A secularist ally attacks me

I think it would be worthwhile to share with readers a correspondence that occurred on Thursday, when a long-time correspondent and close ally turned on me because of my criticisms of the manifesto against Islamism, “Together facing the new totalitarianism,” signed by nine former Muslims and three French writers. I have decided to publish this exchange, rather than keep it private, because it shows the troubling and dangerous gulf between Christian Westerners and those who see the West in purely secular terms, who will not acknowledge Christianity (apart from some purely nominal Christianity) as a constituent and legitimate part of the West, who want to make the West totally secular, and who, if the Christian West is defended against the secular attack, turn in fury on it and on its defenders. My view, as explained below and elsewhere, is that Christian Westerners and secular Westerners need to work together to defend our common Western heritage against Islam. This requires mutual tolerance in the real sense of the word. The problem is that many secularists are against Christianity, if it’s anything more than nominal, as much as they are against Islam. Of course, there are Christians, such as Patrick Buchanan, who are equally bigoted against secularists, and who to their disgrace have sided with our Muslim enemies against the brave newspapers that published the Muhammad cartoons. Throughout the history of Islamic expansion and conquest, the non-Islamic powers lost to Islam when they were divided within, and successfully beat back Islam when they were united.

I’ve interjected occasional bracketed comments to correct misstatements by my correspondent. The correspondence begins with an e-mail I wrote to my correspondent as I was writing my blog entry about the manifesto. The “friends” I am referring to are the signers of the manifesto.

Subject: Your friends
Date: 3/2/06

LA to correspondent:

You’d better tell your friends they’re blowing it, big time.

They need to defend Western civilization and Western liberty against Islam, not defend “secularism” against “Islamism.”

Correspondent to LA:

First of all, I don’t even agree with the statement’s emphasis on “Islamism”—and Warraq stated his disagreement with this point explicitly on the BBC yesterday—you might wish to update your blog to reflect that (And Hirsi Ali probably didn’t agree with the Islam/Islamism distinction either), but Warraq felt it was a somewhat useful compromise statement.

Moreover, Warraq’s Der Spiegel Op-Ed made it VERY clear to all but the most blinkered dolts like Paul Belien about his profound attachment to Western civilization—views that literally put his life at risk. Does Belien put HIS life at risk in his as a self-aggrandizing “promoter of Western values.” Hardly !!

And it is idiots like Belien who know so little about Islam, they compare it to “secularism” that I have no time for.

You wanna go back to Medieval Christianity, then the Muslims will be your happy partners, and you can have fun killing each other for your warped notions of “truth.” I am sick and tired of your own pious drivel about Christianity, which has been a far from perfect religious enterprise, including bigoted and dangerous views about what to do with “heretics” as espoused by such luminaries as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas—views that Christian Inquisitors of various ilks were happy to exploit The Enlightenment is what made it possible for people of different beliefs to have at least a chance of sublimating idiotic relgious disputes and tribalism just enough to co-exist and at times to engage in useful and progressive cooperation.

[LA note: in the following, my correspondent is responding to Paul Belien’s arguments, not to mine, and he is doing so rather confusedly, as I explain below.]

And the Enlightenment is no more responsible for Communism, Nazism etc. than it is for Islam or Islamism, or any other form of totalitarianism. This is more sheer idiocy….

What on earth do you think you have queried/written that has any “philosophical” or intellectual clarity or superiority? Is that what you think your “brilliant” faith-based arguments boil down to? It is your usual pious ahistorical prattle that I am frankly tired of dealing with. The problem we are confronted with is Islamization—and the Eurabians who abet this are not secular—they are dhimmis and de facto Muslim agents, and they are certainly not applying ideas or values gleaned from the Enlightenment to advance their agenda of Islamization. Dhimmis in The Church, dhimmis in Zoroastrian and Hindu civilization, and Jewish dhimmies have ALL been guilty in the past of abetting earlier waves of Islamization—The same phenomenon is playing out again, and it is just plain stupid to make the ridiculous argument as Belien did that “jihadism” is a secular ideology, and to use that ridiculous argument to rationalize his preposterous criticism of apostates such as Warraq or Hirsi Ali for doing their utmost to protect the Western civilization Belien claims to cherish. Have you actually read what Warraq wrote in Der Spiegel? Have you read the interviews of Hirsi Ali where she states honestly and forthrightly her belief in the values ONLY the West has promulgated and how those values must be imprinted in the minds of Muslim immigrants to Europe if there is ANY hope of intergrating. Why is it that those statements and ideas never seem to penetrate the pious hubris of those like yourself and Belien?

That’s what I’d like to know. But then again, as a simple minded atheist I am probably incapable of even fathoming the profundity of your faith-based “reason,” and the flawless logic that flows from your belief system.

[LA note: the above is a complete misreading of Belien. Belien did not say jihadism is a secular ideology, which would be ridiculous. Rather, he criticized the manifesto writers for equating the past totalitarian movements of Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism with the current jihadist threat and then lumping them all under the category of “religious totalitarianism,” which in turn enabled the manifesto writers falsely to portray “religion” as the threat and “secularism” as the cure. In reality, those past totalitarian movements were secular and anti-Christian, just as the manifesto writers are secular and anti-Christian.]

LA to correspondent:

Whence comes all this resentment at me and at my supposed claims to my supposed profundity? All I’ve said is that your friends shouldn’t attack religion as such. That’s all I said. And for that I’m insulted all over the place.

Are they attacking religion as such, or aren’t they? That’s the issue I’ve raised, but you won’t deal with it, because you know I’m right. Instead you pour insults on me as a pious pompous whatever. Which tends to support my argument that the people on your side are hostile to Christianity itself.

You should think very carefully over whether this is a direction you want to continue in.

I have always been tolerant of your atheism. I have always said that non-believers and believers should work together to defend the West. The only “rule” I laid down was that Christianity itself not be attacked. But apparently that is too much for you. Because I object to your friends’ formulation, “democracy versus theocracy,” which indicates that they are opposing religion instead of Islam, you’re leveling all these ridiculous and irrelevant insults against me.

Also, I agreed with you that I’m not happy with Belien’s whole argument. It gets too complicated to be useful.

If you don’t have something useful to say in reply, instead of more insults, let’s let this discussion subside until you do.

Correspondent to LA:

“You’re not speaking to the point.”

That’s our basic disagreement then. I feel the same way about you.

Subject: Secularists who oppose religion instead of Islam
3/2/06

Correspondent to LA:

You wrote in your blog:

“Someone ought to grab these people by the lapel and tell them that they need to defend Western civilization and Western liberty against Islam, not defend some generic secular democracy against religion.”

And someone like me would be very happy to grab you by your short hairs for completely distorting what Ibn Warraq and Hirsi Ali, at least, represent in their written multiple statements, interviews, and deeds, based on your arbitrary interpretation of this lone, admittedly flawed document.

I repeat the wisdom uttered by a devoutly Christian person who also blogged on this statement, Robert Spencer: “Although I don’t agree with every detail of this statement, my hat is off to them.”

Have you actually read what Warraq wrote in Der Spiegel? Have you read the interviews where Hirsi Ali states honestly and forthrightly her belief in the values ONLY the West has promulgated and how those values must be imprinted in the minds of Muslim immigrants to Europe if there is ANY hope of intergrating.

Why is it that those statements and ideas never seem to penetrate the pious hubris of those like yourself and Belien? That’s what I’d like to know. But then again, as a simple minded atheist I am probably incapable of even fathoming the profundity of your faith-based “reason,” and the flawless logic that flows from your belief system.

LA to Correspondent:

I am not responsible for reading every document that everyone connected with that statement has written. I am responding to that statement.

And please stop writing to me until you can write without being insulting. You’ve insulted me repeatedly today. I have not insulted you.

[LA note: After this correspondence ended, I read the Warraq column in Der Spiegel. It’s a defense of Western liberty against Islam, and is a much better statement than the manifesto. The fact remains, however, that Warraq signed the manifesto, which stands by itself. Also, Warraq in Der Spiegel does not refer to the manifesto. Nowhere does Warraq say that he didn’t mean what he said in the manifesto. In any case, if he didn’t agree with the manifesto, why did he sign it?]

Correspondent to LA:

You are responsible for reading and representing people’s views accurately, especially when you name them individually. The composite document is flawed. That doesn’t give you the license to vent your spleen and grossly misrepresent the individual views of Warraq in particular, and Hirsi Ali as well. I call that irresponsible esepcially when you persist in this argument after I direct you to their individual writings.

LA to correspondent:

This is a ridiculous argument. People are responsible for formal statements that they sign and publish and they can be criticized for what’s in that statement.

I have nothing against looking at further things that Warraq has written to explain his position. But this group statement came out, and I wrote about that statement.

I am amazed at your insistence that this statement is not a standalone statement and that the signatories can’t be criticized for it. I didn’t criticize any of them individually, by the way, except for the loathsome Rushdie. I have no idea where you got the idea that I did.

Correspondent to LA:

No your argument is ridiculous and lazy. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge what Warraq and Hirsi Ali have written at length which debunks your shallow arguments? They signed on to a flawed statement probably authored alone by Rushdie. Big deal. I think Warraq and Hirsi Ali have demonstrated far more bravery and thoughtfulness in combating this scourge than you and Belien hermetically sealed together by your arses for all time. But you are too small and self-righteously pious to ever acknowledge that.

LA:

I’ve replied patiently to your repeated insults but you have kept them up. That’s enough. I’ve had it.

We’re not talking again until you drop this.

Correspondent:

Fine with me. You see nothing wrong in completely misrepresenting people’s views based on a single flawed statement penned by a third party, and when this is pointed out to you repeatedly you still ignore this fact and then act “insulted” if one takes offense to your being offensive to others. Tough kizarbees as my junior high school gym teacher used to say. Be a little less thin skinned.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 04, 2006 09:18 AM | Send