Keep Dreaming, Nuncio.

"The Bad Shepherd", Peter Bruegel The Younger.

If you ask me, only one of the two can be true:

1) some people live on the moon.

2) some people find it convenient to talk as if they did.

The latest example is the utter lack of realism in the Christian-Muslim “dialogue”. The naivety of his most ardent proponents it even surpasses the “ecumenical” process a’ la ARCIC.

A beautiful example of this delirious mentality is the (thankfully) retired nuncio of the Vatican for several Muslim countries, El-Hacheb. The chap seems to live in that beautiful world in which children start to march all together for world peace and behold, it becomes a reality. Among the measures our chap would like to see more seriously implemented are schools filled with Catholics and Muslims. Let us mix all together, ponders the man. That in this way a serious Catholic teaching becomes impossible (because it makes the occasion of conflicts even nearer) doesn’t seem to worry him as his implied solution seem to be to dilute Catholicism to make place for “diversity”. Catholics will become a little more Muslim, and Muslim will become not one bit more Catholic but hey, it sounds so good.

This ecu-maniacal thinking is deluded because it starts from the assumption that if Christian and Muslim would only know each other better, they would avoid being in conflict. This is more than naive, this is outright moronic and the fruit of total disregard of the simple reality under the sun.
Christians and Muslims have been living together in several countries for many centuries now; the idea that conflicts be caused by not knowing what the other thinks is more than outlandish and the fruit of the same delusion which has caused the creation of that other child dream made expensive reality, the United Nations; namely, the thinking that just because people talk, wars stop happening.

Christians and Muslims fight each other because they know each other good enough, not because they don’t. The real facts the ecu-maniacal sissies do not want to understand (or conveniently pretend not to understand) is that Christianity will never be compatible with Islam, and Islam will never be compatible with Christianity.

Besides being theologically incompatible, an even bigger obstacle is that they are both expansive: both want to convert the world, an exercise in which – say – Jews and Buddhists are not interested in the least. The reasons of conflicts between Christianity and Islam is built-in in the way both religion work, and no amount of daydreaming and wishful thinking will ever change an iota in that. Christianity and Islam can, at best, avoid actual war and they actually do it most of the time. But even that might not be possible, or not be expedient and this is another reality conveniently forgotten nowadays.

But then again, the former nuncio also wishes for summer camps where the young of both religion meet and spend some day together, which gives you the measure of his detachment from reality. Muslim parents sending their daughters in a holiday camp with Christian boys? “That will be the day”, I hear the Duke saying…..

The simple fact is that for too long the pretension of childish dreams of “peace” has been conveniently used to mask cowardice; that ecu-maniacal efforts and fantasies of “dialogue” have been used to disguise the unwillingness to become vocal and aggressive in defending Christians in predominantly Muslims countries; that the fundamental nature of the conflict between Christianity and Islam makes the end of such a conflict utterly unrealistic; that only a moron can give any credibility to a “dialogue” with members of a religion which allows them to lie to further its interests.

It is high time that we stop burying our head in the sand, abandon the convenient blindness of political correctness – what is political correctness if not the demand that one be blind, lest he be offended by what is plain to see? – and start to hammer into the heads of the Christians that Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible and there is no place for any coexistence of the two. Not from a theological point of view (because we must work to convert the whole world, not to convert the non-Muslim one) and not from a practical one (because Islam has the same ideas we have, and there’s only one planet to convert).

This conflict is here to stay. It is inherent in the way the two religion work. Nothing short of the eventual defeat of Islam will change it.
We need to wake up to this elementary truth.


Posted on October 24, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Nothing short of the eventual defeat of Islam will change it.
    Hear, hear!!

    • And their eventual defeat is as certain as the Amen in the Church.
      That they don’t know it doesn’t change anything in the matter. 😉

  2. Well, not. If Islam and Christianity managed, anywhere and at any time, to live in tolerance of each other, and you say they have, and facts as I know them seem to support the assertion, then they could do so again. (The reason I put it that way is that I would like to know about the day-to-day, doorstep ‘peace’ before I agreed that such a condition had actually attained, not just the absence of shooting events perhaps too small to be mentioned in the written records we have.) And we could do so, manage to live in peace, until the not-so-distant future when we are not speaking of converting the planet anymore, but converting the solar system. The size of that project will change things, and surely you would agree that it would take a certain amount of the pressure off. (Don’t you agree that the distance alone between the great centers of these two religions, as distant as they were in the past, helped to cool things off now and again?) Technologically we could begin yesterday to enlarge our space, with the first Near Earth Orbit colony. (We’re lacking something else–the will to do it.) Socially, IMHO, it is not the conflict between Islam and Christianity that stands in the way, but secularism. It is secularism that has thrown the earth into contraction rather than expansion, in a million ways. And something else–Islam is perhaps not fighting Catholicism in this most recent struggle (although the church just yesterday invaded in Iraq and all those Catholics killed in it would argue against that; but the church was secondary, even an accidental, target, they were deflected from their orginal–secular–target). There was a recent huge Gallop poll and it seemed to me at the time that the lifestyles of secular countries–I think pornography and homosexuality were specifically named, and also the notion of the secular state itself–were some of the complaints of jihadists). Traditional Islam is fighting its own modernists, and the acceptance of the secular state over the sharia state is one of the elements of the conflict. As it should be for all Catholics, but Vatican II gave that away!

    You might well say, so what? But actually–do you really want to die for the secular state? Do you want to fight Islam in this particular conflict? If an enemy of mine is fighting an enemy of mine, doesn’t that suggest a strategy of ‘let’s see who wins and then fight’? Or do you think the winner would be stronger at that point? Perhaps you think the secular state is the lesser of the two evils? Or even a friend to Catholics? I personally do not. Just as you do not cringe from the notion of war, I do not cringe from the notion of martyrdom, which personally I would prefer (I say I would, without every having been even insulted in my whole life) to life in the so-called freedom of secularism. Life in secular society is unbearably stupid. They ruin sex, they ruin fiction, they have the uncanny ability to turn gold into straw. ‘Religious freedom’ is the litany of the dirtiest whore. I do not blame Islam one whit for hating it too. And our armies carry it everywhere.

    I do not mean to be difficult, and I certainly am not trying to shock. I am just expressing what I honestly feel, that I have more in common with the woman dressed in the burqa across from me on the bus that I feel with the woman dressed for her poll-dancing class on the other side of me on the bus. If you, in your analysis here, expect me to send sons to die for the right of the woman dressed in next-to-nothing to do so freely–wow. I know there are some who would–but you?

    But what strategy am I suggesting, other than ‘support space colonies’? I’ll give it this shot: Let Islam and the secular US fight it out and afterwards use our energies to return the US to its original, Catholic identity. Yes, that might be Spanish-speaking.

    I know very little. I’m not trying to deny it. I just suffer from the contradictions. Did you know that Iran blew the whistle on a new UN ‘death-strike,’ when every single other represented entity, including the Vatican delegate, sat silent? The US was trying to change some definitions in a little-known ‘definition meeting’ about six months ago, and trying to make ‘reproductive health’ always and everywhere include the right to abortion. It was going to go to a successful vote! It would have been absolutely devasting, automatically introducing abortion as a right everywhere it presently is still being fought. Everybody was asleep! But Iran, at the very last possible second, walked out, and then others woke up, and it was successfully fought. When I read this, I sat at my computer and actually cried. Talk about torturing me. These are my enemies. And I was so grateful to them. (Muslim countries as a whole are alone in fighting a pro-life agenda in the UN; the Vatican seems to waffle.)

    I found your site by an SSPX-Wordpress announcement-thingy. Please do not associate me with SSPX on this issue. I have never heard it referred to in any SSPX chapel, nor in Angelus magazine, nor in any book, ever. I do love SSPX–but my comments here come from my own pro-life, pro-family, pro-modesty efforts, and in that context, life with Islam is not as one-hundred eighty degrees opposite what I practice as life with secularism is.

    • I hope you are not a relative of Paul Priest, The White Lily.

      The simple fact is that whilst Christian and Muslim can manage to live in peace for a while, they must ultimately clash because both want only one to remain. Fantasies of space enlargement do not change anything in that because if there were more planets habitable, both Christians and Muslims would want to conquer all of them for Christianity/Islam.

      I agree with you that both secularism and Islams are enemies. But I think that secularism is much easier to defeat and his foot soldiers, as you yourself sense, much less motivated.

      That Iran helps (semel in anno) on life issue is fully irrelevant, as the UN are fully irrelevant. We know Islam is pro-life, so what? No one has all the shortcomings at once.

      Yes, I do expect that you educate your children that democracy is worth dying for. A time might come where democracy is not worth being protected anymore (I have written a post just a few days ago), but frankly if you thin k we are at that point because of scantily clad women you scare me.

      I haven’t read all your message, but hope I’ve tried to get some answers at least.


  3. It seems more of a fantasy to me than escape to space that the theological conflict between Islam and us is, because irreconcilable, a sure sign that ceaseless war between us is inevitable. Also, scantily clad women everywhere is a pretty serious condition, for women. So is abortion. So is birth control. So is the proliferation of gay lifestyles. Are you a person with a family? These are very serious issues for people raising children, responsible for their souls. How do you protect your children and not live on the outermost rim of the world? And last, I cannot agree that Islam is stronger than secularism. Secularism (and indifferentism) was condemned more strongly than Islam than the man whose picture you banner, it seems to me. I am not saying that Islam is not a false religion nor that it is benign but I personally do not wish to be swept into the protestant Republican party free market drive for war with Islam at the expense of independent Catholic political positions in economics and morals, too. There are very many irritants we could remove than might mitigate the jihad, and that would also make life better for us all here in our homeland. Scantily clad women would be a fine start. You seem to think that makes me more dangerous than the porn-pusher. But perhaps you’ll give it some thought, anyway.

    We, meaning the United States, are already at war with Islam, and I am not voting to end that, although it seems I do not have a choice in any election on that option, so if there is a point to promoting more war with Islam, is it to hate a little harder? Should we elect more aggressive chieftans? Discuss limited nuclear initiatives? Make alliances with the other varieties of heretics (with whom we are also irreconcilable)? Does us focusing on secularism within our own borders hurt that effort? Or am I frightening you because the idea of censorship of some kind treads on a favorite freedom of your own?

    Iran standing for life is important to very many dedicated pro-life Catholics, but I will refrain from saying that your not being so is frightening. But it is interesting.

    • TWL,
      I haven’t said that ceaseless conflict is inevitable. I have said that conflict is, in the end, inevitable. It’s different.

      Scantily clad women are themselves responsible of how they dress. I’m not going to throw my democracy to the dog for them. Besides, nowadays women can vote, scantily dressed or not. When women were not allowed to vote, there were no scantily dressed women around. That’s the drawbacks of emancipation I suppose.

      You protect your children by teaching them well. The world has always been full of curruption, even before scantily clad women.

      The great man in my avatar lived in an era where fanatic islam was rather dormient. Besides, his degree of condemnation is nothing to do with their respective degree of danger. Just look at how atheist liberals are afraid of islamists and you’ll know who is boss between the two.
      I disagree with the idea (really naive to me) that jihad might “mitigated”. This is Chamberlain mentality. If you’re strong they’ll hate you, if you’re weak they’ll hate you. Fanatic islam needs more George W. Bush cure, big time. That’s a language they understand.
      Be assured that you don’t frighten me, though a person who seem so focused on scantily clad women actually should. I think you don’t see the forest because you are so appalled by the scantily clad tree.
      What we must do, is to show fanatic islamists who is boss. This means punishing Iran (we’ll get there in time, I think), continue to support Iraq and end the job as good as we can in Afghanistan. Make no mistake, that’s what will happen. Even Obama hasn’t really abandoned any of the three objectives, which says a lot.
      The focus on secularism is fine. The idea that democracy be disposable because there are women around who willingly choose to dress scantily isn’t.
      We can dispose of secularism in a peaceful way. No such hope with Islam. Think about what “jihad” means, and you’ll have all the anwers.


%d bloggers like this: