Nearly 1,300 years ago, Europe was dealt the first blow in a war which persists to this day, when the Moors took over what is now modern day Spain and Portugal, only to be tentatively stopped by Charles Martel and his armies at the Battle of Tours some years later. Many more of these epic conflicts would follow, from the Cruades, to the Reconquista, to the fight against Turkish encroachment, to the crushing of the last caliphate in 1918, and finally, the British conquest of most of the Middle East. Following a brief peace which was thought secured by the aforementioned conquest of Great Britain and following the second world war, the Moslem menance would arise again, causing trouble for years and years (with many conflicts centred around Israel) until as such that five years ago the Moslems brazenly attacked the United States and set the stage for the next of the major wars, the so called "War of Terror" of the United States, Great Britain, and assorted allies. This is the first way that Islam, as a religion and as a culture and mindset stemming from that religion, is an enemy to the West: As a power of physical force resisting the legitimacy of the West. But there is a second, more insidious aspect of Islam's enmity to the West that, owing to the self-defeating idealogies of political correction and religious and ethical relativism, might be the way the Crescent rises in the Western sky. This is the whole scale invasion permitted by unrestrained immigration, as well as the corruption of our people's minds by the preaching of the Western-debasing principles of religious islam. What is the definition of a parasite? An organism that feeds off the host, contributes nothing in return, and which causes sickness. What then is Islam but a tapeworm in the bowels of Western culture? Moslems inflitrate our systems, create subdivided communities which do not intergrate with our cultures, demand cultural reforms, and if not appeased, commit acts of violence against us, either in the form of terrorism, rioting, or assassination, yet all the while abusing our systems of support and hiding beneath the protections of our laws. They pretend to be us, claiming, "Oh, we're Moslem and _______!" yet then attack us once they achieve citizenship, so they can make sure they are protected by our rights when we dare to prosecute them for their intent to devestate our peoples and properties. Then, if that were not enough, they attempt to convert us to their warped, slave-religion, in order to subvert our own people against the West so that it collapses upon itself, devoid of its supports. Even now, an American, brainwashed in the blood-doctrines of Islam, has become a force against the West through his position in Al'qaeda. There is but one solution to this problem. There is but one thing we can do. We must come to the same realizations of our ancestors and do whatever is necessary to stop Islam. We must all become Charles Martels, Richard the Lionheart, Vlad the Impaler. We must all realize that it is a threat against the very idea of Western Civilization that Islam has always presented, and that if we allow this collapse, that we allow our deaths. The concrete ways to achieve this solution are simple: Islam must be outlawed. There can be no practicing of Islam in the Western world, including Europe, North and South America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and any and all her holdings. No person who practices Islam ought to be allowed to remain in the West. Even if we must spend billions of dollars relocating these people, the religious, cultural, and racial influences of these people must be immediatly expelled from our lands. They must be exiled and exiled permanently. Any and all introduction of Islamic-majority countries into Western organizations, such as the European Union or NATO, must be immediatly rejected. The values and foundations for the West must be understood as diametrically opposed to Islam and of greater worth and value. This includes the esteeming even with the great gulfs of value internally of our bastardized mix of Enlightenment and Renaissance Humanism,the remenants of what was once Christianity's influence on Western thought, and of course, the classical influences which we owe so much to. This measure is primarily to steel ourselves both against the impact of Islamic violence and the "spiritual"-rot which is conversion to Islam of any Westerner, seduced by the sense of purpose and value which Islam is capable of waging against the "spiritless" West. Now, it is often the case that here on SciForums that we focus on the evils of Christianity against the mind and against the "spirit", but I purpose that it is also time to state the obvious: Islam is far, far worse than Christianity. For even if Christianity may be a mind-destroying engine of destruction for many, Islam is the same, as well as a cultural, and mental, attack against the very foundations of the West. We have managed, albeit imperfectly, to make Christianity Western (or really semi-Western) and have worked within the paradigm of Christianity long enough to not make it an enemy to all things in our life and even used it to propel us forward, but the same -cannot- be said of Islam, which would replace the West with the Middle East. Thus I welcome all those who proclaim that Christianity - like the totality, or at least the bulk, of all religions - is a sickness to add their comments specifically, as ultimately, the West's secularism is one of the key weapons to be used against Islam. So if you are sick of theists, then please, be sick of Moslems. For whereas Christians may be terrible, Islam is worse.
a very well written post Prince, you've hit the nail on the head. I will say that, christianity has had 700 years more to get things right, and thats still a big question mark. but yes islam at this moment is in effect, in it's dark ages.
Mustafhakofi: I am glad you enjoyed my post! My thanks for the reply. And yes, Islam is certainly in her dark ages at this time, and this must be countered by not allowing that Dark Ages to spread further than it has been all ready. I have no doubt, however, that eventually Islam will become more moderate and more applicable to humanity as a whole, and when such occurs, perhaps it will not have to be so shunned. The development of that must be given much time to come about.
Wow. Prince James, I had no idea you were so radical. I'm actually rather shocked. I almost never care about these sorts of positions taken by people, but in this case it seems rather disgusting to me. I think I may have lost a little bit of respect for you from this post. I'm sorry. Are you ignoring the impact that Islamic culture has had on the West over the course of this enmity? The fact that much of the classical literature that was revived during the renaissance and elightenment periods was only available because of Arabic translations made of copies preserved by the Moslem invaders? The ideas of Chivalry and respect for minority cultures which came into the West from the Crusades? I'll admit that the Muslim world has gone downhill in the past few centuries, but you seem to be taking the position that both cultures grew independant of eachother over the entire course of Islam's existence. Is that what you are asserting?
In short: education education education. We need more investment into education and institutions. Could you imagine if we had spent the money on the Iraq war instead on getting America off oil and on education? Think of the long term good which could have come from such and investment........ Anyway, here is a very short history from Wikipedia on the Muslim expulsion from Spain: Morisco. As one could imagine, the descendants of the Muslims that invaded and conquered part of Spain, for the most part, remained Islamic while the natives remained Christian. Eventually the Christians counter attacked the Muslims. Most Muslims choose to leave Spain or converted to Catholicism in the end. I also understand that the Catholic kings demanded that each family have some salted pork in the home at all times. They would be asked to eat it by Inquisitors who would randomly visit. Such is the way of life under monotheistic rule and such will it always be. Thank Athena we don't live under religious rule Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That said, we should acknowledge that religion is a huge part of society and, in my personal view, we should educate all people (primarily Jewish, Xian, Muslims) about the archeological evidence for the development of each of their belief-systems from the respective earlier polytheisms. People as a whole are much more rational now and so they should be more intellectually able to accommodate this information. Slowly the memes will be pushed back. The corner stones of misconception should be addressed. - The absurdity of the exodus story and the fact that with a total population of 5 million it would have caused the collapse of the Egyptian civilization – yet there is no mention of it (anywhere). Add to this the polytheistic beginnings of Judaism (still found in the good-book funny enough). - The lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus (many Xians believe the exact opposite) and the many pre-Christian Egyptian-Gnostic, Persian Mithranic Greek Mystery Religions (etcetera…) sources that were copied word for word into the Bible. - The fact that the Qur’an has (just like the Bible) been altered over time (many Muslims believe the exact opposite), the many non-Arabic words in the Qur’an, the many polytheistic Arab, Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs that have been copied word-for-word into Qur’an, etcetera. - Finally the many many many wars fought and rough estimates of the people slaughtered and cultures destroys in the name of the God of the 3 respective religions. I think a full 10 years of mandatory study should cover everything quite nicely. Add to this a few classes on the founding principals, in historic context, of our country and we should be right. Without this I expect that Xians will remain Xian, Muslim will remain Muslim and Jew will remain Jew and wars will be fought amongst the three because each thinks they are somehow more right or better than the other or choosen by God and are willing to kill people to prove it. Michael
Jaster Mareel: "Wow. Prince James, I had no idea you were so radical. I'm actually rather shocked. I almost never care about these sorts of positions taken by people, but in this case it seems rather disgusting to me. I think I may have lost a little bit of respect for you from this post. I'm sorry." I would hope your opinion of me would rise anew, but I am thankful that you care enough to voice this, also. "Are you ignoring the impact that Islamic culture has had on the West over the course of this enmity? The fact that much of the classical literature that was revived during the renaissance and elightenment periods was only available because of Arabic translations made of copies preserved by the Moslem invaders? The ideas of Chivalry and respect for minority cultures which came into the West from the Crusades? I'll admit that the Muslim world has gone downhill in the past few centuries, but you seem to be taking the position that both cultures grew independant of eachother over the entire course of Islam's existence. Is that what you are asserting? " I do not suggest that Islamic culture and religion has not had its positive points. In fact, I am quite a fan of Avicenna and I enjoy the "Thousand and One Nights" and the poetry of the Sufis. My only problem with Islam - and I am sure they have the same problem with the West - is that Islam has been a hostile force since its inception, including several repeated attempts at crushing the West as a unique entity. That is to say, despite the accomplishments of Islamic culture and religion in many spheres - they are certainly were not barbarians, even though I would hardly proclaim that "civilization" exists in a meaningful sense in the bulk of the Islamic world today - the fact that it would attempt to subjugate and destroy Western culture and replace it with its own, means that it is antithetical to the West, and therefore, an enemy. In the present day, this means massive, bloody terrorist attacks, as well as an cultural invasion which causes civil discord (see France and Australia) and cultural tensions. But no, I would not go as far as to say there hasn't been some fruitful exchanges and that the two entities have grown by their interactions at times, but only that they are, in a sense, classical enemies. In fact, the only other enemy-pairing I can think of which would match this, would be Rome v. Carthage, and even then, it was a far more limited type of enmity possibly owing to the fact that Islam is not a nation state. Michael: Your proposals for education are an interesting means to instill a sense of cultural deestablishment of the foundations for radicalism which could overall aid us to adopt. Of course, the problem is that churches, synagogues, and mosques have means to counter reason.
I suppose that you are right when you say that the West and Islam have always been enemies. I think I was taken aback by your stance of seemingly extreme reciprocity in this respect, as I hadn't pinned you as so culturally acute in terms of Western thinking. I guess I was wrong. I, of course, have little awareness of cultural identity. Unless I am ever personally threatened by cultural annihilation, I will never see one culture as inherently superior, or even see one culture as my own. That is probably the reason why I was so shocked by your position. I don't share the same kind of attachment to Western culture. Maybe this is due to the fact that I have my head in the future. Western culture will not persevere, and neither will Islam, in the long run. They will both fade away into the dustbin of history, just as your two examples (Rome and Carthage) have. True, they will both affect the thinking of future generations, but generally speaking it is the positive aspects of a given culture, i.e. the one's most likely to be beneficial to society over the course of centuries, that continues into the distant future. Because of this, I see no problem with Islam, or the West for that matter, since in my own head they are already relics of the past.
Yeah, that worked really well for the Romans and Christianity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Spidergoat: "Yeah, that worked really well for the Romans and Christianity." Considering what occurred after Christianity's adoption. Well. You know history, don't you? Jaster Mereel: "I, of course, have little awareness of cultural identity. Unless I am ever personally threatened by cultural annihilation, I will never see one culture as inherently superior, or even see one culture as my own. That is probably the reason why I was so shocked by your position. I don't share the same kind of attachment to Western culture." That may indeed be the case. One has to inherently value Western culture to feel a desire to protect it as I do. Moreover, it is not so much that I esteem Western culture because it is Western culture, but that I view it in light of what I perceive as a superiority of what it has produced, not as something innate to the West. I find it absurd, for instance, to consider the Dardanelles or the Urals as being a cut-off point of possible "superior culture", only that the historic development of branches of people have produced the single cultural force that has manifested the greatest tradition of philosophy, science, art, literature, et cetera. "Maybe this is due to the fact that I have my head in the future. Western culture will not persevere, and neither will Islam, in the long run. They will both fade away into the dustbin of history, just as your two examples (Rome and Carthage) have. True, they will both affect the thinking of future generations, but generally speaking it is the positive aspects of a given culture, i.e. the one's most likely to be beneficial to society over the course of centuries, that continues into the distant future. Because of this, I see no problem with Islam, or the West for that matter, since in my own head they are already relics of the past. " Ought we not preserve what is worthy of preservation? Is it not better to keep that which is good then let it be discarded, replaced, and perhaps its greatness not to be reached again for millennia? Though though we may not be able to see it, will not the future be dim if good things pass away?
Well, I would agree with you on most of these points. However, I would contend that Western Culture has not developed mostly from the West itself, i.e. the majority of Western thinking, art, science, philosophy, etc... has come into it from other places. The West didn't rise to prominence because it developed it's own superiority, but because it borrowed relevant ideas and practices from other cultures which ran astride it, or which it conquered. It seems to me that people often have a tendency to think that cultures develop in isolation, which is where the very idea of division between "the West" and the rest of the world has come. I think this is simply not the case. The world has always been more interconnected than the peoples afterward have thought. Very few cultures have grown up in complete isolation, and those cultures were ultimately destroyed because of it. My biggest bone of contention with your position of animosity towards Islam is that the West has always been open to other cultures, and that is what gives it strength. It borrows and assimilates, the same force which made Rome great. As soon as the West starts to close itself from any outside influence, is the moment that the West begins it's decline. I believe that the actions you wish to be taken would only lead to the destruction of Western culture, not the preservation of it. What I meant to say was that those things which ought to be preserved will be preserved regardless of your, or anybody else's, interference. The positive aspects of Western culture, or Islam, or Oriental culture, or any other culture for that matter will never completely disappear, they will only recombine and shape themselves into new and more vibrant traditions. They can't disappear, because people carry on those traditions which aide in their survival and growth. I used Rome and Carthage as examples. Rome never completely disappeared. Roman ideas and traditions, even their language, has survived to this very day and is carried on in our modern Western tradition, but only some aspects of Roman culture. The useful aspects.
Jaster Mereel: "Well, I would agree with you on most of these points. However, I would contend that Western Culture has not developed mostly from the West itself, i.e. the majority of Western thinking, art, science, philosophy, etc... has come into it from other places. The West didn't rise to prominence because it developed it's own superiority, but because it borrowed relevant ideas and practices from other cultures which ran astride it, or which it conquered. It seems to me that people often have a tendency to think that cultures develop in isolation, which is where the very idea of division between "the West" and the rest of the world has come. I think this is simply not the case. The world has always been more interconnected than the peoples afterward have thought. Very few cultures have grown up in complete isolation, and those cultures were ultimately destroyed because of it. " I would have you substantiate this claim. For whereas indeed I shall admit that somethings have been cultural imports - such as gunpowder, or our Indo-Arabic numerals - most things have been, in fact, Western innovations. Greek culture, for instance, did not develop "because of influence from other, non-Western, civilizations", but mostly in contrast with them. Greek philosophy is hardly to be found in Babylonian cults, or Jewish religion, but developed primarily out of Athens and the surrounding era. Similarly, the bulk of mathematics has this Greco-Roman foundation, and indeed, everything up till the 20th century in mathematics was Western, save for the foundation of algebra, which was later expanded upon by the West but had an Islamic origin. Science, also, has primarily been a development of the West. Indeed, there is virtually no scientific tradition outside of it. Islamic science, for instance, ended at alchemy. To say that the WEst is primarily a taker of other culture's ideas is to discredit a long, long history, of Western innovation which has no historical foundation when analysis is applied. But yes, I do not deny cultural exchanges. There have been a substantial amount. And ontop of that, no culture grows out of complete isolation, no. But that the West is a distinct entity nonetheless, is certain, and that Islam has been her enemy for 1,300 years is also clear. "My biggest bone of contention with your position of animosity towards Islam is that the West has always been open to other cultures, and that is what gives it strength. It borrows and assimilates, the same force which made Rome great. As soon as the West starts to close itself from any outside influence, is the moment that the West begins it's decline. I believe that the actions you wish to be taken would only lead to the destruction of Western culture, not the preservation of it." Exchange is one thing, wholescale supplantation is another thing. That we might be able to take one or two good things from Islamic culture and history and religion is not to be doubted. Clearly we can. But to replace the West with Islam - as Islam would have us do - would be nothing less than suicide. Moreover, the West must preserve its culture's distinctness even when accepting moderate exchange, which necessitates that certain things not be over turned. We cannot populate Western lands with non-Western people, nor adopt non-Western religions en masse. "What I meant to say was that those things which ought to be preserved will be preserved regardless of your, or anybody else's, interference. The positive aspects of Western culture, or Islam, or Oriental culture, or any other culture for that matter will never completely disappear, they will only recombine and shape themselves into new and more vibrant traditions. They can't disappear, because people carry on those traditions which aide in their survival and growth. I used Rome and Carthage as examples. Rome never completely disappeared. Roman ideas and traditions, even their language, has survived to this very day and is carried on in our modern Western tradition, but only some aspects of Roman culture. The useful aspects. " Yet there are civilizations and cultures which have passed away with virtually no historic significance beyond their fall. Moreover, there are periods of times after the collapse of certain cultures, nations, empires, et cetera, where centuries, if not millennia, have passed without a resurgence of the greatness of prior ages. This was most certainly found during the dark and medieval eras of European history. Moreover, the incalculable things of woth lost in the upheaveal - the destruction of the Library of Alexandria was probably the most grieveous blow to the history of man that has ever been tolerated - has surely made us poorer than if such things never occurred.
Look, it seems like you clump the entirety of European history for the past two and a half thousand years into one big pot and call it "the West". That's simply ridiculous. Just because Greek philosophy and Mathematics, Germanic tribal customs (in the form of English Common Law), and the Christian religion all developed around the same area, doesn't mean that they are a part of the same cultural tradition. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, were quite different culturally, and considered each other "foreign". When Rome fell, it was the end of a culture, not a pause in Western culture. Renaissance Europe was very different from Dark Age Europe, and Enlightenment Europe is wholly different from The Romans or Greeks. You're putting them all in the same basket when they are all very different cultures. Almost completely different, in fact. The absurdity of this idea becomes clear when you look at other regions of the world. It would be as if you clumped Ancient Egypt, the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Hebrews, the Persians, and every other cultural group which existed in the Middle East (including the Mongols) together with Islam and said they were a part of the exact same cultural tradition. Think about it for a moment. Geographical proximity does not mean that the same cultural tradition is present, especially when you are talking about a difference of centuries, or even millenia. The "West" is not a single culture, but a collection of them mixed together over the course of thousands of years, of which Islam is a part. When you speak of Western culture you are speaking of the current incarnation, not thousands of years of unbroken tradition with momentary pauses. This idea that you, and many other people, have about "The West" as some kind of grand cultural entity is such a broad, 19th century outlook on the world that sometimes I wonder if you're applying any kind of realism to your thinking, or whether you are so wrapped up in this glorious idea that you have of "The West" that you can't see the monumental changes that have all been clumped into this extremely broad category.
In my opinion, if we can prevent, even ban, the teaching of creationism in schools, in favour of the teaching of evolution, that would be a HUGE step. Imagine, a generation of children with good teachers, who encourage them to "question" the bullshit fed to them by their parents. Imagine the potential. We need leaders of a truly secular government to address this issue. Countering the issues of islam with the issues of christianity isn't much of a trade, IMO. I don't like the burning of witches any more than I like the execution of apostates - the two are both examples of the same problem.
He's talking about culture, not necessarily religion. However, since Islamic culture is the religion, then it's relevant to talk about Islam. Secularism, however, is a very Western concept. That means that secularism against Islam is still the West against Islam. He used Christianity as an example because that has been, and still is to some extent, the defining characteristic of Western culture.
and I'm agreeing, that both islam and christianity pose problems to western civilisation. It is largely secularism, and its embrace of science, that has afforded the west its status as more educated people with better health care, and a more tolerant society. Still, there is a long way to go with education and healthcare. It might be the way GWB, and John Howard, choose to define themselves as "christians", but then again they are lying bastards who have sent their countries half way down the toilet. Its religion that is the problem, it negatively influences culture.
Read some history. Without religion we wouldn't be where we are today. I'm not even going to argue this point with you. You will flat out deny it, and this will become a debate about atheism vs theism. I hate those debates. There is no progress, no reconciliation. Don't turn this into one. Religion is not the problem. People are the problem. Stop preaching about the evils of religion, please. Religion is an inseperable part of human culture.
If that is the case then I think we should promote polytheism or Buddhism over that of monotheism. To me the foundation of Western culture is ancient Greece. Even Ancient Rome borrowed extensively from the Greeks. And the Greeks were, after all, polytheists.
No, ancient Greece as interpreted by later Christians is the foundation of Western culture. Westerners today don't think like ancient Greeks, don't act like ancient Greeks, we don't have the same customs or ideals, etc...
I meant as a starting point. Information from Greece flowed to Rome and Rome influenced Europe and England and down through the centuries institutions like: courts, banks, democracy, philosophy and math, sculpture, art and performance and playwright, sport, (etcetera…) continued to develop. Of course, you are right that it developed alongside Xiantiy, and as we only have 1 history, we will never know what could have been had those institutions developed in a Europe that retained a belief in the epic tales of the Gods. That is – polytheistic. I will say this, it seems ironic that the rise of Xiantiy in Europe coincides with what is referred to as the Dark Ages, a time when the Xians of Europe couldn’t even remember how to make cement, a time when the wondrous monuments of the Ancient world astonished them - the magnificent waterways built by Rome would have seemed inconceivable. Ever see the Antikythera mechanism? The mechanics are so complex nothing man-made would reach that level of sophistication until the clock makers of the 17th century. I also find it ironic that the fall of Xianity coincides with the Renascence. Also, I hardly think that I would have much in common with a English Xian living in 1000CE over that of a Roman living in Rome in 50BCE. Who knows, due to the level of civilization, maybe I would have more in common with the Roman from 50BCE? Anyway, I agree with Huwy, we really need to ensure our children have a thorough understanding of the processes of evolution. That’s a good start. Michael
Jaster Mereel: "Look, it seems like you clump the entirety of European history for the past two and a half thousand years into one big pot and call it "the West". That's simply ridiculous. Just because Greek philosophy and Mathematics, Germanic tribal customs (in the form of English Common Law), and the Christian religion all developed around the same area, doesn't mean that they are a part of the same cultural tradition. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, were quite different culturally, and considered each other "foreign". When Rome fell, it was the end of a culture, not a pause in Western culture. Renaissance Europe was very different from Dark Age Europe, and Enlightenment Europe is wholly different from The Romans or Greeks. You're putting them all in the same basket when they are all very different cultures. Almost completely different, in fact. " Whereas I will certainly agree with you that the West has been marked by distinct periods and distinct styles and patterns of thought and internal cultures, the continuum of a Western culture can be found in the interconnectedness of all her traditions. One cannot divorce the Germanic from the Roman, the Celtic from the Greek, because of the amalgamation which began first in the common genesis of Europe (in the Western branch of the Aryan peoples) and later on more strongly in the Roman Empire, the medieval period, et cetera, et cetera. This by no means asserts, though, that the West has distinct nationalities. Few would deny that the French and the Germans are very different from one another. But they are both clearly Western. "The absurdity of this idea becomes clear when you look at other regions of the world. It would be as if you clumped Ancient Egypt, the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Hebrews, the Persians, and every other cultural group which existed in the Middle East (including the Mongols) together with Islam and said they were a part of the exact same cultural tradition. " Actually, in so much as they influenced Islamic culture, they are partially from the same cultural tradition. But in that Islam was a radical change from prior cultures and conquered many distinct cultures and radically altered the way in which they worked (specifically as Islam is equipped with an entire political and social worldview which replaces all prior, non-Islamic, sections of that society for the most part), these cultures are not the same as Islam and thus deserve little mentioning when speaking of Islam as an entity. "The "West" is not a single culture, but a collection of them mixed together over the course of thousands of years, of which Islam is a part. When you speak of Western culture you are speaking of the current incarnation, not thousands of years of unbroken tradition with momentary pauses." I would take this time to make mention of a specific thing which I think telling for an understanding of a "West". Following the demise of the Western Empire, there almost immediatly sprung up, from the Germanic-barbarians, a sense of "copying of the Roman", including the founding of the Holy Roman Empire. In essence: The new mimiced the old and took from that prior establishment a new sense of identity that did not admit of a distinctness. Moreover, the generalized "Romanization" which Rome inspired in Europe as a whole, forced a consideration of culturel homogeny that formed those starting points (and perhaps its surest pillar of support) for the notion of a "West". Huwy: "Imagine, a generation of children with good teachers, who encourage them to "question" the bullshit fed to them by their parents. Imagine the potential." Yes, I agree. However, the problem would be only in finding these teachers to teach such children so well. Education seems so suspectible, in the last century, to radical changes of thought every five years, to the point that you end up with such different approaches to education that the goal is lost. "We need leaders of a truly secular government to address this issue. Countering the issues of islam with the issues of christianity isn't much of a trade, IMO. I don't like the burning of witches any more than I like the execution of apostates - the two are both examples of the same problem. " Precisely. Jaster Mereel: "He used Christianity as an example because that has been, and still is to some extent, the defining characteristic of Western culture. " Just to clarify: I only consider Christianity Western in the sense that yes, it is incapable of being taken out of the Western tradition. Huwy: "It is largely secularism, and its embrace of science, that has afforded the west its status as more educated people with better health care, and a more tolerant society. Still, there is a long way to go with education and healthcare." I agree. Secularism - or at the very least, an enlightened religiousity - has provided the impetus for thousands of years of Western progress. When philosophy first had its schism from religion in the pre-Socratics - and something which never truly occured in other philosophical traditions - we found a wonderful flowering of thought, and similarly, when science was let to go free from religious concerns, we leapt forward by leaps and bounds. It is extremely important that this tend continue. However, it puzzles me how we might replace the feelings of people towards religion with something else. Michael: "To me the foundation of Western culture is ancient Greece. Even Ancient Rome borrowed extensively from the Greeks. And the Greeks were, after all, polytheists." In so much as Greco-Roman religion did not engender a radicalism nor a rejection of the secular life, it would seem that it was a positive force. A recapturing of that spirit could be quite good for the West, specifically in light of the necessity to create bulwarks against Islamic "purpose-seeking" seductions.
