The campaign to destroy Christianity—and that’s not an exaggeration
Daniel Lapin, warning
accurately, if somewhat overheatedly, of a major, organized campaign against Christianity, points out that more than 30 anti-Christian books have been published in recent months by mainstream publishers. Among them are:
- American Fascists: the Christian right and the war on America;
- The baptizing of America: the religious right’s plans for the rest of us;
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason;
- Piety & politics: the right-wing assault on religious freedom;
- Atheist universe: the thinking person’s answer to Christian fundamentalism;
- Thy kingdom come: how the religious right distorts the faith and threatens America;
- Religion gone bad: the hidden dangers of the Christian right.
Take in the fact that it’s forbidden in mainstream society to criticize Islam as such, even as Richard Dawkins, who openly seeks the destruction of Christianity, is almost a revered figure, and Bernard Lewis, spreading the Big Lie that Islam was never anti-Semitic until Christians made it so
, is the most honored Islam scholar in the West, especially among “conservatives.” By the way, it will be very instructive to see if the “conservatives” continue their worship of Lewis after his Big Lie performance
on PBS this past week. At least Diana West saw through it
But wait, how foolish of me. Why should the “conservatives” see through Lewis’s Big Lie that traditional Islam was not anti-Semitic—since they themselves are committed to the Big Lie that only modern “Islamo-fascism” is bad while traditional Islam was and is good?
As dispiriting evidence for that observation, a Google search for “Bernard Lewis” and “anti-semitism” at blogs for the last week comes up with these measely results. So, with a vast galaxy of “conservative” bloggers so alert to every kind of liberal and anti-Western outrage, virtually none of them noticed or protested that their intellectual god had claimed on a highly publicized PBS program that Christianity is the real source of Muslim anti-Semitism.
- end of initial entry -
Jay M. writes:
It is interesting to note that Islam does not represent a threat to totalitarianism and the super-state—this is why it is accepted by the one-worlders. The Muslims are useful idiots, pawns in the campaign to destroy what little is left of Christendom ( i.e., the “Christian right”).
It is only the Christian Bible and the true church (humanly speaking) that stands against the super-state. Darwin, Marx, Hegel, Hitler, Stalin, et al, all knew this. Liberals know it. “Mainline” Christian denominations know it.
As a further example of Lewis’s amazing apologetics for Islam and specifically his airbrushing of all the dehumanizing realitites of dhimmitude, here, provided by Andrew Bostom, is something Lewis wrote in 1974:
The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled. The rare outbreaks of repression or violence directed against them are almost always the consequence of a feeling that they have failed to keep their place and honor their part of the covenant. The usual cause was the undue success of Christians or Jews in penetrating to positions of power and influence which Muslims regarded as rightly theirs. The position of the non-Muslims deteriorated during and after the Crusades and the Mongol invasions, partly because of the general heightening of religious loyalties and rivalries, partly because of the well-grounded suspicion that they were collaborating with the enemies of Islam.
Alan R. writes:
I have been reflecting on your VFR entry “The campaign to destroy Christianity…” After viewing some of the entries on Sam Harris’s website, the thought occurred to me that Harris has a form of insanity, that is, the radical inability to see certain obvious facts: the problems with atheism, the evidence for God, the benefits of religion, etc. But I think that a better way to view the campaign by the “new atheists” is that we are witnessing the attempt to create a new community, the community of atheists. [LA says: Wow.]
So the atheists are just like the homosexuals, the Hispanics, the deaf, the Muslims, and so on. Each group demands the right to conceive of reality in its own way and to organize their community (their “cult”, in the literal, non-pejorative sense of the word) according to their own traditions. This is another example of the balkanization of America brought on by liberalism. Just at the North American Man-Boy Love Association is not afraid to advocate for pederasty, and the Muslims are not ashamed to demand that they be governed by their own laws rather than the laws and customs of America, the atheists are demanding their own society.
And every cult that will actually satisfy the needs of real people needs a religion, complete with a creation myth, and an enemy who can account for the deficiencies of the world. The creation myth is supplied by Darwinism, and the cosmic enemy is “religion.” Thus, the “new atheism” can be viewed as another aggressive minority group tearing at the fabric of America. And their religion is evangelical; they don’t just want to be left alone, they want to take over.
Alan R.’s theory is interesting but it seems to me there is a contradiction between being a multicultural group that simply seeks its place—“recognition for its identity”—in the multicultural sun, and an evangelical-imperalist group that wants to eliminate its opposite group and take over completely. Perhaps there are two contingents among the New Atheists: the multicultural New Atheists, and the evangelical-imperialist New Atheists.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 12, 2007 01:02 PM | Send