If Hitchens weren’t such an idiot he’d see that the modern equivalent to Moorish Spain was early modern Christendom, with Christianity rather than Islam as the dominant religion, but other religions like Judaism and Islam tolerated.

I have to give him credit for getting one thing right.  This current war on terror is in fact a war on all religion.  One that the msm routinely participates in by playing up the role of the Evangelicals in it with the intent of indicting all Christians.

Mr. Nucci sums up admirably what is going on.  The only problem for the secularist conspirators is that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not fallen into their little trap and have in fact denounced the attack on Iraq.  A direct attack on the Vatican in order to stampede Catholics into the war on terror is not out of the question - either by militant Moslems or by secularists as a false flag operation.

These muddied unholy waters need more clarification.  Hitchens and the Cultural Marxists don’t want a “truly secular state”; they want an atheist state.  The two things aren’t the same at all.

Communist China is one of the most NON-secular states in the world.  All religion is under strict control of, and undermined by, the atheist Communist Party, a party avowedly dedicated (like Hitchens) to the abolition of God.  Recently the ludicrous bloody Chinese Communist Party have ruled that it is illegal Tibetan Buddhist Lamas to reincarnate without permission from the Communist Party. 

There’s nothing secular about that.  It’s an atheist-theocracy.  (Is there a word for that?) What WOULD be a vast improvement would be if the Chinese Communist Party simply refrained from meddling in religious affairs at all.

Hitchens is a pathetic sack of wasted protoplasm, but I don’t disagree with his expressed desire for a “truly secular state”, because he himself doesn’t believe in it.  He wants an atheist state along the lines of Communist China, where the role of the state is to abolish God.

What he DOESN’t want - not really - is a secular state like Indonesia where religion AND mutual tolerance do flourish fairly well, similar to what he thought was going on in Moorish Spain.  The truth is, that’s exactly what he would like to abolish and replace with a spiritual wasteland like the preternaturally ugly, morally dead land of Atheist China.

pppppppp

“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”

“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza

“Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be ‘payback time’.”

- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez

“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”

- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon

“Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect.”

“The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It’s now the Age of the Brown Man.”

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

- Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev

ppppppppppp

To this day Comrade Hitchens professes nothing but admiration for Leon Trotsky. His friend Martin Amis recounted that Hitchens denies the wholesale slaughter of Ukranian peasants ("there may have been shortages") by deliberate, prememeditated starvation. Punishing starving little children for gathering the stray grain that fell off the rail cars ("wrecking the harvest") is Hitch’s hero’s utopian vision.

Amis pithily summed up Trotsky, citing,inter alia, wanton murder of priests and nuns, as “ liar and a fucking asshole.”

Read the man’s hatchet job on Mother Theresa in last month’s Newsweek. Why the hell is the Vatican inviting the likes of him to testify agaainst Mother Thresa in the beatification. The man is truly sick, and it ain’t just the booze.

Say what!

“I mean all those conservatives who believe in God, which is another way of saying all genuine conservatives.”

What idiocy! I guess the late Sam Francis was no conservative by your foolish measure.

Forgive me, RC, but I am poorly equipped to judge whether or not the late Sam Francis was a genuine conservative, having read only a few of his articles, and having met the man only once, and then very briefly (at a conference on “Immigration and National Security” in Washington DC on January 30, 2002). Perhaps you could help me out by giving me a thumbnail sketch of Mr. Francis’ political views, as you understand them, and indicating to me which of those views you would consider hallmarks of true or genuine conservatism.

As regards Hitchens, his recent speech before an atheist confab in Wisconsin may indicate he is evolving from NeoPod popinjay into a leading policy planner for the coming Giuliani Administration.  Like his vomiting at Fr. Rutler last May, it further indicates Hitchens may be evolving from a Trotskyite into something more redolent of Hitlerite insanity – as revealed in this eyewitness account of his talk by University of Minnesota biology prof P.Z. Myers at his gung-ho atheist science blog called Pharyngula:

“[Hitchens] got a standing ovation when he was introduced,” but soon “accused his audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refused to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy.  Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now – Rudy Giuliani…and that he was less than thrilled about all the support of the FFRF [Freedom from Religion Foundation] for the Democratic Party.  We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons…and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up.  The way to win the war is kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear all the mounting casualties…the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.  This was made even more clear during the Q&A;.
“Basically, what Hitchens was proposing was genocide.  Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again…I’d like to know whether he thinks the way atheists ought to end religion in America is to start shooting Baptists…I had a depressing feeling that the solution would involve sending Baptists over to Iraq to kill and be killed…
“The questions were all dismissed with comments about the audience’s intelligence…that we weren’t good atheists if we didn’t agree that murder as the answer,” but “while I agree with [Hitchens’s] goal of working toward a rational, secular world, a triumph of enlightenment values, I disagree entirely with his proposed strategy, which seems to involve putting a bullet through every god-haunted brain.”
Alas, we know who wins those debates about the triumph of enlightenment values.

PS: Since most Christianity teaches that faith is a mystery, a gift they call it, whereas conservative political and social ideas and impulses are arguably achievable without divine assistance, it seems likely the latter could exist independent of the former.  Nonetheless, according to Culture Wars mag, Sam Francis sought the Sacraments on his deathbed.

Dear god, this Hitchens obsession everyone has.....  He is what he’s always been, a blood thirsty lunatic.  You believe something Hitch doesn’t believe?  well then off with yer head.

He’s a buffoon - an especially stupid one.

rcg:

Thanks for the information on Hitchens’ comments at Wisconsin.

There is something wrong with tribalism. After having gone into Iraq, I thought maybe the one way we could conquer tribalism is the institution of capitalism. fat chance.

defeating evil with evil. american empire couldn’t exist without nationalism. Funny, he has nothing to say about that brand of evil. probably because the people who pay to listen to Hitchens aren’t smart enough to recognize what our country has been suffering from for over 200 years. racial arrogance.

Mr. Poe,

I lack the writing skill to do the late Dr. Francis justice, his body of work speaks for it self.

You’d be well served to familiarize yourself with his work, his last (published posthumously) was kicked off by a D.C. party hosted by Mr. Theodoracopulos and Mr. Gottfried - both of whom, I trust, you consider “real” conservatives?

I don’t care a wit about your bizarre notion that one must believe in God to be a real conservative (does the belief is Gods count or need only monotheists apply?) What I do care about is such silly notions being expressed by a writer in this blog, as it tends to drive away natural allies in the fight against the dreaded Neocon’s - secular conservatives.

Given the number of really crummy folks who do believe in Deity, that test seems rather pointless in the identification of “real” conservatives.

RC

Mr. Poe,

A summary of Sam Francis’ political views may be found in my review of a posthumous collection of his essays, Shots Fired:  http://www.vdare.com/piatak/070208_francis.htm

Sam was simply a brilliant observer of American politics, and a staunch man of the right.

Some forms of tribalism are anathema. Armenian for one. Other forms of tribalism are perfectly acceptable. Hitchens has crossed the line by attacking israeli tribalism. Hitchens imaginative rendering of Islam in Spain was the tribe’s version of history until the creation of Israel.

Hitchens may be under the influence of halucinogenic substances. Who the hell he thinks he is to say and speak on behalf of the subjects of Ferdinand and Isabella. Moorish spain was an aberration, a filthy colony colonized by the swill from the south. Civilization entered Spain with the Reconquista, thanks to the Catholic monarchs. The golden age of Spain and iberian civilzation began after the sweeping away of the moslem hordes, before, with the moslem presence it was the dark age of spanish torment, with alhambras and the moslem fever. The myth of cultural tolerance and the utopian cohabitation of muslim-christian-jew its a concoction of feverish minds intent in twisting and tergiversing history. I have got a solution for Hitchens, he should move south and make his abode somewhere in north africa and stay there, rather than wish and dream for north africa to move in the european living space. With bankrupt intelectuals like hitchens in our midst, who needs enemies ?.

Since his vile screed against Mother Theresa, I have harboured a desire to horse whip the cur on the steps of his club Assuninng any club with a decent set of stairs would admit a grotty little drunken prole like him in the first place. Sadly my Catholic faith abjures me from doing it myself but most Catholics I know have little knowledge of the tenets of our faith but I am waiting to give them a stern talking too after said horse whipping.

“Moorish spain was an aberration, a filthy colony colonized by the swill from the south.”

The North was pretty filthy too at the time; 8th century Germany was filthier (literally) than Moorish Spain, and Charlemagne was still trying to bring the hordes of German pagans to heel.  The swift German reversion to Paganism from 1933-1945 indicates the Christianisation of Germany was a half-baked job. 

But Charlemagne was on good terms, from a safe distance, with the Caliph of Baghdad, who sent him an elephant as a gift between heads of state.  Some wag said it would be analogous to the President of the United States sending a Cadillac to the tribal overlord of some benighted African land of grass huts and illiterates. 

Of course Charlemagne and Charles Martel saved Western civilisation.  Good.  But
it’s always a mistake to underestimate the enemy or the enemy’s virtues, and to say the Moorish invaders from the South were more “filthy” than the Northern Europeans is just, well, the opposite of what was true at the time.

I find it ammusing that Hitchens admires a culture where religious tolerance supposedly took place.  It doesn’t seem to be in his mentality to tolerate other religions, or any religions for that matter.  It is also a strange thing that he wishes to perform ethnic cleansing on the descendants of those Moors.

“It is also a strange thing that he wishes to perform ethnic cleansing on the descendants of those Moors.”

Now that’s another good point.  Further-moor (sorry, couldn’t resist), the descendants of the Moors quite probably include some of our writers of Irish descent- of whom I am one - especially any with dark hair such as I inherited from my Grandmother (nee) Reilly.  A good bit of the dark colour in the Irish gene pool came from Spaniards, including some who washed ashore after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

“Fitzgerald” in at least some instances meant “son of Geraldo”.  But then the Spanish name “Geraldo” was of Germanic origin, the root “ger” meaning “spear”, so the Irish name “Fitzgerald” basically means “Son of a Spear-Chucker.” (wry smile and a wink here...)

John Ball - how can you abolish something that doesn’t exist? Chris hitchens doesn’t want to abolish God as he doesn’t believe there is a God to abolish. I think he’s quite right in wanting to abolish the permission religious fanatics give themselves to act immorally or selfishly or in line with their own prejudices, as if faith in a deity excuses their behaviour. All he’s saying is that it doesn’t. And he doesn’t believe in God or the tooth fairy or Santa in a red and white Coca-Cola suit.

I wonder what he would say about the madness of love?

@ Philipa, “how can you abolish something that doesn’t exist? Chris hitchens doesn’t want to abolish God as he doesn’t believe there is a God to abolish.”

Then there’s no point in his most recent book and no reason for anyone to buy it.
Of course Hitchens doesn’t want to abolish God; without God, Hitchens would be a poorer man today, and not just financially.  (And deep down he knows, as all Children of Adam know in their hearts, that without God he wouldn’t exist.  THAT is the condition which outrages Hitchens:  the contingency of his very existence on a God whose gift of Life warrants humility - and nothing but humility - in return.  But humility is too hard a pill for Hitchens to swallow, as it was for Satan.)

And come on, you knew I was being metaphorical with the phrase “abolish God.” Don’t be disingenuous with that semantic argument.

At any rate, an “atheist” is just someone who doesn’t believe in someone else’s god.  Everyone is a “Believer” of some kind.  What Hitchens wants to abolish is - by his own admission - not just what others do with their beliefs in God, but the WAY they believe in God in a way in which Hitchens hates, especially the way of humility.  Hitchens’ excoriation of religious fanatics (of whom he is one, in his own way) is a half-truth and essentially a lie; what he REALLY can’t bear is Humility.

John Ball - “And deep down he knows, as all Children of Adam know in their hearts, that without God he wouldn’t exist.  THAT is the condition which outrages Hitchens..” etc. etc. Per-lease, Mr Ball, deep down he knows all this does he? Now you’re just being silly. Of course he argues against glaring social liberties and injustices taken by people who excuse their behaviour with religion. And if he knows anything about his existence it’s that his mummy and daddy had sex - which is a rather revolting thought to any child and best not considered at all.

Mr. Ball

“At any rate, an “atheist” is just someone who doesn’t believe in someone else’s god.  Everyone is a “Believer” of some kind.”

Yikes, you’re another one. I don’t know which is worse, that you actually believe that drivel, or that you post it oblivious to the picture it paints of your thought process in the minds of secular conservatives.

I am less afraid of the Neocon’s (who are essentially wimps behind the curtain) then I am their useful idiots - the Evangelical Christian Zionists who’s longing for the Rapture drives them to line up all the playing cards in the middle east just right to hasten His return, while spending their free time wanking to the Left Behind novels.

When You People, spout your own brand of theocratic clap trap across this blog I realize ours is but a momentary alliance that will probably not stand.

What a shame.

I love when believers insist i must really believe.  They point to the fact I’m a fairly honest, hard working person, who gives to charity and loves his family.  Apparently without the threat of eternal damnation, or the influence of some higher power, i wouldn’t behave as i do. 

Odd.

But to be fair, i cannot grasp how people can believe in god, and i suspect people who claim to believe are like 9 year olds who claim to believe in Santa, deep down they know it’s nonsense.

Anyway, I don’t care if people believe - actually no I’m glad some do.  Who am i to or anyone else pretend i know all the answers?  Which is why i loathe idiots like the Taliban or Hitchens who insist everyone must believe as they do.

Thankfully Satan tempted humanity with the fruit of knowledge, and gave us all the ability to make up our own minds on such matters.  Which is how it should be.

Oh, the whole dark haired Irish are descended from Spanish washed ashore in the armada is “urban myth.”

@Kirt,

I think you are onto something when you say a false flag attack may be forthcoming against the Church.  Probably the Catholics on Fox have in a way prevented this by giving lip service to the Iraq War.  The Pope’s comment’s rarely see the light of day and maybe that is the result of some decent people in the msm trying to protect the Church from just such an attack.  I think what could be the deciding factor in such an attack will be if large numbers of Catholics support a third party candidate like Ron Paul and abandon the two headed monster of Hilarudy Clintoniani..
I can’t see what I’m writing here so I hope that came out.

@Phillipa,

Now you’re just being silly. Of course he argues against glaring social liberties and injustices taken by people who excuse their behaviour with religion.

Really?  Is that why he attacks Mother Theresa?  Because she excuses what she is doing because of religion?

@Hankest,

Thankfully Satan tempted humanity with the fruit of knowledge, and gave us all the ability to make up our own minds on such matters.

Well I guess you don’t believe in God but you profess faith in Satan so that is a start.

@John Ball,

You are exactly right.  What Hitchens hates about religion mor thatn anything is humillity.  That and the fact that he knows that what he needs more than anything is God but no one has been able to perform a miracle for him.  So he hates us for being faithful in the absence of someone performing a magic trick for him.
What he doesn’t know is that he must accept God without the performance of a miracle.  He must first open his heart and accept humility.

As far as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy go, I am not sure why the atheist always bring these things up.  They are not part of any organized religion that I know of and therefore have no place in a discussion of same.

no Nucci, I put my faith in reason.

Philippa

If you put your faith in reason, you must be sorely
disappointed most of the time....

M. Nucci, ha, nah clearly i do not believe in Satan, but i do believe people should decide to believe using either faith, reason or some combo of both. 

I think that’s also sort of the point of free will (for the sects that believe in such a thing) God (or was it Satan, i can’t keep track) gave that to us to decide on our own.  So in that respect, it is against God (of certain religions) and certainly sense to attempt to enforce faith through violence or coercion.

Right?  Of course.

Oh, sorry for bringing up Santa, didn’t mean to offend, change it to Greeks and Zeus.

@Hankest,

No need to apologize about Satan.  He is the one who tempts us to deny God and to worship ourselves as Gods.  He is good at what he does.  Even the faithfull can be tempted by him. 

It seems to me that many atheists, not all, have a fear of being somehow cosmically fooled.  They should know that one can not believe in God but be fooled nonetheless.  A case in point, Christopher Hitchen’s book was a bes seller.

this might interest you. b

M. Nucci, well i don’t typically apologize to mythical entities...even ones who tempt me into not believing in them or god.

Do people worship themselves as god?  Sounds like fun. 

I don’t consider myself an atheist, that’s a somewhat complex and loaded term.  Some people assume it means a person who is against religious belief.  I’m not. 

I fully support the worship of deities, i just don’t partake in it myself, nor do i have reason to believe any of the thousands of deities worshipped actually exist or ever existed.

RC, “When You People, spout your own brand of theocratic clap trap across this blog I realize ours is but a momentary alliance that will probably not stand.”

If you mean an “alliance” between religious and/or Burkean conservatives on the one hand, and economic fetishists on the other
(the “Marxism of the Right”, as Libertarianism has been called in “The American Conservative"), then good riddance to your 18th/19th century mechanical superstitions, whose cult was satirised in chapter Three of Gullivers’ Travels:

http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/bk3/chap3-5.html

All true conservatives believe in God?  What rubbish.

Adriana - be nice.

There’s nothing wrong with Christopher Hitchens that keeping him in a perpetual state of vomiting drunkeness wouldn’t cure.

At least, I’d sure feel better.  And so would about a billion Muslims.

Although I hate Hitchens for his trotskyism and his support for the Iraq war, I do have some respect for his position on religion.  But my hero with regards to scoffing at religion is not Hitchens or Dawkins, but good old Henry L Mencken:
‘No;there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune-telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. One may forgive a Socialist or a Single Taxer on the ground that there is something the matter with his ductless glands, and that a Winter in the south of France would relieve him. But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile, along with the lawyer. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him , not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open!’

Philippa:

I recommend that you read Laurence J. Peter to get an
idea how inadequate human reason can be.

Mr. Ball

“If you mean an “alliance” between religious and/or Burkean conservatives on the one hand, and economic fetishists on the other...then good riddance...”

Hardly.

Economic issues aside (way aside) is it simply out side of your conceptual framework to conceive of the existence of folks who chose to follow a solid code of ethical and honorable conduct toward their fellow citizens, absent faith in the cosmic boogy man to read the thoughts and intents of their heart and threaten divine punishment for any transgression?

I can assure you we do exist, and perhaps are better defenders of Christendom then You People with your fetish for hanging on every word of a poor impotent old man who tried to elevate his sad affliction to the status of a blessing.

Cheers,

RC

Hitchens is but another uncomfortable verification that the inmates have taken charge of the institution.  When everything is for sale (acamedia included) you get everything.  When money is the arbitor of morality, theft becomes a virtue.

I am not sure where the atheists here seem to constantly return to the notion that religion is being imposed on them.  Where and when is this happening?  I would really like to know.  Are you referring to the mormons who ring your doorbell?  People in a free society are permitted to voice their opinions freely.  What part of this do you object to?  Are you referring to the inquisition?  The crusades?  These things happened centuries ago and I can assure you are of no threat to anyone.  The empire building and agression pointed at innocent civilians comes not from religion but atheistic freemasonry.  Bush and his minions kill in the steril political name of democracy.  They use religion for window dressing to hide their real intent.  RC you speak of people profitting from religion and that no doubt takes place.  Religion is no more immune to abuse than any other part of society.  Tell me thoughh how is Catholic Priest profitting by giving up all his worldly possesions?

Didn’t Bush more or less claim that he gets his orders from God? And Bush just comes across as so dumb that he probably believes in such childish rubbish. Are all these Christian nuts that whoop it up for Giuliani all just fakes that don’t really sincerely believe in their religion? I doubt it.

“Moorish spain was an aberration, a filthy colony colonized by the swill from the south. Civilization entered Spain with the Reconquista, thanks to the Catholic monarchs.”

Civilization did not enter spain through the reconquista,
but through the Moors, and then proceeded through the
rest of europe.  In fact, the enlightenment can be
traced to the scientific achievements of Moorish Spain.
And Arabic was the language of scholarship at the first
university in Europe, Toledo.  Arabic was even the
language of scholarship when Oxford was founded.  If
the Moors were so uncivilized, why would the smartest
men of Christian Europe study their language???

Also, since medieval Islam did not proscribe scientific
inquiry as an affront to God and properly recognized
that we cannot derive all knowledge for a text, man or
institution (as opposed to the Catholic Church), science
flourished in Moorish Spain precisely because it was not
under the control of the Catholic Church.

The lack of scholarship in Catholic Spain and the eventual
collapse of the Spanish empire demonstrate that the
ineptitude of those Catholic Monarchs and Catholic churrch
to foster scientific inquiry and other hallmarks of
civilized society.  (and this is why scientific inquiry
developed in northern europe, not southern).

Furthermore, these “civilized conquerors” on the order
of a catholic bishop burned all the books in the library
of Granada (over 10,000 volumes) b/c they couldn’t read
them and assumed they were all copies of the Qur’an.
Using this as their standard, they proceeded to burn
all the books of the Aztecs and Maya, once again, b/c
they couldn’t read them.  This is civilization???

Lastly, regarding the “filth” comment, there were over
300 baths in the city of Cordoba before its capture
during the reconquista.  After its’ capture, all of
the baths were destroyed because the catholic church
believed that bathing was evil and an act of devil worship.
So, if the spainards were not bathing and the moors were,
then, who, exactly, was filthy???

M. Nucci, which non-believer is saying we’re having religion forced on us?  Frankly i think “in god we trust” on money is stupid, and the pledge, even without the “under god” clap trap is silly.  But since 7th grade I’ve not been forced to attend church.  I simply like to keep it that way, just as you and i both would like to keep it safe for you to believe in whichever deity (deities) you choose to believe.

Groups like the Taliban, Maoist Chinese or individuals like Falwell and Hitchens repel me.  Believers do not in the least. 

As for Priests needing to give up all their wordly goods.  I think it depends on the order.  My Uncle was a parish priest who had quite a wad of cash when he died.

Mr. Nucci

“RC you speak of people profitting from religion and that no doubt takes place.  Religion is no more immune to abuse than any other part of society.  Tell me thoughh how is Catholic Priest profitting by giving up all his worldly possesions?”

I don’t believe I made any comment about folks profiting from religion - though I am not offended by it at all.

When I said, “You People with your fetish for hanging on every word of a poor impotent old man who tried to elevate his sad affliction to the status of a blessing,” I was referring to the Apostle Paul.

As an aside, I am relieved to see so many non-believers weigh in on this. Given much of the editorial content on this blog, I was afraid that it had devolved to the go to site for Church of Rome one world theocracy crowd.

You don’t have to be an Islamophile to give Islam its due. Probably a lot better for everyone living at the time in Moorish Spain than during the Inquisition, Thirty Years War, or the Great Terror. Who was it that killed over 200 million Europeans last century… NOT ISLAM. I’d rather take a vacation to Dubai, Singapore, or Turkey than tour most of what lies between Russia and the original EU. Sorry neocons I don’t buy the lie about Islam that you constantly use to create strife in the world.

RC, “When I said, “You People with your fetish for hanging on every word of a poor impotent old man who tried to elevate his sad affliction to the status of a blessing,” I was referring to the Apostle Paul.”

Really?  I seriously thought you were referring to Hitchens!

In my article, I wrote: “By ‘us,’ I mean all those conservatives who believe in God, which is another way of saying all genuine conservatives.”

RC responded: “I don’t care a wit about your bizarre notion that one must believe in God to be a real conservative ... What I do care about is such silly notions being expressed by a writer in this blog, as it tends to drive away natural allies in the fight against the dreaded Neocons - secular conservatives.”

RC, your tactical concerns are noted.  The point you raise is reasonable, and merits a serious reply.

I must express a certain puzzlement at your tactical approach to building a coalition of “natural allies”.

You say that my words may scare off “secular conservatives”.  Maybe they will.  At the same time, you appear quite unconcerned with scaring off religious conservatives.  You express your contempt for religious believers very freely, and often in needlessly inflammatory terms.

While you plainly view “secular conservatives” as “natural allies” whose good will must be cultivated and whose sensitivities must be indulged, it is equally plain that you deem religious conservatives unworthy of the same solicitude.

This leads me to wonder exactly what sort of alliance you are trying to build.  If you disdain alliance with religious conservatives, with whom, then, are you trying to ally yourself?  And for what purpose?

Since I’m of the group that ultramontane Catholics hate more than the Left, the Jews and the neocons combined, I can get away with saying this:

Christianity is one of the institutions that built Western Civilization.  If you support the West, you should support the faith to some extent.  While true conservatism is not a religion per se, in this context it does require assent to the “transcendent moral order” developed from Christianity.

This comment gives his secularism away:

“George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.”

George Bush is banned for life from the Church of the Nativity.  His allies for tyranny have been the British “Anglicans”—who are not permitted to display Christian symbols.

So many words, so many wars, to perpetuate deliberate ignorance, for pretend Christians.

His allies for tyranny have been the British “Anglicans”—who are not permitted to display Christian symbols.

The RC is the UK’s largest denomination.

And the Union Jack is a combination of the Cross of St George and the Cross of St Andrew, although I’m not sure whether the third “x” shaped thing for Northern Ireland is supposed to be a cross.  I’d prefer to imagine it as masking tape over Ian Paisley’s mouth.  (Is he still alive?)
(Note to any Irish partisans of either side:  this comment is by a very pro-British and anti-IRA guy, but Ian Paisley is scum and I say a pox on both the Green and Orange hatemongers.)

“Further-moor (sorry, couldn’t resist), the descendants of the Moors quite probably include some of our writers of Irish descent- of whom I am one - especially any with dark hair such as I inherited from my Grandmother (nee) Reilly.  A good bit of the dark colour in the Irish gene pool came from Spaniards, including some who washed ashore after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.”

This is probably a myth. Few survivors washed ashore, and most of them were killed. Of those that surived, most made their way back to Spain.

There are some grounds for such speculation in relation to a city like Galway, which had long trading contacts with Iberia (it’s actually easier to sail from Iberia to Galway than to Bristol), but that’s over several centuries, not a few months in 1588. Still today, though, a native Galwegian can visit Madrid and occasionally see fellows who look like people he knows at home.

More likely is that the bulk of the Irish population is descended from a population group that lived in Iberia during the Paleolithic era. Today’s Spaniards are on average somewhat darker-featured today’s Irish perhaps because the former country was invaded by forces from North Africa while the latter country was repeatedly invaded by various forces from Northern Europe, causing two formerly similar populations to gradually become more different.

Is there any truth to the statement that Galicea Spain is on of the Celtic tribes?  I read this on the back of a Christmas Albumn.  I have also heard that St. Patrick was a Roman, and of course the Roman Legions were in fact merceneries who were drawn from many countries that were conquered by Rome.  I would like to add also hat it would not have been necessary for all survivors of the Spanish Armada to wash ashore as not every boat was destroyed but rather fled and would have sailed ashore wherever there was available land.

Christopher Hitchens has let the cat out of the bag. The neocons desire for themselves the privileged dhimmitude of Moorish Spain. That is why they promote economic policies such as can only flood the West with Muslims. That is why they want Turkey in the EU as well as in NATO. And that is why they support Islam at its most militant not just in Turkey, but also in Kosovo, Chechnya and elsewhere.

Andalusia or moorish iberia,was ruled by moslems.Duh…