Spengler usually writes cogent essays but this one has got problems. He's cited an example from 180 years ago in order to draw immoral equivalence between Christianty and today's Islam.

Yeah - and how dare us condemn slavery in Niger and the Sudan - after all we had a slave culture at one time too!

rick:

?

The point is that tolerant Europe isn't more moral, but less.

We all knew this was coming.

It's just peachy for the RoP to persecute converts and missionaries in 2006 because other religions did so a thousand years ago.

Nor should we be swayed by accept the story about the Spanish schoolteacher, Cayetano Ripoli. I must say that no source I have examined is clear about what happened to this man, but we already know that the Inquisition did not kill people. This was left to civil authority.

But assume the worst about Spain. The World Goverment brought reformation to Spain 1n 1898 and we shall continue the great, good work now.

Lou:

Look at Spain today. How did ending persecution help?

How did beginning persecution help? Maybe Spain is a mess because of a long history of error and injustice.

Spain became a great nation as it persecuted--enforcing a sense of what it was to be a Spaniard.

Spain became a great nation by looting the treasures of the New World and faded in to obscurity when that gold was spent.

It turned and looked for new worlds because it had become a great nation. The re-unificatiom of Spain, the Inquisition, and the age of exploration are all inextricably bound up together in one big package.

I'll say this much for the Inquisition: Orrin would have lasted about five minutes under it. There's also such a thing as immoderating yourself into oblivion.

joe:

where?

For you personally? Any place where being able to keep your mouth shut for five minutes at a stretch is a prerequisite for survival. Trust us, you'd have found a way to get barbecued.

No, where has intolerance towards those who deviate from Judeo-Christian norms been a detriment?

Immoral equivalence? Read again: I draw a bright line between Islam and Christianity. But the death of faith IS death in both religions, indeed all faith, whether it is inflicted by a hanging court or by spiritual decree. However distasteful the persecution of Rahman may be, the spiritual crisis of Islam also has lessons for our own spiritual crisis, and whatever we may think of Islam, we should not be so arrogant as to despise these lessons.

Mr. Judd;

Maoist China. Ba'athist Iraq. The Saudi Entity.

No, where has intolerance towards those who deviate from Judeo-Christian norms been a detriment?

Europe, for a couple of centuries after 1620. Intolerance toward those who deviated from Judeo-Christian norms was a prime reason many Europeans came to the New World.

Oh, and since you claim Spain went downhill after they stopped executing apostates, that must mean the US has always been decadent, right? Because we've never executed apostates, as far as I know. So that must mean our Judeo-Christian heritage is very weak, correct? By OJ's standards, the Founders were practically secular Europeans, the wimps!

AOG:

Their problem wasn't intolerance but what they required.

Pap:

So you're picking Europe during the years of its ascendancy to world dominance?

No one has been more ruthless towards deviants than the US which has persecuted heathens, witches, anarchists, communists, white separatists, etc.

Just came from a website that discussed the nature of measuring time, and had a sudden blinding glimpse of the obvous: Spengler is ASKING US TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE IMPROVED IN TIME. He takes examples of ANOTHER COUNTRY 130 years ago, OVER FOUR GENERATIONS AGO, and conflates them with what Islam is doing Today, and asks us to believe we are the same.

What is one apple and one orange? Two fruit, obviously. What is NOT so obvious is that, in order to add them, you must change the units, and thus IGNORE THE ESSENTIAL INHERENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APPLES AND ORANGES. To force the euqation of Islam with Christianity, Spengler MUST IGNORE THE ESSENTIAL INHERENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM TO MAKE THE EQUATION WORK.

So WHY, Mr. Spengler, SHOULD I ignore the essential and palpably obvious differences?

"...but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnez'zar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."--Daniel 3, 15-18

Mr. Rahmen seems to have this kind of faith.

P:

Exactly wrong. Tolerant Europe has degraded over time, not improved. A cetain level of intolerance of apostasy is a vital element to a coherent society. Losing it has made the secular states incoherent.

The last heretic hanged by the Catholic Church was a Spanish schoolteacher accused of Deist (shall we call that "moderate Christian"?) views in Valencia as recently as 1826.

My mistake: 180 years, not 130. SIX generations, not four. SPAIN, not the United States. Differences, that Spengler wants his readers to ignore. Differences that DISTINGUISH me from them. In erasing those differences, Spengler ERASES ME. A different kind of death, wrapped in a denial that embodies a lie.

Another thing: BEING ALIVE defines death. Death is not a result of following or not following a religion: death happens to ALL of us because we are alive. A religion that insists on killing apostates NOW is a religion whose leaders judge people NOW, while a religion that insists that apostates will go to hell AFTER THEY DIE, is a religion whose GOD judges people when their life is over and ALL the evidence is in. Apparently, Spengler's beef is with a religion that believes that he WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH IT. Thus, he indulges in Straw Man construction to obscure the fact that there is a difference between a religion whose leaders kill apostates NOW to validate itself, and a religion that already feels itself so validated that it is content to let GOD take care of apostates. Excommunication is the church attempting to purge itself of hypocrites, who claim membership, but do not meet the qualifications: A man who complains that the Church is full of hypocrites shouldn't complain if the Church says, "You're right", and rids itself of them by telling them to go away. Sure, the Church used to kill them, but a lot has happened since then: happenings that created differences that Spengler, in erasing to make his case, erases who and what It is today.

P:

Yes, there's a difference. The question is whether you're right that it favors us. Europe suggests not.

If intolernce is a necessity for greatness than Nazi Germany and the USSR represent the pinnacles of European civilization.

cg:

It's not the only requirement, just a requirement. That which you require conformity to must be good.

Is Kevin Phillips as repellant as he seemed in that C-Span interview?

That which you require conformity to must be good.

The Nazis and Communists required conformity, does that make them or what they "required conformity too" good?

No. They required conformity to evil.

If both the Inquisition and the Gestapo/KGB used the same methods are they not equally evil?

No. The means don't matter. The ends do.

No. The means don't matter. The ends do. oj

That's it. This blog is only good for links, but the host has lost my respect.

Even when the means are in direct violation of the precepts and teachings of Christianity's founder?

Would Jesus approve of the Inquisition and witch burnings?

Yes, He is. He's down with Hiroshima. A decent world won't come just because you act good--that's the lesson He took from the Cross.

So did Jesus tell ou this personally or did you figure out the Prince of Peace was in favor of incinerating Japanese women and children on your own?

And how can an omniscient God learn any lesson. What coul God have to learn?

Frankly Mr. Judd you have a sick, twisted and evil view of Christianity.

God had to learn what it was like to be a man, that's the whole point of Christ. We started surprising Him in the Garden.

Being omniscient he already knew what it was like to be human. The purpose of the incarrnation was to sacrifice Himself ofr our sakes and our sins.

So you don't believe in an omniscient God? If so, that's a pretty weak and pathetic God you believe in. One not worth worshipping.

Are there any other religions or believers that share your views? What denomination do you belong to? Are you a Christian or just a troll out to make Christianity look foolish?

And how do you know Jesus approved of Hiroshima?

An omniscient God can't be squared with the Bible.

Huh?

Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani, just for starters. An omniscient God would not have had to ask that question. Also the whole what the heck are you doing in the bushes naked scene in Genesis 3:8-13. There are plenty of others.