I hope the Pope doesn't fall for this one...

A body of 38 Muslim scholars has sent a petition to Pope Benedict XVI asking for more cooperation between Catholic and Muslims in promoting world peace. I hope the pope doesn't fall for this! First of all, Islam does not promote peace, except only as a means to furthering the end of global jihad. Secondly, though the document does not mention prayer specifically, it is worth pointing out that communio in sacris with heretics or pagans is never permitted. The only time it is justified, according to Church doctrine, is with Separated Brethren, but only for the purpose of praying for their reunion with Rome. So, let's hope the Pope does not go off offering to have prayer gathering with these Muslims. I think he is pretty solid, but he also feels much pressure to conform to the lamentable standard set by John Paul II. Below is the article from Zenit.org:

Muslim scholars have written to Benedict XVI and the heads of Christian churches to propose that the two faiths cooperate in creating peace and understanding in the world.Thursday's text comes a year after 38 Muslim scholars sent an open letter to the Pope in the wake of his address given at the University of Regensburg in September. The discourse had sparked controversy among some Muslim circles.The 138 signatories of this year's letter offer an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over what is most essential to their respective faiths -- the commandment of love.With over a half of the world's population consisting of Muslims and Christians, the letter's authors believe that easing world tensions can only come from peace and justice between these two faiths.The document calls for tolerance, understanding and moderation, and is signed by Muslim leaders, politicians and academics.

Let's not be hypocritical about Muslims...

There are indeed many, many things about Islam that ought to make us critical of it. First and foremost, Islam sets itself up as a rival revelation to the one delivered by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. It claims to be "another way" to God and asserts that the Christian revelation is defective and that our Scriptures are corrupted. This alone singles is out for condemnation and criticism. But that is the same with any rival religion to Christianity and this criticism does not single out Islam specifically.

Islam could also be condemned because it condones the practice of lying and deception in the interest of furthering Islam. This practice is called Al-taqiyya and the famous Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali said of it, "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." This is certainly one reason to condemn Islam.

One could also cite for censure the idea that true faith can be spread by means of force. This is contrary to the timeless Catholic belief that true faith must be volutary and arise from genuine assent of intellect and will to God's revelation, not because of duress or fear of death. Not only is forcing belief by violence an affront to the dignity of the human person, but it is actually impossible to inculcate anythng close to true faith by this means. It is both immoral and defective.

One could blame Islam for its belief that the proper relationship between God and His people is that of a slave-master relationship instead of a Father-Son relation. This belief makes a mockery of Christ's reconciliation between man and God and makes God's will arbitrary and unreasonable instead of motivated by reason and the good. The god of Islam (which I must state emphatically is not the same God as ours) is an arbitrary tyrant.

There are so many other things we could criticize Islam for: for its teaching that those who carry out attacks against non-believers and die in the process go straight to Paradise; for its acceptance of polygamy; for its acceptance of pedophilia (remember, Mohammed's youngest wife was 7 years old and only 9 when the marriage was consummated); for its stirring up of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hate around the globe. All of these things truly make Islam a vile and detestable religion.

But there is one thing that I cannot in good conscience condemn Islam for; and curiously enough, this is the one thing that I see most conservative Catholics condemning Islam for the most: that is the fact that Islam seeks to dominate the entire world. I cannot fault the Muslims for this. Why not? Because we, too, seek to dominate the entire world. Let's not mince words here: it is unacceptable, in light of Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to all creatures, that there exist so much as one non-Christian on the face of the earth. Christ commands that every creature must be converted and believe the Gospel. What our Gospel is differs entirely from what the Muslim message is, and the means by which people are won to the Gospel are good works, prayer, charity and preaching, not slaughter and beheading. But nevertheless, both religions seek universal dominance. Therefore, I cannot fault Muslims for wanting their religion to dominate.

That does not mean that we hate non-believers; that does not mean we cannot live in peace and harmony with Separated Brethren, Jews and non-Christians. But it does mean that ultimately, we would like to see every human soul on the globe a Catholic in communion with the Holy See.

I'm so sick of conservative Catholic talk-show hosts pointing out ominously, "Muslims seek to dominate the entire globe; Islam teaches that the whole world must be subject to them." Well, of course, but that's what our religion teaches, too! So let's not be hypocritical about it. There is a proper place for this argument. For example, in pointing out the bankruptcy of the American political plan of the liberals that says that if we just sit down and negotiate with these people then maybe they will stop attacking us. Then it is fitting to point out that they will never stop, because their goal is world domination. But this is a moot point when the discussion turns religious, because our religion also seeks to convert the entire planet (notwithstanding Pope John Paul II's cowardly promise to the Russian patriarch that Catholics wouldn't try to convert the Russian Orthodox).

So, let's keep our discussion about Islam on track. Let's censure it for what need to be censured, but recognize that we cannot justly blame it for things that we ourselves also believe (and if you do not believe that it is God's will that every single person be a Catholic, then you need to go back to Theology 101). I've recently been listening to a CD series by Dr. Srdja Trefkovic on Islam that I can highly recommend to anybody interested in this important issue.

Switzerland is doing it right!

I recently came across this article on Switzerland in the British newspaper "The Independent" talking about how Switzerland is a new home for "extremism" and "xenophobia." Of course, it was not referring to Islamic extremism, which is a growing pandemic in Europe, but it was referring to Swiss who are trying to protect their traditions and their culture. The title of the piece is "Switzerland: Europe's Heart of Darkness?" It is typical European, secular drivel.

For my part, I would like to point out some aspects of Swiss life and show how these are actually good ideas that would be beneficial to America. If you find an idea that is being criticized as extremist and xenophoic by the liberal media, chances are it is probably a very good idea. I will not quote the article in its entirety, but just give citations. You can read the full article here. Let's see how the Swiss run their little republic:

"The Swiss People's Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) ...has the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of the country's coalition government.

With a general election due next month, it has launched a twofold campaign which has caused the UN's special rapporteur on racism to ask for an official explanation from the government. The party has launched a campaign to raise the 100,000 signatures necessary to force a referendum to reintroduce into the penal code a measure to allow judges to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes once they have served their jail sentence [what's so bad about that?]

But far more dramatically, it has announced its intention to lay before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed. It will be the first such law in Europe since the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft – kin liability – whereby relatives of criminals were held responsible for their crimes and punished equally [this is part of long-standing European legal tradition going all the way back to the Saxon concept of "blood guilt"; nothing novel here, despite the token comparison to the Nazi boogy-men. We can't reject something ipso facto just because the Nazis did it; this is poor reasoning, and the reference of Sippenhaft is just to scare people away from considering the proposal objectively].

Dr Schlüer [author of the law] has launched a campaign for a referendum to ban the building of Muslim minarets. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports. And its leading figure, the Justice Minister, Christoph Blocher, has said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech.

There is no disguising his suspicion of Islam. He has alarmed many of Switzerland's Muslims (some 4.3 per cent of the 7.5 million population) with his campaign to ban the minaret. "We're not against mosques but the minaret is not mentioned in the Koran or other important Islamic texts. It just symbolises a place where Islamic law is established." And Islamic law, he says, is incompatible with Switzerland's legal system. To date there are only two mosques in the country with minarets but planners are turning down applications for more, after opinion polls showed almost half the population favours a ban. What is at stake here in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and the US.

He is fiercely proud of his nation's independence, which can be traced back to a defensive alliance of cantons in 1291. He is a staunch defender of its policy of armed neutrality, under which Switzerland has no standing army but all young men are trained and on standby; they call it the porcupine approach – with millions of individuals ready to stiffen like spines if the nation is threatened.

Switzerland has the toughest naturalisation rules in Europe. To apply, you must live in the country legally for at least 12 years, pay taxes, and have no criminal record. The application can still be turned down by your local commune which meets to ask "Can you speak German? Do you work? Are you integrated with Swiss people?" [if only America went by this type of criteria!]

It can also ask, as one commune did of 23-year-old Fatma Karademir – who was born in Switzerland but who under Swiss law is Turkish like her parents – if she knew the words of the Swiss national anthem, if she could imagine marrying a Swiss boy and who she would support if the Swiss football team played Turkey. "Those kinds of questions are outside the law," says Mario Fehr. "But in some more remote villages you have a problem if you're from ex-Yugoslavia."

The federal government in Berne wants to take the decision out of the hands of local communities, one of which only gave the vote to women as recently as 1990 [!]. But the government's proposals have twice been defeated in referendums.

It [the SVP] has warned that because of their higher birth rates Muslims would eventually become a majority in Switzerland if the citizenship rules were eased [this is a fact so poorly understood by modern European leaders]. It is what lies behind his fierce support for the militia system.

To those who say that Germany, France, Italy and Austria are nowadays unlikely to invade, he invokes again the shadow of militant Islam. "The character of war is changing. There could be riots or eruptions in a town anywhere in Switzerland. There could be terrorism in a financial centre."

The race issue goes wider than politics in a tiny nation. "I'm broadly optimistic that the tide is moving in our direction both here and in other countries across Europe, said Dr Schlüer. "I feel more supported than criticised from outside."

The drama which is being played out in such direct politically incorrect language in Switzerland is one which has repercussions all across Europe, and wider."

Whatever else one might want to say about Switzerland, they sure know how to protect what is their own. This is born out of the need of the Swiss throughout history to maintain independence from their larger and more voracious neighbors, like France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Third Reich, the Austrian Empire and the Italian Republic.

However, I cannot help think that (while I applaud the Swiss efforts to keep Muslims out), they are committing a fatal error in their logic. They seem to accept Muslim integration if the Muslims are willing to do things like "marry a Swiss" or "integrate with the Swiss." They only fear a non-integrated Muslim, but seem to accept one willing to adopt Swiss culture. In my opinion, an intergrated Muslim is no more desireable than a non-integrated one; in fact, he is even worse! This is because if a Muslim wears his traditional middle eastern garb and speak Arabic, one immediately notices the cultural differences between himself and the foreigner. But if the Muslim looks and acts just like a Swiss, then people will begin to think that they are not that different after all and that there is nothing wrong with Islam. I think what we need in the west is a big influx of non-integrated, radical Muslims who hate our culture and appear very foreign in their dress, speech and mannerisms; their presence will draw attention to their other-ness and make people take cognizance of the differences between Christian culture and Islamic culture and will more quickly turn people against Islam. People don't need to see a watered down, westernized Islam; they need to be exposed to a radical, orthodox Islam in all its barbaric fullness, and right in their back yard, before Christians will really take up defense against it. Of course, it would be best to just have no Islamic immigration at all, but sometimes it takes a radical contrast to make people see the difference.

That's right, I'm advocating that we focus on our differences! What do you say to that, Mr. Liberal Catholic?

Santiago Matamoros, ora pro nobis!

Santiago Matamoros (St. James the Moor-Slayer)

The Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas on Mohammedanism:

"He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.

He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly." - Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4. Footnote: 1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36

The Church of Santiago de Compostella, Spain.

This famous Catholic Church dedicated to St. James the Muslim-Slayer (Santiago Matamoros) houses the glorious Apostle's Holy Relics.

St. James, called the Greater, preached the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, and Spain. On his return to Jerusalem, Herod condemned him to death: he was beheaded in 42. His body was conveyed to Compostella (field of stars) in Spain, and is venerated by many pilgrims.

Be Thou, O Lord, the Sanctifier and Protector of Thy people: so that defended by the aid of Thine Apostle James, they may please Thee in thier manner of life, and serve Thee in peace of soul. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.