And why does this not surprise us at all?
Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, discussed the coming Muslim conquest of the Vatican. Citing a Hadith in an article posted on the Kalemat website in 2002, he stated: "...We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims... will yet pay us the Jiziya [JK: poll tax paid by non-Muslim second-class citizens under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam..."
Nor is he the only example. Given the level of persecution and violence Christians face in Muslim countries, it's probably no surprise that the Wahington Post reports that the Vatican is rethinking its relations with Islam. Yet it is the ripening developments within Christianity itself that could end up mattering most of all.
We'll begin with recent developments in the Vatican:
After two decades of contact and dialogue with the Islamic world under Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is rethinking an outreach program that critics say is diluting Catholicism and has brought almost no benefits to beleaguered Catholic minorities in Muslim countries.
...Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, said the next pope might more emphatically demand rights for Christian minorities in Islamic countries and the freedom of all people to choose their faith. "There may be a greater insistence on religious liberty," said Fitzgerald, the church's point man on Islamic relations."
This was also in the Washington Post article (Hat Tip: Ted Belman):
"Before they stopped speaking to the press on Saturday, several of the 115 cardinals who are in Rome to elect John Paul's successor cited the spread of Islam as one of the major issues facing the church. Hanging over the church's deliberations, Vatican officials said, was whether to view Islam as a collaborator in combating secularism or a religious rival."
The article discusses the divergent approaches various Cardinals are taking; of course, this doesn't help if one's goal is religions at peace:
"Other Muslim religious figures to discuss the coming Islamic conquest of the Vatican include: the Palestinian Authority's Deputy Minister of Awqaf, Sheikh Yousef Juma'a Salameh; Saudi Sheikh Naser Muhammad Al-Naser; and Sudanese Sheikh Muhammad Abd Al-Karim."
One needn't be a believer in a triple pronged cultural, economic & military jihad dedicated to a future Eurabia to see some rocky times ahead.
We can also expect to see the issue of Christian-Muslim relations rise in importance as Catholicism's 3rd World contingent grows in numbers and clout. Philip Jenkins has a book on this subject that was ably reviewed by the avowed secularists at the GeneXP blog; you can read summaries in Jenkins' Foreign Policy Review Institute article "Globalization and the Transformation of Christianity," this Catholic Eductors' Resource Center article, and his Atlantic Magazine article "The Next Christianity" (subscribers only).
Perhaps that's why Prof. John-Peter Pham of James Madison University openly asked in Monday's Wall St. Journal: "Is America Ready for a Third World Pope?" (subscribers only)
"The world's 1.1 billion Catholics are truly universally distributed: 25.7% in Europe, 49.84% in the Americas, 13.23% in Africa, 10.38% in Asia, and 0.78% in Oceania. And thise numbers do not tell the whole story.... the number of faithful in Africa grows by an astounding 4.5% annually. Likewise, while the number of priests in Europe dropped a precipitous 16.3% during the late John Paul II's tenure, the ranks of the African clergy grew by 86% during those same years."
Catholocism isn't the only Christian sect to encounter this phenomenon. A number of Canadian and American congregations are already being ably led by priests who have emigrated from the Third World. The unfolding Anglican schism over gay priests has led to many countries and regions either declaring ststaes of "impaired communion" with the U.S. church or cutting ties altogether. A recent meeting of the Anglican primates resulted in the U.S. and Canadian churches being "invited to abstain" from future international gatherings. More pointedly still, some traditionalist U.S. and Canadian dioceses are looking abroad for their allegiances, bringing this theological split right into the heart of the liberal Western church's geographical power base:
"But it is conceivable that by the summer of 2005 the vast majority of the world's Anglicans will have formally disassociated themselves from the Anglican Church of Canada. If this happens, the primates of the global south have assured us that they will recognize the Federation and the Network as the true Anglican communities in Canada. Speaking on their behalf at our conference Archbishop Greg Venables of South America said to us "The primates will do all in their power to help you. Tell us what you want us to do, and we will do it"."
Or this letter from the Anglican Primate of Nigeria:
"Finally, I need to address the important matter of provincial and diocesan boundaries. As I have repeatedly reaffirmed maintaining good order is important for the work of the Gospel but it can never be used to silence those who are standing for the Faith and resisting doctrinal error.... If, however, the measures proposed in our Communiqué to protect the legitimate needs of groups in serious theological disputes prove to be ineffectual, and if acts of oppression against those who seek to uphold our common faith persist, then we will have no choice but to offer safe harbour for those in distress." [emphasis mine]
Reverend Sensing's wise words aside, it's clear that the trend toward greater assertiveness and influence of the "Southern Churches" in Christianity is real and irreversible. The effects will be profound.
Muslim behaviour toward Christians is no longer an incidental issue. Fro Aceh to Nigeria, many communities are experiencing violence and discrimination first hand. As competition between these fast-growing religions intensifies, the pressure on the Catholic Church to publicly defend the Christian faithful will grow. Shining a spotlight on the persecutions and grave lack of religious freedom in most Muslim countries is a good place to start.
The questions and issues that Robin Burk so ably raised in her March 2004 article "Religion, Terror & our Future" seem more relevant than ever:
"For obvious reasons, news reports today are filled with material about the influence of a resurgent and sometimes angry Islam. But in its variety and vitality, in its global reach, in its association with the world's fastest-growing societies, in its shifting centers of gravity, in the way its values and practices vary from place to place - in these and other ways it is Christianity that will leave the deepest mark on the twenty-first century.... the twenty-first century will almost certainly be regarded by future historians as a century in which religion replaced ideology as the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood, and, of course, conflicts and wars."
As Robin was quick to note:
"If Jenkins is right, terrorism may be the least of the ways in which religious beliefs shape events around the world in this new century."
From the Modern Tribalist post: Our old friend Yousef Al-Qaradhawi chimes in with the "moderate" view:
Needless to say, al-Qaradhawi couldn't be more wrong. Even the biggest cynics among us don't believe that any amount of preaching is going to sweep all of that Eurotrash into the mosques and keep it there. Islam will attract converts from the diasaffected, and will be bolstered by immigration, but it will not conquer Europe by words. It will only build up expectations in the faithful that this will happen - and when it does not happen, people are going to turn to other means.
Since the year 700 or so, Islam has spread by the sword and the flame, the rape of southern sudan to the Jihad against the infidels everywhere else, it always starts after its devoties have reached a certain critical mass.
Many who applied to the terror camps in afganistan bragged about their "service" in Kosovo killing serbs. and we have clinton and the leftist Eurotrash to thank for all the 800 year old churches that have gone up in smoke and the purge of all Christian serbs from kosovo.
Clinton and the left in charge of running NATO helped the purge of the christians, and terroist that applied to the terror camps in Afganistan bragged about their "service" in Kosovo killing serbs.
Its not really new to history this Islamo-NAZI mix, a marrage of two totalitarian idologies. the same people allied with the NAZIs during WWII. and we owe the serbs for saving many of our pilots.
There is the joining in common cause with the NAZI-Islamics and the western-left, at the least working like liliputians to hamper and prevent any measures for their hated west to protect itself.
Add it all up and you bave an alliance with the evil, and the sick.
And the big enabler of it all, is the leftist media. deliberatly killing child Jews on a school bus = cycle of violence. Jews defending themselves = Unjustified attacks.
How many remember that the so called concentration camp photos was a fraud.
To any normal personm such a shows the media is activly an enabler of evil.
Evil creatures, using our own freedoms to help those attempting to kill us.
CBS knew about their stringer, I still remember the hair color changed girl from MSNBC hiding in the dark with some killers, laying in wait for Jews, and getting big eyed when some showed up.
Who still remembers that one ?
It would be refreshing to see the Vatican begin to voice at least some objections.
Moral clarity is why they dont want Bolton in the UN, they are afraid he might voice some. They are right. And all we can get of the same from Rome wont hurt.
My old Spanish teacher, a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, must be laughing her 90-year-old head off at the new religious liberty doctrines. Back then, the Catholic Church in Spain had no problem with prohibiting Protestant churches, mosques, and synagogues. Well, whose ox is gored, and all that.
Radical fundamentalist Catholics "si"?
Radical fundamentalist Muslims "no"?
What is most remarkable about this debate is that, for all intents and purposes, the radical fundamentalists of both Christianity and Islam share the same "goals" --- imposition of theocratic governments. Both are perfectly willing to give lip service to the idea of democracy, but it is a "democracy" in which "traditional" democratic rights and privileges are severely prescribed.
You highlight radical Islamic fundamentalists who urge an militaristic stance toward Christianity without also noting the increasingly militaristic approach toward the defeat of Islam in "Christian" nations. Ann Coulter's remark regarding killing all the leaders in Iraq and forcibly converting the Iraqi people to Christianity --- the fact that Coulter is considered a "hero" by a very large part of the American populace despite her open and unapologetic religious bigotry is precisely the kind of thing that is likely to result in reactive, and equally agressive, rhetoric among Islamic fundamentalists.
Andrew,
Catholicism in Europe was the state church of many countries for a very long time. Whenever that happens, the religious message is distorted as the religious establishment works to hang on to political power because it becomes synonymous with the state.
But there is nothing in Christian or Catholic teaching which mandates this church=state state of affairs. It is purely historical happenstance as the church filled the political void left in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Of course after almost a thousand years, the church became entrenched in its position of power and ruthlessly gaurded that power. However, the impetus to change the status quo came not only from without the church but also from within from those people who insisted on returning the church to her true self.
In many ways Rome is still to imperialistic for many Christian's taste but it is a church restored to its true self as a spiritual power rather than a temporal one. As such we hear again the original message of the soul's freedom to choose and the necessity of that freedom for all people.
Christianity was spread exclusively peacefully throughout its first 400yrs until it became the state in the Eastern Roman Empire under Constantine. Until then, it was spread entirely through persuasion. This fact is the most persuasive argument in favor of the idea that religious freedom is part of the original message of Christianity. The Catholic church is reclaiming it now for the sake of persecuted minorities around the world and not just for its own believers.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. The chuch learned the hard way and now in countries where it is still dominant, religious minorities are free to worship as they please. For all the talk in islam of tolerance, there is not one country donimated by muslims where true religious freedom exists. Regardless of whether relations between the faiths is relatively peaceful, in all these countries, conversion from islam is a crime and religious minorities facec restrictions in speech and in the open practice of their faith in public.
The Catholic church could have follwed suit and could have remained the way it was through sheer stubborness and willful blindness much as muslims have mananged to do into modern times all the while calling attention to some phony allegiance to the idea of tolerance. But the Church recognized its error and repented in fact no just in words. It takes a "big" religious institution to do that.
ps,
If the church is going to make itself vulnerable to minority status and even eventual extinction (unlikely but theoretically possible) by backing true religious tolerance and freedom of choice in its official teachings, then it is only fair and just to insist on the same from islam or any other faith for that matter. The playing field should be level so that if one faith "wins" over another to become the worlds dominant faith, then it will have done so fair and square.
The church has the high ground on this one, sour grapes from people who can't forgive it for its past as an arm of the state notwithstanding.
Give it a rest, p.l.
When the inhabitants of the "Christian nations" go around murdering everyone who doesn't obey their particular denomination's rules, then you might have a point.
Ann Coulter is a meaningless personality. Who cares how muslims might react to her? They don't have to REact... they're already acting, exactly as they have acted from the beginning of their religion's inception, by slaughtering everybody who is not them.
Your equivalence theory wouldn't last ten seconds on the ground in Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Western Sahara, Nigeria, Chechnya, or Dagestan.
Glen,
The problem with your theory is that the eurotrash governments are still encouraging population collapse. The Muslims don't have to preach: they merely have to be there and make replacement rate while Europe continues to implode.
p.lukasiak:
Re: "for all intents and purposes, the radical fundamentalists of both Christianity and Islam share the same "goals" --- imposition of theocratic governments. Both are perfectly willing to give lip service to the idea of democracy, but it is a "democracy" in which "traditional" democratic rights and privileges are severely prescribed."
Please elaborate. Which Christian theocracies are you talking about - now or in relatively modern times? Which Christian governments or countries routinely proscribe Bhuddism, Hinduism, other forms of Christainity or Islam? Why is it that modern democratic governments developed in the Christian world and not the Islamic one? Why is it that modern democracies have well adapted by Hindus and Bhuddists but not Muslims?
Finally, show us even one democratic Islamic government or any place where a Muslim majority (or significant minority) can accommodate another religious group. Other eligious groups include Christians, Hindus or Bhuddists.
Re: "You highlight radical Islamic fundamentalists who urge an militaristic stance toward Christianity without also noting the increasingly militaristic approach toward the defeat of Islam in "Christian" nations"
Well why not? Ask Theo Van Gogh for his opinion. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Gert Wilders who must live in prisons in their own country for protection from Islamists. Ask the rape victims who have been victimized by Muslim immigrants - 68% of Danish rapes have been committed by about 2% of the population - Muslim immigrants - (source Copenhagen Post). Ask the residents of Malmo, Sweden who have seen their city taken over by Muslim immigrants and have crime skyrocket (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html). Ask the Jews of France who have seen an eight fold increase of anti-semitic incidents largely perpetrated by North African Muslims and who are now emigrating in ever increasing numbers to the U.S., Canada or Israel.
Radical Islam seeks to supplant Christianity in Europe - which Christian seeks to replace Islam with Christianity in the Middle East or Indonesia? What happened to the Christians in the Middle East, the birthplace of Christianity? What happened to the Christians in North Africa, the birthplace of St. Augustine? Just asking - do you have an answer or is this this more politically correct, moral relativism bullshit?
Again - please elaborate with examples. We are waiting.
Turkey. Probably also Bosnia, at least from the Muslim side.You're being anachronistic; that's not at all what the Church thought at the time. Its current position might be seen as a fallback, not as a truer doctrine. Check out Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors Separation of Church and State is condemned specifically at number 55.
Ah, John b, don't you think the week Eric Rudolph is sentenced is a poor choice for showing how much less dangerous than Islam is Wahabbi Christianity?
Wahabbi Christianity? Who are the leaders of this movement? How many members does it have? Do they get the exemption from taxation?
Boxing Alcibiades: ... eurotrash governments are still encouraging population collapse.
Of course they are, but everything has its limits. And there are signs - in France, Germany, and the Netherlands - that European society is probing the limits of its patience.
Defending radical Islam in order to promote mindless anti-Americanism (see example above ..) goes just so far. The same people who are doing that want no part of Islamic discipline for themselves.
I think it's only a matter of time before we see the European Reaction, and it might be a gross over-reaction. Europe is poorly equipped - morally, intellectually, politically, and culturally - to stand up to the very confident forces of radical Islam in a war of ideas. They can't really lose that war because they will never submit to Islam, but they can't win it without defining principles of their own.
Their response will probably be phobia and incoherent hostility: haphazard legislation, overreaching policies, etc. They will blame the US for stirring up the hornet's nest, and ratchet up their Hate America rhetoric accordingly. There will be more violence, more assassinations, and more terrorism.
Andrew Lazarus mentions Turkey, but Turkey is the exception that proves the rule. Turkey is secular because the Armed Forces are the ultimate branch of government, ready to veto an Islamic Republic with tanks. Europe might be almost lucky to end up like that.
The fact that he would cite Turkey as some model of Islamic tolerance shows how little he knows about Turkey.
Lindsey, would you care to enlighten us? Don't forget to explain why you know so much about Turkey. Got the real skinny from Little Green Footballs?
Glen Wishard: Apartheid?
AJL: razib has done a series of really thoughtful posts on Turkey at Gene Expression.
this one is good
here's one by arcane
there's more.....
There's also this recent article from the WSJ. Gene Expression has also had another article I remember discussing public opinion polling done in Turkey where majorities of polled women think their husband is correct in beating them. All sorts of stuff.
Lindsay - Turkey is not only a model of a secular Islamic society, it's THE model.
It's also a model of a 19th century European society: Prussia, an army tricked out to look like a country. That's the price that was paid.
Lazarus: don't you think the week Eric Rudolph is sentenced is a poor choice for showing how much less dangerous than Islam is Wahabbi Christianity?
Do we need to point out that Rudolph is a convicted criminal who is going to prison for the rest of his life, and that he is not the Chaplain of West Point?
Again - please elaborate with examples. We are waiting.
First off, try Lebanon --- before it was invaded by Israel. Then look at Egypt.
secondly, there is a reason why there are so few democracies in the mid-east --- its called colonialism and post-colonialism.
It never ceases to amaze me how Ann Coulter suddenly transforms into a minor cultural figure whenever its convenient for the right wing for her to do so.
Don't expect a stronger stance from Benedict XVI. I'll be very surprised if his primary focus isn't to oppose secularism (and tighten Church governance) rather than to speak out against the excesses of radical Muslims.
And we all see why with the left in charge we either have our heads chopped off or find ourselves interned in one of their Gulags or killing fields.
With their mountain of 174 Million skulls they created for utopia, they are in little position to advise us.
The Christians created the only true free states, based on rights of the individual, that the planet has ever seen. the left have created the largest piles of murdered the planet has ever seen.
The christians have had their reformation, throwing off absolutist rule by both the church and the state.
The leftist religion has not had their reformation yet, their every doctrine still requires them forced opon the people by govt thugs with guns of the all powerfull state.
So once again we see leftist projection, pointing the accusing finger, for what THEY, are guilty of.
Reagan Thatcher and John Paul brought down the iron curtain, and we seens some of their documentation of 62 Million leftist murders in the opened Russian archives.
The left spent 70 years praising the USSR and attacking the foundations of the west.
There is no more USSR with its mountain of murdered to praise, but they still attack the west.
Nice to see Rome didnt choose some limp backed relativistic embracer of leftist evil.
The iron curtain might not hide the graves of 60+ Million murdered any more, but the leftist evil is still with us. still has the iron boot on the necks of populations, and still puts off a large totalitarian purverse death cult stench in the free world.
He will have just as much to do as the last.
#11 AJL
Assuming that's correct, and only two of (IIRC) 52 Islamic countries have real religious freedom. Wouldn't that suggest those countries are anomalies? And given the antisemitic press and increasingly Islamist outlook of the government in Turkey, we may be halving that list any day now.
Interesting fact: when the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, all of the churches were turned in to either mosques or museums.
lukasiak: there is a reason why there are so few democracies in the mid-east --- its called colonialism and post-colonialism.
That explains why Iran and Saudi Arabia are so non-democratic.
Wait a minute ... no, it doesn't.
Iran was never a democracy, oh wait it was. What happened?
Saudi Arabia is three countries unified under one family. It didn't exist 100 years ago and i wonder why it does now. Please don't answer.
Re: 12 Andrew:
As far as I can tell Rudolph is a lone wacko who killed about 3 people in several bombings - and you equate this with Wahabbism or Islamism? There's that moral equivalence at work again.
Re: #21 p. lukasiak
"First off, try Lebanon --- before it was invaded by Israel"
Yup - blame it on those Jews again.
"secondly, there is a reason why there are so few democracies in the mid-east --- its called colonialism and post-colonialism."
Holy shit - I must reinterpret the history of - lets see: India (but not Pakistan), Singapore (but not Malaysia) and many other Commonwealth countries. I suppose it's improper to point out Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't do too badly under colonialism. The colonial history of much of the middle east is very recent and short lived - I believe much of it occured after WW I and the decline of the Ottoman Empire
John and before the Outtomans, was Byztanthium, and Rome ruled it so did Tolomy Greeks, of which Cleopatra was the last. Alexander whoes famous city an Library in Egypt bore his name. the Persian empire.
Lefty history began Yesterday, unless they are distoring it to blame th west, to deflect attention from what they do when they are rulers, creating mass graves of themass murdered, every where they go, their mountain of skulls comming from just about the entire mix of regions races and culture on earth, the result the same, mass death, and death camps. and rule of the iron boot.
And to point away from that, they blame us for the doings of Kings Tsars and Kisers, that western Christianity threw off.
How Pathetic.
Andrew,
Where is your head? In Turkey it is illegal to convert from Islam and it is illegal for Christians to attempt to evangelize for their faith. Spreading the Gospel is an inherant part of the faith given in the Great Commission of Jesus.
As for the separation of church and state being original to Christianity, I have to ask what part of original don't you understand. I am talking about the first 400 years of the faith. You counter with later theological writings published long after the establishment of Christianity as the church of the state by Constantine. You also entirely ignored the fact that I freely admit that the church even into modern times had trouble letting go of a centuries old habit of power.
My point is that the idea of church=state is not original to Christianity.
I also point to the statistics on the Christian polulation of Turkey. It was once the dominant faith in that area. Now, Christians number something like 2% of the population. Where did they go? I could right a book on the subject of oppression of Christians in that country up into the present day but just one statistic should suffice. The majority of people of Turkish or Middle Eastern descent in America are not Muslim but overwhelmingly Christian. The reason is that they were forced to leave their native countries in order to have full freedom of religion.
On other fact, The Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople has been the victim of laws and rules designed to persecute it. Turkey refuses to acknowledge what millions of Christians acknowledge, that Bartholomew of Constaninople is the head of all Orthodox Christians. They insist on treating him as the bishop of a backwater remnant of the Greek church. They have seized church property that was in use by the church with the excuse that it had been abandoned according to the governments defintition. The Turkish government shut down the only seminary in Turkey and refuses to allow it to reopen.
In Bosnia, The same laws against conversion and evangelization apply. In Kosovo, 700 year old churches have been burned to the ground in a campaign to drive Christians out of the area.
As I said, in some muslim dominated countries the illusion of peace between the religions is belied by actual facts and laws discriminating against Christians. Among other things, Christians aren't allowed to process through the streets. They are not allowed to build new churches or repair old ones. They are not allowed to ring the bells of their churches. The sad situation of the Hagia Sophia in Turkey continues in which the church stolen from Christians and forcibly turned into a mosque and then a museum, now crumbles in criminal neglect.
If there were true religious freedom in Turkey what would be the harm of returning the cathedral to its rightful heirs?
Your ignorance of the subject is clear.
The great cleansing of the modern time is the reason that there are few Christians/Muslims in Turkey/Greece. Don't know who is to blame for it.
#27
India (but not Pakistan)
Bangladesh is democratic. Pakistan is thank god not democratic otherwise you would know were Bin Laden was (but you couldn't touch him)
Singapore (but not Malaysia)
Malaysia is about as democratic as Singapore.
I suppose it's improper to point out Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't do too badly under colonialism.
Uhm, Their prime ministers etc. are as far as i know not Indian/Aboriginal/Maori so i could argue that they did very badly.
Andrew,
Neither Turkey nor Bosnia have real religious freedom. Ask the Armenians about Turkey. Both actively oppose Christians within their state. Try standing on a corner in Istanbul and preaching about Christ and see what happens.
Kevin,
sounds like Greece or Russia. Not so long ago protestants were hindered in catholic countries and visa versa.
Great essay, Joe. Contrary to the navel-gazing Marxbots at the NY Times editorial board, gay marriage is not the most important issue facing the Catholic church. Jihad is. Catholics and Christians are being slaughtered, enslaved and persecuted by Muslims all over the world. This is especially true in the third world where most Catholics now live.
Islam is a fighting faith. Catholicism had better become one too, or it will perish.
lukasiak,
What is most remarkable about this debate is that, for all intents and purposes, the radical fundamentalists of both Christianity and Islam share the same "goals" --- imposition of theocratic governments.
You're an idiot. 'Nuff said.
lukasiak,
secondly, there is a reason why there are so few democracies in the mid-east --- its called colonialism and post-colonialism.
Yeah, right. After 1300 years of thriving democracy thanks due to its Islamic heritage, the middle east is the cesspool we see today due to the 20 years of European colonialism between the two World Wars. Actually, the only time the mid-east ever had half-way decent government is in that ever-so brief era of colonialism.
Dumbass.
The reason the mid-east has never had a democracy outside of Israel is that Islam is incompatable with democracy. The only reason Turkey became a quasi-democracy is because Ataturk militarily de-Islamisized the country.
The only ways that the mid-east will ever become democratic and have good government is if the culture ever becomes post-Islamic in the same way that Europe has become post-Christian, or through the RE-IMPOSITION of colonialism.
We can all dream of a future where middle-eastern governments are ONLY as bad as European governments.
om Andrew J. Lazarus on April 19, 2005 07:59 PM
Peggy said:
For all the talk in islam of tolerance, there is not one country donimated by muslims where true religious freedom exists.
Andrew J. Lazarus replied:
Turkey. Probably also Bosnia, at least from the Muslim side.
Andrew,
I am sorry you are completely wrong. Turkey up until very very recently was one of the most violent, repressive quasi-fascist states in the region. Even after Ataturk's takeover it murdered and ethncially cleansed millions of of non -Turks and non-Moslems both inside the countryand in neighboring countries.
Indeed in the past ten years Turkey has been moving toward a non military dictatorhsip toward popular forms of democracy. What dow we get as a result? Turkey's Prime minister calling Israel a terrorist state. Turkey's main newspapers calling the suicide bombers killing Israelis and Ameircans "martyrs."
Turkey is one of the most anit-American countries in the world. Do you know that 2.5 times as many Turks cite the US as the main "enemy" of Turkey as cite Greece as its enemy!?!
As far as Bosnia, it was ethnically cleansed of Christians! We know know that Al Queda was opererating there and in Kosovo. They were attacking Christian civilians and we know know some of the spectacular attacks against civilians came from those forces yet were blamed on the Serbs.
Get an education about Turkey before spouting off. I may not agree with Amnestyinternational and Helsinki Watch over everything buthtyehave indisputed facts, figures, examplesd of law etc.
someone above mentioned the Ecumenical Patriarch. Did you know this is the oldest continual institution in Turkey? It is the leader of 500 million Orthodox. Everyone, including our own Dept. of State says the Turkish government is trying to destroy it. It is like if an Italian government decided to destroy the vatican -- which is older than Italy itself!
It's a little late, I suppose, to return to this thread, but the hysterical anti-Turk comments (do I detect a pro-Serbian bias?) ought to be refuted.
First, the anti-Israeli nature of Turkey is news to the Israelis, who maintain warm diplomatic relations, and who visit Turkey in droves.
Second, even supposing that more Turks see the USA as an "enemy" than Greece, this should be seen in light of (1) the relative military strength of the USA and Greece, (2) the very unpopular invasion of Iraq, and (3) the remarkable demarche that led Greece to drop its opposition to Turkish EU membership.
Third, the behavior of the Serbs in Bosnia was utterly reprehensible. Are you going to tell us that all those rape camps were set up by Bosniaks pretending to be Christians? All sides in that war committed war crimes, but the Muslims committed the fewest, waited longest before doing so, and had the most provocation. By your logic, the presence of future Al Qaedans in the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance implies that the Afghan Communists were the preferable side. Is that the claim you wiah to make?
Fourth, you might study what happened to the Vatican in 1870 before spouting off about its relations with Italy.
And last, I've been a tourist in Turkey and have Turkish friends and acquaintances. I suggest you at least visit before writing again.