How the French See Islam

Harris Interactive, in a survey they have called, “The Heart of the French,” offers some snapshots of the current religious and societal views of the French. As a result of significant migration in recent years, the population of France has undergone significant changes. Of particular interest are the thoughts of the French relating to the future growth of the nation’s Muslim population. I’ve included just a few tidbits below. The survey was conducted in late July. 

Note: If you would like to access and digest the complete survey and its results, you must be a French speaker, or at least a French reader. Unfortunately, I minored in German, and with the exceptions of a few “social phrases,” French remains a mystery to me. I relied, therefore, on the summarized reports of others. For the complete survey (quite long), click here: Le cœur des Français  (If anyone can find an accurate translation of the survey, please pass it along.)

• 39% of French believe Islam will become the largest religion in France. 55% of Muslims and 44% of Roman Catholics believe this. 

At first  glance, this can be misinterpreted because today most French are essentially irreligious. This is particularly true among France's younger citizens. The threshold needed to become the "largest religion" is, therefore, not very high. The most relevant result here is that vast majority of Muslims are faithful believers, while most non-Muslim French have rejected Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

• 72% of French believe France will lose its historic identity if Islam becomes the largest religion. 83% of Catholics and 67% of Protestants and non-religious people believe this. 

Interestingly, only 17% of Muslims responded by saying France would lose its historic identity were Islam to become the nation's largest religion. I can’t say what this wide divergence of opinion indicates, other than the fact that many French and Muslims view the impact of Islam on French culture very differently. 

According to a 2019 poll, 61% of French citizens believed that Islam was not compatible with French society. At the same time, when asked which party was best suited to handle the challenges relating to the Islamization of France, the rightist National Rally (RN) led by Marine Le Pen, received the highest score in the poll. France, of course is well “ahead” of the United States when it comes to Muslim migrants and immigrants. A Pew Research study predicted that the Muslim population in France will grow from 2020’s 5.7 million to 13.2 million by 2050. Muslims would then represent 20% of the French population. 

It’s all very interesting, but considering how the current US administration is dealing with immigration issues, we might expect similar responses from Americans in the future. I suspect Pew Research or another polling group might soon conduct a parallel study in the U.S. If so, its results will certainly be of interest.

We’re In a Religious War, But Don’t Know It

Note: the first part of this post was written over a week ago. Since then President Biden and the Taliban have confirmed that we will indeed pull all American forces out of Afghanistan on August 31. I simply got very busy with a number of ministry demands and hadn’t the time to complete the post.

——————-

I think it’s time to tell the truth about the so-called “War on Terror.” No country, no civilization wages war on a tactic, for that’s what terror is. Terror is simply a means used to wage war on an enemy. It’s not unlike the use of air power, or submarine warfare, or blitzkrieg waged using armor (i.e., tanks). A military force can take steps to counter a particular tactic, but it certainly doesn’t wage war against it. It wages war against its enemy, and in most instances the enemy is a nation or an alliance of nations. But war can also be waged against an ideology, one that can motivate a large number of people. An ideology may be driven by religious beliefs, ethnicity, economics, or combinations of these. The ideology may be geographically fluid, and transcend the usual national, ethnic, and geographical boundaries. This makes Ideological warfare particularly challenging because the enemy can not always be easily identified and located. 

Today, whether or not we accept it, we are involved in an ideological conflict, a war with a determined enemy. Our enemy wants nothing less than the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of everyone who is not one of them. At least from our enemy's perspective, it is a war of survival -- our survival, for they are convinced they will ultimately prevail. 

The enemy are Islamists and they are waging war on everyone else, throughout the world. You might think they have no real hope of succeeding because they must contend with superpowers like the United States. They have, however, a number of real advantages. Perhaps foremost is the fact that very few of their enemies understand the nature of the conflict or even realize they are at war. It's always less of a challenge to defeat an enemy that refuses to accept it is engaged in a war with a determined foe. If we were to approach the average man or woman on the street in, say, Frankfurt or Copenhagen or Naples or Los Angeles or Charleston, and ask, "Is your nation at war?" I'm pretty sure every one of them would answer, "No, of course not." And that's the problem we face today. Only the enemy knows we are engaged in a war for survival. 

Now let's tighten things up a bit. This war isn't just ideological. At its core, it is a religious war. And that, dear friends, is something most Westerners, particularly West Europeans, don't want to hear. Indeed, they refuse to hear it, and in some nations to say we are in a religious war with Islam might well be a criminal offense. I'm sure I don't exaggerate when I say a significant majority of West Europeans are no longer believers. If a European discounts the importance of religious belief in his own life -- that is, if religion means absolutely nothing to him -- he's far more likely to project that unbelief on others. By ignoring the evidence of religious motivations, he will assume other causes lie behind the hostility he sees and cannot ignore. How can these Islamists be motivated by religion? After all, who would actually wage war for meaningless religious beliefs? No, they are obviously driven by poverty, or anti-colonialism, or resistance to Western imperialism, or pervasive Western arrogance, or climate change, or whatever...and, believing this, they ignore almost 1,400 years of history.

One need not be a historian to recognize the long and consistent record of Islamic belief put into practice. And yet our national leadership has been equally consistent in their failure, or perhaps simply their unwillingness, to face the truth about those who wage this war against us and all who do not share their hateful beliefs. We saw this when President Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy staff rejected the Shah and disregarded everything the Ayatollah Khomeini had preached before he took control of Iran. The result was predictable and led to the long hostage crisis that, along with a dozen other failures, cost Carter a second term, and led our enemies to underestimate us. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan came to the rescue, at least for a time.

The goals of the Islamists haven’t changed over the centuries. Back in the 14th century, the Islamic Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) wrote, “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam by persuasion or by force.” This isn’t an opinion of just one Muslim. This is the universal Koranic call to Jihad. Quite simply the desire is to create a worldwide social order based on the tenets of Islam and the imposition of Sharia law. That’s the goal. The means call for “persuasion or by force,” including violence of every kind, even terrorism and suicidal martyrdom. It also uses the infiltration of Islamists into Western nations through migration, both legal and illegal. Our response to this was the nation-building approach of multiple administrations, under the false assumption that the installation of a quasi-democratic political system and all it’s trappings would overwhelm these religious beliefs that have motivated Muslims from the beginning. Pick up a copy of the Koran, a good translation, and you can read exactly how Muslims are commanded to deal with unbelievers. 

Many Muslims, of course, do not accept the calls to violent Jihad that we hear from Islamist terrorists and leaders of such nations as Iran. They manage to follow the religious precepts of their faith without turning to hatred of those whose beliefs differ from theirs. But I  suspect many of these Muslims do not speak up and castigate the terrorists publicly for fear of their lives and the lives of those they love.

——————

Note: these final words were written today, August 31.

Today I am ashamed to be an American. Our government, a government that represents us, has, for completely political and largely irrational reasons, abandoned hundreds of American citizens and their families, plus thousands of Afghan allies who worked and fought alongside American troops over the past 20 years. But we didn’t just abandon these people. That would be bad enough. No, we left them in the hands of a collection of barbaric terrorists who enjoy torturing and butchering those whom they consider their enemies. And, believe me, their most hated enemies are Americans and any Afghans who supported us.

Today we mourn the deaths of 13 young Americans — marines, soldiers, and a Navy corpsman — who lost their lives in Kabul while serving their country by helping others in dire need. They and the many other Americans and Afghans wounded in that terrorist attack are the latest casualties of this centuries-long religious war. Pray for their immortal souls and for their families who are suffering today and will mourn for years to come. Listening to the president as he spoke to the nation just moments ago, it’s apparent how completely out of touch he is. Based on how he acted in his meetings with those families as the bodies of their loved ones arrived at Dover AFB, one also realizes how completely self-centered he is. More worrisome, he and his foreign policy team certainly don’t realize they’re in the midst of a religious war.

This is a religious war, and if we do not actually come to understand this, we will lose…unless, of course, our living and loving God, the God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, takes pity on us and in His mercy answers our prayers and comes to our aid. Faith and trust, brothers and sisters…

“Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth, so that very day their plans perish. Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God” [Ps 146:3-5].

Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner

If you’ve ever been to London, you might have taken the time to visit the Speakers’ Corner at the northeast corner of Hyde Park, not far from the Marble Arch. It’s a place where a person can stand up and speak on pretty much any topic, so long as it isn’t terribly profane or overtly illegal. The latter, of course, once included very little, but no longer, as the content of free speech has been seriously limited in the UK. I suppose today it's a bit of a challenge to speak publicly on any controversial subject, particularly when your opinions challenge the prevailing dogma of the woke crowd or incite those easily incited. 

When Diane and I visited the UK back in 2013, we strolled through Hyde Park and eventually made our way to the Speakers' Corner. Diane, knowing how I love to talk, thought perhaps I might say a few words in support of the right to life or some other principle near and dear to our Christian hearts. But as we approached the famous Corner, we were shocked to find it deserted. As you can see from the photo at left, I was a speaker with no audience. Okay, there were three large dogs that seemed somewhat interested, no doubt sensing my fondness for all things canine. But their heartless and probably agnostic master dragged them off before I could utter a single sentence. One can see how dejected they appeared as they were led away.

Today I came across a news story far more troubling than my ineffective visit to the Speakers' Corner. It's a story that sheds light on the treatment Christians can increasingly expect to receive if they express their views publicly, or actually try to "make disciples of all nations."

It seems a young woman named Hatun Tash decided to say a few words at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner in defense of Christianity. Reading about her called to mind Frank Sheed, Maisie Ward, Fr. Vincent McNabb, and other soapbox orators of the Catholic Evidence Guild who were such effective street apologists in London back in the early 20th century. I believe the league still operates as a street ministry in London, New York City, and elsewhere. (I actually wrote a post about these folks back in 2011: Want to be a Techno-Evangelist? )

Hatun Tash, an Evangelical preacher, is a convert from Islam to Christianity who left her native Turkey and emigrated to the UK. For years she spoke frequently at the Speakers' Corner because it was generally a safe, welcoming place where freedom of speech was respected. Things have certainly changed.

Because of her Muslim background, she often addresses the errors of Islam. Like any convert from Islam to Christianity she does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet. In truth, neither do I, and neither does any believing Christian I know. For this, however, she has become a target. 

In her words, "We don't live in Pakistan, we don't live in Saudi Arabia. I am Christian and by default, I believe that Muhammad is a false prophet. I should be allowed to say that in the UK...In my early days, Speakers' Corner was a much calmer place. Now it is not and I am regularly attacked by Muslim mobs." 

Several weeks prior she was arrested because her Charlie Hebdo shirt enraged some Muslims who were threatening her. She has since filed legal action against the police who it seems arrested the person being threatened rather than those threatening her.

She was wearing that same shirt on Sunday, July 29, when these attacks became brutally physical. A hooded man approached, then stabbed her and slashed her face. Fortunately she survived the attack. 

Convinced her attacker was trying to kill her, she later related, "My attacker was not even afraid of the police as he did it right in front of them." Although the police arrived within seconds of the attack, they made no arrests. The police, who apparently are completely clueless when it comes to things religious, have since stated that a motive has yet to be determined.

It obviously takes a special kind of Christian to take to the streets today and proclaim the Word of God to unbelievers. God bless them and protect them.

My Unsightly Pile of Books

During a phone conversation about a week ago, one of my friends, who knows me all too well, asked, “What’s in that stack of books on the table next to your easy chair?” He likes to know the books I’m reading so he can argue with me about them and their authors. He also knows that, at any given time, I’m usually reading about a half-dozen books. This is nothing to brag about; indeed, it’s a failing, a sign of a lack of focus. 

Sometimes, especially with good fiction, I’m enjoying a book so much, I hate the thought of finishing it. And so, I put it aside for a few days and return to it when I can resist no longer. Other books demand more than my aging brain can handle and must be read and digested in small bites. These call for more and deeper thought than I can usually conjure up as I read. So I set them aside, occasionally think about what they’re trying to tell me, and then return to them when my mind seems ready to dive into them once again. And then there are the books that simply conflict with whatever my current mood might be. These include poetry, short stories, or books of a certain genre, for example, science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, and what are often called, “ghost stories.” Yes, indeed, I enjoy all them all, but only if they’re well written and I’m in the mood. These, then, are the reasons for the “unsightly pile” (Dear Diane’s words) of books on my end table. 

What books now reside in this pile, and who are their authors? I’ll start from the top and work my way down. Here goes...

The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey (1896-1952).

Okay, in truth, I finished this book yesterday, so it shouldn’t still be in the stack with the others. After closing its cover, I just plopped it down on top of the pile, thinking I’d find a spot for it in a bookcase today. But I enjoyed it so much I just had to tell you a little about it. Anyway, my friend asked his question a week ago, so the book should still qualify as a true member of the current pile. 

Josephine Tey (a pen name of Elizabeth MacKintosh) was one of those classic British crime writers of the first half of the twentieth century, authors like Dorothy Sayers, G.K. Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Margery Allingham, E.C. Bentley, and so many others. The Daughter of Time (1951) is among the more unusual of her Inspector Grant of Scotland Yard mystery novels, in that Grant investigates a centuries-old crime from a hospital bed in which he is recovering from severe injuries. The crime? The fifteenth-century murder of the “Princes in the Tower” that historians and many others (including William Shakespeare) long attributed to King Richard III despite a lack of any real evidence. (Spoiler Alert!) Naturally, as a lifelong fan of Richard III, I agree with the good inspector’s ultimate conclusions. The real killer probably acted on orders from King Henry VII, the first of the Tudor monarchs, but really just another murderous member of that family. 

Richard, who lost his life and his crown 535 years ago (yesterday) at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485, has had his reputation restored by a number of current historians who actually examined the evidence. Among my favorite biographies of this misunderstood and mistreated king is Richard the Third, by Paul Kendall, first published in 1955, and still in print. 

The most recent news about Richard III involves the remarkable 2012 discovery of the king's body beneath a parking lot in Leicester, the site of what was once the Franciscan Grey Friars Church. It's a remarkable story and you can read the short version here: Finding Richard III. If you want the whole story by the woman who led the team of archaeologists who found Richard, read Philippa Langley's book, The King's Grave (another book in my current pile).

As you might suspect, I'm a bit obsessed with Richard, and have been for decades. This last great Catholic king of England was systematically defamed by his Tudor successors. The Franciscans had buried Richard in their friary church shortly after his death in battle. The friary church and Richard's tomb were demolished by Henry VIII in 1536 as part of his sacrilegious dissolution of the monasteries. To me, the final insult was Richard's re-burial in 2015 in the Anglican Leicester Cathedral. The Anglicans despised and defamed this good king for centuries, but now that he's fashionable, they lay claim to him. Thankfully, Vincent Cardinal Nichols, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, celebrated a funeral Mass for King Richard at Holy Cross Priory in Leicester. 

Four Quartets, by T. S. Eliot (1888-1965). 

This poetry, by one of my favorites, was Eliot’s final major poetic work. Originally written in 1943, the year before I was born, Four Quartets applies equally to today’s confused world. Here for example...ponder these words from the third part, The Dry Salvages:

There is no end, but addition: the trailing

consequence of further days and hours,

While emotion takes to itself the emotionless

Years of living among the breakage

Of what was believed in as the most reliable — 

And therefore the fittest for renunciation.

I’ve read Four Quartets several times, as well as much of Eliot’s other poetry and prose. While he's sometimes unsettling and confounding, he never disappoints me.

On Islam: a Chronological Record, 2002-2018, by James V. Schall, S.J. (1928-2019). 

Father Schall, who died last year, was one of the few good things to come out of Georgetown University in recent decades. A prolific author -- all of his many books are worth reading -- and political philosopher, Schall takes a hard look at Islam during the years immediately following the 9-11 Islamist attack on New York City and the Pentagon. I found the book especially interesting because it covers those years through which we all lived, but does so by looking deeply into the very heart of Islam and its worldview. Few others, including many of the West's political, religious, and social leaders, understand Islam and its deep-rooted aims, leading to predictably ineffective responses. The book also includes a commentary on Hilaire Belloc's prescient writings on the nature of Islam, writings that, 50 years ago, had a major impact on the evolution of my own thinking on Islam.

Lord Peter, by Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957).

Back again to those British mystery and crime writers. Although Dorothy Sayers was also a Christian apologist and translator of Dante, she was best known for her Lord Peter Wimsey mystery stories. I've always believed if you truly like something, you might as well get it all. This book, then, is the "complete" collection of Lord Peter Wimsey stories, most written in the 1920s and 1930s. (It does not, however, include the many Lord Peter novels.) If you haven't read any of these stories, you might have watched a few of the TV adaptations produced by the BBC some years ago and aired on PBS here in the U.S. Short stories are far more easily adapted to the television medium, and the BBC actually did a fairly good job with Lord Peter. But no TV show will ever be as good as the original.

Lord Peter, though, isn't everyone's cup of tea. The English aristocrat and amateur sleuth is a bit odd, at least for American tastes, with his strange mannerisms, his monocle,  and his upper-class manners. But one grows to like him and his valet, Bunter, along with many other of the stories' recurring characters. Wimsey and Bunter served together in World War One and the latter's care for his "lordship," who suffered from what today we would call PTSD, adds more than a little touching poignancy to many of the stories. 

Unbelievable, by Michael Newton Keas (2019). This book's subtitle says it all: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. Published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), an organization that offers a wide selection of books, all worth reading. Keas, a historian of science and a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture has written a readable and well documented book addressing many of the most pernicious myths that have infected and distorted much of modern thought. Most of these myths (can we simply call them lies?) seem to have one goal: the undermine Christianity in general, and specifically Catholicism. This is one of those books that you should send to every high school and college student you know.

How to Read Buildings, by Carol Davidson Cragoe (2012). Now, this is a book that falls well outside my usual interests, and represents a field of study about which I know far too little: architecture. Although I've traveled extensively during these almost 76 years, and seen a lot of buildings from many historical periods, I haven't always been able to identify one architectural style from another. Yes, I can tell the difference between Gothic and neo-classical, but when does Romanesque end and Gothic begin? What unique features really separate the two? How did one evolve from the other? And did you know that there are many different kinds of buttresses in those Gothic cathedrals? Can you identify the various kinds of columns or arches or vaults? Assuming you, too, are plagued by an inability to answer these questions, and would like to be able to answer them, this is the book for you. Given its subtitle -- A Crash Course in Architectural Styles -- this was one of those bookstore impulse purchases I couldn't resist because it offered a quick, down and dirty overview of building architecture as it has developed over the centuries. It's enabled me to sound much more broadly educated than I really am. It's also well illustrated and published in a very handy size that I can take with me on my travels -- a wonderful little book.
____________________

That's the extent of the current "unsightly pile" of books. It will no doubt undergo major changes in the days to come.

Going Poilitical Again...

Since the 2016 presidential campaign, my opinion of our president has undergone more than a little change. I was no Trump supporter, but neither was I a "never-Trumper." Before and immediately after his election I was leery of the man and his intentions. It was hard to believe he really meant what he said, especially when some of what he said, and how he said it, seemed so outrageous at the time. For example, his campaign comments about John McCain's status as a POW during the Vietnam conflict were particularly offensive to me, a veteran of that war and, like McCain, a naval aviator. I was never a fan of John McCain, the man or the politician, and believe the Republicans couldn't have chosen a worse candidate to compete with Barack Obama. But McCain's military service was honorable and not worthy of ridicule by someone who never served in the military. This, plus other Trumpian campaign statements, caused me concern. And yet, despite my misgivings about the man, I predicted Donald Trump's election fairly early (see my post of July 18, 2016), and did so for a number of reasons:

First, I agreed with candidate Trump that the American people had become increasingly fed up with career politicians, especially Washington politicians, who promise everything and anything during their campaigns. Once established in Congress, however, many, perhaps most, vote against the good and the will of their constituents, and do so without embarrassment. I thought that Donald Trump's clearly stated mission -- Drain the Swamp -- appealed to enough voters to make his election probable.

Bill and Hilary

And second, although Hillary Clinton was perhaps the best candidate the Democrat party could have nominated, she was still a horrible candidate. She seemed to exhibit an attitude of entitlement, as if she and only she deserved to be president. This is the kind of elitist attitude despised by many Americans. It's an attitude we'd expect from socialist elites who believe they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they should have the power to plan every aspect of our lives. Despite her husband's Rhodes Scholarship and his two terms as president, I'm pretty sure she's convinced she's the smarter of the two. She might well be right. I also believe a large number of Americans had come to view her as unethical in the extreme and hoped she and her husband would vanish from the public square. Some voters probably feared a Clinton presidency more than they hoped for a Trump presidency. And others simply didn't believe her or like her. I never really thought Hilary Clinton could be elected president. I could not believe our nation had fallen that low.

Donald Trump won the election, and like most of the nation, I sat back and wondered how this most unusual president would carry out the responsibilities of the office. Since then, however, I have come to appreciate his rather unorthodox approach to things political. Don't get me wrong, though; I am still astonished, and often perplexed, by some of his comments (and his tweets). And yet his use of Twitter and other unorthodox means to communicate directly to the American people and the world, thus bypassing a hostile and increasingly irrelevant media, is a stroke of true genius. Although I don't always agree with the man. I suspect we're probably on the same page more often than not. And most surprisingly I usually know exactly where Donald Trump stands on any given issue. If he changes his stance, he doesn't dance around the issue, but lets us know. He is actually willing to admit a change in belief or policy, and to tell us why. This is more than refreshing; it's unheard of in modern American politics. We have become so accustomed to politicians and their constant lawyerly spin (apologies to my few honest lawyer friends) that we have come to accept their behavior as "normal."

The career politician's approach to his responsibilities eludes me. I've known quite a few over the years, and if I were to name one trait that most of them shared it would be their unfamiliarity with the truth. Instead of accepting the Gospel maxim, "The truth will set you free" [Jn 8:32], they seem to believe that the truth will lose elections. A few weeks ago, a friend asked me to name the members of Congress whom I most respect, and I decided it would be best to ignore the question. Whenever I've spoken well of a politician he or she soon says or does something that causes me to regret my words of praise.

President Trump Rally

I'm pretty sure President Trump honestly believes he is speaking the truth. And he delivers it in plain, non-political, unrehearsed language. It's the kind of talk most Americans hear around the dinner table or when they share their views at work or with their friends. Like me, you might not always agree with him, but unless you're a denizen of the far left, consumed by hate, you probably find him refreshing.

As I look back on the past few years, I am truly amazed that Donald Trump, who is so despised by the mainstream media and his political enemies on both sides of the congressional aisle, has accomplished so much. But even more amazing, to me at least, is that I am in agreement with so many of these accomplishments.

Perhaps most encouraging is his pro-life record, one surpassing that of all his predecessors. I never expected this of him, largely because other Republican presidents talked pro-life during their campaigns but did little while in office. I just assumed Donald Trump would be no different. How inspiring to encounter a president who took action and courageously took the heat that predictably followed.

Pro-Life Support for Trump

I also agree with President Trump's decision to move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East, the only nation in the region with a truly representative form of government. Israel isn't perfect, but then neither are we. And every nation, including Israel, should strive to do what is best to further its citizen's interests and defend itself from aggressors. The rest of the region is a sewer, a collection of despotic regimes that truly despise both Israel and the United States. Worse, far too many of them support, bankroll, or harbor the Islamist terrorists that have plagued the world for so long.

Like Trump, I too am not a big fan of the nation-building goals of our protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although I'll admit my views have undergone some change in recent years. But I've always believed that any effort to develop democratic systems in Muslim-majority nations is doomed to failure. Islam is far more than a religion; it is a societal totality that strives to permeate and control every aspect of a people's life. Its governing rule of law -- shariah -- is simply incompatible with democratic, representative forms of government. Any attempt to democratize a fervently Muslim nation will eventually fail. Such attempts will also be overwhelmed by the growing number of Muslims willing to use force (I.e., terror) to achieve their Islamist ends. 

Pope Benedict XVI (2006)

Most informed people now realize Pope Benedict was absolutely correct when he addressed violence and Islam during his Regensburg lecture in 2006. It was the ideological intolerance of both Islamists and Western academics that drove the criticism and violence that followed the pope's well-reasoned remarks.

President Trump has shown he understands the need to destroy the Islamist terrorist organizations whenever and wherever they arise and thrive. This may well be his most difficult international challenge because this aim runs counter to the appeasement efforts of so many of our European allies, and of too many in our own government, including both the state and defense departments. Yes, indeed, it's easy to hide in that murky swamp water.

President Obama made a total mess of the Middle East. Examining his policy in the region, one would think his every decision was driven by what would be best for the Shiites of both Syria and Iran. His do-nothing approach to the atrocities the Syrian government inflicted on its people only strengthened Russian presence in the region and increased Iranian influence. Repairing the long-term damage caused by President Obama's agreement with the Iranians is a case in point. I find myself in full agreement with President Trump's decision to dump the agreement, a non-treaty even the current Congress would never have supported. Russia and China are certainly long-term threats, but Iran, the world's foremost exporter of terror, must be dealt with today.

I also support the president's tax cut, a piece of legislation to which only a socialist would object. Whenever we have slashed taxes, especially taxes on businesses, the economy has boomed. It happened when John Kennedy cut taxes, just as it happened when Ronald Reagan did the same. And yet not a single House or Senate Democrat voted for this tax cut. Democrats have certainly changed since Kennedy's time. Indeed, their rejection of the legislation tells us much about the current core beliefs of the Democrat party, a party that has moved increasingly to the far and irrational left.

What the Democrat Party Once Believed

President Kennedy, when promoting his plan to cut taxes, said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut taxes now." He was right and his tax cuts led to a period of remarkable economic growth. Like Kennedy and Reagan, Trump also ignored the deficit hawks of his own party, believing that the tax cut will, in the long run, lead to a significant increase in revenues. Ironically, many Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, who have never uttered a word against increased deficits were suddenly all aflutter, expressing fears about the legislation's potential impact on the deficit. Go figure.

When it comes to immigration I find myself wondering why we don't focus on the root cause of illegal immigration. Most immigrants flock to our borders because they want to leave the failing economies and corrupt governments of their native lands. How often have individual bishops, much less the USCCB, challenged the corrupt governments of Latin America and elsewhere? They seem far more interested in attacking our nation for trying to control immigration and protect our borders. And how often do our politicians do anything to encourage our corrupt neighbors to change their ways? If these nations actually developed free economies and truly representative governments perhaps they, too, would become lands of opportunity. As for those screaming for "no borders," I think we can safely ignore them for the ideologues (or "useful idiots") they truly are. The only aim of those pulling their strings is to destroy this nation. Every nation has the obligation and the right to control its borders -- how much control is something its citizens must decide. This is a question that Congress has danced around for some time, but time is running out. I suspect the President and the voters will force the issue sooner rather than later.

As for North Korea, President Trump's efforts to overcome the horrendous mistakes of previous administrations should be interesting to watch. For the first time since 1953 this vicious, totalitarian regime seems to realize they are dealing with someone who won't allow them to break agreements. I expect these negotiations will take some time, quite likely several years, before they bear real fruit. We'll see what happens.

Then there's China, the world's most populous, communist, totalitarian state. It is a nation ruled by those who murder and enslave, a pack of liars and thieves who will do anything, absolutely anything, to maintain their power. Like Mafia dons, they dress up in their shiny suits and smile at the cameras while they plan the destruction of all that is good. They cleverly instituted some elements of a free economy because they realized their socialist policies had failed and they needed to bankroll their ever expanding base of power. But make no mistake, every Chinese firm is under the thumb of the ruling Communist Party leadership. 

The Communist Dons

Unlike his predecessors Trump seems to recognize the truth about China and his negotiations with the communist leadership will surely break the mold. When he hammered the Chinese with tariffs and other barriers, the talking heads and Wall Street hand-wringers screamed and assured us the president would drive us into economic ruin. Many said the same thing when Trump was elected in November 2016, but our economy instead experienced continued record-setting growth. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the long term, despite the efforts of the Senate Democrats to block confirmation votes on the president's judicial and executive appointments, most of these appointments, particularly those of federal judges, have been wonderful. Once again a president is appointing men and women who actually read and understand the Constitution and reject ideological activism. If President Trump serves another four years the federal judiciary will likely experience historic change.

Our president, like all men, is far from perfect, but he's certainly far better than the collection of wannabes the Democrat Party offers us. Every single one of them supports the great atrocity of our age, the deliberate, pre-meditated murder of the most innocent among us. I fear God's judgment, not for me, for I'm too near the end of my life. No, I fear for my children and grandchildren, and for all who may well face a faith-testing decision to choose between a culture of life and a culture of death. 

Here's something I trust all the faithful can agree on: Pray for our nation and our president.

Strange Doings

Just a few of the random thoughts that have arisen in my often confused and certainly aging mind as I try to understand the more confused minds of those who make the headlines.

Oh, Canada! A few days ago an acquaintance asked me, "Did you read what Canada has done? What's with those Canadians? Have they gone insane?" He was referring to a law passed overwhelmingly (67 to 11) by the Canadian Senate that makes it a crime to refer to a person's sex by other than the term the person desires. In other words, should a Canadian decide that he/she/it is none of these but prefers to be called by another manufactured pronoun, such as "zir" or "zie" or "zit" or whatever, you must acquiesce to the loon's desires or face criminal prosecution. As my friend suggested, this is, of course, insane. But rest assured, the Canadians have not "gone" insane, they have simply remained insane. Indeed, a mild form of insanity has been their occasional mental state for the past few hundred years. After all, rather than join us in our quest to free ourselves from tyranny, they remained loyal to King George III, a man whose madness is rather well documented. So...the Canadians rejected George Washington -- a good guy and a very smart and sane man -- and instead placed their future well-being in the hands of another George, who happened to be a madman. I rest my case. I have only one question: Will those 11 senators who voted against the measure be prosecuted for discrimination? This would seem to be the most likely outcome for a nation comfortable with insanity.

LGBTQetc and Islam. Isn't it a bit odd that the Alphabet Corps of self-declared victims of sexual discrimination has become another voice decrying what they perceive to be Western (i.e., once Christian) Civilization's rampant Islamophobia? I do find this odd since virtually every Muslim-majority nation has sharia-based laws prohibiting homosexual and "related" behavior. And in many of these nations -- including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, and others -- the punishment under these laws includes the death penalty. Strange bedfellows...so to speak. It only confirms the late James Burnham's belief that liberalism is just another form of suicide. (See his remarkable and prophetic 1964 book, Suicide of the West.) 

Violence on the Left. What do Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, and Bernie Sanders have in common? Well, OK, four of them are dead, but all five are (or were) Marxists. And once we establish that basic fact, the violence we encounter on the political left today becomes understandable. Socialism is just a seemingly "soft" form of Marxism. But it is Marxism nonetheless and accepts the basic tenets of Marxist faith. One of these tenets is the need for revolution to accomplish its ends. In the words of Elton John: "We go up the revolution, freedom strike another blow. Yeah, strike another blow." In this context, of course, freedom includes only the freedom to believe what the Marxist believes.

That's why all of those young collegiate Marxists, who have been indoctrinated by all those aging professorial Marxists, get violent whenever someone who holds an opposing view dares to show up on campus. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a mediocre comedian can hold up an effigy of the decapitated head of the president and get rave reviews from her fellow travelers. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a Bernie Sanders toady can decide it's fine to shoot up a Republican congressional baseball practice. Yeah, strike another blow.

That's why a Nebraskan Democratic official can say he wished the baseball-field shooter had actually killed that  Republican representative instead of just wounding him. Yeah, strike another blow.

Interestingly, according to a recent poll, registered Democrats now prefer socialism to free-market capitalism by a double-digit advantage: 49% to 37%. I can only assume this will lead to increased violence on the left and quite likely an increase in violent responses from the far right.

Yes, indeed, we live in a strange, confused world. Thank God for God.

Sad Happenings...and Odd

The slaughter of Christians in the Middle East and Africa continues, but at least our president openly addressed this ongoing tragedy when he spoke to the gathering of the leaders of Muslim nations in Saudi Arabia. He didn't parrot the foolish political correctness of the previous administration, but identified the enemy as Islamist terrorists.

President Trump in Saudi Arabia

It was also refreshing to hear him scold those leaders for their halfhearted, at best, efforts to rid Islam of this cancer. Now we'll see if they actually do anything. I'm not holding my breath because in far too many of these nations a sizable percentage of the population actually support some of the terrorists' goals, specifically the universal imposition of sharia law. (See Pew Research Center's polling results.)

I also applaud President Trump's strong support for our ally, Israel, perhaps the only nation in that part of the world that doesn't hope for our destruction.

______________________

Yesterday's slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt provided an interesting juxtaposition alongside the recent terrorist attack in the UK. While the UK attack has almost monopolized the news for several days,  I suspect we'll hear much less about the wholesale murder of a larger number of Egyptian Christians, many of whom were also children. I'm not belittling the tragedy in Manchester, far from it, but what happened in Egypt is no less tragic.

____________________

In a related story Thomas Mair, the mayor of Greater Manchester, speaking about the horrific terrorist bombing in his city, stated: “This is an extremist act and the person who did it no more represents the Muslim community than the person who killed Jo Cox represents the white Christian community.” Jo Cox, you might recall, was the Labour MP who was stabbed to death a week before the "Brexit" referendum. The problem with the mayor's statement is that I'm pretty certain the vast majority of the UK's white Christian community doesn't support the indiscriminate killing of Muslims and would report such plots to the authorities. Sadly, a recent poll indicated that a majority of the UK's Mulims would not report suspected Jihadist activity to the police.
_____________________

I found it interesting that Nancy Pelosi, now perhaps the most irrelevant of left-coast politicians, for some unknown reason chided the president for visiting Saudi Arabia on his first international trip. She seems to think he instead should have visited Canada, or perhaps one of those needy foreign people's republics like San Francisco. I expect some in her party are urging her to retire before she does even more damage to their collective credibility.
_____________________

Greg Gianforte, Body-Slammer

And speaking of the credibility of the Democrat Party...Things must be very bad indeed when a Montana Republican, Greg Gianforte, wins a special election for a U.S. Congressional seat the day after he's charged with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming a pesky reporter. The Democrats had expected the election to result in an anti-Trump win for their party, an expectation considered a certainty after the Wednesday assault. Last-minute radio and tv ads by the Democrats focused almost exclusively on the assault, and three Montana newspapers pulled their endorsements of Gianforte. But the Repblican still won, and by a decent margin. I certainly don't support assualting reporters, even those who are purveyors of fake news, but the incident certainly says something about the mood of the country. Mr. Gianforte has since publicly apologized for his ill-considered aggression toward the media.
_____________________

Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's Finance Minister, another of Europe's brighter lights, suggests that Germany's Christians can learn from its growing Muslim population. What can they learn? In the minister's words, “Many human values are very strongly realised in Islam. Think of hospitality, and other things like, what is there… And also tolerance, I believe, for example.” Hospitality and tolerance were certainly in evidence in Manchester and Nice and Paris and San Bernardino and Egypt and...the list goes on. Of course many, perhaps most, Muslims are hospitable and tolerant, but to deny the religious basis of Islamist terrorism is not just foolish in the short term, but suicidal in the long term. 
______________________

I have to admit, I've pretty much written off all career politicians, a class of people epitomized primarily by their inability to tell the truth. It's no wonder people are rejecting the liars and increasingly voting for politically inexperienced men and women. It's a trend I suspect (and hope) will continue. 

______________________

One of my heroes, the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen, believed strongly that the Islamic world would eventually convert to Christianity through the intercession of the Blessed Mother. He expected that Mary, because she occupies an especially exalted position in Islamic theology, would draw the Islamic world to her Son and Christianity. She will bring this about as Our Lady of Fatima, a title that has some fascinating Islamic roots.

I've always thought that Archbishop Sheen was likely correct about all this and that our politicians, as usual, will follow a much less productive course. This, of course, is just another good reason for all Catholics to pray the Rosary daily, not just for the conversion of Russia, but for the conversion of the entire world. After all, as St. Paul reminds us: 

"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" [1 Tim 2:3-4].

"All men to be saved..." Why not? With God all things are possible.

And how fitting that we should turn to Our Lady of Fatima this year, the 100th anniversary of her apparition to the three children of Fatima. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Ancient News

If you're among the handful of regular readers of this blog -- my loyal and holy remnant -- you will know that I often write about certain archaeological discoveries that give us a glimpse into the distant past. It's really a life-long fascination with the work of archaeologists, one that began when, at the age of ten, I found a flint arrowhead amidst the gravel in our driveway in suburban New York. I still have that point, and I count it among my treasured possessions. But this early fascination with things archaeological was no more than an interest and I never considered becoming an archaeologist. I have absolutely no desire to dig in the dirt to uncover the lives of our ancient ancestors. Over the years, though, I've become acquainted with several professional archaeologists who enjoy doing just that. They have not only taught me many wonderful things but also whetted my appetite to learn more. This growing interest paralleled my interest in Sacred Scripture, especially since so much of what we know about the ancient world of the Bible has come to us through the work of archaeologists. More importantly, though, their work continues to confirm much of what the Bible tells us.

I haven't posted anything archaeological in quite some time, but in recent weeks the field has made the front pages on several occasions. And so I suppose it's time to share my thoughts on these and other news stories. Here are a few for your enjoyment, enlightenment or surprise:

UNESCO's Bias. Just in case you're not yet convinced that the United Nations is the most useless of all international organizations, here's some news that should change your mind. UNESCO -- the UN's so-called "Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization" -- has condemned Israel because it has conducted archaeological investigations at the Temple Mount and other locations in Jerusalem. UNESCO apparently believes Jerusalem is sacred only to Islam, something they insist all those pesky, imperialist Jews must also recognize. This, of course, ignores the fact that Jerusalem is the far more ancient center of the Jewish people. UNESCO also refers to Israel as the "occupying power" and condemns it for conducting any excavations in the old city of Jerusalem. UNESCO, it would seem, is staffed by Jew-haters who parrot the Islamist line that Israel is a rogue state that must be eliminated. Nothing more need be said.

Jerusalem Exists! As long as we're talking about Jerusalem, it has risen up once again and embarrassed some who consider themselves Scriptural scholars. Yes, believe it or not, many of these experts have long downplayed the biblical record that focuses on the importance of Jerusalem. Some have actually assumed that Jerusalem and Israel were never all that important because there is no contemporary record that mentions Jerusalem. No longer! Sci-News, a site that covers the latest scientific discoveries, describes the discovery of a papyrus fragment in which Jerusalem is mentioned prominently. This extra-Biblical reference to Jerusalem dates to the 7th century B.C., the time of the first temple.

The Jerusalem Papyrus

Discoveries that confirm the Biblical record have been going on for decades. Prior to the 20th century, the only place one encountered the Hittites was in the Bible. Naturally, most scholars, therefore, rejected the very idea that a Hittite empire had ever existed. Their general rule was: If it's in the Bible, it must be wrong.

Then, in 1906, the Hittite capital of Hattusha was discovered in modern-day Turkey. The discovery included a library containing over 10,000 tablets that confirmed the Biblical record and led to further discoveries. Yes, the Hittites were a powerful people with an extensive empire.

Toilet Desecration of Ba'al Temple. Once again, thanks to the work of  archaeologists, the Biblical text is proven correct. In 2 Kings 10 we find the following verses, describing Jehu's destruction of Ba'al temples in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the 8th century B.C.:

"Afterward they went into the inner shrine of the temple of Baal, and took out the pillars of the temple of Baal. They burned the shrine, tore down the pillar of Baal, tore down the temple of Baal, and turned it into a latrine, as it remains today" [2 Kgs 10:25-27].

Well, guess what? Archaeologists, digging at Lachish, in ancient Israel second in size only to Jerusalem, found a destroyed temple of Ba'al and right there in the middle of the inner temple they found a toilet where no toilet should be. Jehu had "turned it [the temple] into a latrine" because doing so was the ultimate desecration and made the temple unusable forever. Interestingly, the archaeologists, after conducting laboratory tests on the toilet, determined it had never been used. In other words, its placement was strictly symbolic, but would still desecrate the temple forever.

Temple Toilet - the "Jehu's Latrine"

ISIS Destruction of Antiquities. Driven by their fundamentalist Islamic faith, ISIS believes that all symbols of polytheism (and even those of non-Muslim monotheism) must be destroyed. After all, you never know when a bunch of Ba'al worshipers might rise up out of the sands of the Middle East and threaten Islam. They see idolatry as the greatest of sins, and any of its manifestations must be obliterated. History means absolutely nothing to these folks who consider only their version of Islam worth preserving. And so wherever these maniacal fanatics go, they leave infidel corpses and piles of rubble behind them. In the words of ISIS leadership, "These monuments should not be excavated and restored, but viewed with disgust and hatred...The sites were destroyed for disbelieving in Allah and His messengers.”

The Iraqi Army recently managed to push ISIS forces from the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, and what they found was devastating. The city's history goes back over 3,000 years and has long been considered one of the treasures of the ancient world. No longer. Ali al-Bayati, a militia commander who visited the newly liberated site stated that “One hundred per cent has been destroyed.” This, of course, was expected since ISIS conveniently made videos of their destruction of Nimrud. I've included one below:

ISIS has repeated this destruction throughout the Middle east. In the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra ISIS troops went on a rampage of destruction. One temple of the Assyrian god Ba'al was completely flattened. The below photos show the temple pre-ISIS and its destruction.

When they entered Palmyra, the ISIS forces promised to leave the site untouched, but soon after staged a public execution of Khaled al-Assad, the archaeologist who for years had managed the excavations. They then began their systematic destruction of the ancient city.

ISIS continued their destruction wherever their forces went. They destroyed the Mar Elian Monastery in the Syrian town of al-Qayatain. They did the same in the museum in Mosul (see video below), and looted the ancient Roman city of Apamea, selling looted artifacts to fund ISIS military operations. The city of Dura-Europas with its ancient Christian church and synagogue was also systematically looted as was the Bronze-Age city of Mari. 

But the greatest atrocity committed by ISIS has been the equally systematic slaughter of thousands of Christians and others, including Muslims who don't share their demonic vision.

Christians About to be Killed by ISIS

We have been blessed by these martyrs who have kept the Faith in the face of certain death.

ISIS, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their millions of followers represent Islam at its very worst and call to mind the early days of the 7th and 8th centuries when Muslim armies spread Islam by the sword. Unlike the early spread of Christianity, the spread of Islam was not a peaceful process.

There is much more, but it will have to wait. I am called to other work.