.
The Turk comes for you. He marches on Vienna, again. Will you fight, or surrender? Will the West join the Byzantine world in oblivion? Will its cathedrals blare the clarion call of Mohammed?