The Fate of the West

burqaIt’s all very simple. We can’t fight Islam in the West without fighting the enablers of Islam in the West, namely the Leftists.

And, since the Left has many different and separate aspects, we have to fight against each one of them. Secularism, environmentalism, global warming alarmism, homosexualism, militant feminism, sexual relativism, multiculturalism, anti-Christianity, Islamophilia, post-nationalism, and internationalism are just as important targets to attack as Marxist economics, the expropriation of the capitalist class (or, in its modern reincarnation, redistribution of wealth), and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Neglecting any of these fronts is like fighting a war leaving a battleground to the enemy, like fighting on the western front and leaving totally undefended the eastern one.

Secularism and atheism are certainly the first lines of important wars.

A secularist West will always lose to Islam, because it will have enough compassion, tolerance and self-restraint from violence that are the remnants of its Christian heritage, but it will have lost the ideals, the passion and certainty of fighting for a just cause that were once part of Christianity and have disappeared with its erosion.

Two quotes here serve as epigrams. Robert Spencer wrote in his great work “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t“: “People who are ashamed of their own culture will not defend it.” And Dennis Prager said during one of his radio broadcasts, “Only good religion can counter bad religion.”

Some people claim that there won’t be a religious revival in Europe because we are past believing in God. That this is not true can be seen by the high – and increasing – number of Westerners who convert to Islam. Many of them give as a reason for their conversion the need for absolutes, boundaries and well-defined status.

A journalist writing for The Spectator on this subject explained why she is Catholic:

But above all, I like the moral certainties. I don’t mind the dogma one bit. I would rather dogma and impossible ideals than confusion and compromise. In that sense, I do identify with those who choose Islam over the way of no faith, or a seemingly uncertain faith, like the woolly old C of E.

William Kilpatrick, in Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West – a book I thoroughly recommend reading – writes:

Brian Young’s friends said he was troubled by the decadence of Western society. David Courtrailler’s lawyer said, “For David, Islam ordered his life.” These are the sorts of reasons ordinary converts to Islam give. A common refrain from converts is that Islam provides a complete plan for life in contrast to the ruleless and clueless life offered by secular society. As Mary Fallot, a young French convert, explains, “Islam demands a closeness to God. Islam is simpler, more rigorous, and it’s easier because it is explicit. I was looking for a framework; man needs rules and behavior to follow. Christianity did not give me the same reference points.” If you look at the convert testimonials on Muslim websites, they echo this refrain: Islam brings “peace”, “order”, “discipline”, and a way of life that Christianity and other religions fail to offer.

Human beings will never be past the need for believing in something bigger than themselves, because that need is part of the human mind.

Today the Christian religion is being replaced by the worship of the Goddess earth, New Age beliefs, the cult of celebrities (not coincidentally sometimes called “idols”), a blind faith in science, in chance as the creator and motor of the universe and in the absence of God.

And, last but not least, by Islam, which is increasingly filling the vacuum left by Christianity.

It is not surprising that Western people who feel a spiritual need may embrace Islam more easily than Christianity, when the latter has been the butt of constant attacks, denigrations and ridicule for a very long time, increasing since the 1960s, while the former is continually — albeit seriously mistakenly — praised as a religion of peace, tolerance and great wisdom.

Christian clergy is often criticized, sometimes rightly and sometimes not. But we tend to forget that clergymen are human beings, with all their imperfections. They too have been subjected to many decades of Leftist indoctrination and brainwashing. Even they, by the mere fact of living in this society, have been influenced by its insanity.

We can expect guidance from our leaders, yes, but rather than castigating them we should make the first steps.

A clear direction was given by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna, Italy.

As early as 30 September 2000, before 9/11, when very few in the West even thought of worrying about Islam, he delivered a very forward-looking speech, which included this premonition:

In an interview ten years ago, I was asked with great candor and with enviable optimism: “Are You among those who believe that Europe will either be Christian or cease to exist?” I think my answer then may well serve to conclude my speech today.

I think – I said – that either Europe will become Christian again or it will become Muslim. What I see without future is the “culture of nothing”, of freedom without limits and without content, of skepticism boasted as intellectual achievement, which seems to be the attitude largely dominant among European peoples, all more or less rich of means and poor of truths. This “culture of nothingness” (sustained by hedonism and libertarian insatiability) will not be able to withstand the ideological onslaught of Islam, which will not be missing: only the rediscovery of the Christian event as the only salvation for man – and therefore only a strong resurrection of the ancient soul of Europe – will offer a different outcome to this inevitable confrontation.

Unfortunately, neither “secularists” nor “Catholics” seem to have so far realized the tragedy that is looming. “Secularists”, opposing the Church in every way, do not realize that they are fighting against the strongest inspiration and the most effective defense of Western civilization and its values of rationality and freedom: they might realize it too late.

An effect of the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been the strong decrease in birth rates, that are now below the population replacement level (the replacing – and then some — is done by Muslims). Why have babies when you feel that you don’t have anything valuable to pass on to them?

I remember a time when my friends and contemporaries of child-bearing age (but childless) were saying to me things to the effect that there was no point – indeed it was a crime to engage — in bringing people into this terrible world. This is the talk of faithless despair, no hope in this or another world, lack of belief.

Militant atheists à la Richard Dawkins have not really given enough thought to the long-term consequences of their ideas, which we are beginning to see.

And of which we are reminded whenever, for example, we read in the news of doctors and missionaries who die of Ebola while assisting affected patients for Christian charities. Not many atheist charities are involved in that work.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Antonio Gramsci recognized that destroying Christianity and supplanting Judeo-Christian values was essential for the success of a Marxist revolution in the West. It has worked quite well in Europe, and it is working too well in America.

    Ironically, the transformational path laid by Gramscian marxists may ultimately serve the transnationalist goals of Islam far better than Marxism, but both Muslims and Marxists recognize their greatest obstacle is Christianity. Why don’t the people of Europe and America understand what those who would enslave or destroy them so readily acknowledge? How can a culture that knows less about its own strength than its mortal enemies hope to survive?

    It is a sad day when people become so lazy, arrogant, and self-indulgent that they ignore their own survival. The enemy is telling us what it will do, how it will do it, and what it fears most in our culture.

    Will the West wake up to the scourge it is inviting upon itself, and the world? Will people reconnect spiritually to what made the West what is once was? Not without great pain and loss.

    • mackykam

      The greatest obstacle is Judaism, not Christianity. All have failed in their attempts to crush and eradicate Judaism, including the church. Islam, too, will fail.

  • David

    “Secularism, environmentalism, global warming alarmism, homosexualism, militant feminism,.. are just as important targets to attack.”

    Some of these are what make the West superior to the Islamic World. Secularism (basing policy on rationality rather than belief), Environmentalism (actually caring about the condition of the natural world), homosexualism (defending Gay people’s rights and not encouraging them to hate themselves), and Feminism (actually viewing women as people and not as property), are actually pretty good things in most people’s estimate. In fact, to a large extent one of the reasons that Christianity has faltered has been to the degree that it has been used by people to justify their positions against these ideals because they lack a rational argument.

    • Jason P

      Enza fails to distinguish between different types of secularism. There is the strong type that upholds the rights of individuals, holds that there are moral absolutes, and historically underwrote the liberal order that allowed science and industry to flourish. This is the great achievement of capitalism and science.

      There is the weak type of secularism that is nihilistic, believes that there is no moral order and the majority can do what it wants. This type brings massive death and destruction in its wake. It brings skepticism, paternalistic government, lack of responsibility, and ultimately hatred of reason itself (reason requires work.) It’s self-indulgent and profligate.

      After the vicious religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, the West revived Greco-Roman secular thought, particularly its liberal strain. This was the Age of Enlightenment that gave us science and the United States of America. Natural rights and natural science went hand and hand. Religion was re-written to incorporate secular thought as most took their beliefs with a dash of common sense, not blind faith.

      The Islamic revival gives us an example of a pure religion, one not modified by the Greco-Roman liberal tradition of reason. It reminds us of some of the past horrors of all religions when reason is banned from the realm. Today’s Christians have so absorbed secular rational thought that they don’t realize how secular they are. Islam won’t revive Christianity … it will revive reason. Only then will we have the strong beliefs to fight Islam. A 11th century crusade is a pipe dream. We need a 18th century revival of reason.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        I see reason and logic being constantly degraded in response to islam. Reason and truth are degraded in any islamic state, in deference to the hellish holeiness of islam. Now we’re seeing fallacies of argumentation presented in defense of islam and accepted as valid, by the enemedia, politicians etc. Western civilisation is on the road to ruin. At least Yeshua’s ideology emphasized the truth, rather than the acceptance of lies in its place.

      • liz

        Exactly right. Christians don’t realize the extent to which today’s Christianity has been influenced by the Enlightenment’s contributions to freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          Do you think the enlightenment or Renaissance would’ve happened in an islamic Europe?

          • liz

            The Enlightenment and Renaissance happened in spite of a long suppression of its progress by the Church of that era. The Inquisition may ring a bell. Heretics were burned are the stake, stretched on racks, etc.
            A recent article here on FPM reported the execution of a “wizard” by Muslims. The killing of sorcerers and witches was big business in the Dark Ages, too.
            In fact, the authoritarian rule of the Church is what brought on the Dark Ages.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            You dodged my question. Christians brought about the end of slavery, both in Europe and the US. John Brown and his sons, Christians all, staged their own armed revolt in opposition to slavery in the US (and some of them were killed for it). Moslems are bringing back slavery (all there are some who would say it never actually went away in the islamic world). What was the religious makeup of the people who brought about the Reformation and Renaissance? Guess what? They weren’t atheists.

          • liz

            I didn’t dodge your question. I pointed out the similarities between pre-enlightenment Christianity and Islam. Both share an aversion to knowledge outside the bounds of what is written in their “holy” books.
            Just as Islam murders heretics, infidels, and witches today, Christianity did in the days prior to and during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
            And there actually were atheists among the people who helped bring about the Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            The vast majority of people who brought about the Reformation and Renaissance were Christian. Your argument that atheists brought about the Reformation is particularly ludicrous.

          • MukeNecca

            Liz can’t see, or perhaps can’t accept, that it is not an accident that Enlightenment is a native of the Christian civilization. Indeed it could only appear in civilization built upon judeo-christian values. She misses their principal unity and causal relation. The one who insists on seeing (true) Enlightenment and Christianity as two mutually exclusive things looks at the two through the extremely limited and simplistic crack in the wall of the cell where their minds are kept prisoners by the most crude, yet powerful, atheistic paradigm, which oppresses free thinking in much more totalitarian way than the Christian religion ever had. They presume to see further than Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Leibnitz… yet in overwhelmingly majority of cases their knowledge of history is purely anecdotal.

          • liz

            Interesting that you list Galileo in bolstering your argument.
            Are you so ignorant of history that you don’t know Galileo was imprisoned by the Church and forced to recant his discovery of the planetary orbits of the Sun?
            They persecuted him for this because it contradicted their notion, based on the Bible and Church doctrine, that the earth was the center of the universe. They did not tolerate any deviation from the established doctrines of the Church.
            This is only one of many examples.
            After his theory became accepted as fact, the Church quietly “revised” it’s version of events to sound more like a mere disagreement.
            Church history is the original revisionist history, creating the true mental prison of conformist thinking which various heretics, down through the centuries, risked their lives making cracks in.

          • MukeNecca

            How both uninteresting (and quite predictable among ignorant of history and science fed with the standard
            misinformation of atheism activists) that you should peddle the myth of Galileo in trying bolstering your argument. The other thing is that you are so eager to
            deliver the parrot talk that you don’t realize that even it were true it still wouldn’t had refuted my simple observation that the greatest minds in classical science
            had nothing to do with atheism and Galileo was one of them. So where is your refutation?

            You should know that at the very beginning
            of the “affair” Galileo was as much admired among the Church leaders including the Pope himself as was he disliked among the fellow professors at the University.
            Pope Urban who was himself a highly educated with broad interest and sharp intellect was deeply excited by Galileos teachings and very positively disposed toward him, whereas his colleagues at the University hated him for his being obnoxious, arrogant and scornful toward just about everyone who did not agree with him. He was a very nasty, but also very clever polemicist and humiliated skilfully anybody he disliked. And he disliked just about everyone.

            The colleagues complained about him to the highest authorities, but to no avail.

            Unfortunately for Galileo he had made a mistake of presenting his hypothesis as a proven science. He was challenged by his peers to offer a consistent proof and he, of course, could not. They complained to the Church authorities pointing out that Galileo had neither authority or proof to challenge the Scripture and the Church had no choice but to warn Galileo that he is getting perilously close to heresy. He was forbidden to present his thoughts as proven science, but only as a hypothesis. Not only he ignored the warning, but succeeded to, completely gratuitously, to insult Urban who, until then, had been was his staunches ally and personal friend. Only then he was summoned before the Inquisition and told to recant.

            Now listen, Liz,
            The Jesuits were teaching Copernicanism before Galileo mucked things up with his ego-clash with his old friend Urban.But they were properly teaching it as a mathematical method that accurately predicted the heavenly movements, and as a hypothesis. The
            prohibition was only on teaching it as proven fact until the empirical evidence was found. Copernicus’ book was current for the better part of 80 years before anyone made a fuss. It was written at the urging of
            several bishops and cardinals, and Pope Paul, to whom it was dedicated, quite enjoyed it.
            This alone indicates that it was not heliocentrism -per se- that was the core of the problem. It was rather Galileo’s personal
            re-interpretation of scriptures (whose literal sense had been understood as consonant with settled and established science for the better part of two millennia).
            Bellarmine told him that if he could come up with empirical evidence that the scientific consensus was wrong and the new theory was right, then the theologians would have to admit that the literal sense was understandably mistaken. But it was not an astronomer’s job to do so.

            As for his being jailed by Church after that it is helpful to look a bit closer at his conditions as a prisoner. Well,
            he was put in house arrest in the Palace of Bellarmine and enjoyed all its comfort indeed luxury that came with it including writing whatever he fancied.

            The reason why T.H. Huxley (an atheist, mind you) said that the Church had the better case was precisely because the Church was demanding empirical evidence
            and Galileo who wanted to be taken on faith. Once the empirical evidence was finally found in the early 1800s, Settele incorporated their proofs in his new astronomy text, took the text to the Holy Office; the board had found the evidence that Bellarmine had demanded, and they lifted the prohibition in 1820.

            Really, Liz. If you want to be taken seriously you need to study the subject before you talk about it. To be armed with atheist dogma and repeat thoughtlessly their pet, but many times debunked, myth is not enough.

            If you are really interested in the case I can refer you to the essay of Arthur Koestler, himself very celebrated
            atheist (you must have heard of him, no?) entitled “The Greatest Scandal in Christendom”. Have fun.

          • liz

            Seriously? If that’s all you can come up with to refute the facts, how sad. You can try to downplay it all you want, but the fact still remains that anyone who challenged the established dogma of the Church faced serious consequences.
            It doesn’t matter what kind of personality conflicts were at play here, or whether Galileo could “prove” his theory or not, or what kind of privileges he was allowed while imprisoned. The FACT is that he WAS imprisoned for disagreeing with the authorities.
            But making excuses (however weak) is predictable among those who blindly and uncritically promote religion in spite of any facts to the contrary.

          • MukeNecca

            A person who is unable to coherently formulate arguments, can’t hold to the essence of debate, but delivers instead a lame litany of worn-out boiler plates and peddles a long time debunked myths talks about sticking to facts? Are you drunk or terminally deluded?

            Let me remind you the first and irrefutable fact that it was you who to my simple observation that none of the greatest minds who had set in motion the scientific revolution of the Christian civilization were atheist tried to refute it with a weird argument, which besides being
            completely off-beam, was also perfectly incongruous. Really, where in that reflexive rant of yours can one find a simple refutation of my claim? You didn’t refute anything because you are unable to think independently and had to
            resort to regurgitating pathetic slogans. Your reaction is so automatic that you haven’t even noticed that the slogans you come up have not slightest relation to the subject. That why I referred to them as “parrot talk”.
            But I thought I will take the occasion to make you interested in the complete picture of the circumstances accompanying the legendary Galileo case, so you may possibly become more critical of the pabulum with which the
            priests of the religion of atheism are feeding its flock.
            Unfortunately the only thing you said – again not related to anything I said – is the comical:
            ” the fact still remains that anyone who challenged the established dogma of the Church faced serious consequences.
            Wow, that’s really original and profound. Well, first of all, at least in the case of Galileo, of which every leftist ignoramus worth his salt blabbers about, the above doesn’t really apply. A much more faithful to facts would be saying that “anyone who challenged the established dogma of the Church ”without presenting empirically demonstrable, or logical proof faced serious consequences. That makes an
            enormous difference, but I am not sure you are able to appreciate it.
            Oh, speaking about facing serious consequences for challenging the authorities – the thing has always accompanied man through his history, but never were the consequences more serious, indeed more deadly, as under the rule of atheists. Think of Himalaya of corpses – some 120 million of them produced by atheistic mass murdering
            monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…you now, the boys from your club.

            Well, excuse me, but in the competition for
            “serious consequences”, the Church has no chance to even enter the preliminary.
            Anyway, I’m done with you.

          • liz

            So basically your argument is that the Church was justified in persecuting anyone who challenged their dogma as long as these heretics failed to present “empirically demonstrable, logical proof” of their theories.
            The Church was perfectly entitled to imprison them or burn them at the stake, simply because they DARED to question religious authority without proof!?!
            That in itself is ridiculous. Persecution and murder of dissenters by those in power is never justified.
            And murder and genocide are equally deadly whether committed by the religious or by atheists, so the lame and tired argument that the Communists were much worse than the Christians holds no water.
            And by the way, the Communists murdered people in the cause of Communism, not atheism.

          • MukeNecca

            You said:
            ”So basically your argument is that the Church was justified in persecuting anyone who challenged their dogma as long as these heretics failed to present “empirically demonstrable, logical proof” of their theories.

            No basically, as you are getting desperate
            for argument -any argument, your ranting is getting increasingly hysterical and that’s why you came up with such pathetic straw-man and continue arousing yourself with more fantasies to finally climax in that prefabricated indignation.
            But OK, go back to my comment and quote me
            saying that the Church was justified, or not justified doing, or not doing, anything. Do you mean my pointing out your shocking ignorance about the principle employed by the Church for declaring a statement “nihil obstat” translates directly to some kind of “justification”? What logic convinces you that correcting you about basic fact is synonymous with passing an opinion about the Church?

            And then you come up with that gem:
            ”And by the way, the Communists murdered people in the cause of Communism, not atheism.
            Except that all communists and top Nazi were atheists and declared religion, especially Christianity, their formidable enemy, which they proved by erasing thousands of churches, desecrating religious objects and butchering millions of priests. Do you really think anyone can be a communist without being an atheist? No, atheism is the most basic and necessary element of the mental, moral and philosophical makeup of communism. Which of course doesn’t mean that every atheist must be an enemy of religion. I’ve met some who had no problem seeing the crucial role of the Church in creating the Western civilization and all its achievement – including the true Enlightenment. But they were way, way more intelligent, honest and knowledgeable than you.
            Anyway, that brings us to my first observation that none of the intellectual giants who made Enlightenment possible were atheists. The observation that started our exchange and which you were never able to deal with without displaying your ignorance and making a total fool of yourself.

            OK, I had enough of talking to a village atheist. I made a mistake assuming you may be smarter and better informed than you sound. Please, excuse me if I won’t reply to your future ranting, but you really are a total waste of time

          • Jason P

            There remains the question: because they were Christian or despite their being Christian? The good thing about Christians in the renaissance and enlightenment is that they could accept secular classical literature and build on that foundation. You are right that Muslims in the end failed to do that. They burned the books of their greatest philosopher, Averroes. But copies remained to influence Jewish and Christian thinkers. This led to an Aristotle Renaissance and set the stage for the great rebirth of Western civilization.

          • MukeNecca

            yes, ludicrous, but it also displays astonishing historical ignorance.

          • liz

            Of course they were Christian – in those days it was quite dangerous to profess any disagreement with the totalitarian leadership of the Church. Many atheists feared for their lives.
            What’s ludicrous is your naive belief in the Churches own revisionist history, in which they have done no wrong, and are responsible for every advancement of civilization.

          • Drakken

            Revisionist leftist garbage, islam and Christians/Jews do not in any way, shape or form worship the same God. There is no moral equivalence between us and them(muslims) period.

          • liz

            I never said They worship the same God. Regardless of the God worshipped, both religions have a history of authoritarian control over populations; the Christian church of the Middle Ages and Islam in any century.
            The church emerged from its authoritarianism under the influence of rational political, philosophical and scientific advancements.
            The separation of church and state established by our Founders removed the power of the Church to control citizens, and ushered in freedom of religion. The church didn’t give it up of its own accord.
            You are the one listening to revisionist garbage.

          • on_my_own_in_Berkeley

            I’m sure you know this, but it is worth mentioning because you don’t seem to take it into account. Medieval Christianity did not always follow the teachings and example of Christianity’s founder. Whereas both medieval and contemporary barbaric Muslims are following their founder’s example, and happily so. There’s a fundamental difference here!

          • Drakken

            Wrong! Where do you people learn your history from? It is because of Islam that we had the dark ages, as trade from East was cut off because of muslim expansionism. As for the Inquisition, more died on 9/11 than whatever the Spanish did, and they at least rid the Iberian peninsula of every last bloody muslim. The church for all its faults, brought about the Resurgence of Western Civilization.

          • on_my_own_in_Berkeley

            Too simplistic. A confluence of events brought on the “Dark Ages” which were not always as dark as depicted. And even during these times it was generally the Church which copied and kept alive learning from classical times.

    • Cornelius

      I’m with David. If history is any guide, the only way to deal with totalitarian threats is through coalitions. This is how Napoleon, Hitler and Soviet Russia were defeated, And the maxim is as true in terms of politics/sociology as it is on the battlefield. Secularists, homosexuals and feminists *should* be natural constituents of the anti-Jihad. The fact that they aren’t yet is due to the pernicious influence of left-wing ideology. Our job is to educate them, not push them into the enemy camp.


        They already are in the enemy camp – that’s why they support the Jihadists.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          Great reply.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Thanks! :)

        • David

          Bruce Bawer, Douglas Murray, Phyllis Chesler, and Julie burchill have both been outspoken opponents of the Jihad. Some socialists have taken a stand against radical Islam:

          Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware that most of the left supports the war against Western civilization and I am not arguing that those who do should not be confronted, but I also don’t wish to throw out the baby with the bath water.

          • IslamDownpressesHumanity

            “radical islam” the delineation without a difference.

          • NAHALKIDES

            I think it’s fair to describe Bawer and Chesler as Conservatives (yes, I know Bawer is gay, it’s no secret or I wouldn’t mention it publicly, but there’s no good reason gays shouldn’t be politically conservative). I don’t know Murray or Burchill. And perhaps some European socialists sense the danger as, for instance, Tony Blair did. There are more socialists in Europe than America, so they probably cover a wider part of the Leftist spectrum, or more likely are simply outliers like Joe Lieberman in the U.S.

            Anyway, I’ll accept the help of American socialists against radical Islam if I can get it, but that remains in serious doubt. How many members of the American Left would support military attacks against Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons, for instance?

    • Alexander Gofen

      This is a very warp reasoning attempting to “celebrate” the ugliest and deadliest by-products of the civilization such as homosexualism, militant feminism, militant unscientific politically motivate environmentalism, and militant atheism (so much militant that it overdoes even that in the former USSR). This reasoning actually promotes the tags of the “Agenda”, whose goal was to rid of the Judeo-Christian heritage completely melting the West and bringing it into the hands of sexually and socially obsessed perverts – see and . However the Agenda rather brought the West into the hands of islam.

      • David

        Whether the things I celebrate are tags of the “Agenda” or not is irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether these ideals are good or not. For example, I support same-sex marriage because opponents to same sex marriage have never been able to give a coherent argument that stands up to scrutiny and/or doesn’t engage in
        logical fallacy. They have never been able to demonstrate clear correlation between recognition of same sex marriages and other social problems such as: divorce, crime, or poverty.

        • Alexander Gofen

          You support “same sex marriage” because you lost your bearings. Because you are incapable to tell the right from wrong and from abominable. If you are sincerely seeking for a coherent arguments, try here

          • David

            See, I disagree, I think telling people that they’re ugly and wrong just because they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex is wrong. If somebody’s gay then they are gay. It’s not a big deal. That’s a terrible article because it doesn’t provide solid evidence to indicate any correlation between gay rights and negative social consequences. The article argues that homosexuality should be seen as a mental illness. Before it was taken off the APA’s list of mental illnesses thousands of people in this country had been locked up in asylums without trial and subjected to horrible psychological torture in an effort to “cure” them. I think that is morally requgnant.

          • on_my_own_in_Berkeley

            David, Don’t know if you’ll even see this and I don’t have the source readily available (you could google it) but there have been some recent studies showing that children growing up with gay parents are adversely emotionally affected as compared with children in families with straight parents. Were talking about statistics here. Not this or that example. The gay families are more unstable.

            If I were a parent I would not want my children being taught that gay marriage is “just as good.”

    • sid_goldberg

      The jews should do the world a favor and make their women wear burkas also


      No, Christianity is failing because it is adopting your ideas – the ideas of the secular Left. In doing so, it embraces your bankrupt ideology of statism and leaves people without the moral guidance they seek and need. Now as to your specific examples:

      Secularism all too often means anti-religious bigotry, as when your media portrays anyone with religious beliefs as unfit to hold public office.
      Environmentalism holds technological progress to be evil and desires to force Man back to pre-industrial misery.
      Homosexualism means normalizing abnormal behavior.
      Feminism encourages women to hate men and at the same time act like them.

      • David

        You mention the extreme versions of each of those and I do agree that there are extremists out there but that doesn’t discredit the concepts themselves.

  • Professor Leonard Wessell

    In orther for Westerners to conovert back to Christianity and consitute a Christian culture that flourishes, there has to be people around who reconvert. In Germany (my home) we have a birthrate of 1.4children/woman or, in 2000 there were 15.2 million Germans 18 and younger and in 2011 only 13 million. Extrapöolate and you will conclude that there will be no DNA Germanic Germans in less than 200 years. The current culture of death is true of ALL of Europe, and even the US has fallen below the 2.1 chilren/woman. The birthrate in Germany shows not significant difference between Catholics, Protestants and non-believers. (There is some evidence that 2nd+ generation Muslims are approach the German norm >> salvation?). Conclusion: It is not enough that there are Christians, rather they must reproduce themselves and establish families. And that I doubt will happen, even with conversion.

  • Professor Leonard Wessell

    Pardon my spelling, my eyes are failing and I cannot read the small print. But, despite the sins of missbelllink, my meaning is clear.

  • Taking care of business!

    Christian, until after the Rapture. Then the rest are left-behind, to whom know what, unless first they repent

  • Alexander Gofen

    This is a profound analysis. Frankly, I did not expect so many liberast-minded European decadents to convert into islam as a way of “straightening” their filthy ways. Perhaps, it is a sign of their great “sophistication”, or rather of opportunism or the Stockholm syndrome…

    Either way, islamic piranhas and islamic sharks were allowed to occupy the West, which had never been a “shark territory”. It all happened because of confluence of several deadly factors (outlined here ).

    Yes, either the West will become Christian again (ridding of every last moslem and mosque), or it will become Muslim.

    • Americana

      It’s profoundly disturbing to me that Enza Ferrari is attempting to liken a philosophical and theological basis for life and Western existence and confuses that w/all the MECHANICAL DECISIONS Western societies must make in order to function and maintain their environment both now and far into the future.

      There is NO NEED TO BLAME the societal function of governing waste and determining best practices for business and claim that the West is at risk because society as a whole has decided we must maintain a clean environment. To claim that all those mechanical aspects of our civilization are a problem that makes us vulnerable to the jihadists is craziness. Those are not “LEFTIST ISSUES,” those are OUR ISSUES. If Enza Ferrari wants to live in a free-for-all Wild West environment like China where dead pigs float down the rivers in vast flotillas, she can be my guest.

      • Alexander Gofen

        I do not see as though Enza Ferrari “BLAMES the societal function of governing waste and determining best practices for business.” She writes about the ABUSE of the rational practices in favor of political scums such as the “global warming” as though caused by the human activity.

        • Americana

          She takes a theological stance and then melds all these other issues into that theological perspective. I don’t see her theorem having any credibility.

          • Alexander Gofen

            She deals with various issues. Some of them like the “global warming scum” allow a purely scientific explanation. However the other are issues of morality, the life goal, and social behavior. Such issues can follow ONLY from the Ultimate authority, from the Ultimate law giver. What else but the “theological perspective” applies to issues like these?

  • LindaRivera

    I read in articles that many women who said they converted to Islam did so because of the modest dress. Didn’t these women understand you don’t need to convert to Islam to dress modestly? If a woman wants to dress modestly, it’s extremely easy to do so without converting to the totalitarian political ideology of Islam.
    The converts appear to have mental difficulty in making their own decisions and crave a domineering cult to tell them everything they should do. Very scary, because that means they can be easily manipulated to do things that are extremely evil.
    Before they converted did these people study barbaric sharia law and the many commands in the Quran to commit atrocities, wage jihad, conquer all nations and take slaves of non-muslims?
    French convert: “Islam demands a closeness to God. Islam is easier because it is explicit. man needs rules and behavior to follow.”
    Do the converts find its being close to ‘God’ with the Islamic rule/law of punishment by death if a muslim leaves Islam? Are the converts happy with the rule/Islamic law for non-muslims: Convert, pay the jizya – blood ransom money to muslims for allowing you to live, or be put to death?

    Do the converts believe it’s being close to ‘God’ by muslims taking non-muslims for slaves?’

    • zakariya

      People become Muslims because they realise it is the truth from their creator- is that not the purpose of following a religion?
      Muslim converts can be found in most countries of the world, such as , America, UK, China, France etc. Young and old, educated and uneducated, male and female- there are many examples of this on Youtube – This shows that the Islam has a universal appeal and all it welcomes all people – That sound like a religion from the creator does it not.
      Many converts are professionals, educated people, some are even atheist they conduct intensive research of the Quraan and other Islamic texts before they convert – For example a female UK judge became a Muslim after studying Islamic law – This shows that Islam is not an evil religion with evils laws – For example the prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘the best amongst you are the ones who treat their women folks the best’ this was said 14 hundred years ago when women were treated very badly – for example some Hindu’s used to burn their wife alive with their dead husbands in a barbaric ritual called Sati.
      From what you have written it is clear that You do not have much knowledge on Islam. If you want proof then look at why so many people are converting to Islam even when we are getting lot of bad press? It doesn’t make sense, and when something does not make sense then it means more investigation is needed.
      If any one want to come to the religion of their creator I am inviting them and they are welcome.

  • Maximillian

    Totally agree with Enza Ferreri. The nation that embraces homosexualism is doomed. Many smaller steps are made on the way toward accepting homosexuality, all of which are necessary prerequisites to ending a civilisation. Likewise with radical feminism, common only in the West and due to the white man’s willingness to allow the white woman to exceed her natural sphere of influence. Sadly, the lightweights who can see no further than the end of their nose never grasp these things. They worship at the altar of atheism.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      “…due to the white man’s willingness to allow the white woman to exceed her natural sphere of influence”. Wow if you replaced white with muslim you would fit right in to any 8th century islamic pig’s wallow.

  • Diann

    excellent article – explains a lot about why the West is falling to Islam. It’s not too late – we could still change the course that is presently rolling out. But that would require people waking up and standing for their country and way of life. When we remove God from our lives – there is a vacuum which Islam quickly fills. The message in decades of having Christianity denigrated need to be reversed. Islam is NOT the answer, but we need to get the message to people that Christianity is actually the religion of peace and they can have as many or as few rules as they wish.

  • Jillian Becker

    This article is answered with strong criticism here:

    • Alexander Gofen

      Their criticism is very wrong – see my comment there.

    • liz

      Excellent article and analysis!

  • kevinstroup

    Got to disagree. As and atheist and a conservative, I do not think that one MUST be Christian to stand up to Islam. Even Buddhist are starting to fight Islam. No, what is required is the adult ability to face up to unpleasant facts. One of these is that there are people in the world who want to kill you or enslave you and no amount of talking or negotiating will sway them. Only a bullet in their head will stop them. Unless you can admit that point to yourself, you are doomed.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      You’re definitely not the typical atheist. Most of the atheists I’ve met respond w/the standard lie: “Christianity is just as bad as islam.” My reply to them now is “then FO to a islamic state.”

      • nobullhere

        Exactly. Only the West and Israel is safe for atheists. Muslim countries arent, because an atheist is an apostate, and apostasy is a capital crime in the Islamic world.

    • Joe The Gentile

      >> No, what is required is the adult ability to face up to unpleasant facts.

      Agreed. And a proper moral compass. Those who yell ‘Islamophobia!’ at those who have removed their blindfolds usually have a seriously broken moral compass.

    • MukeNecca

      Nobody says “one MUST be Christian to stand up to Islam”. What is said is that “Atheists of the World” as a group doesn’t generate the spiritual vigor that ensues from the deepest belief in absolute reality of truth, goodness and beauty. The vigour necessary to fight and defeat another absolute reality – the evil.
      They, secularists, like homosexuals, militant feminists, radical liberals…wouldn’t move a finger to save the Christian Civilization had Islam tolerated their antics the way Christianity does. Their god -moral relativism – is the father of nihilism, which ultimately renders them powerless vis a vis such formidably motivated enemy like mohammedanism. Can you imagine that motley crew of weirdoes triumphing over islam at Tours, Lepanto or Vienna?

    • billobillo54

      Got to disagree with you. Most atheists will not only wilt and submit to Muslims, but most also share a great hatred of Christianity and Israel (Zionism) and will participate in and are eager for the destruction of both). You are an anomaly being conservative and atheist. Atheism begets Jacobins, Marxism, totalitarianism, relativism, and eventually chaos.


    The problem with same-sex “marriage” is that it undermines real marriage – that’s not enough of a social problem for you? Of course, marriage is in deep trouble anyway, but SSM will be the death blow, which is why those of us trying to preserve civilization are against it.

    • David

      Based on what facts? I have seen no indication that SSM in any way, shape, or form affects heterosexual marriage.


        The complete argument is too lengthy to present here, but basically, SSM (which will be followed by polygamy, leaving us Conservatives to fight a rear-guard action against pedophilia and bestiality) cheapens and degrades what a marriage is, thus it becomes less desirable and fewer heterosexual couples will choose to get married. That, in fact, is the whole point: the Left wants to destroy marriage since it supports our society and has chosen the method of indirect attack (let anyone and anything become “married” rather than trying to abolish the institution).

        People like you, who flatter themselves that they’re supporting some kind of “equality” or fighting against “discrimination” (some forms of which are very good things), are what Lenin termed “useful idiots” – unknowing helpers of a sinister cause.

        • David

          First off,

          “SSM (which will be followed by polygamy, leaving us Conservatives to
          fight a rear-guard action against pedophilia and bestiality) ”

          That is a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

          Secondly, maybe some people on the left believe that legalization of gay marriage will undermine the family structure and destabilize society, but they’re wrong. The desire of gay people to get married is an implicit acknowledgement of the superiority of marriage as a social institution and is likely to have either negligible effect or to actually strengthen the institution.

          Last point, Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts and Vermont for ten years now. That is more than enough time to determine whether or not it’s legalization has an adverse effect on society. So, do you have any evidence that legalization of same sex marriage in those two states or anywhere else has led to negative side effects?

  • mackykam

    Europe will never be Christian again. The underpinnings upholding Christianity in Europe were destroyed in the holocaust. For all its hatred of Jews and Judaism, the core values and morality of a universalist Christianity lies in the biblical commandments given the Jews at Mt. Sinai. When Europe turned its face from the wholesale slaughter of Jews, and in many instances actively participated in said slaughter, it destroyed the foundations of Christianity. The moral farce that Christianity in Europe displayed was exposed. 1200 Years of Christianity had hardly made a dent in the primitive tribalism of Europe. Instead of paying tribute to its moral and cultural foundation Christianity spent a millennium trying to eradicate, denigrate and punish Jews and Judaism, first for giving them a god, and then for killing him. Now that it is too late the Church has decided to refer to Judaism as its older sister, acknowledging the foundations of Christianity. The native populations of Western Europe instinctively accept, without truly understanding, realizing or expressing it, the death of European Jewry is leading to the lingering death of Christianity.

    • IslamDownpressesHumanity

      To place the blame for antisemitism on Christianity in Europe/Eurabia seems ludicrous considering the source of it is mostly islamic. It’s entirely possible that as many people are moslem as are Christian in many of the amoral, apathetic, pathetic, dying democracies of Western Europe. I’d say the majority of Western Europe is atheist.

      • mackykam

        Christianity is 600 years older than Islam. Islam has only recently made inroads into Western Europe. Till then it was relegated to the Balkans. Now for a bit of history.
        In order to Christianize Europe the Church went out of its way to make possible conversion to Judaism onerous and deadly. The Church instituted laws against Jews from the moment it came to power. It wanted no competition, especially any coming from the wellspring of Christianity; Judaism. It instituted the death penalty for any Jew converting a heathen or Christian to Judaism. Especially after a significant conversion of Visigoths in Spain to Judaism in the 4th century. Judaism was an existential threat to the legitimacy of Christianity. The question the church always faced was, ” why convert to the daughter when I can convert to the mother religion?” You can look it up. It’s all there in black and white.
        Islam wanted the Jews to convert to it and give it legitimacy.And so it tailored its religious requirements to incorporate Jewish elements. It instituted a form of circumcision; kosher dietary laws in the form of Halal meat; praying 5 times a day instead of the 3 daily in Judaism…when that didn’t work the attempts at conversion turned to hatred.

        • IslamDownpressesHumanity

          My argument refers to Christianity in the here and now.
          Um, islam’s holeist man was a Jew hating psychopath. He slaughtered/enslaved/expelled all the Jewish tribes that had lived peacefully in Saudi Arabia for centuries. Antisemitism is part and parcel of the islamic faith. Dr. Bill Warner did a statistical survey on the incidence of antisemitism found in the holey trilogy of islam and found the incidence of antisemitism higher than that found in Mein Kampf.

    • Webb

      “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” ~Jesus
      Christianity means being indwelt by the Holy Spirit sent to us by Jesus. Very few are so indwelt, or have ever been indwelt. In other words, Europe and America have pretended to be Christian, whereas very few individuals on those land masses have been or are now Christians. The example of Germany murdering 6 million Jews is proof positive that for all practical purposes, there were statistically 0 Christians in Germany prior to, and during, WWII. Germany had many churches and many people attended them, but that meant precisely nothing.

      • mackykam

        The same goes for all of Europe, starting with every church denomination official, from pope to lowly priest, and all levels between.
        Not one person in 150 people stepped forward to protect a single Jewish life, yet they were all happy to pray to a dead Jew, expecting salvation at the end of their lives.
        This is the failure that is Christianity:

        • Webb

          Exactly. When I was 10 I was baptized in a church, but it meant absolutely nothing because I wasn’t a Christian. When I was 17 I joined the same church, but it meant absolutely nothing because I wasn’t a Christian. Later in life I cried out to Jesus to save me, he sent the Holy Spirit to indwell me, and now I’m a Christian.

  • Alexander Gofen

    If somebody is a sodomite, it would not be a big deal IF and ONLY IF that individual kept it in his closet and never shove it into the society. However the homosexual Mafia was empowered so much, that not only were they allowed to get out of their closets, but they also impose their abomination onto the society and push the rest of us into closets.

    You twist the reality: Now nobody imposes cure to sodomites. It is sodomites who silence those who offer the cure and those who were cured. The article exactly demonstrates various aspects of damage onto the society incurred by sexually obsessed perverts and trouble makers.

    • MukeNecca

      Very well stated.

      • Alexander Gofen

        Thank you. I love your avatar. I had written this years ago: on 9/12/2001 Mecca and Medina ought to be nuked, which would bring 1000 years of peace. Ought to be – if not the friendship picked at this photo (Bush lied, Saudis flied) –

        • MukeNecca

          Thank you for the referral. I am glad to see quite a few of my own thoughts expressed in such a lucid and simple way.

    • David

      Did you really just use the phrase “homosexual mafia”? I’m not sure if you actually know what either words mean. The truth is Gays and lesbians are just like anybody else: some of them are really kind decent people, some of them are assholes. You know what I’ve noticed? People who are hostile towards Gays tend to be more sexually obsessed than actual gay people. I think one lesbian activist once said, “you know for people who are disgusted by the idea of gay sex, you all sure do spend an awful lot of time thinking about it.” Also, “conversion therapy” is a scam that rarely succeeds in doing anything but bilking people out of money and exacerbating psychological complexes. I am actually very pleased that NJ and California passed laws banning this kind of brainwashing from being used against kids. One of the few times I actually do agree with gov interference.

  • paendragon

    “It’s all very simple. We can’t fight Islam in the West without fighting the enablers of Islam in the West, namely the Leftists.”


    “And, since the Left has many different and separate aspects, we have to fight against each one of them. Neglecting any of these fronts is like fighting a war leaving a battleground to the enemy, like fighting on the western front and
    leaving totally undefended the eastern one.”


    BUT, Re:

    “Secularism and atheism are certainly the first lines of important wars.”

    Wow – talk about missing the point entirely!!!


    Liberals love to pretend that life is just too “complex” for any of us fallible, helpless and so potentially dangerous victims to ever be able to understand cause and effect, so to them cause and effect don’t really exist, because, when all facts can be spun as opinions, it gives them the false relativistic right to pretend their entirely fact-free, subjective opinions are the “diversely opposite equals” to conservatives’ objective facts; it gives them the false ‘right’ to remain irresponsibly wrong.

    In fact, lefties always sound retarded (hence, the accuracy of such terms as “leftardation,” “libtarded,” etc.) BECAUSE all they’re ever really doing is trying to think up alibi-EXCUSES FOR THEFT, so of course their language has to employ all the critical thinking logical fallacy evasions, distractions, deflections, euphemisms, and metaphors (i.e: lies) in order to sell it to sane people, (and all crimes are forms of theft); i.e: “Wealth Redistribution” and that of course requires lies, like I just said, most often in the form of evasive metaphors and euphemisms (like for the best instance example, the term “Wealth Redistribution” itself)!

    Most of their sub-sequent forced predeterminism and group-rights idolatry is also only an excuse to “defensively” either do nothing, or to enjoy a perpetual excuse attack others first, even if only by having the false right to delinquently force their own self-reliant responsibilities onto groups of “privileged/guilty” (innocent) others.

    And of course they’ll always try to co-opt the largest gang, the government, into helping them with their wealth dedistribution theft schemes.

    Liberal ‘psychology’ is very simple: commit any and all crimes, because the ends (enriching them selves) justify the means (screwing over others first, before and “because” those others will inevitably try to screw them over too, anyway)!

    Like all criminals, they want to have false rights (like, to our stuff) without any responsibilities (like, for having to earn or otherwise pay for it)!

    Because you bothered to earn stuff they didn’t, they feel perfectly entitled to extort you by asserting you OWE them!

    It actually starts with masochism – they feel compelled to inflict the worst-case scenario them selves, because then they can pretend to themselves that they had control over it. Criminals turn mere negligence (accidents, mistakes) into criminal negligence all the time, by adding their own backwards false pride confession of intent to it: “Screw you, I MEANT to do that!”

    That’s what “progressives” always do – they rush in first before some other fools can beat them to it!

    There is no crime or perversion a liberal won’t instantly Submit to or immediately compromise with, all the while claiming they are doing so by just being “practical” about it. They call it ‘Realpolitik.’

    And cowardice loves company, too… which is why their band-aid therapeutic “solution” to every “eternal crisis” is always to form a bigger gang! It explains “Globalism,” too.

    To them, if something CAN go wrong, then so it WILL go wrong, SO they must make sure to cause it so they can control the amount of resulting wrongness, since preventing it completely is “impossible.” This immorality of despair is what they call ‘ethics.’

    ALL libertine “liberals” are CRIMINALS too. After all, their entire pre-emptively defensive idolatrous alibi-excuse creed pretends there are no evil crimes nor evil criminals, because we’re all just helpless victims of predetermined force (products of our environments, victims of society, slaves of allah)! Whee! The Devil’s greatest trick is to pretend he doesn’t exist – after all, he’s really only ever a helpless victim, too!


    Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

    “I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”

    – Muhammad –

    Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

    So, simply and precisely because of their “THOU SHALT KILL!” cultural indoctrination, moslems are still from between four and several hundred times more likely to engage in murder and all other crimes, than everyone else in the world!

    So, islam is not a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) nor is it a “race” (at all, much less one of “Poor, Oppressed, People Of Colour”)!

    Obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

    “God told us to commit these crimes!”



    We should simply BAN ISLAM – because everything moslems pretend to consider “holy” is already a crime!


    The Qur’an clearly and specifically tells muslims the Bible is wrong and also that all Christians and Jews are infidel criminals who worship a false god, and who must therefore be extorted, enslaved, and murdered for their “crime” of not being muslims.

    So, if and when you consider islam to be a religion, you must agree with it’s main tenet: that God is a violent murderer who wants his muslim tribe to violently conquer the world by extorting, enslaving, and murdering all the non-muslim humans, right?

    Bottom line: If you decide to believe in “allah,” you have declared yourself a criminal, and so must be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. Your confession of “faith” in your crime-god will help us to do so.

  • billobillo54

    What an insightful and absolutely accurate assessment of Europe and the West. I’ll go a step farther and I think a step into further clarity: If Christians fail to realize that Islam is closely and directly associated with the antichrist and if Christians fail to ACT against the immigration of Muslims into the West….we are toast.

  • Texas Patriot

    Christianity has always been a hard fit with the pagan West, and now it’s being spit out. As G. K. Chesterson said, “It’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It’s been found difficult and not tried.”

  • Consider

    The article is so packed with nonsense that one cannot gather the patience to refute it point by point.

    But just one or two intelectual ‘jewels’ may suffice. Says she:

    “A secularist West will always lose to Islam, because it will have enough compassion, tolerance and self-restraint from violence that are the remnants of its Christian heritage, but it will have lost the ideals, the passion and certainty of fighting for a just cause that were once part of Christianity and have disappeared with its erosion.”

    So tolerance, restraint from violence etc. are part of Christian heritage.
    At same time passion and certainity of FIGHTING (for, of course, a ” just cause”) are also parts of Christian heritage.

    Then this ethernal Dennis Prager who (together with his followers that apparently include the writer of this article) cannot understand that by distinguishing between “good” and “bad” religions he undermines his favorite thesis that religion gives us “moral compas”

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    It is an
    interesting argument – it takes one religion to defeat another – you can’t have
    people without religion defeat religionists because the latter, the fundamental
    ones, are possessed by a type of madness which drives them as rationality or
    reason would not. In other words it would be difficult to organize a million
    atheists in a Crusade. But then the Crusades were not very successful.
    I don’t know many atheists and how they feel about Islam. I’m sure
    any rational human beings, believers and non-believers, by now realize that
    Islam has got into gear in their 1400 year war against the entire non-Muslim
    world and that it is high time to admit we are at war and to act accordingly –
    at home and overseas. It becomes very difficult, of course, when we idiotically
    elect Muslims to run our countries.

  • liz

    Christianity itself changed from generation to generation, depending on the drift of he philosophical tide. There are thousands of redactions – changes made to the text – in the New Testament that were made with every copying of the manuscripts. The manuscripts themselves were sometimes considered apocryphal at certain times, and at other times were accepted. The final version of the Canon was voted on with much disagreement as to which gospels and epistles to leave in or out. Those left out had been accepted as “gospel” by previous generations.
    So in reality, no-one has ever followed the exact teachings of Christianity’s founder, because they are a product of generations of revisionism and redactions.

    • on-my-own-in-berkeley

      P.S. While I appreciate your efforts in replying, your reply doesn’t in the least negate my points. No where, either in the accepted Christian canon or the books left out of the canon or the apocryphal material do we find anything in same vein as the Koranic injunction to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” I’m not talking about descriptive verses; I’m talking about prescriptive verses giving injunctions to the followers of Mohammed.

      Mohammed is known as the great exemplar for Muslims. They seek to emulate him. Contrast the example set by this pedophile, murderous warlord with that of Jesus Christ.

      So it appears to be that you are trying obfuscate these obvious points.

  • David

    I’ve heard some studies to that effect but I’ve also heard people debunk them. I would want to see consistent results and to know the source and methodology of the studies before I could come to that conclusion,

  • liz

    Yes, there were many factors that contributed, and the Church did copy and preserve classical texts. But it wasn’t accessible to the general population til later.
    “They not only rejected the study of science out of the Christian schools, but they persecuted it; and it is only within about the last two centuries that the study has been revived”, to quote Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason”.
    He goes on to say: “Later times have laid it all on the Goths and Vandals, but, however unwilling the partisans of the Christian system may be to believe or acknowledge it, it is nevertheless true, that the age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system. There was more knowledge in the world before that period, than for many centuries afterwards…”

  • liz

    Cute. But not surprising coming from an arrogant, self righteous moron whose idea of winning an argument is hurling insults. The waste of time was mutual.