Pajamas Media

Mano a mano: Spencer v Derbyshire

When Robert Spencer read John Derbyshire's "marvelously written and delightful to read" but "full of inconsistencies" review of his book, %%AMAZON=1596985151 Religion of Peace?-Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't%%, he promised Pajamas Media a response. He has delivered. RELATED: Andrew Breitbart takes on a caller on the Dennis Miller Show. Protein Wisdom has a question.

August 23, 2007 - by Robert Spencer

John Derbyshire seems to think that since, in his view, Islam and Christianity are equally preposterous, they are equally likely to incite violence: “Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God’s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.”

Huh? “And so”? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they’re of equal moral value? Come now. I myself find National Socialism no more preposterous than Shakerism – does that mean that National Socialism is no more or less likely to make us better or worse than Shakerism? Does Derbyshire really want to get behind the idea that if something doesn’t ring true to him, it is therefore benign, or at least no more or less benign than some other farrago? I don’t think he does, even as he calls the whole exercise “infantile,” since he also says that he finds my “brief against Islam” to be “persuasive.”

Derbyshire’s review, while marvelously written and delightful to read, is full of inconsistencies. I don’t see how he could possibly find what I reveal about Islam to be “persuasive” if at the same time he thinks that Islamic and Christian doctrine are equally likely to inspire their adherents to commit acts of brutality, since the contrary assertion, as he himself notes, is a major point of my book. He also wonders whether “an equally learned Islamic scholar, bent on making the opposite case, might not produce equally persuasive points, to be then rebutted by Spencer, who would be re-rebutted by the Islamist…” I would welcome such a rebuttal, by the way, unless it were characterized by the torrents of abuse and sly deceptions and diversions that usually come to me from Islamic spokesmen in America, but the point is that while Derbyshire says he is persuaded, he evidently still suspects that I am just engaging in some kind of rhetorical sleight of hand.

And that is by no means the only inconsistency, alas, that mars his elegantly written and thoroughly entertaining review. Derbyshire asserts that “it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology…as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.” Yet what is the nature of that staggering idiocy? The fact that “there are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter.” Yet why would that be a problem, if Islam were like Christianity – absurd but ultimately harmless at its core? Obviously the problem with allowing tens of millions of Muslims into the West has to do with “the letter of Islamic theology,” which Derbyshire dismissed as irrelevant just before complaining about the admission of so many adherents of what he sees as a wacky but unthreatening creed.

Derbyshire asks if it is “actually that important” to take on the “‘equivalence’ school of thought, the one that says that there isn’t anything to choose between Christianity and Islam in the way of militancy or obscurantism.” A few weeks ago I was on a TV show on France 24, where I explained that jihadists recruited among peaceful Muslims by referring to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and presenting themselves as the exponents of true or pure Islam. One of the other guests on the show then responded by asserting that there were passages of the Bible that were equally violent as anything in the Qur’an, and anyway, what about the Crusades? This kind of howling irrelevancy is extraordinarily common; even conservatives such as Ralph Peters, Arnaud de Borchgrave and Dinesh D’Souza have made similar statements on the way to claiming that it was misguided, futile, and somehow in poor taste to investigate the ways in which Islamic texts are used to incite violence. We are supposed to believe, as Christiane Amanpour’s recent CNN series would also have us believe, that all religious traditions have their nutcases, and all of them are marginal, discredited by the majority, and ultimately insignificant. But this – and I’m sure Mr. Derbyshire can appreciate this distinction – is a dogma, not an established fact. And if it is false (and it is), it may be blinding us in numerous ways to the nature and the magnitude of the problem we face, as well as to the steps we need to take to protect ourselves. This cuts both ways: if Christian theocrats are really the threat Chris Hedges, Barry Lynn, and Kevin Phillips think they are, it only plays into the sinister hands of the Bushitler to focus attention on the adherents of the Religion of Peace. This may seem irredeemably nutso to John Derbyshire, but Hedges’ book was a bestseller: considerable numbers of people out there are taking the Christian theocracy scare very, very seriously. So my book is an examination of both threats and both traditions, an examination that has clear, important, and numerous policy implications.

Derbyshire manifests no greater comprehension when denigrating my assertion that Christianity provided the philosophical framework within which modern science could grow and develop, and adduces a few miracle stories from the Bible as proof-texts to the contrary. He dismisses as “Catholic apologetics” without examination the entire extended discussion in my book of the view of God in Catholic scholastic philosophy as good and consistent, versus the Islamic view of Allah as absolute will, unrestricted by any requirement of consistency. The scholastic philosophers believed in miracles too, while managing to create a foundation for scientific investigation by positing this consistency. While I always admire the verve of his writing, I believe Derbyshire has given this point short shrift. “And even if it were true that the church midwifed science,” he says, “is it not the case that, following delivery of the newborn, the midwife’s services are no longer required?” The quip is nice; the thought, shallow. Is it not the case that science, unbounded by any moral sense, leads to dehumanization? (See Aldous Huxley for details.)

But I digress. The ringing peroration of Derbyshire’s review is his declaration that while “Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology-the ideology of jihadism-the Christian West (Spencer actually says ‘Judeo-Christian,’ but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.” (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that “a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.?”

One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn’t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s. Were the Sixties, when immigration controls were effectively ended and globalization gained immense momentum, a time of some great Christian revival? In reality, Christianity has no inherent connection at all with open-borders insanity and globalization. No less prominent a Christian than St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the mainstream Christian view when he said that “after his duties towards God, man owes most to his parents and his country. One’s duties towards one’s parents include one’s obligations towards one’s relatives, because these latter have sprung from [or are connected by ties of blood with] one’s parents…and the services due to one’s country have for their object all one’s fellow-countrymen and all the friends of one’s fatherland.” An open-borders globalist? Not quite.

Then Derbyshire takes me to task for not offering any policy suggestions in this book, although he acknowledges that “possibly he has laid out a program in one of his other books (none of which I have read) and feels no need to repeat himself.” That is indeed the case, and perhaps I should have repeated myself, since the recommendations I have made in several books are no closer to being implemented now than they were when I wrote them. I am not asking Mr. Derbyshire to invest in my older books, as I do not wish to tax his patience unduly with an issue that he has previously described as “stupefyingly dull” (although of course to me my earlier books are jam-packed with boffo, riveting stuff, but never mind), so I’ll summarize them here: they include restrictions on Muslim immigration; a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources and free the U.S. from foreign policy dependence upon Saudi Arabia; an adjustment of our international alliances so as to make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan contingent upon their actively limiting the teaching of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism within their borders; the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia; a call to Muslims in America to initiate comprehensive, transparent programs to teach against the aspects of Islam that are at variance with American law and values; and more.

I have said these things and more plainly in %%AMAZON=0895261006 Onward Muslim Soldiers,%% %%AMAZON=0895260131 The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),%% and %%AMAZON=1596980281 The Truth About Muhammad.%% I am not afraid, as Derbyshire posits, of being “cast out from the sphere of ‘acceptable’ commentary into the outer darkness of fringe politics and ‘hate groups’-a term which nowadays seems to embrace anyone who speaks unwelcome truths out loud.” For he is indeed correct that the “hate” label is readily affixed today to anyone who states truths that others find inconvenient for the public to know, and for those on both the Left and the Right (and yes, there are many on the Right) who allow themselves to be manipulated in this way I have nothing but contempt.

As for Derbyshire’s own prescriptions (offered if what I say is true, which he really isn’t sure about), some have a good deal to recommend them, and as he says, there is nothing inherently “immoral or improper” about them. (Others are pure foolishness: bribing Muslims to leave will only drain the treasury: once you start paying for something, you’ve established the need for a supply – almost certainly some would take the money, leave, and come back to take the money again.) They are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force. Muslims are here in the West, and the hard political reality is that there will only be more of them, and hence more jihadists and Islamic supremacists, in the coming years. We should continue to strive to bring the implications of our disastrous immigration policies and other manifestations of willful ignorance and foolishness to public notice, but we will not be able to rely on law and force alone to get us out of this fix. Thus one last bastion of hope that the Judeo-Christian West does have is that the heart and mind are not immutable. We will have to wage ideological battle on behalf of our threatened civilizational values – a battle for which we are well equipped, as I argue in %%AMAZON=1596985151 Religion of Peace?,%% but which virtually no one is fighting. The truth will out, even against a relentless totalitarianism that appears inexorable. But only if we have the courage to defend it.

That truth, of course, is not coterminous with the desiccated and vacuous Christianity that prevails in so many places today. Derbyshire gets off some of his most engaging shots by playing up that hollow shell as the real thing: “If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?” – that is, the befuddled Dutch bishop who recommends that Christians in the Netherlands, not hitherto known for speaking Arabic, begin to refer to God as “Allah” to please and pacify their Muslim neighbors. Answer: I’d fight alongside Hitchens in a heartbeat, if he would deign to fight alongside me, which is the real question. In my book, as Derbyshire notes, I call for an alliance with atheists, among others, but for his part I am not sure whether Hitchens would identify me as part of the problem or part of the solution. And there’s the problem: we know we’re under attack, but we have to figure out who or what the enemy is in order to be able to fight properly. Is it religious people? Religion itself? Islamic jihad? Christian theocracy? Determining the answer is the purpose of my book.

But John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught: “If-to put faces on the abstractions-Roger Cardinal Mahoney [sic] and his parishioners were to engage in a waste-lot rumble with Abu Ayyub al-Masri and his parishioners, on which party would Robert Spencer put his money?” On Al-Masri, of course. But aren’t you stacking the deck here a bit? What if Richard Coeur de Lion were to happen upon this waste-lot rumble? Charlemagne? St. Louis IX? Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Walter Ciszek? Alexander Solzhenitsyn? John Paul II?

“Christianity,” Derbyshire concludes, “got its start as a religion of slaves. Perhaps it is fated to end the same way.” Perhaps. But those slaves ultimately captured the empire that enslaved them, and transformed it.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

86 Comments

1. zane:

Infantile, petulant reply Mr Spencer, the truth is as a catholic apologist you have an agenda. Derbyshire wins..HANDS DOWN!

Aug 23, 2007 - 8:59 am 2. Tom Bryant:

Excellent rebuttle, Mr. Spencer. I agree with your assessment of Mr. Derbyshire’s review – while very readable, it is filled with “inconsistancies”, and, if I may be so bold, factual errors. I’d like to point out two major ones.

The notion that religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in specific is the source of world conflict and strife is bogus upon examining the evidence.

Vox Day, the WorldNetDaily columnist has noted that the Encyclopedia of War, a peer-reviewed compendium of all of the known wars since 2380 BC, shows that only 7% of all wars ever fought had any religious component at all, and that if Islam were removed from the equasion that number drops to 3%. Also, exactly NONE of the major war philosophers/tacticians cite religion as being important in either the preparation or conduct of warfare (Surely Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Marcus Aurillius, or Nathan Bedford Forrest would have noted any connection between religion and war.) Can we safely say this argument is err, umm… “B”-slapped?

His second major factual error is Christianity as a slave religion. In fact, most of the early non-Jewish adherants were urban and educated. An article found here ( http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html ), written by James Patrick Holding should show why Mr. Derbyshire should re-educate himself before discussing religion. The NT world was a dyadic society, in which claims such as the ones made by Christians would have been checked out by those with the wherewithall to do so especially in light of the fact Christianity violated at least 17 social factors that should killed the religion in utero. The fact that Christianity spread rapidly shows that word reached urban centers that Jesus indeed rose from the grave – which wold have been the only evidence strong enough to overcome those 17 social strikes against it.

As I noted in the comments on his article his definition of “faith” is defective; he defines faith as belief in something without proof, a straw man common among skeptics ignorant of the Biblical use of the word pistis, which means “trust based on evidence or prior trustworthiness”. Pistis is the word most often translated as “faith” in the NT (240 times).

Again Mr. Spencer, excellent rebuttle. God bless.

Tom Bryant

Religious Studies major

Clemson University

Aug 23, 2007 - 8:59 am 3. sharinlite:

I know it is important that those of us who can should stand against the loopiness of John Derbyshire, he is, after all, European. That should explain all to most reasonably sane people. And, I also know that Robert Spencer is the perfect person to put this Derbyshire in his “place” (were he to stay there forever). But in truth, just what percentage of the population not only in the West but the world would be able to read each and understand more than 2% of what they were reading. John, I sense, does it because it is there to do and Robert because it needs to be done. The only consolation and sadness for me is that when my head is bobbing down that blood flooded street, John’s will be but feet from mine and all of my family, friends and associates. Robert, no doubt, will, with sword, fight to the end taking a number of them with him and he at least will be able to say to a barren landscape “I told you so”.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:12 am 4. robert a:

Damn! I love these fireworks! I say Robert wins 5 to 4 in the eleventh inning.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:21 am 5. profitsbeard:

zane-

All life has an “agenda” (to continue existing, to find food and shelter, to defend oneself and to procreate, then defend your offspring).

What the agenda is is the point.

Islam’s: a global theocratic tyranny, anti-art, anti-music, anti-women, and anti-freedom of thought.

Christianity’s: love thy neighbor, forgiveness of sin.

As a non-Christian (although I appreciate Jesus’s message), I prefer the latter as a neighbor.

Your vitriol is all that is “infantile” here.

Derbyshire is trying to stimulate the post-Christians into recognizing the threat from militant, violent Islam and to defend themselves,

And he also wants to challenge the suicidally-pacifistic Christians into seeing the flaw in their shiny, happy Road to Oblivion posing as a “higher moral” belief, since there’s no discernable “morality” in allowing your own extinction by the immoral.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:27 am 6. zane:

im afraid proftsbeard, derbyshire was making the point that the christian apologist spencer is in no way qualified to make an objective comparison of the two religions.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:31 am 7. profitsbeard:

zane-

Why shouldn’t anyone with a belief system opposed to Islam, whatever it is, be allowed to have an opinion about the cruelty and stupidty of Islam’s dogmas?

Everyone has some “system”, whether it is Taoist or Catholic or Wiccan or agnostic.

I oppose Islam from the last point of view, since they care coming for me before they bother the Catholics (who are protected “People of the Book”).

I’ll take any allies I can get against the menticide of Islam as long as they do not try to force their beliefs on me.

I can handle a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon at the door, but not a jihadi’s knife at my neck.

I know the current threat to human liberty, and choose not to confuse it with medieval (”But what about Torquemada!?”) quibbles.

Christianity and Judaism have laid down their “holy” swords, Islam has not.

Fight the right enemy.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:41 am 8. 509th Bob:

I’m with profitsbeard. Besides, if Robert Spencer is “unqualified” to compare the two (three, since Mr. Spencer dares to call it “Judeo-Christian”) religions because he is a “Christian apologist,” then what are zane’s qualifications to criticize Mr. Spencer? Is zane a pagan Druid, or Wiccan, or Tranzi, and therefore the holder of some ultimate truth and insight? If so, zane’s cult is no different than any other cultish devotion to self-delusion. BTW, I’m agnostic, but I still believe that Mr. Spencer is correct in his analysis.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:50 am 9. reliapundit:

Islam and atheistic/secular socialism have killed more people than chritianity or christians.

the atheistic left – which hitchens belongs to killed more than any.

as jesus said of false prophets: “by their fruits you shall know them”

this may be true of all ideologies.

leftist ideologies and islam have wreaked havoc on the world

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:01 am 10. ChristianRepublic:

Spencer wins. Too often those defending the west and its values are more concerned with shooting the blokes on the ramparts next to them than aiming at the enemy. Derb admits that he is generally unfamiliar with Sencer’s writings, allowing that Spencer might have a plan for solving this problem in his previous books, but Derb doesn’t really care enough to find out.

This tends to show that he has a lot to catching up to do before he is qualified to comment further on this topic – unless dismissive pithiness is his plan. You can’t beat something with nothing, and Derb brings no spiritual armament to what is undeniably a spiritual battle.

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:04 am 11. sigmund, carl and alfred:

Excellent rebuttal.

In fact, Spencer is a referee and no more. He expects the same standards and rules be applied to Islam and Islamic societies as they are to Christianity and Christian societies.

Regardless of what is said or promulgated, the proof is in the pudding. There are huge distinctions between Christian and Muslim societies. To blame colonialism or never ending conspiracies as opposed to the centuries of failed, evil and dysfunctional Muslim regimes as the cause of all Muslim world ills, is to deny reality.

The further an individual or society distance themselves from reality, the more dysfunctional they are.

Spencer’s observations are not obfuscated by political correctness or the silly notions of moral equivalence. He knows exactly what he is observing- and that unnerves more than a few of his critics.

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:11 am 12. Infidel Pride:

the reclassification of American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability to which political groups are normally subject, given the intrinsic political nature of the Sharia

Actually, for this to happen, Islam itself would have to be re-classified as a political ideology or more accurately a geopolitical cult, as opposed to a religion. If that isn’t going to happen, how does one make the case that Islam is a religion, but an Islamic group is a political org?

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:51 am 13. J.B.:

zane-

If you’re the same zane that comments on every post Robert makes over at HotAir, than I think it is pretty clear that you have an anti-Spencer agenda. And as other commenters have noted at the aforementioned website, you may indeed have pro-Islamic agenda, perhaps you work for CAIR?

Instead of attacking Roberts on the substance of the issues, you attack him personally, trying to discredit him at every website he submits his ideas to. Here you call him a Christian apologist, over at HotAir you questioned whether or not he spoke Arabic. The reason you use these ad hominem attacks against him is because, face it, you can’t beat him in the intellectual arena.

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:54 am 14. karen:

Question about this quote from Spencer:

an adjustment of our international alliances so as to make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan contingent upon their actively limiting the teaching of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism within their borders

He’s not saying aid to Egypt is ok provided they keep jihad ideology and supremacism within their borders, is he? Rather, he’s saying we can give aid to Egypt if they seek, within their borders, to clamp down on jihad ideology and supremacism, correct?

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:57 am 15. Aristotle's foolscrap:

Well and rightly met at the challenge. I have become a recent but earnest admirer of your work Mr. Spencer. You speak with conviction born of truth and framed with logic.

I have a small supposition, and forgive me if it has already been spoken of. I am not yet familiar with the entirety of your writing. My suggestion is that the Christianities and Islam(s) (the world’s principal expansionary religions) are not unlike two circling wolves on an ever decreasing stage. Disregarding the truly important questions of their respective merit, is it not possible that the present conflict must be met squarely simply because competitors will suffer only one victor? Culture (in the organic sense) must also run the Darwinian gauntlet. Thus in a world of constant and instant presence, what was once tolerated at a great distance seeks now to engage in all or nothing conflict.

The time has come to prevail or pass away.

Aug 23, 2007 - 11:21 am 16. Infidel Pride:

Zane

So you agree with Derbyshire that all Muslims immigrants be deported, Muslim immigration be banned, all Muslim citizens bribed to leave and all dawa in prisons get halted?

Aug 23, 2007 - 11:31 am 17. Joseph McNulty:

Mr. Spencer zeros in on the great weakness of the piece by Mr. Derbyshire. He seems to look on this existential conflict with Islam, which we will either win or perish in, from a distance and without a “rooting” interest. As a “pagan,” he says that the claims of Christianity require “magical” thinking, just as those of Islam, and both are unbelievable to the irreligous. If he really thinks that Christianity is as dangerous to him, as a free thinker, as the doctrines of Islam, he is ill- informed about the threat. Even if it is worse than “radical dentistry,” he should read the Qur’an carefully or, less painfully, at least read Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower” to understand what we are up against. As long as we continue to get the party line of the “religion of peace” and “hijacked by a small band of extremists,” we will continue to be unable to conceptualize the threat. I personally think that we will not face facts until the SECOND American city goes up in a murhroom cloud. I have gotten to the despairing point of just hoping that the the strike — which I fear in inevitable while the irreligous attack Christianity, not Islam — will not be disabling. Saudi Arabia reportedly receives an ADDITIONAL $500 million PER DAY because of the recent increase in crude oil prices. The Saudi royal famility has nore than 6,000 princes, all receiving a government stipend. It only takes one who decides to spend his money on behalf of Islam and give it to Al Queda. Would you bet that a nuke will never be available for the right price?

Aug 23, 2007 - 12:53 pm 18. awake:

Spencer successfully defends his book and wins the argument.

Derbyshire, who openly states his disdain for religion in general, who isn’t interested in the subject, hasn’t bothered to research it, all by his own admission, attempted to pass off a peripheral review of the book on a merely logical level.

It was more a critical review of the religious faithful from an atheistic point of view. Derbyshire attempts to toe the PC company line that Islam and Christianity, by his overall condescending view of religion, are morally equivalent. This is a main premise of Spencer’s book. This religious moral equivalence nonsense is exactly what Spencer successfully refutes in the text.

Derbyshire unwittingly supports Robert’s position and even goes further than Spencer has done himself, in his reference to a needed moratorium on Muslim immigration. He also openly admits that Islam presents the biggest threat to all other faiths, atheists included, currently. This effectively derails his whole critical argument of Spencer’s book.

In summation, what I took from Derbyshire’s original review was that for the most part he agrees with Spencer, but has to give it a thumb’s down ultimately, because it just wasn’t his cup of tea.

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:04 pm 19. NeoCon:

J.B…..agreed. I do belive its the same zane who repeatedly and insufferably harrangues Mr. Spencer. Good catch, kudos to u sir. Keep up the good work Spence, we lu ya man!!!

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:09 pm 20. BadBrad:

Spencer, hands down.

Even if he was a “catholic apologist”… I’d rather side with the apologist who was apologizing for teaching peace, tolerance and CHOOSING to love god… rather than the one apologizing for those teaching that you better SUBMIT to god, submit to us, and do things our way or we’ll blow you up or cut your head off. I guess I’m just not as “enlightened” as Zane… or is it just me?

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:13 pm 21. Josh:

Zane,

Get real. You think anyone takes seriously the “one liner” style slander you heap on Dr. Spencer?

Take a few days, formulate a psuedo-sound argument, and try again.

Keep up the great work Dr. Spencer, I haven’t read the latest book yet, but “the truth about muhammad” changed my world view and I insist that all my friends read it.

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:24 pm 22. Dexter French:

Um, that would be the same Richard Coeur de Lion who got himself kidnapped and ransomed by not only the Turk, but by the French? The man for whom “A kings ransom” and “Worth his weight in gold” were invented?
If so, can we really afford many like him?

Just sayin’

Other than that, loved your re-buttal.

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:34 pm 23. BSlade:

Exchanges of this kind don’t seem fair. Writers like Spencer always come off as the winners, because they know all there really is to know about atheism. The atheists, on the other hand, almost always display such hilarious or appalling ignorance about religion that it’s impossible to take them seriously. This is evident even to readers like me who are not particularly religious, but have absorbed knowledge just from being raised in religious homes or communities. At least 80% of what Derbyshire has to say about religion is based on his abysmal ignorance, and must only seem persuasive to those who share it.

Aug 23, 2007 - 1:52 pm 24. edward97:

zane said:

…the truth is as a catholic apologist you [Spencer] have an agenda. Derbyshire wins..HANDS DOWN

That’s a fallacious kind of argment, zane. It’s a sort of argumentum ad hominem. Typically used by someone who can’t deal on the merits with the arguments made, so instead attacks the person making the argument.

Refute his arguments and facts, if you can. Because even if you could prove that Spencer had an “agenda,” that in itself wouldn’t yet demonstrate that Spencer’s arguments are wrong. To demonstrate that, you’d still have to deal with the arguments on their own terms and show just where the logical or factual flaws are. But it certainly is easier to simply slander a person’s background, isn’t it?

One should resist that temptation and restrict oneself in one’s criticisms to what can actually be looked at and criticized: Spencer’s arguments.

What you said was little more than a modern spiritual vestige of the medieval “witch” accusation, which sometimes involved confusing mere accusation with proof of some kind of guilt, so that any gullible types standing about might be ginned up into instantly condemning the accused and burning her at the stake. In a spiritual way your comment seeks to get foolish people to have a sort of mental mob reaction, and in effect mindlessly burn Spencer’s intellectual reputation at the stake, without any kind of prior due process (examination of his intellect on the merits).

Aug 23, 2007 - 2:02 pm 25. David Mathews:

Robert KKK Spencer and his Bigots Brigade … what a miserable group of hate-filled bigots!

Would Robert Spencer care to argue with Richard Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins says some terrible things about Christianity in his book and lectures. Richard Dawkins also says some really terrible things about the Bible and the various denominations that make up Christianity.

Does Robert Spencer deny that Christians are responsible for a horrendous amount of bloodshed in Europe, the New World and globally throughout the era of colonialism (which happened to end in the global wars of the 20th century)?

Does Robert Spencer deny that there are American bombs & bullets which are killing Iraqi civilians right now?

Does Robert Spencer deny that American Christians (and Jews and atheists) invented the nuclear bomb, and that these weapons were used to kill massive number of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

****

Fundamentalist Christians are a considerably greater threat to the United States than the Muslims. If you people continue your warmongering I imagine that you people might discover your own religious freedoms restricted.

I am certain that it is just as easy to put bloodthirsty Christian bigots in internment camps as it was to put American citizens of Japanese descent into these camps.

If you people keep spreading your lies and threats of violence against millions of American citizens, I am certain that you will discover that the United States of America is not a Christian fundamentalist any longer.

Do you people really want to put this idea to the test?

The sword of bigoty and religious prejudice cuts both ways.

Aug 23, 2007 - 2:17 pm 26. Joseph McNulty:

I hesitate to respond to a troll — and one who seems immune to reason, responding not to arguments but just loosing a new blast of invective (while accusing the interlocutor of doing to same). I am sure that even Mr. Derbyshire would not want such a fool to be on his side. I do resent your threat. Go ahead. Organize your camps. I would imagine that the Islamists have a sharper penalty in mind for you.

Aug 23, 2007 - 2:28 pm 27. David Mathews:

Hello Joseph,

I am not on Mr. Derbyshire’s side. In Mr. Derbyshire’s Book Review he comes across as a bigot, too. Atheists are prone to bigotry of this sort, too: Sam Harris falls into this camp with his “Kill all the Muslims” atheistic ideology.

Okay, Joseph, you don’t want to live in a concentration camp. Good.

Would you put America’s Muslim citizens in a concentration camp?

Would you drop American nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina?

Would for revoke the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in order to deny Freedom of Religion to America’s Muslims?

***

Robert Spencer is the Western equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. Robert Spencer would lead a jihad against the world’s Muslims.

Robert Spencer’s followers want to commit genocide against a billion Muslims, too.

Robert KKK Spencer … another American religious bigot. Our country has a long history of generating bigots of this sort. When they are successful, bloodshed results.

But Robert Spencer isn’t a successful bigot. Robert Spencer is losing his crusade against Islam.

Aug 23, 2007 - 2:38 pm 28. David Mathews:

Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins regarding the Bible & Christianity:

“What are some problems with Judaism and Christianity?

There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible–books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Qur’an pales in comparison.

Richard Dawkins, a vocal atheist, has said the Old Testament God is a “psychotic monster.”

Not only is the character of God diabolical in those books, but there are explicit prescriptions for how to live that are not metaphors; they are not open to theological judo. God just comes right out and says “stone people” for a list of offenses so preposterous and all-encompassing that the killing never stops. You have to kill people for working on the Sabbath. You kill people for fornication.”
(
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/191/story_19107_1.html )

Would Robert KKK Spencer care to debate with Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins about the character of the Bible and all of the evil acts committed by Christians on behalf of their religion & world dominance?

Robert KKK Spencer would have everyone believe that the Bible is a love letter and that Christians have spent the last two thousand years handing out flowers & chocolate to world.

Robert Spencer’s interpretation of the Qur’an, Islam and Muslims is colored altogether by his own perverse prejudice, hatred and bigotry.

He is not an objective source of information regarding either the Bible or the Qur’an, Islam or Christianity.

If anyone doubts the violence inherent in the Christians, ask the Jews how the Christians treated the Jews over the last two thousand years in Europe.

Europe was a bloody mess because of the Christians. When they weren’t busy killing each other they killed the minorities. When they weren’t killing on their own soil they travelled the world committed genocide against nations on every continent.

But Robert Spencer would have you believe that Islam is the world’s violent religion in constrast to Christianity, the religion of peace (and nuclear bombs, sorry Hirohima!).

If Robert Spencer wants to have an argument he ought to come here and we can have this argument. He won’t allow this sort of message to appear on his blog. He is very carfeful to censor all contrary viewpoints except for his own brand of ignorant, illiterate bigotry and bloodthirsty prejudice.

Robert Spencer is the Western equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, leading Christians on a jihad against the world’s Muslims.

What a worthless, vile, evil man. May God have mercy on anyone who listens to him.

Aug 23, 2007 - 2:59 pm 29. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

I posted the following on the original thread. Since that argument died several days ago (which the other posters failed to notice, while they were arguing I was on the beach with the dolphins & ospreys):

The United States of America dropped nuclear bombs the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 150,000 civilians in the process and leaving an equal number to suffer horrendously from injuries and radiation poisoning.

Will anyone argue that the above acts constitute the behavior of a peace-loving Christian nation?

Or … does America have a license to kill as many foreign civilians as it wishes?

***

If anyone of you can contact Robert Spencer, send the above to him and let him answer it on his own hate-filled prejudice-pandering terrorism-promoting blog, (Christian) Jihad Watch.

If Robert Spencer can exonerate Christianity from its crime of vaporizing over 100,000 Japanese civilians (including thousands of Japanese Christians, we’ll meet in Heaven!) … let him do so.

Once he gets done exonerating Christianity for this act of terroristic genocide, there are some other acts of genocide committed by the Christians which we can debate.

For example, as I resident of Florida I am well aware of the Christian genocide against the native inhabitants of this state (and surrounding regions).

The Natives, remember, too. They remember the crimes which America’s devout Christians committed against them in the 19th century. How could they forget?

The natives were nearly exterminated by the Americans. They survived only because they hid in the Everglades, a place so difficult that the American armies could not reach it.

The Everglades saved the Native Americans from extermination. America’s peace-loving Christians failed and that is why a small population survived.

Will Robert Spencer explain how this act of genocide committed by the Christians is consistent with his own theory that Christianity is a religion of peace & tolerance & love (except for the Muslims, of course!).

Robert KKK Spencer … America’s Osama Bin Laden!

Aug 23, 2007 - 3:24 pm 30. Joe McNulty:

>Robert Spencer is the Western >equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, >leading Christians on a jihad >against the world’s Muslims.

I am not aware that Robert Spencer has killed anyone, as Osama bin Laden has. I also am not aware of any “jihad” being conducted against the world’s Muslims. If anything, President Bush has been too solicitous of Muslims with his pronouncements proclaiming Islam as a “religion of peace” and a “peaceful religion hijacked by a small group of extremists.”

Somehow, I feel that there is nothing that I could say to demonstrate the bona fides of Chritianty,

What does the Old Testament have to do with the essential message of Christianity? In fact, Jesus was put to death because he was guilty of blasphemy in the opinion of the religious authorities. There is no point defending that which does not need to be defended on any reasonable basis.

Aug 23, 2007 - 3:38 pm 31. Abu Allah:

David Mathews, thank you for providing a perfect example of the willful ignorance, and PC induced self hatred in which so many westerners currently wallow. In those three steaming piles of logical fallacy which constitute your above posts, you managed, without confronting a single one of Spencer’s assertions, to air a diverse laundry list of historical events which you seem to believe show the wickedness of some vaguely connected western culture, almost all of which involved secular nationalist players, and none of which took place any more recently than six decades ago, in an incredibly convoluted attempt at forming some weak moral equivalence for the atrocities of Islamic extremists that anyone with a television or an internet connection can witness on a daily basis.
Then you wave some obscure old testament texts to somehow crow to us that “Christianity and Judaism are just as violent as Islam.” That argument might start to get the attention of agnostics like me when I see Christian or Jewish militias attacking night clubs, pizza parlors, and crowded skyscrapers on a daily basis, and then invoking Deuteronomy as justification. Until then, it is worth about as much as a Zimbabwean dollar to me. I think the icing on the cake, however, is when you say “Robert Spencer is the Western equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, leading Christians on a jihad against the world’s Muslims.” Really? How many skyscrapers has Mr. Spencer ordered terrorists to fly passenger packed planes into? How many kidnapped journalists has Mr. Spencer ordered beheaded? Where are all the Christian militias and terrorists carrying out his marching orders and implementing this fantasy genocide against Muslims that you assert? Bravo sir, I believe your mindless tripe should be read as widely as possible, in order to show the dangers to logic and a basic sentient sense of self preservation, caused by a religious belief in Political Correctness and the Equality of All Belief Systems and Cultures.

Aug 23, 2007 - 3:55 pm 32. David Mathews:

Hello Joe,

> I am not aware that Robert Spencer has killed anyone, as Osama bin Laden has. I also am not aware of any “jihad” being conducted against the world’s Muslims.

Have you read what Robert Spencer’s uneducated, illiterate, ignorant-as-sin followers have said on his own blog and elsewhere on the Internet at conservative blogs such as Townhall.com (among many others).

You people are idiots if you think that no one is listening to what you are saying about the crimes which you want to commit against the Muslims.

Yes, Joe, there are plenty of Christians who notice the abhorrent jihad that Robert Spencer wishes to conduct against Islam. Robert Spencer might conceal his intentions but his followers have said many explicit things.

And then there are political bigots like Tom KKK Tancredo who want to drop nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. This is a subject which was brought up for discussion on the conservative blogs and there were plenty of Christian jihadists who wholeheartedly supported the proposition.

Robert Spencer hasn’t killed anyone yet … but if the West followed his suggestions millions of innocent Muslim civilians would die.

You then reveal your own astonishing ignorance by asking:

> What does the Old Testament have to do with the essential message of Christianity?

Without the Old Testament, sir, the New Testament is worthless and Jesus’ death on the cross useless.

Christians have spent the last two thousand years adhering to the Old Testament, basing their theology and apologetics upon it.

You can verify this easily enough: The Christian Bibles universally include the Old Testament.

That’s a testimony to its relevance to the present discussion.

But, Joe, why don’t you get Robert Spencer come here so that I can have my argument with him right here, right now.

If Robert Spencer wants to exonerate himself from the accusations contained in my post, he should come here and clarify his viewpoint and intentions against the world’s Muslims.

Where is Robert Spencer? I will debate him right here, right now. If there is any truth or any merit in his message of hate, fear, and bigotry against the Muslims, he will have to demonstrate it himself.

But Robert Spencer is too much of a coward to face his critics. That is why he censors contrary viewpoints from his blog. He only allows like-minded bigots to speak on Jihad Watch.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:00 pm 33. David Mathews:

Hello Abu Allah,

Only an ignorant bigot (such as yourself) would fail to notice that the United States of America is presently engaged in a war of aggression & occupation in Iraq, and that this war involves daily acts of violence against Muslim civilians such as:

1. Dropping bombs on houses (sorry, neighbors!)

2. Shooting bullets from helicopters, tanks and soldiers into crowds.

3. Use of Depleted Uranium, a substance which if used in the United States would constitute a “dirty-bomb” and a terrorist act equivalent to what happened on 9/11.

4. Imposition of Western culture, values & corporations upon the Iraqi people.

5. Imposition of a government upon the Iraqis which, while nominally democratic, actually serves the interests of America rather than the Iraqi people.

6. Depriving Iraqis of the basic necessities of life in a civilized society.

7. Naked exploitation of Iraq’s natural resources for the benefit of Western oil corporations.

8. Threats, both implicit and explicit, against Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia).

9. Explicit threats from the administration itself to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

***

And so forth. So much for the theory that only Muslims are violent.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:07 pm 34. CJ:

Davey, Davey, Davey,

First of all, Dr. Spencer would not lower himself to the level of your absurd accusations to “debate” you. I see you have a lovely comment on your home page…..

May the Day Come When All the People of the World Choose to Live in Peace with God, Nature and Humankind.

Until That day Comes I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone.

It sure looks like to me that you certainly hate Dr. Spencer and his readers. In my book that makes you a complete hypocrite and greatly diminishes any credibility in your words.

I don’t think anyone will deny that the use of atomic (not nuclear) bombs was used to end WWII, and that several thousands of civilians were killed. However to imply that it was the direct result of Christianity is a huge leap from logic and historical FACTS. If Christianity was the motive (as you claim) then why didn’t the USA continue on and conquer Japan and make it a Christian outpost? Your erroneous logic is laughable.

But let us set history aside for a moment shall we?? What about the world right now? I can’t tell you how many never ending stories in the paper and the news programs about those damned radical Christians killing innocent people all over the globe. (sarcasm by the way) The Islamic jihadis will tell you straight up that their mission is a global caliphate for Islamic law in the name of Allah.

I in no way am implying that we should kill all Muslims. Nor do I think that a nuclear weapon dropped on Mecca or Medina is the answer. You come on here throwing out ridiculous statements, make horrendous personal attacks, and yet offer nothing towards rational discourse and debate. It is hard to debate someone when you call them a bigot every other word.

And by the way, I think you need to be educated as to the definition of bigot: “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.” You see, Dr. Spencer has even asked for a banding of differing faiths and atheists to quell the radical tenets of Islam. So your also (by definition) wrong on your use of that term as well.

Regards,

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:12 pm 35. Abu Allah:

Dave Mathews:

“Have you read what Robert Spencer’s uneducated, illiterate, ignorant-as-sin followers have said..”

“Robert Spencer might conceal his intentions but his followers have said many explicit things.”

Notice the word you used in both of those sentences: ‘SAID’. Not did, but said. Anonymous posters on some internet blog who could just as well be trolls trying to discredit Mr. Spencer, and this is what you use to show that all those Islamic Jihadist atrocities committed around the world aren’t so bad after all. Very convincing. You can’t even put together a half decent logical fallacy, and yet you think Mr. Spencer, a scholar, professor, and best selling author should debate you?

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:15 pm 36. MGreen:

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a bigot is defined as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” By his own words, David Matthews indicts himself as the bigot in this discussion. His use of ad hominem characterizations such as Robert KKK Spencer and his hyperbolic and idiotic declaration of moral equivalency between bin Laden and Spencer convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

To answer his questions more succinctly:

I would not put American Muslims in a concentration camp. If any engage in acts or conspiracies to act against the government or the people of the United States, I would imprison them, if they are U.S. citizens, and I would deport them if they are not. If innocents were killed, I would execute them.

I would not drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca or Medina without provocation. However, if any Islamofascists were to attack the United States with any form of radiological weapon, I would turn Medina into a glowing, green glass parking lot and then I would tell the Islamofascists that survive that, next time, it will be Mecca. Sadly, history teaches us that it sometimes takes two nuclear bombs to convince totalitarians with imperialistic hegemonic goals (like the Emperor of Japan in 1945 and maybe the Islamofascists of today) to back off.

Mr. Matthews not only lacks moral or intellectual clarity, he also proves himself not to be a Constitutional scholar.

As the Supreme Court has already observed, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The interpretation of the Bill of Rights under the Constitution has always been a careful balancing act: e.g. free speech vs. screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

Similarly, freedom of religion can not extend to any group which adopts, as part of its belief system, the goal of overthrowing the government (by violence if necessary), replacing the Constitution with its own code of laws which would deny that same freedom of religion to everyone else.

Groups which advocate the overthrow of the government and replacement of the constitution are not religious they are seditious criminal conspiracies and must be dealt with accordingly. None of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights extends to the freedom to cause physical harm to others, blow up buildings, kill innocents, and the list goes on.

But Matthews’ contention that Spencer is the western equivalent of bin Laden and that his followers want to commit genocide against a billion Muslims reveals for all to see that he is a troll for the Islamofascists. No, Mr. Matthews, it is the Islamofascists who want to commit genocide against the infidels. Just ask the Armenians, they will tell you all about it. All the infidels want is to be left alone.

To say that jihadist Islam is a murderous cult of death with gobal hegemonic pretensions which presents a clear and present danger to Western civilization is not bigotry, Mr. Matthews, it is simply the truth. Al Zawahiri and bin Laden say so.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:19 pm 37. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

This is a message that I received via e-mail from one of Robert KKK Spencer’s jihadists:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

***

Will Robert “Osama” Spencer come here and defend the above proposed Constitutional Amendment?

Robert Spencer is bold enough to spread all sorts of slanders against the Muslims, but he is too big a coward to come here and engage in an argument with a Christian.

Robert Spencer is wise to fear the Christians more than the Muslims. If Robert Spencer isn’t careful he just might discover that American jihadists will suffer the same sort of legal penalties which presently fall upon the terrorists who also seek to harm innocent civilians to advance their political-religious causes.

Those who promote violence against Muslims are terrorists. America isn’t going to tolerate any sort of violence or civil strife from its Christian fundamentalists.

If the Christian fundamentalists want to preserve their religious and political freedom they will not seek to deprive these from America’s Muslim citizens.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:25 pm 38. Abu Allah:

David, I’ll ask you again? Did you actually comprehend anything I wrote? Where did I say that I thought only Muslims are violent? I certainly believe that individual Christians, Jews and others can be violent, but not due to the current teachings and practices of their religious movements. Islamic terrorist groups are religious movements, who act directly on violent imperialist, expansionist, and supremacist dogma being spouted in Mosques all over the world, every day. You simply cannot show me the equivalent of that coming from any other major religious movement in the world today I asked you to show me the Christian and Jewish militias and terrorist groups following Mr. Spencer’s marching orders and you bring up the American presence in Iraq. Last time I checked the United States is a secular democratic republic, and its military is soldiered by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and probably other religious groups as well. Not exactly an analog of Hamas or Abu Sayyef, huh? Next you’ll be telling me I should watch out for Jewish members of Al Qaida I suppose? The fact that you brought up Iraq also shows your ignorance on this entire debate. If you had actually been to Jihadwatch as you claimed and read even briefly, you would realize that Mr. Spencer and Jihadwatch vice president Hugh Fitzgerald are fiercely opposed to the war in Iraq, and therefor the use of it to attempt to defame Mr. Spencer and his views is at least as worthless as the other fallacies that you have tried to peddle in your previous posts.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:34 pm 39. Abu Allah:

Dave Mathews:
“Have you read what Robert Spencer’s uneducated, illiterate, ignorant-as-sin followers have said..”
“Robert Spencer might conceal his intentions but his followers have said many explicit things.”

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:38 pm 40. Abu Allah:

“And so forth. So much for the theory that only Muslims are violent.”

David, I’ll ask you again? Are you drunk? Did you actually comprehend anything I wrote? Where did I say that I thought only Muslims are violent? I certainly believe that individual Christians, Jews and others can be violent, but not due to the current teachings and practices of their religious movements. Islamic terrorist groups are religious movements, who act directly on violent imperialist, expansionist, and supremacist dogma being spouted in Mosques all over the world, every day. You simply cannot show me the equivalent of that coming from any other major religious movement in the world today I asked you to show me the Christian and Jewish militias and terrorist groups following Mr. Spencer’s marching orders and you bring up the American presence in Iraq. Last time I checked the United States is a secular democratic republic, and its military is soldiered by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and probably other religious groups as well. Not exactly an analog of Hamas or Abu Sayyef, huh? Next you’ll be telling me I should watch out for Jewish members of Al Qaida I suppose? The fact that you brought up Iraq also shows your ignorance on this entire debate. If you had actually been to Jihadwatch as you claimed and read even briefly, you would realize that Mr. Spencer and Jihadwatch vice president Hugh Fitzgerald are fiercely opposed to the war in Iraq, and therefor the use of it to attempt to defame Mr. Spencer and his views is at least as worthless as the other fallacies that you have tried to peddle in your previous posts.

I’m done ‘debating’ you (if what you are doing could even be called debating.) After the previous exchanges, it has become clear to me that not only are you not worth Mr. Spencer’s time, you are not even worth mine.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:43 pm 41. Joseph McNulty:

Christians have spent the past 2,000 years adhering to the Old Testament? That statement shows that you know nothing about Christianity. It is not worth my time to argue with you. You suffer from what could only be called “invincible ignorance.”

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:47 pm 42. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

I have provoked a reaction on the (censored) Jihad Watch blog:

“On the comments threads under Robert Spencer’s article over at Pajamas Media, a sociopath commenting as “David Mathews” — I think he’s the felonious phony “Rev” Jim Sutter — is savaging Robert Spencer as the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, talking as if Spencer agreed with the KKK, asserting that Spencer intends for huge numbers of Muslims to die, and saying all sorts of other lies in a glib manner full of pseudo-facts that may succeed in persuading the innocent who happen by the site.

“I’m convinced that Mathews is deliberately and consciously lying about Spencer in order to discredit him with anyone happening by the Pajamas Media site. Mathews, I believe, has a hidden motive: either he is a paid shill for CAIR or Saudi Arabia or the like; or as a sociopath, he gets pleasure out of a manipulative game.”
( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017881.php#comments )

Are the followers of Robert Spencer so ignorant & uninformed as to imagine that they represent a popular viewpoint among the Christians?

These uneducated, easily-manipulated jihadists really do imagine that Robert Spencer represents some sort of mainstream Christian viewpoint regarding Islam.

No, treah, I am not a member of CAIR nor a citizen of Saudi Arabia. I am a Christian, a citizen of the good ol’ US of A, and a person whose criticism of Robert “Osama” Spencer is motivated absolutely upon the principles of justice and love which are common to all the world’s religions.

Robert Spencer knows that I am real person, too. I engaged in a conversation with him a while back via e-mail.

Christians have an obligation to struggle against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence … even when these are exhibited by fellow Christians.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:53 pm 43. kauaiterence:

Interesting points Mr. Bryant

“Vox Day, the WorldNetDaily columnist has noted that the Encyclopedia of War, a peer-reviewed compendium of all of the known wars since 2380 BC, shows that only 7% of all wars ever fought had any religious component at all, and that if Islam were removed from the equasion that number drops to 3%. Also, exactly NONE of the major war philosophers/tacticians cite religion as being important in either the preparation or conduct of warfare (Surely Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Marcus Aurillius, or Nathan Bedford Forrest would have noted any connection between religion and war.)

Two points . . .

1. If these stats are accurate, then over half of all religious wars are Muslim inspired and the rest are perhaps evenly dispersed among the religions of the world. Since Viet Nam all of the wars that involved this nation had to do with the USA saving Muslims from themselves i.e., Somolia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. etc.

2. Muhammad may be considered a war philosopher/ tactician and he certainly used religion as a basis for his philosophy. The Qur’an is full of examples of both.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:53 pm 44. Traeh:

Mathews, sorry, but I don’t believe you. And I don’t think anybody should trust a word out of your mouth.

Aug 23, 2007 - 4:57 pm 45. David Mathews:

Hello Abu Allah,

If you want to engage in any sort of argument with me you will have to reveal your name and exactly what relationship you have with Robert KKK Spencer and the terroristic Jihad Watch website.

Where is Robert “Osama” Spencer?

If he is bold enough to slander a billion Muslims he should be bold enough to engage in an argument with a Christian here.

Did you know that bigots are naturally cowardly people? This is the reason why bigots are filled with so much irrational fear against those who are different.

I have met way too many Muslims in my life to stand silently by while Robert Spencer provokes a genocidal war between the nuclear-armed Christians and the world’s Muslims.

“ But the wisdom from above is first pure,then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. ”
(James 3:17-18)

Christians who spread prejudice & hatred against Muslims blaspheme Jesus Christ and trample upon the cross and everything it represents.

Aug 23, 2007 - 5:01 pm 46. Veronica:

to Mr David Mathews

The Crusaders were a reaction to a continuous attack by the muslim armies, be it in Jerusalem, Sicily, Lisbon or Madrid.

The bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never dropped on Japan in the name of Christianity, so your example is skewed.

WW2 was never about spreading Christianity or in the name of Christianity.

Other than the Crusade, which was in the name of Religion, no other systematic attacks were made in the name of Christianity. again look above for the crusade paragraph.

The atrocities committed during the colonialism in the name of religion is shameful, but don’t you think that hundreds of years of Human rights thoughts would enlight us ?

therefor today the Christian religion or Judaism are not an immediate danger to humanity as islam.

and no huge masses of Christians are willing to support or attack any other nation in the name of Christianity, neither Buddhists would attack other people neither Wiccans would do etc…only islam, the proof are around you everyday in the news, and I would not mention the crimes committed in the past centuries, while Christianity moved away from genocide, islam is trying to revive it more intensely as it was in the past, but today.

Mr David Mathews

now I don’t want to embarrass you, but you speak as if you were a victim of a Christian atrocity lately IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY ?

I don’t believe you are a victim and I bet neither of a muslim one.

so how can you speak of the danger of the Christian religion.

since I lived more than half of my life with muslims (I’m not so young) in my country and the other half in the US, I can say there is more atrocities committed by muslims than by Christians or any other group be it in Lebanon or in the US.

but I on the other hand have been subjected to muslim atrocities committed in the name of islam, in my own country Lebanon, where in the 75/90 invasion of Lebanon by the ummah el islamieh with the palestinians criminals and it is going on till today, they did an unspeakable crimes against my people in my own country and all in the name of islam and their allah, like kidnapping a Christian, tying one leg to a car and the other to a different car and splitting them in half while they are still alive or dragging them behind a car while alive in the palestinians camps till they die while the palestinians are watching and eating baalawa/sweet. Does it remind of a certain woman in gaza the day after 9/11 ?

when the abu ghraib scandal hit the US news we did not see regular US citizens going in the streets and give out candies ?

we were shameful that our soldiers or leaders would allow such things.

can you see the different level of morals ?

strick societies make you do sick atrocities.

let me tell you from my experience

muslims do not like nobody except muslims that’s it that’s all, terrorism did not start after the afghan or iraq conflict, it started a long long time ago…

therefore islam is the immediate danger to a civil societies.

extremism need extreme measures

I’ll let each to his own imagination

but don’t forget

war is strategy, not charity.

Aug 23, 2007 - 5:16 pm 47. daruut:

David Mathews,

If I wanted to engage in an argument with you, you first have to make an argument, not just ad hominem attacks or specious comparisons. Your putting horrible things in the middle of his name is not even that clever, really.

Spencer has never advocated a genocidal war, whereas Islamists have. Spencer points out what should be fairly obvious: That jihadists are pointing out what is in the Qur’an and Hadith.

Also, Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled and transcended the Old Testament, whereas the Qur’an is supposed to be the never-changing, unalterable word of God directly.

Besides, if you cared about fighting prejudice and hatred, how come you don’t have a bad word to say about jihadists who want to kill, convert or make all non-believers submit? Huh?

Aug 23, 2007 - 5:26 pm 48. Macker:

David:
Be thankful you still live in a society which allows free will.

SLM DELENDA EST.

Aug 23, 2007 - 5:32 pm 49. David Mathews:

Hello Macker,

These Christian jihadists threaten America’s freedom. Their bloodthirsty hate and terroristic intentions are the foundation for a fascist nation which would commit a holocaust against its Muslims, Mexicans and Homosexuals.

I am not very much worried about this radical Christian minority, though … there is enough space in Gitmo to accommodate the Christian jihadists who want to plunge the world in perpetual, genocidal religious warfare.

“Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.”
(Hebrews 12:14)

God help these bloodthirsty bigots should they ever harm anyone on behalf of their Christian jihad. If they value their own freedom they should stop spreading hatred and advocating violence.

Christians who advocate violence against anyone blaspheme Jesus and trample upon the cross.

Robert Spencer needs to repent, repudiate his message of hate, and publicly apologize to the world’s Muslims on Fox News and CBN.

Should he refuse to do so, God will punish eternally those who blaspheme Him in this life. If Robert Spencer takes all this religious stuff seriously, he must repent.

Aug 23, 2007 - 5:46 pm 50. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

I have waited long enough for the esteemed Robert Spencer to appear in order to engage in a debate regarding his evil message of hatred, bigotry, prejudice, irrational fear and genocidal warfare against the Muslims.

Robert Spencer is not bold enough to appear in order to defend himself from the harsh criticisms which has deservedly received here. He is too cowardly to speak out on his own behalf.

Everyone should keep this in mind the next time they see Robert Spencer on TV spreading his message of hate to a compliant, gullible audience of uneducated bigots who need some sort of “scholarly” justification for their hate.

My argument with Robert Spencer is finished. My argument with his followers is also completed.

If Robert Spencer values his soul he will follow the advice which I wrote in bold above. But if prejudice is too profitable business for him to repudiate, God will eventually punish Robert in whatever manner He sees fit.

“ But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.”
(Galatians 5:22-23)

If you love Jesus, you must love your Muslim neighbors worldwide.

But if you harm the Muslims either in word or thought or deed, you have trampled on the crucified Jesus and blasphemed God and committed an obscenity against the Spirit.

****

That’s it. My argument with Robert Spencer is finished. May God have mercy upon his miserable, terrible, hate-filled little soul.

God bless the peace-makers. God bless the Muslims. God bless the Chrisitans. God bless the Jews. God bless the atheists. God bless the agnostics.

May we all learn to live at peace with each other and love each other.

Aug 23, 2007 - 6:13 pm 51. Caroline:

Dave Mathews: “Christians have an obligation to struggle against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence … even when these are exhibited by fellow Christians.”

Don’t Christians then likewise have an obligation to struggle against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence when these things are exhibited by Muslims as well?

It’s actually interesting that you add “EVEN when these are exhibited by fellow Christians”.

Because that is an admission that Christians are in fact obligated to struggle against these things EVEN when they are NOT exhibited by fellow Christians”.

Yes? Because that is what your post implies – that Christians have an obligation to struggle against against hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence.

Do you deny that Muslims worldwide are showing daily evidence of hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence?

Do you actually read jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch every day? Because if you did you would come to the inesecapable conclusion that Muslims are everyday – all over the planet actually – committing acts of hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence.

And you yourself have admitted that a Christian is obligated to struggle against those things.

So what’s your beef with Robert Spencer and his readers actually struggling against that hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence even though it happens to be being perpetrated by Muslims rather than Christians?

It’s fascinating that you dismiss every poster here trying to address the hate, bigotry and violence committed by Muslims every day – their struggle against that – as bigotry, while at the same time conceiving this high moral ground for yourself to struggle against what you perceive as hate, prejudice, bigotry and violence committed by Christians.

The only difference is that you think you are taking the high moral ground because you are attacking your own rather than “the other”. You have no problem mustering insane bigotry and vitriole against your own and you somehow think that that doesn’t reflect hatred and bigotry because its directed at your own rather than “the other”. You think that gives you the moral high ground.

You’re wrong. Hatred is hatred. Anger is anger. You’re no better than any other poster here. You just think you are because you’re attacking your own rather than the “other”.

That’s stupid. Sometimes one’s own side is right. Sometimes the other side is right. It requires reason and moral aptitude to tell the difference. You display neither.

We Americans were wrong when we had slaves and we rectified it (that civil war you like to mention as evidence of “Christian violence” without noting what it was fought for). Muslims are wrong NOW for wanting Sharia law to replace liberal democracy.

If this were the 19th century, no doubt many JW posters might well be abolitionists. But that’s history. So RIGHT NOW, Robert Spencer and his readers are focused on confronting what is RIGHT NOW “hate, prejudice, bigotry, and violence” being perpetrated by Muslims on a frightening world-wide scale.

And as you yourself have admitted, it is indeed a Christian’s duty to confront precisely that.

I don’t accept your implicit racist assumption (apparent from your vitriole) that only “white Christian Americans” can be bad and truly evil while those “beautiful” (your words) Muslim people can only be good but that’s because I’m not a racist, which frankly, I think you are.

There is only evil. It has no color. Or rather it comes in all colors. And Christians are obligated to fight it.

Aug 23, 2007 - 6:16 pm 52. dominigan:

Whenever a liberal says “but what about the Crusades?”, I like to counter with… which Crusades? After all, the Battle of Tours was fought in 732. A simple history of battles fought, and where, usually explains a LOT.

Aug 23, 2007 - 6:44 pm 53. Stephen:

What a wonderful debate between Derbyshire and Spencer! I find myself agreeing first with one, then with the other. Perhaps this is because both recognize the threat to Western civilization, while emphasizing different aspects of the threat. The response above by David Mathews is illustrative of the problem both Derb and Spencer are trying to address- wilfull ignorance amongs the beneficiaries of Western civilization. My one minor criticism of both Spencer and Derbyshire is neither of them address the phenomenon of masochism amongst the affluent: the longing to submit to jihadis by the Western castrati amongst our governing, media and academic elite.

Aug 23, 2007 - 6:53 pm 54. Brett_McS:

Question for “David Matthews”:

Is tolerance of intolerance a good thing?

Aug 23, 2007 - 7:09 pm 55. Veronica:

Mr David Mathews

I hear you saying that if you warn of a danger before it happens is bigotry. let’s say, if I warn you about a pedophile that abused my children, not to trust and to investigate his motives and be wary of him, do you accuse me of bigotry ?

We thought like you in Lebanon, and we did not learn from Diarbaker and Mardine massacre by muslims when the ummah el islamieh and the palestinians thugs invaded and slaughtered our people on the basis of the Christian faith IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, a lot of people think it was a civil war, it was not, it was an invasion, we let them in as refugees, you know the palestinians are not Lebanese, they use islam and the old lie that the crusaders are killing the palestinians in Lebanon so the ummah will come and slaughter my people in 75/90 and still till today, as the US is letting refugees come in, we have to be worry about their reasons, this is not bigotry, this is learning from mistakes committed in this century I am not talking crimes of centuries back. Dr Robert Spencer is giving a warning, it might seems as bigotry for an unexperienced people who did not witness the atrocities that Dr Robert Spencer is warning about which are committed by muslims against people who gave them a home in Lebanon.

Draw your own parallel conclusions.

Aug 23, 2007 - 7:23 pm 56. RE:

Robert Spencer offers a fine rebuttal to John Derbyshire.

I am generally a fan of Mr Derbyshire, but as Mr Spencer has shown, Mr Derbyshire came to this gunfight armed with a slingshot.

But kudos to both Mr Spencer and Mr Derbyshire for a fine example of the civil and intelligent conservative debate.

Aug 23, 2007 - 7:25 pm 57. Logic:

The only hate I’m reading on this site seems to be coming from one Dave Mathews.

You can’t debate Robert, because he speaks the truth about Islam. That is why you slander him and lie about his message. Your frustration is obvious, and your delivery is childish. I truly feel sorry for you.

Aug 23, 2007 - 8:08 pm 58. oao:

David Matthews should be considered a troll.

I know the type: dumping looooong sections of ideological and irrelevant drivel without ever addressing the subjects at hand or the responses he gets. The more responses he gets, the more unrelated drivel he dumps. The only way to win is to ignore him.

Logic or consistency are obviously not in his repertoir, but let me point out one blatant inconsistency for the benefit of those who have the capacity to observe it: isn’t it obvious that while he preaches tolerance he exhibits deep hatred?

Must be a leftie. They are quite capable of nonsense.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:11 pm 59. profitsbeard:

Dave M-

After a host of non-stop spews of hatred, it was nice of you to Coda with an insincere call for love.

Thanks for the laugh.

Aug 23, 2007 - 9:21 pm 60. Anthony (Los Angeles):

re: Mahoney vs. al-Masri

Don’t be so fast to put your money on the (soon to be late) leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Many of the Cardinal’s flock come from East L.A.: they know a thing or two about street-fighting, believe me.

Aug 23, 2007 - 10:26 pm 61. We need G.C. Scott:

Our “Christian” visitor David Matthews brought to mind a particular biblical passage: “When that day comes,many will plead with me,’Lord, Lord,have we not prophesied in your name? Have we not exorcised demons by its power? Did we not do many miracles in your name as well?’ Then I shall declare to them solemnly,’I never knew you. Out of my sight,you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

Funny thing is,I can’t recall Mr. Spencer ever condoning the murder of Muslims or anyone else for that matter. Specific examples would be most helpful. As far as his “followers”(are you for real?)Spencer states in black and white that comments posted on his site do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch. Basic reading comprehension skills are in order here. We’ve also heard that nuclear bomb on Japan one from far too many islamic apologists as well. Once again,for the uniformed, Japanese scientists were, at one point, ahead of the pace of the Manhattan project, this was a race between Japan/Germany and the US,so there shall be no apology for crossing the finish line first. Classic tactic to divert any thread. Sorry sir,but you slip is showing.

Aug 24, 2007 - 12:57 am 62. Pastor JD in Aus:

People, lets take some advice from the wisdom of Solomon
Pr 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly
Pr 26:11 As a dog returns to his own vomit So a fool repeats his folly

Might I suggest that rather than wasting your precious time arguing with people like Zane & David Mathews we all just ignore them.

Pr 27:22 Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.

Aug 24, 2007 - 4:54 am 63. ChristianRepublic:

Hey Dave Matthews,

Your lyrics are juvenile verbal junk sculpture and your drummer sucks. And who was your guitar teacher, a sousaphone player?

Aug 24, 2007 - 5:59 am 64. AK:

Here’s the second most important part of the whole exchange:

Derbyshire wrote:

Indeed, the secularists, with all theirfor standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?

Neither. If by “standing and fighting” you mean “writing witty essays with clever turns of phrase,” sure, Hitchens is great. But when it comes to real standing and real fighting – not just with words – who is going to shoulder arms and fight for the future of civilization, people who believe in an afterlife or people who believe that after you die, that’s it? The religious prepared to die for God. Are secularists prepared to die for secularism?

And here’s the most important part of the exchange:

John Derbyshire also wonders whether or not “the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction,” and whether the followers of that Prince really have the strength to withstand the onslaught….

The followers of the Price of Peace are still here after 2,000 years, including periods of oppression, strife, and war far more dire than what we face at the present. Secularism/atheism as a national governing principle has been around a couple centuries at best, mostly with awful results.

The Church still stands after 2,000 years. How’d the French/Russian revolution work out?

Aug 24, 2007 - 6:11 am 65. Tom:

Given all the sports analogies, I’m hoping it’s 10 to 10 in the 14th inning. I’d like to see more.

Aug 24, 2007 - 7:17 am 66. Andrew:

I think it pretty plain that DM is a Muslim. His style of address, his screeching pronunciations, his ham-handed attempts at rational argument, repitition of tropes, etc., all scream “imam delivering fatwa” to me.

As does this:
“Robert Spencer needs to repent, repudiate his message of hate, and publicly apologize to the world’s Muslims on Fox News and CBN.
Should he refuse to do so, God will punish eternally those who blaspheme Him in this life. If Robert Spencer takes all this religious stuff seriously, he must repent.”

Shades of the Mohammed cartoon controversey, eh?

Aug 24, 2007 - 7:57 am 67. Richard:

Specer spends half his rebuttal “rebutting” something Derb never said. At no point did Derb maintain that Christianity and Islam are “equally likely to incite violence.” If fact, Derb wrote:

“That does not preclude the possibility-which I think is an obvious fact-that in the present state of the world, Islam contains a far higher proportion of crazy troublemakers that does Christianity.”

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:05 am 68. Hous bin Pharteen:

To: At large
Re: Dave Matthews, Zane
straw man: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.

Example: “only an ignorant bigot (such as yourself) would fail to notice that the United States of America is presently engaged in a war of aggression & occupation in Iraq, and that this war involves daily acts of violence against Muslim civilians”

ad hominem: appealing to personal considerations rather than logic or reason; attacking the person, not the argument.

Examples: “Infantile, petulant reply Mr Spencer, the truth is as a catholic apologist you have an agenda.”
“Robert KKK Spencer and his Bigots Brigade … what a miserable group of hate-filled bigots!

moral equivalence: claiming that there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in actions or tactics of either side.

Example: “criminals shoot people; police shoot criminals. Criminals are people, so police are no different from criminals.”

“But Robert Spencer would have you believe that Islam is the world’s violent religion in constrast to Christianity, the religion of peace (and nuclear bombs, sorry Hirohima!).”

My advice: treat this kind of commentary as a series of hoots and clicks. Arguing with them is like trying to teach a dog to sing: it wastes your time and gets the dog pissed off.

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:07 am 69. RiverCocytus:

Man, I smell troll in here. Not just any kind of troll, treatise troll. He needs to be ignored. He knows what his name is, and his poor beats and rhymes rat him out. I also smell a troll enabler, who thinks that his arabesque will make him less grotesque. Nonetheless, both should be ignored posthaste.

Spencer: It is said that one should be delighted to be the derision of fools. For the foolish deride what is good and hold dear what is nonsense. So it’s really a compliment. Not that I wish I had such a steadfast detractor, but you know. Consolation and all.

Good rebuttal. As I recall, Derb is of the school of ‘It’s all Greek to me.’ Free thinking? It’s a form of close mindedness. He simply has closed his mind to the differences in any kind of thinking that revolves around religion, perhaps especially Christianity. I think there’s a scripture for that one from old Paul. Anyhow, he wants very hard to have a good objection to what you’ve written and can’t seem to fish one out. It’s hardly the fault of his skill; he just lacks the resources in this case to make a strong argument.

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:08 am 70. Dr. Filthy McNasty:

Nothing is more unbearable than someone with no knowledge on a subject trying to expound with clever witticisms, and that aptly describes John Derbyshire anytime he picks up a pen and tries to write something about Christianity.

He writes like some giggling gay dandy bouncing around a Boy’s Town party wearing a mitre and cowboy chaps, doing an imitation of the Pope replete with farting noises.

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:22 am 71. Mark B:

Spenser wins hands down. Derb’s main points are : all religion is bunk and bunk is all the same, Christian nations are fighting too nice, and Christian nations are being too nice letting bad people immigrate.

Derb may very well be right that all religions are bunk, but it surely doesn’t follow that all bunk is equal. 2+2=5 is wrong, but not as bad as 2+2=3×10^23.

Christians fighting too nice? The vast majority of our armed forces are strong Christians and they are killing by the bushel. It’s the secular left and secular Europe that are trying to be nicey, nice and “win without war”.

Finally, open borders is a Christian-inspired mess? Huh?? Could he please explain secular Holland’s imigration mess? Atheist France? Agnostic London(istan)?

Sorry Derb. You got smacked down pretty hard on this one. Christian 1 – Mysterian 0!

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:37 am 72. bmcburney:

The thing I found odd, and rather disturbing, about Mr. Derbyshire’s review is his utterly sanguine contemplation of the coming enslavement of Christians. The Derbyshire attitude (and that expressed by many comments here) seems to be that, Christian doctrine is just as preposterous as Muslim doctrine, so who cares which group kills, rapes or enslaves the other? Derbyshire says “True that Muslims have killed many thousands for religious reasons in the last few years but what about the Crusades and Galileo?

Look, guys, the Crusades were a long time ago. Do you really think the Christians will be murdered and enslaved but the atheists will be allowed to go their merry way? Derbyshire lives happily in a broadly Christian society (even though other societies, less God-ridden societies are available). I am not confident he would live as happily in the coming Muslim Caliphate. Despite the Crusades.

Aug 24, 2007 - 9:14 am 73. BMoon:

Spencer virtually nukes the noble, but illequipped Derbyshire on every count -comparative understanding of Islam and Chritianity, history, logic, and practical solutions. Speaking of which, the following stood out to me from Spencer’s rebuttal:

“They¬¥(Derbyshire’s proposals) are, of course even more remote from current political reality than mine above, and they spring ultimately from Derbyshire’s lack of belief in the Transcendent: without confidence in the power of truth, there is nothing left but force.”

That last thought was transcendent in itself. It pinpoints, not only the fundamental error in Derbyshire’s arguments, but of the secular West’s approach and uderlyig weakness in general. Derbyshire errs so dramatically bcause, as secularists often do, they assume by their ‘unbelief’ a subjective sense of superiority and neutrality, not caring to reflect that their ‘ubelief’ is ad of itself a strong bias based un unfounded assumptions. This exposes the very root of the universal acid which has eroded so profoundly, as a civilization, our sense of moral clarity, identity, and history as a culture, and which has placed us in such a precarious position. Both Derbyshire and the secular west, both conservative ad leftist, too often fulfill the maxim we have here in Mexico, “Se suben el tabique, y se marean.”(They step up onto a brick and suddenly get dizzy.)

It is with profound sympathy and comradery that I say to the Derbyshires and Hitchens of our besieged world, stick to what you’re good at. Stay away from metaphycics.

Aug 24, 2007 - 9:39 am 74. scott:

Ban Islam in the US. See my proposal at: http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

{paragraphs deleted due to length}

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Aug 24, 2007 - 11:28 am 75. Rest of the Dave Matthews Band:

to everyone trying to debate Dave Matthews and/or his Band–

You got trolled!

Aug 24, 2007 - 12:03 pm 76. Gerry:

Re: Derbyshire’s comment to refute that “… Christianity provided the philosophical framework within which modern science could grow and develop…” as opposed to Islam misses the fundimental concept of God within the two religions.
First, God has set the universe this way because he wanted it this way. Thus any concept of the universe or smaller part of the universe we can descern, has been and will forever remain the case.
Islam, in contrast, Allah can change his mind or actively intervene on earth at any time for any arbitrary reason. Thus, for example, Einstein’s theory of relativity may not be the valid at some other time. As Spencer states in one of his previous books (I cannot remember which and I am paraphrasing), Islam considers the Christian concept as chaining God’s hands. As I see it, Islam’s concept of God is God as a micromanager (for lack of a better term).
Second, in most of the world’s religions, the “founder” (again, for lack of a better term) was already a leader of some sort. Moses, Siddartha, Muhammed, etc. had political or economic power (or both) already, thus were (if you will) providing further butressing of the existing societal structure. Jesus, in contrast, was a carpenter, not a leader in the sense of Moses, Muhammed, etc. Further, Jesus teaching was to question the “status quo” and turn certain accepted parts of society on its head. One of the tenets of science (and the scientific method) is to question the “status quo” to determine its validity. Thus, it can be argued that Christianity is a large part of the progress of science.
Conversely, Islam discourages questioning the status quo, because any questioning is considered apostasy.
Third, while the Church has the ugly treatment of Galileo etal., science was later encouraged to understand God (”know Him by His works”). There is no such encouragement in Islam to understand God because He is beyond understanding.

Aug 24, 2007 - 2:56 pm 77. BMoon:

Who is Dave Matthews?

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:04 pm 78. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

To the Pastor I will add another Proverb:

Do not answer a bigot according to his/her folly.

It makes no difference if the bigot hates the Jews, Christians, blacks, Mexicans, Asians or the Mormons … no argument will dislodge bigotry from a person naturally inclined to bigotry.

Since that is the case there is no point in prolonging this argument because when you boil it all down Robert Spencer’s course in comparative religion – comparative violence teaches only this:

1. Only bad Christians engage in violence, slavery, warfare, genocide and nuclear warfare.

2. All good Muslims are violent.

It is not a scholarly argument, nor a rational argument. It is merely an expression of pure bigotry from the King of the Bigots, Robert KKK Spencer.

Now you can go back to your ignorant ranting against Islam. Suit yourself.

Aug 24, 2007 - 4:46 pm 79. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

Those who read the discussions following Robert Spencer’s posts will verify that my description of that group as positively genocidal in its intentions against the Muslims.

For example, consider the following statement:

“Vis a viz Derbyshire’s comments on the nature of christianity, I am afraid that it is still somethin that bothers me. I do not see how fighting against Islam tooth and nail is compatible with ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘loving the enemy’. I do not love Islam – I hate it. I wish to see it wiped from existence – and I am absolutely convinced that it is moral to do so.

–POSTED BY FANUSI

Jesus told me to love my enemies. He didn’t tell me to love HIS enemies.

I am truly the enemy of Jesus’ enemies. And Jesus’ greatest enemy is Satan, the anti-Christ, of whom muhammad was one incarnation and the worst incarnation, “a liar and the father of lies, and a murderer from the beginning.”
( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017881.php#comments )

Did you notice the principle explicitly expressed above:

Jesus told me to love my enemies. He didn’t tell me to love HIS enemies.

This is the sort of reasoning which makes sense only to a Christian Jihadist who seeks to justify committing acts of violence, warfare and genocide against the Muslims.

Then there is particularly vile wish expressed by a bigot named Engineer-Poet:

“I’m all for recognizing Islam in general as a political movement, with all that implies. ”

Well, Engineer-Poet, Muslims aren’t the only religious people engaged in political movements. The Neocons and the Christian fundamentalists are quite active politically as well.

Engineer-Poet would likely kill many Muslim civilians if he could. Engineer-Poet is, more or less, an atheistic jihadist with Christian sympathies (as long as the Christians join his jihad against the Muslims).

Aug 24, 2007 - 5:22 pm 80. Infidel Pride:

Leave it to a certifiable cretin like Dave Matthews to not recognize the difference between an ideological cult – Islam – vs it’s 1.3b adherents – an unestimable mix of the good, the bad and the ugly!

Aug 24, 2007 - 8:59 pm 81. Darcy:

People – “zane” is a Mohammedan Apologist I’ve seen on Hot Air comments. He’s a fool – don’t feed the troll.

“David Matthews” is an infantile ignoramus who has a vocabulary consisting of one word – “bigot.” (In case you haven’t noticed, LOL!) Don’t feed this troll, either – not worth your time.

Aug 25, 2007 - 5:17 am 82. David Mathews:

Hello Darcy,

The followers of Robert Spencer have a similarly limited vocabulary when speaking about the Muslims.

Those who hate the Muslims because they are Muslim differ not one bit from those who hate the Jews because they are Jewish.

Is there any better name for this irrational hatred and fear than bigotry?

Aug 25, 2007 - 12:19 pm 83. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

For those who doubt the genocidal intentions of the radical conservative jihadists, consider the following statement posted at Townhall.com:

“We have to fight Islam like we fought the communists: ARMED TO THE TEETH AND READY TO ANNIHILATE.”
Gabby
( http://tinyurl.com/2v4lsw )

Please note that Robert Spencer and his ilk do not public denounce such genocidal urges among their followers.

Robert Spencer’s followers understand his message well enough that he doesn’t even need to express it: All Muslims are evil, violent and threatening. Therefore the Christian West must kill all of the Muslims, deny them freedom of speech & religion, expel them from America and Europe, and drop nuclear bombs on their Holy Sites.

Needless to say, such sentiments are expressed on a daily basis in the rabid conservative and fundamentalist circles of the Republican party. This is one of the reasons why it is absolutely essential to defeat the Republicans in the next Presidental election, too.

Aug 25, 2007 - 1:24 pm 84. David Mathews:

Hello Everyone,

As a perfect illustration of the astonishing ignorance displayed by Robert Spencer’s followers on a daily basis, there is the following post on today’s thread:

“Starting today I will use a daily counter announcing every Christian attack, bombing, drivebyshooting, etc on all non-Christian nations and people.

“Day 1–no Christian attack on muslims today.”
Hungarian Crusader
( http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017895.php#comments )

Eh … so today was a peaceful day in Iraq?

I am going to guess that American bombs & bullets which happen to kill Iraqis on a daily basis constitute an attack by Christians against Muslims.

I wonder why these Christians (”Christianity is the Religion of Peace“) aren’t protecting the Muslim civilians from American wars of aggression and American military violence?

And … where were the Christians when the Americans were torturing Iraqis (and others) In Iraq and elsewhere?

Where was the Christian outrage against American crimes against humanity?

You won’t ever see Robert Spencer lifting a finger to protect the Iraqi Muslims from American military violence. So much for the idea that we are more peaceful than them.

Aug 25, 2007 - 3:03 pm 85. Caroline:

Dave Matthews: “I wonder why these Christians (”Christianity is the Religion of Peace”) aren’t protecting the Muslim civilians from American wars of aggression and American military violence?”

My guess is that they’re a bit tied up at the moment trying to prevent Muslims in Iraq from being blown up by other Muslims.

Dave: “Those who hate the Muslims because they are Muslim differ not one bit from those who hate the Jews because they are Jewish.”

By analogy, those who hate the KKK because they are the KKK differ not one bit from those who hate the blacks because they are black.

After all, why let a little thing like the difference between race and ideology get in the way of your moral equivalence, especially when you’re on such a roll? I’d actually try to explain to you the difference between hating an ideology and hating the people who practice it but frankly, it would go over your head so why bother?

Aug 25, 2007 - 9:42 pm 86. JohnAdams:

This tit-for-tat argument arguing the validity and complex histories of these world religions is really not to the point…FOR ISLAM IS AT ITS HEART A POLITICAL SYSTEM. More to the point a fascist system, and likely its “leaders” do not even subscribe to it. They use it to marshall and subjugate the ignorant, and therefore to use them as they spread over the planet and gain wealth and power. The apologists for the “religion of peace” be they Muslim or non are often convincing. But as Dylan once wrote: “They smile at your face but behind your back they hiss.”
And in as such as Islam is a political system with a stated goal of overthrowing the Constitution of the United States, how are its adherents not guilty of sedition in this country? How are they not imprisoned and deported? Islam is not a religion. It is a cancer that uses democracy as its host. Until we realize this–and sadly, it will require even further calamities in the West–we watch our own destruction and argue over trivialities.

Aug 29, 2007 - 1:33 pm

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments:

Mano a mano: Spencer v Derbyshire

86 Comments

Write a Comment

MOST POPULAR

MOST RECENT

PJM EXCLUSIVES

PajamasXpress Blogs

PJM Political

DAILY DIGEST

THE EDITORS @ PJM

PJM AUTHORS