Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The UK Needs An Oliver Cromwell

I have just finished reading Londonistan (1.) and can only conclude that what the United Kingdom needs now is a new style Oliver Cromwell who will (Not necessarily in the order given below; But, on a basis of item #1 and ending with the last item) do the following for the salvation of British (AND Western) civilization.

1.Obtain and take complete control of the armed forces of the UK.
2.Reinstate all of the Highland regiments, paying a bonus for those recruits who speak Gaelic as such are less likely to be contaminated by the horrors of “political correctness”.
3.Form up new regiments from both parts of Ireland as both Irish Catholics and
“Orangemen” are likely to be free of the “European Disease”.
4.Dismiss the Parliament as having sat too long for the good of the People.
5.Declare a “Defense of the State” state-of-emergency allowing the one year suspension of Habeas Corpus and such freedom of the press as still exists in the UK.
6.Declare that Islam is NOT a religion BUT a criminal-terrorist organization and ideology and, after one-week, membership in any Islamic organization would be considered and punished as criminal conspiracy.
7.Seize all collective owned Muslim property (Staring with Mosques) and bank accounts for the national good;
8.Give every foreign born Muslim 72-hours to leave the UK with or without their dependents forfeiting all property held in the UK; AND, dependents leaving with them would forfeit UK citizenship.
9.Give every UK born or naturalized Muslim one-month to declare, before a magistrate under penalty of death or such lesser punishment as a court martial might impose, and while standing on a pig skin, that s/he declares Islam to be a criminal organization OR leave the nation as in #7 above.
10.Impose an economic and military blockade of any EU nations which attempts to stop the above measures.
11.Formally remind the Prince of Wales (Who seems to strangely support the horrors of Islam) that he is not immune to trial and punishment as a traitor, as was a prior “Charles”.
12.After five-years of such rule, leave the Nation for at least five-years..

(1.)Phillips, Melanie
Encounter Books; New York; 2006

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Iraq (Now) = Yugoslavia (Then) ?

Yugoslavia and Iraq both were artificial nations invented after World War I.

At that time Yugoslavia had one, usually-mutually, understandable language, two alphabets (Cyrillic and Western), three major religions/ideologies (Latin-Catholic, Orthodox and Islam) [With atheist, secular, Communism added later] and a variety of mutually-hating ethnic minorities. Once the heavy had of Tito (Always strong-minded and sometime bloody handed) was removed by his death, Yugoslavia began to fall, then, fly, apart---At some cost in rape, murder, robbery, genocide and suffering.

Although it once had strong and productive Jewish and Christian minorities, Iraq has now only one predominant ideology (Islam); But, that is divided into two and mutually hating sects (Sunni & Shi'ite) whose members seem more intent on killing each other than those Islam teaches are the enemies of both—Christians and, most specially, Jews.. The invention of Iraq,, to suit the interests of Western powers (Chiefly France and the United Kingdom) forced together Arabs, Kurds and other non-Arabs (Muslims and others). Both Arabic and Kurdish are spoken as very different languages and are written with differing alphabets.

Now that the always heavy and ALWAYS bloody hand of Saddam Hussein has been removed from control in Iraq, can that artificial and created nation survive any better than did Yugoslavia?

Friday, August 18, 2006

A Letter To The Times [Of London, UK]


2321 South 82 Street 18 August 2006
West Allis, Wisconsin
USA 53219-1735
(414) 545-1884


Although the proposal following my letter is fictional, perhaps it could be used to dispose of those terrorist prisoners now held at Guantanamo Bay and other places. However, I suggest that we give first priority to those in European countries (Especially France) who have been so very, very, critical of our treatment of such prisoners. I specially request that you BOTH endorse this program AND rush to volunteer to be a part of it.

Since the UK already has so many Muslim "true believers", a few more would not make much of a difference in the social quality of Londonstan. You may have to teach them to play cricket so as to blend in better with your home grown terrorists with whom they can exchange technical expertness for information on

Please advise both President George W. Bush and me of your willingness to LARK about.

Respectfully yours,
James Pawlak

Subject: LARK

A lady "peace activist" and ACLU member wrote many letters to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive insurgent (terrorist) being held in Guantanamo
Bay. She received the following reply:

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinion was heard
loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept
Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to Place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to
your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant

We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing
these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at
your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually), since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code
that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka -- over time.

Just remember that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" -- wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for yo ur letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember, we'll be watching. Good luck!

Cordially, your friend,

Don Rumsfeld

Not All "Religions" The Same In Positives

All “religions” or ideologies claiming to be “religions” or those which share the true believers common to many Faiths are NOT the same!

The Aztecs had the “religious” custom of tearing the skin off of young girls and ripping the hearts out of thousands each year as a form of communicating with their gods. [Perhaps, this is why so many of their neighbors joined the Spanish in destroying that “civilization”.]

The worshipers of Ba'al threw their infant children into their god Moloch's furnace to be burnt alive as offerings.

The Thuggee worshipers of the Hindu goddess Kali went about the Indian countryside murdering strangers as an act of worship [And retaining such valuables as they could so acquire as their earthly reward for such “devotions”.]

Even Christianity has its cancerous outgrowths in such movements as: The Spanish Inquisition [Which largely operated in violation of the directives from the Pope}; The English Protestant Church, which may have murdered more Catholics than did the followers of the Pope; Both Catholic and Protestant lunatics who burnt others as “witches”; Those misguided crusaders who killed members of the Orthodox churches because they were not of the Latin Rite AND whose traditional massacre of many in Jerusalem most certainly was not “Christian” in execution---Although customary for the in-taking of cities in that age; And, of course, the followers of Jim Jones who murdered a Congressman and then each other in a cyanide drinking orgy of self-destruction.

We should not forget the Imperial Way of Japan (1934-1945), the Neo-Paganism of Nazi Germany or the Secular/Atheist massacres of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao---All of which yielded millions of deaths and misery beyond comprehension—These to demonstrate that secular ideologies have their “true believers” willing to murder others not of their full “Faith”.

Yet---For the last 1400 years one “religion” (I prefer the term “ideology”) may have caused more deaths and did-and-is providing more misery than any and perhaps all of the above in its worship of the false-gods of murder, revenge, rape, robbery, destruction of real cultures and superior ideologies and just plain genocide. That ideology is, of course, that which claims to be a religion and is named “Islam”--Which will not change until the vast (99%-plus) of Muslims totally and forever reject the horrid teachings of the Koran [Which is unlikely as they believe that document was dictated by the Creator].

Anyone who states “Islam is a religion of peace” is either grossly misinformed OR is a liar of the first magnitude. Anyone who claims “All religions are the same” is equally either grossly ignorant or a gross liar. In both cases history proves them wrong. As to Islam, current events do the same.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Important Source Marerial RE: Real Islam

Corruption of the Faith?
August 15th, 2006

Far too many people in the public eye mischaracterize the acts of terrorists and other villains as inconsistent with “mainstream” Islam, as a “corruption of the faith.” While this belief is comforting, especially to those who know, work with, or must obtain cooperation from non-violent Muslims, it is historically and theologically ignorant.

An August 12 Washington Times editorial endorsed President Bush’s use of the term “Islamic Fascism” to denote the ideology of the jihad terrorists whose plot to slaughter thousands of airline passengers leaving Britain was thankfully disrupted. The editorialists characterized the jihadists ideology more specifically as

…chauvinistic, regarding non-Muslims as a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and infidels. It favors autocracy and severe social and economic restrictions, as did the Taliban. It demands the total subordination of the individual to the group—sometimes manifesting in murderously suicidal deaths like the fiery destruction Britain’s would-be bombers sought. This is not mainstream Islam, of course. It is a corruption of the faith. [emphasis added]

Ignoring the expected outpouring of complaints from apologists for jihad terror who cynically decried (for example here and here), any“Islamic” references, or other less pressing semantic concerns ( “Islamism” versus “Islamic fascism”), the Washington Times editorial, indirectly, raises this critical question: just what comprises “mainstream” Islam (“of course”), as opposed to “corruption of the faith”?

These pressing corollary questions arise as well: What is the origin of “chauvinistic” concepts such as the treatment of non-Muslims as “contemptible dhimmis and infidels” who are rightfully placed under “severe social and economic restrictions”? Is it accurate to maintain that such discriminatory beliefs and practices merely derive from the very recent Taliban movement in (Pakistan and) Afghanistan, are unrelated to “mainstream” Islam, and further, represent a “corruption” of Islam? Is it really out of bounds to even consider that the heinous practice of suicide-homicide bombings may have profound Islamic religious justification?

In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt”—guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples.

Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims-Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists] – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.

It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’ a. The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari’a:

...the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.

The practical consequences of such a discriminatory system were summarized in both A.S. Tritton’s 1930 book The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, and Antoine Fattal’s 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays’ d’Islam, pioneering treatises on the status of the dhimmis:

…[C]aliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for their buildings, and the mob was always ready to pillage churches and monasteries…dhimmis…always lived on sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and the passions of the mob…in later times..[t]hey were much more liable to suffer from the violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was accompanied by an increasing strictness among the educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was accomplished. The world was divided into two classes, Muslims and others, and only Islam counted…Indeed the general feeling was that the leavings of the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis. [Tritton]

If he [the dhimmi] is tolerated, it is for reasons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority…In no way is the dhimmi the equal of the Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal in the Law Courts as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims…No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis… [Fattal]

Thus when the Taliban ordered Afghanistan’s tiny residual Hindu minority (as reported in 2001) to wear yellow badges inscribed with the words “I am a Hindu”, this action was in full accord with Islamic law. And a 1950 report from the American Jewish Committee (p.67) makes clear that in the pre-Taliban modern era discrimination as sanctioned by Islam was typical for Afghanistan’s small Jewish minority community, now (having escaped via India to Israel) extinct:

Scattered among the primitive Muslim population, whose religious observance has remained untouched by any modern influence, the Jews in Afghanistan are still subject to all the forms of discrimination which rigorous adherence to the Koran requires. They have to pay the jizya poll-tax imposed upon infidels, and the payment is accompanied by humiliating ceremonies as laid down in Sura 9:29 of the Koran. Until recently they were not permitted to buy food in the market or send letters abroad. There are no Jews in the Government service or in the police. Though every Jew must report for military service at the age of 20, he is not permitted to carry arms and is not given a uniform, the Jews being employed only in the lowest type of menial work.

Professor Franz Rosenthal, the great American scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:

While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act….On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term. [Emphasis added.] 1

These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003).

Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death…In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise…While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah

For the past decade, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as

…the highest form of Jihad operations…the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all…every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land

On July 25, 2005, historian David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Following repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech. Littman was simply trying to support the argument that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims and should be treated as apostates. But as he noted, just before the 7/7/05 London bombings a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqu, dated July 6, 2005:

It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.

This unfortunate communiqué clearly provides immutable protection to authentic Islamic advocates of homicide bombing—like the “esteemed” clerics Yusuf Qaradawi and Al-Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi.

Given the vitality of destructive but sacralized Islamic doctrines (such as dhimmitude, and jihad martyrdom) that date from the religion’s formative years, editorialists, policymakers, and theologians must avoid glib formulations and start addressing the uncomfortable realities of mainstream Islam


1 Franz. Rosenthal. “On Suicide in Islam.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1946, Vol. 66, pp. 243, 256

Andrew Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad and a frequent contributor to The American Thinker.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Major Lie About Muslims And Following Logic

There are too many persons who claim that there was no declaration of war on the USA before the "9/11" attacks OR on the United Kingdom or Spain before the bombings there.


Mohammed proclaimed, via the "Koran" and his collected sayings in the "Hadith" (As confirmed by Muslim "jurists") that there is a perpetual state of war between all Muslims and all other peoples until all either convert to Islam or submit to the slave like status commonly called "dhimitude". Since no Muslim will openly declare that commandment to be illicit, as Islam requires its followers to believe that the "Koran" is the unchangeable word of the Creator, then we may assume that we are in a declared state-of-war with all Muslims.

Even if only 10% of the followers of that ideology are willing to actively participate in (Or support those who do) in military attacks against us, that is still 100,000,000 such enemies who are dedicated to destroy us and our civilization (Or, what is left of it).

Since those jihadists are firmly dedicated to killing or otherwise destroying us, we should have no guilt or trepidation or fault in killing them first---AND THOSE WHO SHELTER THEM. It is sad, but those jihadists use non-combatants as human shields and, since those non-fighters either are willing to be so used or fail to effectively resist such abuse, they are liable to suffer "collateral damage" when such terrorists are attacked.


Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Limits Of Christian Peace #2



by James Pawlak

7 January 2004
1st Revision: 2 August 2004
2nd Revision: 28 November 2005

Benedictus dominus deus meus qui docet manus meas ad proelium.

“IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD”--INTRODUCTION:: This work was written by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux one of the few declared “Doctors of the Church” in the year of our Lord, 1129 and was addressed to the first Master General of the Military Order of Templars. Although almost 1,000-years old, this document can still speak to us at a time when the Churches and Peoples of God are under external and internal attack by those who would destroy them and leave only a desolation of moral and intellectual emptiness as is the apparent goal of the Evil One.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS AUTHORITY: Saint Bernard was born in 1070 and died in August, 1153. As a “Doctor of the Church” his writings have great weight in the definitions of what is the correct view of the Church and its teachings. It applies to all Christians in all subsequent times, especially those under attack by the followers of that false pseudo-prophet Mohamed.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE-THEN: This work addressed the spiritual direction of what was then a new order of knights, the Templars, who were pristine in their commitment to the Church and their willingness to physically protect it in the Holy Land. If that Order became corrupt at a later date (The downfall of the Templars may have been caused by the greed of a French king and jealousy within the Church), that does not detract from the teachings of St. Bernard and the value of such knighthood in 1129AD; And for all who are, formally or informally, knights who protect us from evil, even to this time..

This direction was specially needed after the misbehavior of some crusaders in both Constantinople and in the Holy Land.

DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITAE—NOW AND IN THE FUTURE: At the very least and at this time the Church is being attacked by external enemies, generally “muslims”, in the Sudan, the Philippines and in other places. Many of those who support the teachings of the Koran and the Hadith are attacking (Directly or by giving active support to those who do) all civilization every where, even in “islamic” nations. This is not a new conflict as those who follow the teachings of that false and pernicious prophet Mohamed have, for more than 1400-years, have continued their adherence to the Koran's commands for aggressive war (Jihad) against all others and, thereby, work the evil of retail murder, genocide, rape, pillage, the destruction of cultures and the social, political, legal and economic subjugation of those not “muslims” and of all women.
It seems reasonable that we need a new military order of knights who will have that same commitment as did the early Templars and will follow the teachings of St. Bernard as to the proper way in which to be knights and to “fight the good fight”. Why? Because, with the exception of too few in the USA and even fewer in other places, no one in this world is willing to declare the truth about the danger of “islam” (Perhaps motivated to silence by Arab controlled oil or pathological pacifism or “political correctness” or (Like France} a large and aggressive “muslim” community or a hate of the Churches' moral teachings (Which teachings confront their self-centered, fragile and meaningless senses-of-self-worth).

Therefore, we now require some organized force or agreeable class of unorganized persons who will defend the Churches of God and civilization from such attacks as now exist and have existed for almost 1500-years.

What then did Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, write about the proper way of being a Christian knight?

SAINT BERNARD'S STATEMENTS: I have reviewed the translation of De Laude Novae Militae available to me, edited out those parts which were specific to only the time in which they were wrote, made slightly free with the translation (To suit modern usage) and am left with the following, given as if there were such a new military order in this time and already at work in this world, especially the Middle East.

“It seems that a New Knighthood has recently appeared on the earth, and precisely in that part of it, the Orient (nb The Middle East), in which He visited
from on high in the flesh. As He then troubled the princes of darkness in the
strength of His Mighty Hand,so there he now wipes out their followers, the
children of disbelief, scattering them by the hands of His mighty ones. ... This
is, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It
ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a
spiritual army of evil ....

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of
Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ; And in every peril repeat,“Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.” What a glory to return from in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete! If you live and conquer in the Lord; But, glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either.
If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they blessed who die
for the Lord! ....

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his
heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue
of his fight can never be evil; And, likewise, the results can never be considered
good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be
killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you
succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man,
you live a murderer. Not it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious
or vanquished. What an unhappy victory---To have conquered a man while yielding to vice and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and
pride have gotten the better of you. ...

But, the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing
neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death, since to
inflict death or the die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to
glory. In the first case, one gains for Christ, and in the second, on gains
Christ Himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended
Him, and yet more freely gives Himself for the consolation of the fallen knight.

The knights of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more
confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes and serves himself when he
falls. Neither does he bear his sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the
punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he
is not a mankiller; But, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender
of Christians. ... When he inflicts death it is for Christ's profit and when he
suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of
the pagan (nb At that time, “muslims” were considered pagans), because
Christ is glorified ....

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is
any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful,
but only that it now seems better to destroy them than evil should come to their just and that the righteous be tempted into wrongdoing (i.e. Converting to
“islam” for economic or social or status reasons OR by force?).

What then? If it is never permissible for a Christian to strike with the sword, why
did the Savior's precursor (nb St. John the Baptist) bid the soldiers to be content with their pay, and not forbid them to follow their calling? ...

Thus when the transgressors of divine law have been expelled, the righteous
nation that keeps the truth may enter in security. Certainly it is proper that
nations who love war should be scattered, and those who trouble us should be
cut off and that all the workers of iniquity should be dispersed .... Let both
swords (Emphasis added; Probably a reference to: Luke 22: 35-38) of the faithful fall upon the necks of the foe, in order to destroy every high thing exalting itself against the knowledge of God, which is the Christian faith ....”

FURTHER COMMENTS: The language of this document is, by modern standards, very elaborate and convoluted. Much of this document applies only to the time in which it was written and to the Jerusalem and Templars of that time.

However, much of the teaching applies to all ages and to the use of military force by Christians. If the Christian warrior avoids pride, vengeance and other like weaknesses and battles only for justice, for the punishment of evildoers and for the protection of innocents (e.g. Christians in “islamic” nations), then killing incidental to such noble activities is not sinful and is not murder.

The calm, without-hate, professional and focused waging of war by the forces of the USA, Poland, the UK and a few other nations in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to generally meet the standards set by this noted Doctor of the Church. The reflective person might compare such knightly waging of war with the emotional, hateful, vengeful and assassin-like behaviors of such organizations as Hitler's SS {Einsatzgruppen}, Serbian genocidists, Latin American death squads, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbullah, Black September, the insane persons who follow Osama bin Laden, those who directed the Iraq-Iran war of a few years ago and too many others to name.

If the modern, Christian, knight now serves under the flag of a secular nation, it does not matter. If such a knight serves privately, it does not matter. What does matter is service up to the standards set by St. Bernard and what is in the mind and heart of every such knightly person.

I note that those who, in Iraq, did not come up to these standards are being punished.

Although St. Bernard questions the propriety of killing to defend ones self, the Catechism Of The Catholic Church declares the ultimate right to self-defense and the duty to defend others to be proper and does not put excessive limits on the use of force to do so; And, by extension and so as to not make that teaching meaningless, on the access to effective and individual weapons when the civil authorities cannot provide effective and immediate protection.

Of course, such a knighthood as is described above cannot flourish in an unjust society (This lack may have been at the base of the failure of the Templars and of the Crusades of ancient times). Therefore, our posited and new knighthood must look to their own society as to instilling justice and morality. By preference, this should be done by the persuasion of others to just and moral ways OR by prayer OR by political and economic actions. Lacking success by those means, other methods may be required.

CREDITS: The translation, of De Laude Novae Militae, used can be found at the “ORB Online Encyclopedia”. No copyright notices was seen at that site. In any case, this essay is a “fair use” of that material.
This essay is not copyrighted and way be used as the reader sees fit.


The Limits Of Christian Peace #1

This from the "Captainsquartersblog". (The reader is also referred to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his "De Laude Novae Militae", which will be addressed today in another blog entry, as to when and how Christians should "use the sword".

July 05, 2006
The Vatican Discards Appeasement Policy Towards Muslim Nations

The Vatican has begun to dismantle the policy of appeasing Muslim governments that oppress Christian minorities, an approach that reached its zenith when Pope John Paul the Great kissed the Qu'ran. The Vatican will instead insist on protecting Christian minorities in the ummah as Islamists increasingly targets them for abuse and worse:

'Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves." Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus' admonition to his followers to "turn the other cheek," De Paolis noted that "The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century...and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights."

De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed.

The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund's Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.

These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to flee their ancestral lands for the West's more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are in a free-fall. Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.

The instruction of turning the other cheek has long been prone to misinterpretation. Nothing in Christianity requires its adherents to blithely sentence themselves or their brethren to abuse or death, nor did Christ teach that in his instruction. Jesus taught us patience, and not to blindly return every provocation with violence. He taught peace as the first resort, but even Jesus did not use that as an exclusive strategy. The Bible shows Jesus violently ejecting the moneychangers from the temple, for instance, hardly a turn-the-other-cheek moment. He also told his apostles, "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36). The Old Testament, of course, has a number of passages where God directs His people to commit total war on other populations.

St. Thomas Aquinas developed a formal Just War Doctrine, which recognizes that Christians must love peace but not shrink from confronting evil. That doctrine has grown in use over the centuries in Western thought to become a moral imperative. World leaders have often referred to its teachings, even those who aren't Catholic and lead secular nations. The one "nation" that has rejected the concept in its entirety recently has been the Vatican, ironically.

This change has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The Jerusalem Post notes that Catholic dissatisfaction with the lack of reciprocity offered by Islamists started during John Paul's pontificate. The Mohammed cartoon crisis accelerated this epiphany. At first, they scolded the Dutch newspapers and took the position that criticism of the Prophet should not have been tolerated -- and then watched as Muslims killed Christians in retaliation. That finally convinced the Church that offering appeasement did nothing to protect fellow Christians, and that the Church needed to act in defense of the faithful instead of offering apologetics for Islamists.

Reciprocity will apparently become the first principle in dealing with Muslims. Where Muslims offer the same protections to Christians that the West offers to Muslims, then the Church will preach tolerance and understanding. Where reciprocity fails to occur, the Church will start becoming more activist in speaking out against abuses. It's about time.
Posted by Captain Ed at July 5, 2006 08:07 PM