Needed: A New Church Policy toward Islam [Pt. 1]

In a speech to Egypt’s top Islamic authorities, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for a “religious revolution.” Why? Because he believes that Islam has problems: “That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries … is antagonizing the entire world.” He continued: “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…?” He then warned the assembled imams not to “remain trapped within this mindset” but to “reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.”

Three Part Series 1However you interpret el-Sisi’s remarks, it’s clear that he believes the problems of Islam are not the fault of a tiny minority. He seems to think that a great many are to blame, and he particularly singles out Islamic religious leaders, whom he holds “responsible before Allah” on “Judgment Day.” And, most tellingly, he refuses to indulge in the this-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam excuse favored by Western leaders. Rather, he states that “the entire umma [Islamic world]” is “a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world” because of “the thinking that we hold most sacred.”

By contrast, after his visit to Turkey, Pope Francis compared Islamic fundamentalists to Christian fundamentalists and said that “in all religions there are these little groups.” A little over a year ago in his apostolic exhortation, he joined the ranks of those who say that terror has nothing to do with Islam by observing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

So the leader of the largest Muslim country in the Arab world thinks that the entire Islamic world is suffused with dangerous and destructive thinking, and the leader of the Catholic Church thinks terror is the work of a few misunderstanders of Islam.

Or does he?

It’s very likely that when world leaders say that terror has nothing to do with Islam, many of them do so for reasons of state. In other words, they are afraid that if they say anything else they will provoke more violence.

Is this the case with the Pope? My guess is probably not. The Pope does not seem the type to dissemble. He, along with many of the bishops, seems to genuinely believe that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked for nefarious purposes.

Still, even if many prelates do entertain doubts about the peaceful nature of Islam, it can be argued that the present policy of saying positive things about Islam makes sense from a strategic point of view. A great many Christians live as minorities in Muslim lands, and the wrong word might put them in danger. After Pope Benedict’s Regensburg reference to the violent nature of Islam, Muslims took out their anger on Christians living in their midst. And things have worsened since then. Christians in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere already live at peril of their lives. Why make it any worse for them?

There’s another argument for this power-of-positive-thinking approach, although it’s an argument that’s best left unsaid. One of the unspoken hopes of Church and secular leaders is, undoubtedly, that such an approach will set in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace and eventually even the Islamists will believe it and begin to act peacefully.

Of course, jihadists aren’t the main target of this strategy. Even if hardcore Islamists remain unmoved by this flattering of their faith, the tactic will—or so it is supposed—have the merit of reinforcing moderate Muslims in their moderation. If Catholic prelates were to start criticizing Islam itself instead of the terrorist “betrayers” of Islam, they would risk alienating peaceful Muslims. A hardline policy might even have the effect of pushing moderates into the radical camp. Better, from a strategic point of view, to stress our commonalities with Muslims. If they see us as a brother religion, they are more likely to protect the Christians in their midst.

Whether or not this is the reasoning at the Vatican, I don’t know. But such a strategy is not without merit. In Islam, blasphemy and slander are taken quite seriously and any criticism of Islam or its prophet can be construed as blasphemous. Slander is defined even more loosely. One of the most authoritative sharia law books defines it as “saying anything about a person that he would dislike.” That covers a lot of territory. So the argument that drawing attention to the violent side of Islam will only incite further violence is a compelling one.

On the other hand, there are good reasons for questioning the Church’s accommodative approach. The primary and most practical one is that it doesn’t seem to have worked. The let’s-be-friends approach has been in place even since Vatican II, but other than dialoguers congratulating themselves on the friendships they have made, it hasn’t yielded much in the way of results. Christians in Muslim lands are less safe than they have been for centuries. So, for that matter, are Muslims themselves.

What’s wrong with the diplomatic approach? Well, look at it first from the Islamic point of view. Islam is a religion that respects strength. It was spread mainly by the sword. To say that it is a peaceful religion might elicit reassuring responses from those Muslims who, like their Western counterparts, are constrained by diplomatic protocols, but from others it elicits scorn. The Ayatollah Khomeini put it this way: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless.”

Muslims of Khomeini’s ilk don’t care whether or not others think of Islam as peaceful, they only care whether God is on their side. A weak response from the enemy, whether on the battlefield or from the pulpit proves that he is. Appeasement on the part of prelates reinforces the conviction held by many Muslims that Christianity is an inferior religion, not worthy of respect. By the same token, it reinforces the belief that Islam is the superior religion, deserving of special respect. “Allahu akbar” doesn’t mean “let’s dialogue”; it means “God is greater” and its specific meaning to Muslims is that their God is greater than your god. Duke University recently reversed its decision to allow the Muslim Student Association to chant the call to prayer from the massive chapel bell tower, but if the decision had held it would not have been seen as a sign of Duke’s commitment to cultural diversity but as a sign that it is on the road to submission. Duke was founded by Methodist Episcopalians and was originally called Trinity College. The Muslim call to prayer includes the words “Allahu akbar,” and the Allah they call upon is decidedly not a Trinity.

Islam, which considers itself to be the best religion on the planet, is also the touchiest religion on the planet. The way you show Islam respect is not by treating it as an equal but by treating it with deference. Not doing or saying anything to offend Muslims might seem like a wise strategy, but once you adopt it, you’re already on a slippery slope. Islam has an insatiable appetite for deference, and there is no end to the things that offend Muslims. The word “Islam,” after all, means submission, and that, ultimately, is how non-Muslims are expected to show respect. Catholics who are worried about offending Islam might note that in Saudi Arabia the mere presence of a Catholic church is considered offensive. Will the wearing of a cross by a Christian student at Duke someday be considered intolerably offensive to the Muslim students? How much of your weekly salary would you be willing to wager against that eventuality?

Of course there are many Muslims who are tolerant and open-minded, but in much of the Muslim world they keep their open-mindedness to themselves. What about them? The Church’s current “diplomatic” policy runs the risk of increasing their sense of hopelessness. Islam is an oppressive religious and social system. Many Muslims feel trapped by it. President el-Sisi acknowledged as much when he urged Egypt’s imams not to “remain trapped within this mindset.” When Christian leaders won’t acknowledge the oppression, it reinforces the “trapped” Muslim’s belief that he has nowhere to turn. The problem is compounded when Church leaders insist on expressing their respect for Islam and their solidarity with Islamic religious leaders. Muslims who are disaffected from Islam aren’t likely to convert to another religion which proudly proclaims its commonality with the faith they would love to leave.

The current approach is unlikely to win over many Muslims. At the same time, it’s likely to alienate a lot of Christians. For one thing, it does a disservice to Christian victims of Islamic persecution. As I observed in a previous column:

Such an approach also tends to devalue the sacrifices of those Christians in Muslim lands who have had the courage to resist submission to Islam. It must be highly discouraging to be told that the religion in whose name your friends and relatives have been slaughtered is prized and esteemed by the Church.

That’s not to say that Church leaders shouldn’t exercise discretion in what they say. During World War II, Vatican officials understood that saying the wrong thing about the Nazis could result in retaliation against both Jews and Catholics. On the other hand, they did not go out of their way to express their esteem and respect for Nazis and thus risk demoralizing Christians who lived under Nazi control. In order to protect Christians and Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe and later in Communist-controlled Eastern Europe, the Vatican did exercise a degree of diplomatic caution. But that diplomacy was based on an accurate understanding of Nazi and Communist ideology. It’s not at all clear that today’s Church leaders possess a correspondingly clear-eyed understanding of Islamic theology/ideology. The current outreach to Islam seems to be based more on wishful thinking than on fact. And, as Pope Francis himself observed in Evangelii Gaudium, “Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism” (232).

“Ideas disconnected from realities” is a good way to describe the Church’s Islam policy. That policy does not seem to have done much to prevent persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. How about Catholics who do not live in the danger zones? Catholics who live in the West and rely on the Church for their understanding of Islam can be forgiven if they still remain complacent about the Islamic threat. That’s because there is absolutely nothing in recent official Church statements that would lead them to think that there is anything to worry about. Lumen Gentium? Nostra Aetate? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? Evangelii Gaudium? All discuss Islam, but not in a way that would raise the slightest concern. The Catholic who wonders what to think about Islamic terrorism and then consults his Catechism only to find that “together with us they adore the one, merciful God” will likely conclude that terrorists are distorting and misinterpreting their religion. Confident that the Church has spoken definitively on the matter, he’ll roll over and go back to sleep.

Conversely, Catholics who do not rely strictly on the Church for their assessment of Islam are in for a bout of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they know what the Church says. On the other hand, they can read the news and note the obvious discrepancy. As time goes by and as car bombings and beheadings occur at more frequent intervals in the West, dissonance is likely to be replaced by disrespect. Church officials who keep repeating the one-sided narrative about “authentic” Islam will lose credibility. Catholics won’t necessarily lose their faith, but it will be sorely tested. At the least, they will stop trusting their bishops on this issue. The trouble with “ideas disconnected from realities” is that they eventually do bump up against realities, and when they do, the bearers of those ideas lose respect. A good case can be made that Catholic leaders should pursue a policy geared toward weakening Muslims’ faith in Islam (a proposition I will discuss in the next installment), but the current policy seems more likely to undermine the faith that Catholics have in their shepherds. It’s ironic that a Catholic can get a better grasp of the Islamic threat by listening to a short speech by President el-Sisi than by listening to a hundred reassuring statements from Catholic bishops.

Of course, it’s not enough to simply criticize the Church’s current policy without proposing a viable alternative option. That’s something I propose to do in my next column.

Editor’s note: In the image above, Pope Francis meets with the Grand Mufti of Istanbul Rahmi Yaran during his three day state visit to Turkey last November.

William Kilpatrick


William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website,

  • William Murphy

    The chaos in Church policy could not be better illustrated by two quotes from the same Papal document, Evangelii Gaudium. Para 232, which Mr Kilpatrick references, has wise words about ideas disconnected from realities. Scroll down to para 253 and Pope Francis refers to Islam as a religion of peace. How many people have actually had the time and endurance to slog through the 40,000+ words of EG and read both paragraphs is another matter. But at least two writers, in the UK “New Statesman” and “Spectator” magazines have noted the nonsense of para 253. It must be one of the rare occasions that these radically opposed magazines have seen eye to eye.
    One unhappy commentator on a “First Things” article claimed that the African bishops felt betrayed by Francis’ approach to Islam. I have not seen independent verification of that statement, but if I was a Nigerian or Kenyan bishop, with my flock in the front line of Islamist aggression, I would feel enraged.

    • Francis should have consulted with the now former Bishop of Mosul.

      • He needn’t get so worked up. He should just join the mosque since they all adore the one true God anyway.

  • Objectivetruth

    Pope Francis needs only to declare to the Muslim world with great joy, that Jesus Christ is Lord.


    All else is wind and noise.

    • St JD George

      When that day happens be sure to let us know in case we missed hearing it.

    • Marcelus


    • jacobhalo

      i have more of a chance of growing hair again.

  • Mary Michaels

    Islam is more a violent political ideology than a religion. Sharia law should be universally condemned.

    • Sorry, I don’t buy this distinction. Political ideology and religion are not competing things to Islam. Indeed politics is an expression of this. The ancient Jews, for example, would have had no conception of a religion of the heart versus the way God has told them to conduct civic affairs. How the people are governed is tied to their obedience to God.

      For us who follow Christ, we understand His kingdom is not of this world, so the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We know that Christ must establish peace through the propagation of the Gospel, never by force.

      • St JD George

        Today I heard that there are those who wish to adopt the name freedom fighters for those who are hell bent on jihad so as to further obfuscate their mission to the world and evoke more sympathy by those who would be duped.

        • gildad

          The irony of the thinking that there is peaceful Islam and radical Islam is that the only way to make the Islamic religion peaceful is to eliminate the teachings of Muhammed and if you eliminate Muhammed you end up with the Jewish religion with the old testament teachings and no Jesus but one God in Allah. So the answer is for all peaceful Muslims to convert to Judaism. But alas these are the people the Islamists wants to eliminate.

          • St JD George

            Jesus yes, but just a great man and a prophet. If you read the Q’ran you see they reserve a great deal of reverence for the man, but like those others who are still waiting also never accepted his divinity or triune nature.

            • gildad

              I understand about the non acceptance of Jesus’ divinity but you do understand the irony of my post don’t you. Eliminating the teachings of Muhammed will make them akin to Judaism.

              • St JD George

                You blasphemer you. Or in the manner of the man on the street interviewer “What do you get when you eliminate the teaching of Mohammed from Islam?” … “DEAD silence”. Get it? Sorry, that was bad.

              • Mary

                No it doesn’t because Judaism is not a religion of expansion and certainly not by force. Jacob went into the Land to clear it accoring to its borders which God had set out….Islam has no borders but an injunction to bring all the world under submission to the the house of Islam. Without Muhammed there is no religion at all as all Islam rests on the supposed words he was forced to recite by a supposed angel. It’s a sales job cobbled from judaism , paganism and gnostic christianity along with Arianism etc because Muhammed wanted to be a prophet

                • It is a syncretic festival.

      • Is it a distinction or the suggestion that we’re dealing with a Hydra?

    • publiusnj

      Islam: peaceful religion or warlike ideology? Islam is a lot older than the term “ideology.” It used to be a political system with a “caliph” that is a purported successor of Muhammad. Indeed, at times there were multiple caliphates. In this day and age, when there is no Caliphate that most Muslims recognize, Islam is both peaceful and warlike (those seeking to recreate a Caliphate being among the warlike ones). In the past, though, when Islam had a caliph, the caliphs generally did maintain an attitude of war toward Christians that were not their subjects (the whole Dar al Salaam, Dar al Harb thing).

      That is how the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Southern France and the Balkan Peninsula came to be ruled by caliphate(s). And it wasn’t because of the Crusades. The followers of Muhammad went on the warpath before he died 1382 years ago and didn’t stop until they were stopped at Tours and in front of Constantinople. The temporary defeat at Constantinople, though, was undone hundreds of years later,when another caliph, the Ottoman Sultan went back against Constantinople, and conquered it. Indeed, his successors didn’t stop until Jan Sobieski and Co. stopped him before the gates of Vienna. Christians then went back on the attack and gradually rolled up the Ottoman position in the Balkans, and later in North Africa, but with the retreat of the British, French and Italian colonizers in North Africa, Islam is once again on the attack, ever since American pressure forced the British, French and Israelis to abandon the Suez Canal Zone in 1956.

  • orientstar

    “undermine the faith that Catholics have in their shepherds”? I am not sure that there is much left of that to go around. The sad fact that most of our “shepherds” are unreliable guides in dealing with the obvious truths about Islam merely echoes their manifest unreliability in most other areas. God grant us good and faithful bishops.

    • Laurence Charles Ringo

      You have a “good and faithful bishop”, orientstar.His Name is JESUS THE CHRIST! Read Proverbs 3 : 5-6, and reflect.

  • Seamrog

    “Catholic leaders should pursue a policy geared toward weakening Muslims’ faith in Islam.”

    Yes, yes, and yes – and may I add strengthening the notion among the faithful that the koran is not the inspired word of God. From Monday’s first reading:

    So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,
    nor of me, a prisoner for his sake;
    but bear your share of hardship for the Gospel
    with the strength that comes from God.

    There can be no shame in proclaiming boldly that Jesus was not a prophet – he is the Son of God. One wonders why our leaders – our Bishops – do not have the ‘strength that comes from God’ to stand in the face of a religion that would annihlate us and submit us to slavery, and a state that would dehumanize us.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    El-Sisi’s remarks can be seen as part of an argument that has been going on within Islam since at least the Menemen Incident in 1930 and the strong anti-clerical reaction that followed.

    Moderates had long accused Imams and scholars of creating precisely “That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries” that, they believed, had corrupted the simple religion of the Prophet with “superstition and obscurantism.”

    The Moderates believed in a purified Islam that would serve as the ‘social cement’ of the nation, stripped of these accretions and brought into harmony with modern science and positivist philosophy. Perhaps, their most significant victory was in Turkey, with the abolition of Sharia law, replacing it with the Swiss Civil Code, the German Commercial Code, the Italian Penal Code and French administrative law and to which the Menemen Incident was, in part, a reaction.

    • JP

      The Turkish model is no longer operative. And Muslim Moderates remain hidden and quiet. All of the energy in Islam lies with the revolution began by the Wahhabists in the 1920s. Whether we’re talking of Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Nation of Islam or Zikri, the end results are the same.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Turkey still has a considerable urban, Westernised, educated, secular middle class, who have nothing but contempt for the recently urbanised, shantytown-dwelling, less well-off, Allah-fearing Erdogan voters.

        This is the same class that welcomed the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt

  • We need to start with a good comparative theology study. Before we can have a rational policy towards an irrational religion, we must know what they actually believe.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      It would be a case of theologies – Muslims vary as much in their beliefs as the Russian Orthodox church differs from the Society of Friends.

      • Quite correct. And only a minority of those lead to violence. I think one problem though is that the paths that do lead to six instead of five pillars- are mutually incompatible with other six pillar theologies.

    • The most important belief is: Convert or die.

      • Which is a belief of six pillar islamics, based on Koran 9:5. But five pillar islamics have the opposing belief “religion is never a matter for compulsion” based on Koran 2:256-257. Both have their own references in the Quran, of course, for those beliefs.

        This is why belief in Sola Scriptura, no matter what the religion, is irrational.

        • The contradictions in the Koran make it a tabula rasa upon which to write whatever you want. However, it was recently observed that a religion isn’t just its sacred texts, but the body of practices by its adherents.

          There is a phrase in my line of work, for an unpleasant, but unavoidable assertion or conclusion- “it is what it is”.

          • And what it is, when speaking of Islam, is twelve major theologies that are really not compatible with each other, and several hundred minor sects. You cannot say that Islam is a single religion. The unpleasant conclusion is that Islam is in the midst of a violent reformation between the relatively peaceful five pillar secularists and the relatively violent six pillar individual Jihadi, with a rainbow of sects and non Islamic religions caught in the crossfire

            • You cannot say that Islam is a single religion.

              That sort of dissociation has a certain similarity to “we are legion”, no?

              • Or for that matter, “We are Protestant”. Same tune, different century…..

                • But Protestants know they are different religions.

                  • Do they? They all claim to be Christian.

                    The same is true of Islam. Shi’a -> Lutheran as Islam -> Christian. Different levels.

  • Keith Cameron

    I know many for whom the rhetoric coming from the Vatican has served only as a lubricant on their slid towards the Eastern Church. Appeasement of violent Islamists is for me the final straw that may make me look East also.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      Be prepared for nasty infighting, lack of authority, a Russian church compromised by decades of communism and ‘your’ Father who goes home to his ‘real’ family at night.

      • Keith Cameron

        I think the celibacy rule has caused more problems amongst the priesthood than it ever solved. That is one part of the Church of Rome I think we’d all be well to put behind us.

        • cestusdei

          Celibacy? Just today I read about some female teachers abusing students. We should not require celibacy of teachers, right? No wait, they are not required to be celibate are they? Then why do they abuse students? Just maybe celibacy has nothing to do with it.

          • Female teachers having relations with male students is a common story in my area.

            • cestusdei

              So celibacy doesn’t cause child abuse.

              • Right. Jerry Sandusky took no vow of celibacy.

        • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

          After WWII the seminaries were full to bursting with men who had seen the ultimate horrors of war and became priests. Tough, manly and heroic men who are mostly gone now.

        • Do you also think the male only priesthood has caused more problems than it ever solved? Some of the subsects that trace their apostolic authority through the Eastern Orthodox have begun ordaining women:

  • JERD2

    There is a difference between love and enabling bad behavior.

    Just like a spoiled child’s behavior is enabled by doting parents, the violent arm of Islam is enabled by our continual apologizing for Muslim terror.

    Just as parents who withhold proper discipline from their children mistakenly believe they are loving their children, so too we are in error to think that withholding criticism of Islam is an act of charity. It is not.

    Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech had it right. That should be the model the Church follows.

    • Benedict also called for reciprocity.

    • Marcelus

      Benedict also apologized for it

  • lifeknight

    Sharia Law is now in Texas, according to a post by Briebart:

    (Dr. Taher El-badawi) said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

    In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

    He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal,” El-badawi stated. “The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.” He called it “two paths to the same result.” The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the “dower” that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

    El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.


    • First its

      • St JD George

        So, onto the slippery slope we head, where it will end nobody knows as we are not being lead, but down indeed into the hole it does go like a sled, for once the genie is released from his bed, returning back to the lamp his expanded girth will not allow once he has fed.

        • Have you ever noticed that they same crowd that opposes Nativity Scenes, never cares about Islam?

          • St JD George

            That has never, ever crossed my mind. Do you think there is a connection perhaps, I mean beyond their hatred of or outright rejection of Christ? As has been often said, it will indeed be a curious day when Sharia comes to town and they discover who the sodomites are.

            • It may be Christophobia, mixed with oikophobia, neophilia and xenophilia.

          • Liberalism is a morbidity of the mind.

  • St JD George

    Maybe the exiled Archbishop of Mosul Amel Nona, or the Archbishop of Nigeria Ignatius Kaigama should be allowed to explain more to the world about their experiences with peaceful coexistence since they have lived it and know first hand rather than philosophizing about it from afar.

    Closer to home, I am more and more curious about the growth. Yesterday I read about the creation of a non-profit tribunal established in Texas to administer non-binding dispute resolution on matters of Sharia Law. Voluntary now. A year ago the city of Dearborn voted to accept Sharia Law in their municipality. Dozens of honor killings stories populate the news every year. Then with home grown friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies we have congresswoman Maxine Waters calling Americans bigots for opposing Sharia Law. And on, and on. Why should we not take them at their word when those who are bent on jihad say their goal is to turn the USA into a Muslim nation? Maybe, probably and hopefully not, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing we should take lightly.

  • Andrew

    Sharing this from St. John of Damascus on the history of Islam:
    “The History of the Heresy Islam
    By Saint John of Damascus Born 675 AD Died 749 AD
    From His Book the Fount of Knowledge

    is also a the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day
    prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the
    Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, was born to Abraham of
    Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
    Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from
    destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara has
    sent me away destitute.’ These used to be idolaters and worshipped the
    morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called
    Khabar, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius they
    were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false
    prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after
    having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems,
    having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then,
    having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show
    of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to
    him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this
    book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.”

    Saint John quotes from this heretical book: “He says there is one God,
    creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten.
    He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a
    creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary
    the sister of Moses and Aaron. For he says, the Word and God and the
    Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet
    and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in
    violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified
    this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He
    die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven.
    And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God
    asked Him: O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God?” And
    Jesus, he says, answered: “Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I
    did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But
    sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied
    about me and have fallen into error.” And God answered and said to Him:
    “I know that thou didst not say this word.” There are many other
    extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts
    was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ’And who is there to
    testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold
    that such a prophet would rise up?’-they are at a loss. And we remark
    that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the
    sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm.
    And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming
    of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and
    to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge
    of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ’How is it that this prophet
    of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to
    him? And how is it the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law
    to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking so that
    you, too, might have certainty?’ -they answer that God does as He
    pleases. “This,’ we say, ’We know, but we are asking how the book came
    down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him
    while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he
    received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation,
    then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me

    When we ask again: ’How is it that when he enjoined us
    in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without
    witnesses, you did not ask him: ’First do you show us by witnesses that
    you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what
    Scriptures there are that testify about you” ’-they are ashamed and
    remain silent. [Then we continue:] ’Although you may not marry a wife
    without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither
    receive an ass nor possess both wives and property and asses and so on
    through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that
    you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to
    you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who
    testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it
    while he was asleep.”

    Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or
    Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by
    declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in
    rejoinder: “The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us,
    and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we
    wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this
    and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by
    misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such
    things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by
    writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again
    we say to them: ’As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and
    the Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word,
    and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has
    existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious
    that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to
    you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding
    the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It
    would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to
    mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or
    some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us
    Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

    furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross,
    which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you
    rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba and kiss and embrace it?
    Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but
    others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice
    Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was
    wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and
    laid it upon Isaac, and then he left the asses behind with two young
    men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with
    trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but
    they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be
    Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had
    relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed
    to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which
    the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’
    This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they
    used to worship and whom they called Khabar. Even to the present day,
    traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.” After
    this Saint John goes into detail about the other heretical books the
    false prophet wrote.

    • Andrew

      From St. John of Damascus’ Fount of Knowledge: The Heretical Books of Mohammed

      ““As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each
      one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman,
      in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if
      it be possible, a thousand concubines-as many as one can maintain,
      besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever
      wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another
      in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a
      beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were
      sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me
      to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God
      has told you and take my wife.’ Rather-to tell the story over from the
      beginning-he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you put
      away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’
      he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken
      her and committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will
      put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return
      to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless
      she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away
      his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’
      In the same
      book he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work the land which God hath given
      thee and beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner’-not to
      repeat all the obscene things that he did.

      Then there is the book
      of The Camel of God. About this camel he says that there was a camel
      from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through
      two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in
      that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while
      the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water
      she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk
      instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he
      says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little
      camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called
      upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did
      that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say:
      ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’
      ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is
      without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the
      one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her.
      And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet,
      with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the
      camel-where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she
      possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or
      did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river
      of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have
      three rivers flowing in paradise-one of water, one of wine, and one of
      milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is
      obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others
      have the benefit of her milk-and so your prophet is boasting idly of
      having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery
      of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still,
      and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of paradise of
      delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have
      drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is
      flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and
      collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then,
      suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the
      wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then did it not
      enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the
      paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is
      leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you
      with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure
      you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls
      of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is
      the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire,
      sleepless worms, and hellish demons.’

      Again, in the book of The
      Table, Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it
      was given Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and
      thine an incorruptible table.’

      And again, in the book of The
      Heifer, he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because
      of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law
      that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to
      keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized. And, while he ordered them to
      eat some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain
      from others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.”
      All from the Koran and Sura 4, Sura 2.225ff, Sura 2.223, and not from
      the Koran either, Sura 3.114,115, Sura 2.”

      • St JD George

        Have ye not heard of abrogation? I’m free to change my mind because it is commanded so, ignore all that stuff I said before which might contradict what I say to you now, because this is the good stuff.

    • Tamsin


  • jacobhalo

    The pope compares fundamentalists of Islam with fundamentalists of Christianity? Who have the Christian fundamentalists beheaded in the past few years? Islam is not a religion of peace. From the Quran: 9:29-fight against Christians and Jews until they pay tribute readily…4:91-If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. 9:29-Do not make treaties with non-muslims. They are all ever doers. 9:5-Kill the non believers wherever you find them.
    These are only a few quotes out of over 100 war like quotes from the Quran.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Christians once died horrible deaths rather than offer one tiny grain of incense to evil and falsehood. Now the periodic abasement of the church before the barbaric heresy of Islam bewilders me.

    • St JD George

      They still are in the ME. Witness the Christians slaughtered by IS in N Iraq refusing to convert, in Nigeria by Boco Haram, and throughout. One that really got to me was the young couple in Pakistan with child who burned alive in a kiln. That takes a special kind of monster.

  • Excellent article as usual, Mr. Kilpatrick. For the life of me I can’t understand why western leaders, Pope included, are so hesitant to focus on the details of Islam. Christians of all denominations are quick to argue and point out differences and fallacies in other denominations, but it’s hands off when it comes to Islam.

  • JP

    President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi speech was ignored by the MSM in general. I only picked up on it via a European news site, and later an Israeli news site.

    And for the life of me I could not square Pope Francis’ use of the word Fundamentalism. There are no Catholic Fundamentalists. That’s an absurdity for anyone who studied the history of American Protestantism in the 20th Century.

    The Church is in terminal decline in Europe. It would litter ally take a miracle to save it. North American and Latin America are only a generation behind. World wide, only Islam is ascendent. From the Philippines to Africa, and even in Europe and the Americas, Islam continues to grow. In Italy, not far from the Vatican sits Europe’s largest mosque (this is not an accident).

    • JGradGus

      Fundamentalism and Fundamentalist always means ‘Christian Fundamentalists’ – like the nut jobs such as the pastor who had his flock picketing the funerals of our military heroes.

      • St JD George

        Nuts for sure, but not nuts wielding swords or sending their children out into the world with suicide vests.

      • JP

        Fundamentalism was a reaction to the Mainline Protestant Church’s apostasy. It got a bad name from certain popular writers and the Press. But, it wasn’t a radical movement per se. Many Baptists could be called Fundamentalists. But, that doesn’t make them terrorists. Using a category to describe orthodox Christians to also describe the majority of practicing Muslims is lazy

    • St JD George

      It was pretty well covered in several conservative news sights, i.e. everywhere but the MSM.

  • NE-Sceptic

    Don’t expect anything to change any time soon. More than two decades ago, I ‘discussed’ the very same argument of ‘let’s not acknowledge the evil of Islamism because it will make them angry’ with a representative in the Vatican. The response was the same, we can’t expose the truth because it will cause further persecution of Catholics and Christians in Muslim dominated countries. The efficacy of that approach over the ensuing years has NOT stopped on-going persecutions.
    The hypocrisy of the ecumenical ‘friends’ in the Muslim clergy has been exposed repeatedly as they smile for the cameras in their ‘inter-faith’ interviews while exhorting jihad, mayhem and death to Israel, Jews and Christians inside their mosques.
    That Pope Francis is demonstratively unserious has been publicly documented in his unthinking, shallow, casual commentary supporting and reinforcing the anti-religious and immoral shibboleths of media/entertainment ‘stars’ and the ‘intellectual elite’. Watching his ‘camp-followers’ tie themselves into intellectual knots as they attempt to explain his extemporaneous ramblings would be funny (he resembles US President 0 in this) IF they didn’t undercut the moral and intellectual underpinnings of Catholicism. His warm embrace of Muslims as they beat, rape, torture, burn and kill Christians and Catholics around the world is puzzling. The effectiveness of the Church’s obfuscate the reality of Islamic terrorism is well illustrated by the recent attacks on Christians and church burnings in Africa in response to the very secular Charles Hebdo magazine.

  • jacobhalo

    There is a good article in “Catholic Family News” comparing Pope Francis and St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis went to the Sultan. The Sultan liked Francis and asked him to stay in his court. Francis answered, ” Willingly, if you and your people will convert to Christ.”
    On the other hand Pope Francis prays in the Blue Mosque. Could you imagine the pope asking the Muslims to convert to Catholicism? This pope is even against converting non Catholics.Author John Vennari writes, “Pope Francis’ actions are a rupture with true Catholic doctrines of the past. His activities encourage religious indifferentism, scandalizing Catholics and non Catholics alike.”

    • JGradGus

      Give it a rest. Acceptance of the right of other religions to exist is not something
      Francis started. It is Vatican II teaching. As for Vennari and Catholic Family News, both have a tendency to lean ‘hard right,’ like SPX hard right.

      • Oh no, the dreaded SSPX!

        • Kind of like how some people (Cupich, et al) whistle past the mass burial grounds of socialism and statism, so they can conduct conferences on the dangers of that herd of feral cats known as libertarians.

          At least cats kill rats.

          All Catholic prelates should be required to play baseball, because the first lesson is keep your eye on the ball.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Vennari hits the nail right on the head. If his statements shock or offend you, it is because you have lost basic Catholic sensibilities.

        • Guest

          It seems that until the Muslim Call to Prayer is emanating from St. Peters Basilica many will refuse to accept that this no religion of peace. Also makes me wonder if the Final Secret of Fatima has really been realized yet….

          • Mark

            I have a horrible feeling the Third Secret of Fatima is really Pope Francis going to Iraq or Syria and being brutally murdered. It sounds a lot more like that than JPII surviving getting shot.

        • JGradGus

          I have argued in comments sections too many times already that
          people are letting their opinions of Pope Francis be skewed by media spin. Francis is a different personality than Benedict or John Paul II, but he’s really not saying anything that is different than what they have said. He just says it differently. The problem is that after 6 years of listening to Obummer’s lies and seeing what his ideologies are doing to this country many Americans are fed up. They desperately want someone who is going to stand up for American Judeo-Christian / Catholic values, make America great again, and kick butt. That’s not the Pope’s job. His job is get us to heaven.

          Vennari is wrong about Francis. He is not changing / cannot change doctrine. One American Bishop (wish I could remember which one) said it best, “John Paul II told us what to believe, Benedict told us why we should believe it, and Francis is now telling us how to live our beliefs.’

          • I reject this analysis. Francis is doing a horrible job from where I sit (I can be wrong about this, I hope I am). Doesn’t mean he’s the worst Pope in history, or he has no good qualities. But something about the unity of Truth and Action is missing here.

            No Pope is perfect, but Benedict modeled a great theologian and pastor’s heart.

            • JGradGus

              Well I reject your rejection! Jesus is the Truth and we are to model our lives after His — that is the Unity of Truth and Action.

              • Nope. Model our lives means speaking the truth too. You can’t love your neighbor with your hands and speak falsehood to their minds.

                • JGradGus

                  So where is the lie?

                  • Silly me, your current Pontiff has been a wellspring of profundity, clearly-headed orthodoxy, and unflinching resolve to maintain the tradition of the fathers.

                    Just to be clear, I never said Pope Francis lies to people (I don’t think he’s an unvirtuous man at all) — I mean he speaks objectively false things, or muddies up true things.

                    What really sticks out is when he decries “proselytism” — as if calling a sinner or heretic to repent and believe the Gospel and be baptized is some sort problem.

                    The Church grows chiefly by the great commission (you know, that nasty proselytism that gets so much bad press by campfire Catholics.) Any effort to dilute this fact is devilish in origin if not intent of the one who mindlessly espouses such garbage.

              • jacobhalo

                Pope Francis approved of the heretical Relatio before the synod.

            • Marcelus

              Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”

              • Then go worship in a mosque. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

                • Marcelus

                  wooo hold your horses. Did not say I agree with BXVI on this. do you? I DO not. No need to be rude

                  • Sincerest apologies. The bone-headed things otherwise good popes say are oftentimes echoed by zealous sheep under the notion they are simply being faithful catholics. I mistook your quotes as justifying erroneous beliefs.

          • jacobhalo

            The Catholic church has been around long before John Paul II, Benedict and Francis. Many people like you think that the church was established in 1962.

            • JGradGus

              I know how long the Catholic Church has been around for. I have 16 years of Catholic education which does include Church History. I’ve also read all the Papal Encyclicals from Rerum Novarum through to the present and am now working my way back from 1891. I’m not a fan of the changes brought about by Vatican II (I still prefer the Tridentine Sacrifice of the Mass over the Novus Order Celebration of the Mass), but the SPXers and those who do not like the new mass are mistaken in the belief that the new mass is somehow less than the Latin Mass — the formula and Priest’s words do not matter because it is God and Jesus who make the miracle of Transubstantiation take place. Vatican II just gave the Church some new drapes, the structure is the same — DOCTRINE HAS NOT CHANGED.

              • “I have 16 years of Catholic education which does include Church History.”

                I know people who had 20 years of Catholic education and cohabitated.

                • JGradGus

                  Ok, what’s your point? Jacohablo accused me of not knowing Church history and I replied that I did, saying it was part of my16 years of Catholic Education.

                  • The length of one’s formal instruction isn’t probative in establishing expertise or a presumption of expertise.

              • jacobhalo

                Vatican II changed the mass because of ecumenism. It had 6 Protestant ministers as “observers” on the Liturgical Committee. You wonder why the mass seems like a Protestant service?

                • JGradGus

                  No, I don’t wonder why. I’m well aware of this. What’s your point?

              • JP

                Doctrine doesn’t have to change these days. It’s just not enforced or taught. See the prohibition against artificial birth control. According to Magisterial teachings, the use of birth control is still a Mortal Sin (that is, its use puts the soul in danger of Hell). Yet, according a poll done by Pew some years ago, 92% of Catholic adults use some form of birth control. It is rare to hear a priest or bishop even mention it. The prohibition is essentially a dead letter. Yes, a cardinal or two might mention Humanae Vitae, but that’s about it.

                • JediWonk

                  Can you supply a reference for your 92% number? You state it in the present tense, and it simply cannot be true since a lot more adults than that are outside the fertile years. Indeed, even if seniors are not considered to be “adults” (just ages 18-64), there are enough celibate marriages that more than 8% are not sexually active at all.

          • I’ll see your Bishop and raise you a Cardinal.

          • jacobhalo

            Pope Francis and all the popes since Vatican II haven’t changed doctrine. They just don’t preach the teachings with which they don’t agree.

      • jacobhalo

        Vennari lean toward the teachings of the church, unlike since Vatican II, which changed some of the teachings of the church, including the mass.
        Ecumenism and religious liberty, which have been promoted by the church since Vatican II, were prohibited pre-Vatican II.

      • jacobhalo

        there is no such thing as “right and left” in the Catholic church. As one poster put it, there is the faithful Catholic and the unfaithful Catholic.

        • As a non-Roman Catholic this makes more sense to me than the liberal mealy mouthed rhetoric about “the spectrum.” Wish there were more of your kind in the Roman Communion.

        • St JD George

          How about “center” as in where he should be in our lives, and looking right or left a distraction?

        • JGradGus

          Stop playing word games. There are liberal Catholics as well as conservative Catholics. The word “traditional” is more appropriate than the word conservative, however, when talking about Catholic views on Church teaching. As to your faithful vs. unfaithful remark, if you have ever sinned then that would make you unfaithful because you broke faith with the Church and its teachings. So in this sense none of us are faithful Catholics because we are all sinners.

          • The assertion that political sentiments are unidimensional and linear is common, but an absurd truncation of reality. The imposition of that absurdity on religious practice is worse.

          • jacobhalo

            Catholics who believe in abortion are not liberals, they are unfaithful Catholics. Cardinal Kasper and the German cardinals who believe in communion to the divorced are not liberals, they are unfaithful Catholics. You either believe in the teachings or please find another denomination whose beliefs meet yours.

      • You have a curious definition of acceptance and “hard right”.

        One can accept the existence of something without accepting its premises wholesale, looking for a few needles of validity in a haystack of error, imperiousnessness, militancy and supremacism.

        • JGradGus

          Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think you’ll find that my definition of acceptance is pretty much the same as what the Catechism teaches.

          • But when it comes to the “hard right,” it’s a no go?

            • St JD George

              I hate the expression hard right … right is right and it’s neither hard nor soft, right?

          • 843 “The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’
            Considers all goodness and truth found in these religions is not the same as considering all these religions and being goodness sand truth.

      • jacobhalo

        Isn’t the pope supposed to preach the teachings of Jesus? Jesus told the Jews, ” If you don’t believe that I am He you will die in your owns sins” Why doesn’t the pope tell the Jews this? Jesus said, ” Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who don’t believe are already condemned.” Could you imagine the pope declaring this? Vatican II was a disaster. It caused the Catholic church to lose its identity.

  • JGradGus

    I usually enjoy Mr. Kilpatrick’s articles, but this one seems to lack his usual insight. The
    Church does not need a ‘new policy’ toward Islam! For cryin our loud, this is the Catholic
    Church not a government! Francis is absolutely correct in what he said in Evangeli Gaudium: “An attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue with the followers of non-Christian religions, in spite of various obstacles and difficulties, . . .” The governments of the world need to deal with the threat of radical Islam. The Catholic Church must continue to always proclaim the message of Jesus Christ.

    • The problem is we haven’t for fear that placing Christ over Mohammed will light a world war.

      • JGradGus

        No, we have. Christ’s message is love and peace. That is exactly the message Francis is proclaiming. The problem is that our feckless
        leader (Obummer) is failing to deal with the threat. Reagan or either of the Bushes (and maybe even slick Willy) would not have let this go on. Francis has called on the world to put a stop to this radical extremism and the murder of Christians and innocents in the name of Muhammad. It’s now up to the governments of the world to do so.

        • Obama is many things, but he’s not a leader.

          • JGradGus

            Hence the word “feckless.”

          • St JD George

            Not in the context that you or I ordinarily think of, but he’s definitely leading America down a path with many following the sour notes flowing from his magical flute down a hole, round and round they go.

  • Harry

    There are untold millions of people, the educated and wealthy among them, who sincerely believe killing the infidel pleases their god. At the same time there are weapons of mass destruction that can be assembled or purchased by the educated and/or wealthy. The coexistence of these realities does not bode well for we who are the infidel to them. Can one put anything past those who happily crucify and behead children in the name of their god?

    • Facile1

      Can one put anything past those who happily abort children in the womb in the name of reproductive rights?

  • jacobum

    There is no dilemma at all. Just do what we have/are always called to do. Evangelize Truth aka “There is no salvation outside the RCC”. Cut the Ecumenical BS, stop the “girly man” dialogue routine, man-up and joyfully, boldly, and unabashedly proclaim Truth without nuance or novelty.

  • John

    Islamphobia is a tactic used by Zionist Jews to generate support and sympathy for the Israeli regime. It is a created phobia; in other words, it has been falsely instilled in people’s minds. It is easy to prove that this is the case. Islaam (spelled in this manner for phonetic and pronunciation purposes) has been maliciously and wrongly blamed for terrorist acts—and false terror acts—committed exclusively by Zionist Jews. 9-11 is the most brazen example where Israeli moles placed explosive charges in the World Trade Center complex, then detonated those charges, while blaming the entire act on innocents. Once again, those innocents were people of Islaamic background and thus by proxy laying blame on Islaam itself.

    The demonization of the Palestinians was also a Zionist crutch, where Israeli agents created terror in their name in order to demonize them. For instance, Entebbe, the Operation Gladio in Europe, the Achille Lauro hijacking, and the murderous acts of Abu Nidal, were all Israeli orchestrations. Abu Nidal himself, known for his ruthlessness, was Jewish, not Muslim.

    The Shah of Iran was also ruthless, yet, rather than a Muslim he was a Russian Jew. Put in power by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families his entire purpose was to suppress Muslims and their religion. He was finally ousted by an old man, Iman Khomeini, who exposed him for what he really was: a Zionist agent working on behalf of the Zionist entity, not his people.

    In the mind of these wicked ones the only way they can maintain their control over the people is through the installation of fear. That fear is upheld through the Islaamic boogeymen, an individual who simply doesn’t exist. Rather, the real boogeymen are Israeli operatives, who butcher and murder people at will—and if not this, imprison them and torture them. They do so not for any crimes such people commit but, rather, as a cover for Zionist crimes, like the innocents in Guantanamo.

    Most notorious, though, was the vicious actions of Zionist moles, including relatively high-level operatives, such as Larry Silverstein, Frank Lowy, Jerome Hauer, and Dov Zakheim, on the wild and brutal attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Still blaming Muslims, it was strictly Zionist Jews who perpetrated these attacks. It was also only such Zionists who benefitted from the attacks—zealots that they are, always lusting in greed—using the attacks as the guise for great financial gain. The ‘puts’ placed on vulnerable stocks were done by the Zionists. Then, too, it was arch-Zionist mole Silverstein, who with that standard crystal ball only available for such vicious ones, placed not one but two insurance policies, one for each Tower, for remuneration in the billions in the event of a “terrorist” attack. There was such an attack, but rather than Islaamic it came strictly from Silverstein and his ilk. Truly, the death and carnage that was the result of the detonation of those building is strictly on the shoulders of such Zionist operatives. That scar does not belong to Islaam, which had nothing to do with it. In fact, for instance, regarding the London Tube Bombings, which was also perpetrated by Zionist Jews, it was a Muslim elder who tried to prevent it. A mosque elder in East London attempted to warn authorities about a hostile individual, named Osman Hussein, who was abusive and threatening, saying he could be violent. No action was taken. When the bombings were perpetrated, he was eventually arrested for his role, while attempting an escape in Italian. There, Italian police discovered he was part of an espionage ring, where his real name wasn’t ‘Islaamic’ but was actually Hebrew: Adus Isaac. Turns out, Isaac is a Mossad operative who was disguising himself as a Muslim for purposes of casting blame on Islaam for the bombings (see Wrongly Blamed, same author). This is the methodology of the Zionists. They murder and create carnage, brutally destroying the innocent, buildings, infrastructure, and more while in a premeditated fashion casting the blame on Islaam.

    Why should this grand faith bear that scar? It had nothing to do with it, and, rather, its entire purpose is to prevent such public terror. Its entire basis is to prevent people from brutalizing each other, even over matters of faith with its dictum “There shall be no compulsion (no use of force) in matters of religion.”

    Moreover, so it is, as people in this world begin to realize that Islaam is not the enemy and is, rather, the friend to humanity Zionist agents crank up the pressure, laying the basis for more terrorism that Islaam did not commit and, in fact, incredibly is the victim—the recipient, like the Tsarnaev brothers who were viciously set up and brutalized by a litany of Zionist moles, including Andrew Kitzenberg, David Green, and numerous others, along, of course, with those lying hostile ones who own the great media operations, who have spread nothing but lies against these innocents.

    For these filthy Zionists the blood of Tamerlan was not enough. Ruthlessly hounding yet another Chechen national, Ibragim Todashev, finally, after convincing him not to leave the area in fear of that hounding, they simply shot him dead, while also wildly blaming him for the death of Jewish drug dealers.

    Islaamphobia is the means for the conquest of the people. It was the means for the Patriot Act. It was and is the basis for brutal, murderous wars. It was the platform for the acceptance by the American people of the incredibly murderous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, “Get them before they come here and get us.” The people were “gotten”, surely, but it wasn’t by any Muslim individuals but, rather, by the committed zealots of the Israeli entity, that arena of wickedness, the great enemy of the human race and, in particular, the American people.

    Islaam already is the friend of the American people. It has preserved them from additional harm. Some of the most vigorous opponents to their enemies, the Zionists, are Islaamic-minded people. It is their friend and protector. They just don’t realize it.

    That is the great fear of these filthy great enemies of the human race-these powerful ones of world Jewry, that, perhaps, people might well realize it that there is no such thing as “Islaamic terror” or “Islaamic terrorists” but that, rather, the terror that afflicts this human race arises strictly from Islaam’s enemies, Zionist Jews. They are to be condemned: they commit great acts of terror, while blaming it on innocents, thus causing even greater terror and the continuous murder of the innocent. Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev are among their latest victims.

    Yet, surely, it is far more dire than even this. A modest list of Israeli-Zionist brutality of recent memory includes 9-11, the Madrid train bombings, the London Tube bombings, the Mumbai slaughter, and the Bali disco blood-bath. Hundreds of people slaughtered and wounded in cold blood? So, then, where is Islaamic terror except a figment of imagination in people’s minds?

    • Rod Serling called, he wants his show back.

      • Sounds more like Charles Manson or Theodore Kaczinski.

        • Sorry, Rod was a genius. This is pure Jack Chick tract nonsense.

    • Nancy

      There is a lot of truth in this comment, but there ARE Islamic terrorists. They are, of course, used as patsies by the FBI-CIA-Mossad. No Muslims have organized any of the terror plots you mention, even ISIS, but they are used by the higher ups as the foot soldiers and easy targets for blame.

      • Glad to hear Osama Bin Laden was secretly saying Shalom.


    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Wow! Every paragraph in this rant is bizarre, but this one is my favorite:

      “The Shah of Iran was also ruthless, yet, rather than a Muslim he was a
      Russian Jew. Put in power by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families his
      entire purpose was to suppress Muslims and their religion. He was
      finally ousted by an old man, Iman Khomeini, who exposed him for what he
      really was: a Zionist agent working on behalf of the Zionist entity,
      not his people.”

      Wrong. The Shah was a secularized, modern Muslim, and certainly no tyrant, though he had no clue how to develop a multi-party state. His only real offense was to push Iran too quickly into the 20th century, when the mentality was still in the 15th century. Far from oppressing Muslims, he gave the mullahs free reign to terrorize other religious minorities, such as the Bahai’s. The Shah fell from power precisely because he was NOT a ruthless tryant, and was unwilling to use massive force (à la Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc.) to impose his will and crush dissent.

    • John Albertson

      Are you on medication? Or off it? Either way, this is sheer insanity.

  • WRBaker

    When my middle school students would ask about Islam, I’d say something like ….”600 years or so after Jesus, this guy living in the desert comes along and says, in essence, ‘God was wrong and changed His mind. Jews and Christians must convert or pay a tax or die.'” I read to them a few, selected quotes of the Quran to back it up (something that, it seems, is too hard from the clergy to do). Simple and to the point – even students understood.

    • I like to throw in the part about his favorite wife being 9 years old. No wait, she was six, but he was a patient man, so he waited until she was 9 to…

  • BXVI

    We are woefully confused. Since VII we have tried to pretend that Islam is something other than an evil Christian heresy that must be rejected, debunked and defeated. Pope Francis should take a cue from his namesake, who risked his life during the Crusades to preach Jesus Christ to the Sultan face-to-face, telling him in no uncertain terms that God would not accept his soul if he refused to convert. Now THAT would be a powerful witness. But, alas, it won’t happen because Pope Francis (indeed, most Catholic prelates) don’t seem to believe it anymore.

  • Flannery64

    Physician, heal thyself. Let Muslims take care of Islam.

  • Nancy

    Islam is not the Enemy

    © S.Mirza

    In order to remove the many questions in the minds of both Muslims and non-Muslims with respect to what exactly Islam states about terrorism, i have attempted to put forward a conclusive article aimed towards removing such anomalies.

    The Holy Qur’an specifically states that the Muslims should not fight, unless in defense or at war.However, as with other religions, in the case of Islam , not every Muslim will believe the exact same thing. It’s impossible for every person to be told one thing, and live their life within the specifications of those instructions. There will be variation and moderation. Then why, without understanding or reading about Islam, do people say that Islam is a violent religion, when a few Muslim extremists become enveloped in violent acts as opposed to the entire Islamic world?

    To judge many based on the actions of a few is short-sighted, and exactly how ignorance is spread. As I said before the truth of Islam won’t be found in the people who say they are Muslims.They interpret their religion in the way they find it best, and the way it best suits them, with their own biases.

    I don’t know if you agree with me or whether you feel the same way but we need to love everyone irrespective of race, religion, creed, caste, nationality etc . No matter their race, religion, or philosophy, we need to connect to people one on one as a person, as a human, who needs love, compassion and understanding like the rest of us. Enlightenment and realization of our own goals will only come if we can do this for others.

    Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted. Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur’an 22:39), to defend Islam, to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur’an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur’an 4:75).

    Under the provisions of Islam and the Quran, war should be conducted in a disciplined way so as to avoid injuring non-combatants, with the minimum necessary force , without anger and with humane treatment towards prisoners of war. Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah’s justice.

    But some Muslim thinkers in the past, and some more radical and fanatic Muslim thinkers today, and sadly a lot of biased non Muslims, in order to create unrest and propaganda, take a different view. They say that other verses in the Qur’an, the so-called ‘sword verses’, have “abrogated” (revoked or annulled) the verses that permit warfare only in defence. They use these verses to justify war against unbelievers as a tool of spreading Islam (Qur’an 9:5, 9:29.)

    Some of even gone to the extent of regarding Muslims who don’t conform rigorously to the Islamic code as interpreted by them, as non-believers and thus as “enemies of God” against whom it is legitimate to use violence. However, if they bothered to understand Islam in detail, they would realize that the idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic. This is illustrated in the Quranic verse below:

    Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.Qur’an 2:190

    Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell:

    If anyone killed a person – unless it was for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed the whole people (mankind). Qur’an 5:32

    Furthermore, Islam bans the killing of non-combatants (Qur’an 2:190, above), or of a combatant who has been captured. Muslims are forbidden from attacking wounded soldiers (unless the wounded person is still fighting).T he Prophet’s view of non-combatants is shown by a hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) sees a woman killed in the battlefield and condemns the action.

    Similarly, when an enemy is defeated he should be made prisoner rather than be killed: This is also illustrated in the Holy Quran.

    So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. Qur’an 47:4.

    Abu Bakr (the First Caliph of Islam) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:

    Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.You must not mutilate dead bodies.Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food.You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

    Does this alone does not expressly convey the stance taken by Islam?

    Islam is a religion of mercy and does not permit terrorism. The act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims. If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam and is not a Muslim.

    The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call:

    “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107)

    Isn’t this a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity. Are these terrorists, really fighting for Islam? No they are not.

    So let’s try to understand Islam first, before stereotyping Muslims and hating them. Islam is not the enemy. People misconstruing its message are enemies of mankind.

    • And you live peacefully in Saudi Arabia? Or are you a Western white woman comfortably studying Islam?

      And what’s the peaceful response to Muslims who convert to Christianity?

    • Robert

      You have things precisely backwards: we should love Muslims as people created in the image and likeness of God, but we should abhor Islam, because it denies and mars that image. Islam denies explicitly the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and condemns to hell anyone who affirms them. Islam denies that God loves sinners as well as denies that we have been offered adoption as sons and daughters of God through Christ’s sacrifice (instead, we are and will forever remain “slaves” of Allah and of sense pleasures – even, or especially, in its so-called “paradise”). And for every “peaceful” verse from the Qur’an, you can find another “non-peaceful” verse that abrogates it. Indeed, the Qur’an and the Hadith are such hodge-podges of contradiction that it is hopeless to sort them out.

    • Get lost, Achmed.

    • AnneM040359

      Allah = SATAN.

  • DE-173

    Yesterday I turned on the radio on the way to the gym and heard a man with a pronounced French accent calling into a talk show. I normally prefer music, but for some reason, I decided this call might be interesting.
    He described his youth in France, where as a teenager, he had a not particularly observant and certainly not radicalized Muslim friend. He proceeded to say that that the friend joined in all of the activities of that group, including smoking and drinking

    He then related how when the individual’s father found out that his other child, a girl was dating one of the other individuals-and the father ordered the son to protect the family’s honor. He did so by burning his sister. (I didn’t catch whether it was the cause of her death or merely how he disposed of the body.
    The caller’s point was that you are foolish if you attempt to relate or understand Islamic “culture” through a Western lens, you are bound to make errors.

    • St JD George

      What is the western equivalent to that old saw … if you play with matches you get burned at the stake? Sad attempt at humor, sorry, the mood I’m in. In reality, quite distressing, but a sad reality.

    • St JD George

      Don’t know if you’re a regular at Shapiro’s TR site, but if not this should bring a chuckle even if not “on center”.

      • No, I didn’t know about TR, but that’s funny. In a just world, he’d be impeached and forced to bath in pork fat.

  • steve5656546346

    A very good article!

  • John Albertson

    Trace the problem back to Vatican II (Lumen gentium, Nostra aetate) and the Catechism (.842) which say that Christians and Muslims adore the same God. Wrong.

    • I’ve heard numerous attempts to make this language work. The Catechism should say, “We acknowledge our Muslim neighbors’ desire to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and affirm their belief in the commandments held in common by Jews and Christians.”

      As it is, the language is wide open any Universalist could (and do!) drive a mac truck through.

      • JGradGus

        John and Anglicanae, you are wrong. Catholics, Christians, Jews and Muslims do all worship the same God. But we Catholics believe that he is a Trinitarian, loving but also just, merciful and rationale/logical God. It is God’s nature that we all disagree about.

        • First, I don’t recall the Catechism saying it’s “the same” God. Let’s take the worst case scenario and go with your interpretation:

          So, you are telling me the JWs and Mormons, too, worship the same God? How about the Manichaeans? Unitarians?

          Same and similar are not the same.

          Sorry, I reject the stupid notion these three religions as adoring the same god. If that makes me a heretic then so be it.

          • JGradGus

            Boy you reject a lot. Muslims, Jews, Catholics and Christians all believe in the God of the Old Testament. Catholics however believe that He is a Trinitarian God.

            • So, do you worship the same God as the Mormons?

              • JGradGus

                Absolutely. But as a Catholic I disagree with their views regarding the nature of God.

                • I’m sorry for you. Your 16 years of “education” have been for naught. If polytheism is easily confused with orthodox theism, then you are in a world of hurt.

                  But, sad as I am, I am not surprised. I blame that mid-20th century theological gooeyness (your catholic forebears would have rejected, by the way) that faithless “shepherds” have been cramming down the throats of hapless sheep.

                  Do you worship the same god as the Marcion?

                  • JGradGus

                    Well then we are even, because I also feel sorry for you. You are apparently confused about a number of things. I would suggest that you might want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but judging by your comment that you are not a Roman Catholic, you might be averse to doing that.

                    • Your comment is as foolish as is ill-informed. I am an Anglican that attends a Roman Catholic Church in my exploration of God’s will regarding the See of Peter, a committed Augustinian and Thomist, and actually have a great admiration for the CCC as a didactic document (I first read the CCC back in 1996). I’m willing to bet, by judging your comments, I’ve read more broadly and deeply than you have from the Catholic treasury you probably ignore or don’t care about, though that’s no credit to me since I’m yet deeply deficient in much knowledge, hence why I’m still studying. Ignoro ergo lego.

                      Please, since you’re so well-read, recommend to me some works that show me how a Mormon and a Christian really adore the same god.

                    • JGradGus

                      The Mormons believe in the God of the Old Testament (be warned that they will argue with you if you say they do not!), and in Jesus Christ, his only Son. But even if you do not accept this, just check Wikipedia — “Unlike most other Christian groups, Mormonism espouses a distinctly nontrinitarian theology as regards the nature of God. The LDS Church teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings, the Father and Son having perfected physical bodies and the Holy Ghost having only a body of spirit.[20] While the three beings are physically distinct, in Mormon theology they are one in thoughts, actions, and purpose and commonly referred to collectively as “one God” or the “Godhead”.[21][22] Also, Mormonism teaches that God the Father is the literal father of the spirits of all men and women, which existed prior to their mortal existence.[23] Further, all humans as children of God can become exalted, inheriting all that God has, as joint-heirs with Christ, and becoming like him as a God.
                      The LDS folks, and the Book of Mormon, say all the other Christian religions do not really understand the nature of the one true God — but that they do. The Muslims are saying the same thing, and so do the Jews. And so are we. They believe they are right, of course, and we, of course, believe we are right.

                    • Enoch14

                      Muslims, Jews, Mormons Buddhist etc worship what they do not know. We, catholics worship what we know: Salvation comes only from the Catholic Church.

                    • Enoch14

                      In summary we are saved by the holy name and the blood of Jesus

                    • So far you are a good Buddhist.

                      I worship my cat at home. He’s the true god of the Old Testament. I just understand his nature differently.


                    • Neihan

                      No they don’t. They worship one of many, perhaps infinite, “gods.” They worship the god of this particular planet. The god they worship has a material body and is a created being, who resides within the universe. This god is an exalted man, meaning he was once like us and achieved godhood beneath the god which he worshiped. The highest degree of glory of the celestial kingdom will be those Mormons who, like their god, become gods themselves of planets given to them. Albeit subservient to the god of this planet. There is, indeed, no “creation,” and there is no Creator since the material universe is eternal.

                      They are pagans who worship a particular created being. That they use some of the same terminology, and corrupt Christian scriptures, means only that they bear an extremely superficial resemblance to Christianity.

                    • JGradGus

                      Neihan, there is no question that the Mormon concept of the nature of God is quite different than the Catholic / Christian concept of the nature of God. But the God they pray to is the same God of the Old Testament you and I pray to. Joseph Smith was a whackadoodle, and his golden plates story was a bunch of bunk. But his grounding was in Christianity. The Book of Mormon proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. When a Mormon prays to Jesus asking for help, do you think the Jesus that you and I pray to is not listening to the Mormon, or if the Mormon prays to God the Father that your God and my God is not hearing him? LDS theology and doctrine is a mess, but the same can be said of a lot of fundamentalist Christian faiths and Islam as well. But don’t try to say you know for a fact that our God is not listening to a Mormon’s prayers. Put away your bigotry and hubris.

                    • Neihan

                      No, the god they pray to is not the God of the Old Testament. How could he possibly be, being a created being? If I pointed at stone idol and said “This is the God of the Old Testament, who led the Jewish people out of Egypt, who raised up the kings and the prophets” and then prayed and worshiped that stone idol, am I praying to God? I suppose some people may say so, but something tells me the Prophets might disagree.

                      Nevertheless, I assume God listens to and answers their prayers as much as He listens and answers the prayers of any other pagan. I did not question whether or not He turned a deaf ear to Mormon prayers – you are the one who brought that up. I don’t pretend to know.

                    • Marcelus

                      Agree but….Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”

                    • Neihan

                      We are speaking of a different religion; the conversation was not about Mohammedanism but Mormonism.

            • JP

              And no, Muslims do not worship the OT God. Allah and Yaweh are not the same. According to Islam he Quran is the infallible, inerrant scripture revealed to Muhammad.
              The Torah and the Gospel were revealed to Moses and Jesus as inerrant in
              their times but they have become corrupt.

              Muslims reject the OT and NT as inspired writings from God (Allah).

              • JGradGus

                No, you are wrong. Muslims believe in the God of the Old Testament, they’re just not too keen on much of the New Testament. They believe the Jews broke faith with God.

                • JP

                  Again, Muslims do not believe the OT or NT are inspired works. To them the only inspired works that reveal who God really is come from the Quran.

                  • Like the devil usually says, “Hey, guys! I’m a false god, worship meeeeeee!”

                  • JGradGus

                    And again, you are wrong.

                • “Not to keen…” I’m not too keen about brussel sprouts or near beer.

                  You clearly don’t see a difference between rejection and ambivalence.

              • Marcelus

                Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”

        • JP

          Christ said to know Him is to know the Father; no one approaches the Father without first going to the Son. They are one and the same. To reject Christ is to reject God the Father. You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.

          • JGradGus

            The Jews also reject Christ. So you are saying they also reject God the Father. Sorry, but you are the one that is wrong.

            • JP

              That’s is exactly what I am saying. This has been a question through out history. However, in Domini Jesus, it is written that it is only through Christ that anyone can enter Heaven. And in First Timothy, it is written that God desires everyone to go to Heaven. Yet, it does not mean that everyone will get to Heaven. Ultimately, that will depend upon Christ’s Mercy. For those who know the Faith and reject it outright, all we can do is pray. But, it would be a huge mistake to take Christ’s Mercy lightly.

            • Muslims not only reject Christ as redeemer, but the very notion of a redeemer and the incarnation, based on an anthromorphic misapprension of God (has no need for son).

  • St JD George

    What would we do if we were Pope for a day? Would we stand on the balcony and say what we really think knowing that frank talk to those who would be offended would unleash the hounds of hell on millions of innocents, i.e. at a little higher faith level than a Charlie Hebdo cartoon? I don’t know if even I’m that bold (ha), but I wouldn’t ever kiss their book and I’d never deny Christ at the tip of a sword (gulp). Honestly, the best way to deal with things in the world as they exist escapes me. I see the occasional “peacefully coexist” bumper stickers and I chuckle but get that most people in the world aren’t looking to behead the other, yet anyway. We may not be called to mount up and lead the armored charge into battle, but I don’t believe we are called to be pacifists to be led to slaughter either. I know we’re called to not concern ourselves with the hour of Christ’s return even though I think a lot of us could see a contemporary scenario for it. Then again, there have many dark periods in human A.D. history where others I know must have felt the same way. Curious on your thoughts if you were “Pope for a day”? I know I’m being a little irreverent to discuss the ascendancy of the papacy in that way.

  • Ruth Rocker

    The only people who believe that islam is a religion of peace are people who have never read even the slightest part of the koran. Muslims are specifically exhorted by their instruction book to deceive, lie to and kill unbelievers whenever and wherever possible. The only peace for islam is the peace of the grave. I truly wish the world had the cajones to stand up to these bullies and call a spade a spade. And ANY movement towards others should be summarily dealt with. And, by all means, keep proclaiming that Jesus is Lord of all creation!!

    • The funny thing is, I think liberals are a greater scourge because:
      (1) They push for apostasy from Christianity on a cultural level.
      (2) They push for penalties and fines against Christians who believe their Bible.
      (3) They push for the holocaust of the young.
      (4) They push for the destruction of the traditional family.
      (5) They demand obeisance to the religion of Darwinism.

      Even if Islam were no threat to the West, leftists are as great an existential threat to our values and freedoms. Our hush-hush holocaust of the unborn is more startling than anything ISIS could contrive.

  • “Appeasement on the part of prelates reinforces the conviction held by many Muslims that Christianity is an inferior religion, not worthy of respect.”

    It’s good to see our leaders following the words of the great theologians Neville Chamberlain and Rodney King. These are men of unimpeachable credibility and enlightened judgement. We can rest easy.

    • St JD George

      When in human history has appeasement ever prevented anyone who was hell bent from carrying through on their attack. At best it buys them time to fight on another front while they mock you behind your back while defer their plan for you for another, more opportune day.

      • Never. I guess however some people believe in emulating ostriches.

        • St JD George

          Nasty critters, they spit and bite and if they could I’m sure they’d curse like a sailor too. Kind of like their human counterparts.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    If the Church wants to be faithful to Jesus Christ, it must proclaim the truth. It should be difficult for Pope Francis and bishops who follow his line to find out what true is Islam is about. It is no scecret as it is plainly laid out in the Qurán, the life of Mahommad and the traditions, plus there is 1400 years of the Church dealing with Islam. Dailogue would involve bringing up with the muslim scholars the varous islamic texts which promote precisely what Sisi stated, killling the rest of humanity, plus the matter raised by Pope Benedict regarding reason and faith. The doctrine of takyiha would also have to be raised. However, it would appeat that real dialogue is not possible with most of them, as they expect others to accept their presuppositions which is the denial of any basis for dialogue.

  • LKM

    I’m not a scholar nor anything close, and I have rarely responded or posted anything online. I believe that there is another aspect that the west should really consider.

    There is perhaps, a more basic and relevant point that might need to be understood with regard to dialogue and with the Islamic world. That is the abandonment of reason as it relates to religion.

    There is a very well written work written by Robert R. Reilly, “THE CLOSING OF THE MUSLIM MIND: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis”

    As noted by Roger Scruton, in the foreword …”Reilly sets out to to show that Islamic civilization, which led to the urbane princedoms of Andalusia in the West, and to the mystical laughter of the Sufis in the East, underwent a moral and intellectual crisis in the ninth to the eleventh century of our era, when it turned its back on philosophy and took refuge in dogma. Several factors are responsible for this sudden ossification, but the principal one, in Reilly’s view, was the rise of the Ash‘arite sect in the tenth century and the defeat of the rival sect of the Mu’tazalites. …..Should we be surprised, therefore, if nobody can find a clear way of reconciling the Sharia with the facts of modern life and government.

    I would think that the points in the work should seriously be considered and discerned prior to dialogue with the Islamic world.

    Hopefully dialogue can be fostered with, like Reilly’s dedication states “To the courageous men and women throughout the Islamic world, here nameless for reasons of their own security, who are struggling for a reopening of the Muslim mind.

  • David M

    It always amazes me that simple folk like me, reading William Kilpatrick’s article, can gain a proper understanding, but bishops and the Pope himself are in a fool’s paradise. Maybe Pope Francis should read Crisis Magazine?

  • Nancy

    Governments from around the world admit they’ve used the bully’s trick … attack first, and then blame the victim:

    Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this

    A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

    Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War, and Putin

    Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

    The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

    The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence

    The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change

    The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special

    As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

    2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

    And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussedblowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals

    The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war

    A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists

    A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”

    The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on

    The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing

    An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

    An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

    Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)

    According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

    The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

    As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”

    Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters

    Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country

    Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq wasnot the state which backed the hijackers)

    Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

    United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

    Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians

    Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)

    At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence

    Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters

    A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat

    U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

    The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

    High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government

    The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others

    Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target

    So Common … There’s a Name for It

    Painting by Anthony Freda

    The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

    “False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

    The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

    Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

    Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

    Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
    – Plato

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    – U.S. President James Madison

    “A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
    – Adolph Hitler

    “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    – Josef Stalin

    People Are Waking Up to False Flags

    People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

    More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

    • GG

      Go live in Saudi Arabia. Let us know about false flags then. Good luck.

  • Marcelus

    Not this same argument over again..

    Lets not forget St.JP2’s comment: “God protect Islam” and him kissing the quran.

    Even though Benedict is clearly correct in his statement i at Regensburg, we must not forget that he also said or wrote the following on Islam,later apologizing.

    PF on the other hand has faced Islam like no other Pope has had to since way back.

    Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic Religion,a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right

    Benedict XVI, General Audience, Dec. 6, 2006: “In the area of interreligious dialogue, divine Providence granted me, almost at the end of my Journey, an unscheduled Visit which proved rather important: my Visit to Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque. Pausing for a few minutes of recollection in that place of prayer, I addressed the one Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Merciful Father of all humanity.”

    Benedict XVI, Truth and Tolerance, 2004, p. 204: “In Hinduism (which is actually a collective name for a whole multitude of religions) there are some marvelous elements but there are also negative aspects: involvement with the caste system; suttee [self immolation] for widows, which developed from beginnings that were merely symbolic; offshoots of the cult of the goddess Sakti – all these might be mentioned to give just a little idea. Yet even Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism.”

    Benedict XVI, Catechesis, August 24, 2005: “This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.”

    Benedict XVI, Address, Sept. 25, 2006: “I would like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers, calling to mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which for the Catholic Church are the magna Carta of Muslim-Catholic dialogue: ‘The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent… At this time when for Muslims the spiritual journey of the month of Ramadan is beginning, I address to all of them my cordial good wishes, praying that the Almighty may grant them serene and peaceful lives. May the God of peace fill you with the abundance of his Blessings, together with the communities you represent!

    Benedict XVI, General Audience, Dec. 6, 2006: “I thus had the favorable opportunity to renew my sentiments of esteem for the Muslims and for the Islamic civilizations.”

    Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 273: “… Islam, too, has inherited from Israel and the Christians the same God…”

    Dec 1, 2006 — ISTANBUL (Reuters) – “Pope Benedict ended a sensitive, fence-mending visit to Turkey on Friday amid praise for visiting Istanbul’s famed Blue Mosque and praying there facing toward Mecca like Muslims.… The Pope’s dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise,’ wrote daily Aksam on its front page. In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,…”


    Benedict XVI, speech apologizing for his comments on Islam, Sept. 2006: “In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.”

    • Oh, how unfortunate.

      • Prior to the 20th century the RCC was the mother to great kings (Charles V, St. Henry II, St. Louis IX) and warrior monks (St. Ignatius of Loyola) that knew what to do about Islam and the threat it posed.
        In the 20th century the RCC has become a cabal of mewing women and sexual perverts. Sad…

  • How about an old policy?

    We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battleline, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old – struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers. That you may not be troubled about the concerns of tomorrow, know that those who fear God want nothing, nor those who cherish Him in truth. The possessions of the enemy, too, will be yours, since you will make spoil of their treasures and return victorious to your own; or empurpled with your own blood, you will have gained everlasting glory. For such a Commander you ought to fight, for One who lacks neither might nor wealth with which to reward you.

    – Pope Urban II, 1095.

    They will call us “crusaders” no matter how we flatter their false god. So I say, Deus Vult!

  • nancy

    “American Sniper” lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. Many Americans, especially white Americans trapped in a stagnant economy and a dysfunctional political system, yearn for the supposed moral renewal and rigid, militarized control the movie venerates. These passions, if realized, will extinguish what is left of our now-anemic open society.

    The movie opens with a father and his young son hunting a deer. The boy shoots the animal, drops his rifle and runs to see his kill.

    “Get back here,” his father yells. “You don’t ever leave your rifle in the dirt.”

    “Yes, sir,” the boy answers.

    “That was a helluva shot, son,” the father says. “You got a gift. You gonna make a fine hunter some day.”

    The camera cuts to a church interior where a congregation of white Christians—blacks appear in this film as often as in a Woody Allen movie—are listening to a sermon about God’s plan for American Christians. The film’s title character, based on Chris Kyle, who would become the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history, will, it appears from the sermon, be called upon by God to use his “gift” to kill evildoers. The scene shifts to the Kyle family dining room table as the father intones in a Texas twang: “There are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Some people prefer to believe evil doesn’t exist in the world. And if it ever darkened their doorstep they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves. Those are the sheep. And then you got predators.”

    The camera cuts to a schoolyard bully beating a smaller boy.

    “They use violence to prey on people,” the father goes on. “They’re the wolves. Then there are those blessed with the gift of aggression and an overpowering need to protect the flock. They are a rare breed who live to confront the wolf. They are the sheepdog. We’re not raising any sheep in this family.”

    The father lashes his belt against the dining room table.

    “I will whup your ass if you turn into a wolf,” he says to his two sons. “We protect our own. If someone tries to fight you, tries to bully your little brother, you have my permission to finish it.”

    There is no shortage of simpletons whose minds are warped by this belief system. We elected one of them, George W. Bush, as president. They populate the armed forces and the Christian right. They watch Fox News and believe it. They have little understanding or curiosity about the world outside their insular communities. They are proud of their ignorance and anti-intellectualism. They prefer drinking beer and watching football to reading a book. And when they get into power—they already control the Congress, the corporate world, most of the media and the war machine—their binary vision of good and evil and their myopic self-adulation cause severe trouble for their country. “American Sniper,” like the big-budget feature films pumped out in Germany during the Nazi era to exalt deformed values of militarism, racial self-glorification and state violence, is a piece of propaganda, a tawdry commercial for the crimes of empire. That it made a record-breaking $105.3 million over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday long weekend is a symptom of the United States’ dark malaise.

    “The movie never asks the seminal question as to why the people of Iraq are fighting back against us in the very first place,” said Mikey Weinstein, whom I reached by phone in New Mexico. Weinstein, who worked in the Reagan White House and is a former Air Force officer, is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which challenges the growing Christian fundamentalism within the U.S. military. “It made me physically ill with its twisted, totally one-sided distortions of wartime combat ethics and justice woven into the fabric of Chris Kyle’s personal and primal justification mantra of ‘God-Country-Family.’ It is nothing less than an odious homage, indeed a literal horrific hagiography to wholesale slaughter.”

    Weinstein noted that the embrace of extreme right-wing Christian chauvinism, or Dominionism, which calls for the creation of a theocratic “Christian” America, is especially acute among elite units such as the SEALs and the Army Special Forces.

    The evildoers don’t take long to make an appearance in the film. This happens when television—the only way the movie’s characters get news—announces the 1998 truck bombings of the American embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in which hundreds of people were killed. Chris, now grown, and his brother, aspiring rodeo riders, watch the news reports with outrage. Ted Koppel talks on the screen about a “war” against the United States.

    “Look what they did to us,” Chris whispers.

    He heads down to the recruiter to sign up to be a Navy SEAL. We get the usual boot camp scenes of green recruits subjected to punishing ordeals to make them become real men. In a bar scene, an aspiring SEAL has painted a target on his back and comrades throw darts into his skin. What little individuality these recruits have—and they don’t appear to have much—is sucked out of them until they are part of the military mass. They are unquestioningly obedient to authority, which means, of course, they are sheep.

    We get a love story too. Chris meets Taya in a bar. They do shots. The movie slips, as it often does, into clichéd dialogue.

    She tells him Navy SEALs are “arrogant, self-centered pricks who think you can lie and cheat and do whatever the fuck you want. I’d never date a SEAL.”

    “Why would you say I’m self-centered?” Kyle asks. “I’d lay down my life for my country.”


    “Because it’s the greatest country on earth and I’d do everything I can to protect it,” he says.

    She drinks too much. She vomits. He is gallant. He helps her home. They fall in love. Taya is later shown watching television. She yells to Chris in the next room.

    “Oh, my God, Chris,” she says.

    “What’s wrong?” he asks.

    “No!” she yells.

    Then we hear the television announcer: “You see the first plane coming in at what looks like the east side. …”

    Chris and Taya watch in horror. Ominous music fills the movie’s soundtrack. The evildoers have asked for it. Kyle will go to Iraq to extract vengeance. He will go to fight in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country that columnist Thomas Friedman once said we attacked “because we could.” The historical record and the reality of the Middle East don’t matter. Muslims are Muslims. And Muslims are evildoers or, as Kyle calls them, “savages.” Evildoers have to be eradicated.

    Chris and Taya marry. He wears his gold Navy SEAL trident on the white shirt under his tuxedo at the wedding. His SEAL comrades are at the ceremony.

    “Just got the call, boys—it’s on,” an officer says at the wedding reception.

    The Navy SEALs cheer. They drink. And then we switch to Fallujah. It is Tour One. Kyle, now a sniper, is told Fallujah is “the new Wild West.” This may be the only accurate analogy in the film, given the genocide we carried out against Native Americans. He hears about an enemy sniper who can do “head shots from 500 yards out. They call him Mustafa. He was in the Olympics.”

    Kyle’s first kill is a boy who is handed an anti-tank grenade by a young woman in a black chador. The woman, who expresses no emotion over the boy’s death, picks up the grenade after the boy is shot and moves toward U.S. Marines on patrol. Kyle kills her too. And here we have the template for the film and Kyle’s best-selling autobiography, “American Sniper.” Mothers and sisters in Iraq don’t love their sons or their brothers. Iraqi women breed to make little suicide bombers. Children are miniature Osama bin Ladens. Not one of the Muslim evildoers can be trusted—man, woman or child. They are beasts. They are shown in the film identifying U.S. positions to insurgents on their cellphones, hiding weapons under trapdoors in their floors, planting improvised explosive devices in roads or strapping explosives onto themselves in order to be suicide bombers. They are devoid of human qualities.

    “There was a kid who barely had any hair on his balls,” Kyle says nonchalantly after shooting the child and the woman. He is resting on his cot with a big Texas flag behind him on the wall. “Mother gives him a grenade, sends him out there to kill Marines.”

    Enter The Butcher—a fictional Iraqi character created for the film. Here we get the most evil of the evildoers. He is dressed in a long black leather jacket and dispatches his victims with an electric drill. He mutilates children—we see an arm he cut from a child. A local sheik offers to betray The Butcher for $100,000. The Butcher kills the sheik. He murders the sheik’s small son in front of his mother with his electric drill. The Butcher shouts: “You talk to them, you die with them.”

    Kyle moves on to Tour Two after time at home with Taya, whose chief role in the film is to complain through tears and expletives about her husband being away. Kyle says before he leaves: “They’re savages. Babe, they’re fuckin’ savages.”

    He and his fellow platoon members spray-paint the white skull of the Punisher from Marvel Comics on their vehicles, body armor, weapons and helmets. The motto they paint in a circle around the skull reads: “Despite what your momma told you … violence does solve problems.”

    “And we spray-painted it on every building and walls we could,” Kyle wrote in his memoir, “American Sniper.” “We wanted people to know, we’re here and we want to fuck with you. …You see us? We’re the people kicking your ass. Fear us because we will kill you, motherfucker.”

    The book is even more disturbing than the film. In the film Kyle is a reluctant warrior, one forced to do his duty. In the book he relishes killing and war. He is consumed by hatred of all Iraqis. He is intoxicated by violence. He is credited with 160 confirmed kills, but he notes that to be confirmed a kill had to be witnessed, “so if I shot someone in the stomach and he managed to crawl around where we couldn’t see him before he bled out he didn’t count.”

    Kyle insisted that every person he shot deserved to die. His inability to be self-reflective allowed him to deny the fact that during the U.S. occupation many, many innocent Iraqis were killed, including some shot by snipers. Snipers are used primarily to sow terror and fear among enemy combatants. And in his denial of reality, something former slaveholders and former Nazis perfected to an art after overseeing their own atrocities, Kyle was able to cling to childish myth rather than examine the darkness of his own soul and his contribution to the war crimes we carried out in Iraq. He justified his killing with a cloying sentimentality about his family, his Christian faith, his fellow SEALs and his nation. But sentimentality is not love. It is not empathy. It is, at its core, about self-pity and self-adulation. That the film, like the book, swings between cruelty and sentimentality is not accidental.

    “Sentimentality, the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of dishonesty, the inability to feel,” James Baldwin reminded us. “The wet eyes of the sentimentalist betray his aversion to experience, his fear of life, his arid heart; and it is always, therefore, the signal of secret and violent inhumanity, the mask of cruelty.”

    “Savage, despicable evil,” Kyle wrote of those he was killing from rooftops and windows. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages.’… I only wish I had killed more.” At another point he writes: “I loved killing bad guys. … I loved what I did. I still do … it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” He labels Iraqis “fanatics” and writes “they hated us because we weren’t Muslims.” He claims “the fanatics we fought valued nothing but their twisted interpretation of religion.”

    “I never once fought for the Iraqis,” he wrote of our Iraqi allies. “I could give a flying fuck about them.”

    He killed an Iraqi teenager he claimed was an insurgent. He watched as the boy’s mother found his body, tore her clothes and wept. He was unmoved.

    He wrote: “If you loved them [the sons], you should have kept them away from the war. You should have kept them from joining the insurgency. You let them try and kill us—what did you think would happen to them?”

    “People back home [in the U.S.], people who haven’t been in war, at least not that war, sometimes don’t seem to understand how the troops in Iraq acted,” he went on. “They’re surprised—shocked—to discover we often joked about death, about things we saw.”

    He was investigated by the Army for killing an unarmed civilian. According to his memoir, Kyle, who viewed all Iraqis as the enemy, told an Army colonel: “I don’t shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.” The investigation went nowhere.

    Kyle was given the nickname “Legend.” He got a tattoo of a Crusader cross on his arm. “I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting,” he wrote. “I always will.” Following a day of sniping, after killing perhaps as many as six people, he would go back to his barracks to spent his time smoking Cuban Romeo y Julieta No. 3 cigars and “playing video games, watching porn and working out.” On leave, something omitted in the movie, he was frequently arrested for drunken bar fights. He dismissed politicians, hated the press and disdained superior officers, exalting only the comradeship of warriors. His memoir glorifies white, “Christian” supremacy and war. It is an angry tirade directed against anyone who questions the military’s elite, professional killers.

    “For some reason, a lot of people back home—not all people—didn’t accept that we were at war,” he wrote. “They didn’t accept that war means death, violent death, most times. A lot of people, not just politicians, wanted to impose ridiculous fantasies on us, hold us to some standard of behavior that no human being could maintain.”

    The enemy sniper Mustafa, portrayed in the film as if he was a serial killer, fatally wounds Kyle’s comrade Ryan “Biggles” Job. In the movie Kyle returns to Iraq—his fourth tour—to extract revenge for Biggles’ death. This final tour, at least in the film, centered on the killing of The Butcher and the enemy sniper, also a fictional character. As it focuses on the dramatic duel between hero Kyle and villain Mustafa the movie becomes ridiculously cartoonish.

    Kyle gets Mustafa in his sights and pulls the trigger. The bullet is shown leaving the rifle in slow motion. “Do it for Biggles,” someone says. The enemy sniper’s head turns into a puff of blood.

    “Biggles would be proud of you,” a soldier says. “You did it, man.”

    His final tour over, Kyle leaves the Navy. As a civilian he struggles with the demons of war and becomes, at least in the film, a model father and husband and works with veterans who were maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He trades his combat boots for cowboy boots.

    The real-life Kyle, as the film was in production, was shot dead at a shooting range near Dallas on Feb. 2, 2013, along with a friend, Chad Littlefield. A former Marine, Eddie Ray Routh, who had been suffering from PTSD and severe psychological episodes, allegedly killed the two men and then stole Kyle’s pickup truck. Routh willgo on trial next month. The film ends with scenes of Kyle’s funeral procession—thousands lined the roads waving flags—and the memorial service at the Dallas Cowboys’ home stadium. It shows fellow SEALs pounding their tridents into the top of his coffin, a custom for fallen comrades. Kyle was shot in the back and the back of his head. Like so many people he dispatched, he never saw his killer when the fatal shots were fired.

    The culture of war banishes the capacity for pity. It glorifies self-sacrifice and death. It sees pain, ritual humiliation and violence as part of an initiation into manhood. Brutal hazing, as Kyle noted in his book, was an integral part of becoming a Navy SEAL. New SEALs would be held down and choked by senior members of the platoon until they passed out. The culture of war idealizes only the warrior. It belittles those who do not exhibit the warrior’s “manly” virtues. It places a premium on obedience and loyalty. It punishes those who engage in independent thought and demands total conformity. It elevates cruelty and killing to a virtue. This culture, once it infects wider society, destroys all that makes the heights of human civilization and democracy possible. The capacity for empathy, the cultivation of wisdom and understanding, the tolerance and respect for difference and even love are ruthlessly crushed. The innate barbarity that war and violence breed is justified by a saccharine sentimentality about the nation, the flag and a perverted Christianity that blesses its armed crusaders. This sentimentality, as Baldwin wrote, masks a terrifying numbness. It fosters an unchecked narcissism. Facts and historical truths, when they do not fit into the mythic vision of the nation and the tribe, are discarded. Dissent becomes treason. All opponents are godless and subhuman. “American Sniper” caters to a deep sickness rippling through our society. It holds up the dangerous belief that we can recover our equilibrium and our lost glory by embracing an American fascism.

    • Objectivetruth

      Obviously, you have a great skill to “cut and paste” from liberal, atheistic, Democratic Party websites. But (“yawn!”) not an original thought of your own?

      But of course, you employ classic cowardly, liberal tactics. Wait till someone is dead (Chris Kyle) to attack and destroy their reputation and legacy. But if Mr. Kyle were alive today, you wouldn’t exhibit the “testicular brasserie” or spine to look him in the eye and spew this garbage to him directly, would you?

    • GG

      Like the Pharisee you gloat you are not like others, but better. Look in the mirror. What do you see that is better? Abortion, sodomy, relativism, faux intellectualism, and more.

    • “Nancy” is really Michael Moore in pseudononymous drag.

      • GG

        They can move to Saudi Arabia and explain Islam to them.

  • Wulfrano Ruiz Sainz

    The UN should build insane asylums worldwide to house all Muslims.

  • The_Monk

    Of those who claim Islam is a religion of peace, I ask, “Where is the evidence?”…

  • Well, Mr. Kilpatrick, I look forward to your next installment, to deal with “a viable alternative option” for our Church leadership. I hope it includes taking “the reason the Church exists” into account! Paul VI was plain enough that the prime directive, so to speak, is to evangelize. To make disciples. To preach and to teach “all” that Jesus commanded. Papal documents notwithstanding, at the parish and diocesan levels we have only drifted farther away from that mission – not toward it – since Paul VI. The Church cannot seem to realize that *Catholics* need and deserve evangelization – not to mention the “unbelievers” of the world!

    When John Paul II called the Church to a “new evangelization”, he specifically and clearly included our needs within the Catholic Church. He spoke of the need –
    “particularly in countries with ancient Christian roots, and occasionally in the younger Churches as well, where entire groups of the baptized have lost a living sense of the faith, or even no longer consider themselves members of the Church, and live a life far removed from Christ and his Gospel. In this case what is needed is a ‘new evangelization’ or a ‘re-evangelization.'” (Redemptoris Missio, 33)

    I hope you will include suggestions of how we, the Church, might begin to actually do the obvious: teach and preach the “all” of Christian doctrine in matters of faith and morals, make disciples of Jesus Christ, administer the sacraments with due care for right disposition in the members – such that His holy grace might become fruitful in us – and teach us to pray. The Church “within” needs formation in the Faith, based on true interior conversion to Christ – without this, any face to face encounter with Islam “without” cannot end well.

  • plb5678

    I feel for the muslims who have been feed a pack of lies and deception in the name of religion when it is all about control. why would islam feel it necessary to kill anyone whom leaves islam? if it wasn’t that way muslims would leave in droves. “moderates” need to wake up, leave islam and come to the One true God of peace and love. The God of Christianity loves all unconditionally. There is nothing you have to prove to be loved by the Father. muslism everywhere are invited to come join us in peace and love and freedom. women of islam are free to be who and what they want to be and not property. Come to Christ all who yearn for peace and love. He is waiting for you. I will pray that my muslim brothers and sisters see the Light. God loves you!

  • Jdonnell

    Comments like the mostly usernames “Objectivetruth” are symptomatic of much social, cultural, and general ignorance among parochial Americans. The article gives little evidence that the author knows much about Islam and never gets to any of its specific beliefs that present the worst problems for interfaith accord. Islam has its internal as well as external difficulties, the former presented in such exaggerated but nonetheless often informative sources as “Why I Am Not a Muslim.” Church policy is not so much confused on policy as how to ameliorate persecution without capitulation. Muslims don’t read papal encyclicals.

    • “Comments like the mostly usernames “Objectivetruth” are symptomatic of much social, cultural, and general ignorance among parochial Americans.”
      Wow, that is an astouding display of incoherence and disjointedness.

    • Objectivetruth

      Confusing post, but obviously a shot against me.

      Trust me when I say I can go 15 rounds theologically against you on the Catholic faith, and the Church’s current and historical approach to Islam. And it would be a TKO victory on my part. So I’d be careful throwing the word “ignorance” around.

      But I realize these are only comment boxes on an article on a website, and would rather broad stroke my abbreviated comments rather than the multi chaptered dissertations I did towards my Masters degree.

      And the conversation with Muslims starts with “Jesus Christ is Lord.” You only have to look to St. Francis of Assisi and his relationship with the Sultan Malek al-Kamil for just such a road map. Francis sought dialogue with the Sultan, but make no mistake Francis’ goal was to give the Sultan Christ.

      But once again I don’t understand your post anyway.

  • M.J .

    Would it be that , there are lots more amidst us , who are under the ‘unforgivable sin ‘ against the Holy Spirit !

    The Jews wanted to blame The Lord, as being ‘ possessed ‘ by evil , which is when He speaks those words that need to bring tremendous caution to any one who claims to be a believer !

    Thus, the possible reason why those who have been called by The Spirit , to lead The Church , have been careful to instill the truth of that dignity of every human life , as being made in the Image of The Father , even if many might be in the sin against The Spirit , of being unwilling /unable to recognize that dignity and its related attitudes for themselves or others !

    The Church has been blessed with the needed light and related devotions in these areas , in such as The Feast of Mercy , exhorting us – ‘Bring all , to Me ‘ ; in a culture awash in sins against life , the deep look within would need to be thus the primary focus and need , to say in gratitude often, on behalf of all in one’s life too – ‘ It is by Your wounds that I have been healed .’

    testimonies such as this –

    should make all of us wonder how much we have neglected to act on such peaceful , even simple ( as much as faith is not such a simple matter ! ) measures have been terribly neglected , making us thus lukewarm, worthy of being spat out !

    Devotion and a feast in honor of The Father , as mentioned in here –

    May be thus would be a good fruit to come from the upcoming Synod on families , to bless the world tremendously , in most of the areas we are in peril , such as in identity confusions , in searching for The Father and falling into all sorts of evil !

    True, there might be also need for military style interventions and such to protect the agrressores from them selves and of course the afflicted ; yet, we as a people who have been blessed with the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception , to prevent and be protected from , need to look into these neglected aspects too !

    And God help us , if the country , being depicted sins against The Spirit , good money being spent on same , money that could have been spent instead , to do good , great things , such as in that testimony on Sandy and the Image of Mercy !

    Would be good reparation for those who went to watch that movie too !

    • M.J .

      Correction – The Dogma of I.C , to protect us , from evil .

  • St JD George

    There’s so many stories of Imam’s fueling the fires it’s hardly worth noting them all, but once in awhile it’s worth reminding what forces we are up against out there in the world.

  • M.J .

    We see in the Acts of The Apostles , how they use the system of casting lots ..
    well, may be a worldwide system set up for reparation , hopefully with Russia as a power with connections to the Orthodox Church , to help set up same , to help make reparations world over , for atrocities against Christians , such as for the churches being burned down in Niger , the Hagia Sophia not being restored … attacks on natives in places such as London .
    Saudi Arabia supposedly funded the mosque , in Rome , on land donated by that city ! , the same country that would not allow a Catholic Church in that country ; thus , may be large enough , daily fines against such nations and their related enterprises , to thus make reparations and help rebuild the churches and homes , in terror stricken areas , with visas and mosques being made non available, till such fines are paid , students . even immigrants from related lands sent back at random , by lot .. this can also be applicable for persons from all such afflicted lands , including the Hindu militant minded !

  • The policy that the Church should adopt about Islam is pope BXVI’s address in Regensburg: a faith which regards God as pure will is inherently violent, as Islamic history has demonstrated beyond the shadow of doubt.

    The reason why there are no moderate Islamic voices against the supposedly extreme Muslims committing unspeakable atrocities against whole populations is that the latter are imitating Muhammad. Therefore criticizing the extremists is akin to criticizing their prophet and, of course, making them possible targets of same atrocities. As a matter of fact, moderate Muslims are the majority of the victims of extreme Islam.

    But Francis is no Benedict, for who’s he to judge?

    “May his days [in office] be few; may another take his office.” (Ps 109:8)

    • Objectivetruth

      Benedict and Regensburg was the world’s best shot at dialoging with the Muslim world with Truth, charity, reason and intellect. But the media had to destroy that opportunity, I believe purposely misquoting the Holy Father to try and discredit the Church.

    • Marcelus

      for which he apologized. ahhh,

  • Jacqueleen

    The Blessed Mother, in one of her apparitions to the children of Fatima has asked us to pray the Rosary for the conversion of what appears to be Islam (The battle of Le Panto)..That needs to be told to Pope Francis……

  • Jacqueleen

    Is this another foot in mouth episode for the Pope?

  • Sebastian

    The film American Sniper has sent the US public into raptures over the “heroic life” of its autobiographical subject Chris Kyle – who has been described as America’s “greatest warrior” soldier.

    Last week, the movie premiered in cinemas to rave reviews, earning its director Clint Eastwood a box office smash-hit. Multiple Oscar awards are nominated.

    Critics have quibbled about this or that aspect of the cinematography and storyline. But the prevailing impression is that Kyle – a US Marine marksman – was a tragic hero, a guy who honorably served his country during the American war in Iraq.

    ‘American Sniper’ star Bradley Cooper in a scene from the surprise blockbuster (Warner Brothers).

    The film has even been described by some as an “anti-war” movie because it delves into the mental trauma of veterans and the suffering they endure after conflict.

    Lost in the discussion is the central issue, which is the criminal nature of American militarism and its destructive impact on millions of innocent people. American Sniper may express certain misgivings about US foreign wars, owing to the psychological consequences on its military personnel.

    But in indulging “heroes” like Chris Kyle, the insidious effect is to glorify American war-making. This reinforces American narcissism about its “exceptionalism” as a nation that is intrinsically good, superior and which has the prerogative to wage wars wherever it deems necessary for its “national interests” regardless of international law or morality.

    A US soldier is seen in this December 29, 2014 photo taken in Taji, north of Iraq’s capital, Baghdad. (© AFP)

    Over one million Iraqis were killed during American military occupation of that country from 2003-2011. The fraudulent pretext for that war – Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – has been amply documented and is irrefutable. That makes US involvement in Iraq an epic crime, a war of aggression, or, to put it plainly, a state-sponsored terrorist cataclysm.

    American government leaders and Pentagon commanders, including incumbent President Barack Obama, should be prosecuted for war crimes based on legal standards established at the Nuremberg Trials for the Nazi Reich.

    Astoundingly, the power of American propaganda and brainwashing, facilitated by its corporate media, erases any awareness or discussion of this central issue.

    Instead, American angst is consumed in sympathy for “our noble veterans” and their trauma suffered “in the line of duty.”

    America’s war machine killing own society

    Where are the calls for justice over America’s state-sponsored criminality and genocide of the Iraqi people? Where is there even a semblance of remorse or reparation? American politicians continue to swan around the world, sanctimoniously lecturing others as if they are the epitome of virtue.

    Legal justice may be absent, but nevertheless there is a very real form of justice for America’s systematic iniquity. The American war machine may appear to trundle on untrammeled by international law, illegally occupying countries, assassinating with aerial drones on a weekly basis, and subverting foreign nations by covert proxy terrorism, as in Syria and Ukraine. But, unequivocally, this war machine is killing its own society, financially, psychologically and morally.

    Chris Kyle is eulogized as “America’s deadliest sniper” having killed singlehandedly over 200 people during his four tours of duty in Iraq. It doesn’t matter if most of his victims were “terrorists” or if he was serving in good faith to protect the lives of other American soldiers. The fact is that Kyle was a cog in a criminal war machine that was engaged in destroying a whole nation. For Americans to celebrate him as a “warrior hero” is indicative of the moral corruption that US society has descended into. It shows how much that violence has become endemic in the American psyche.

    Kyle was shot dead at a Texas shooting-range in 2013. His alleged killer, Eddie Ray Routh, was also a veteran, said to be suffering from post-traumatic syndrome. Kyle, who declared his own post-conflict trauma after he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 2009, was working as a counselor for other mentally disturbed US vets. It says something about American social pathology that victims of conflict trauma are treated with “therapy” by letting them fire off assault rifles at shooting-ranges.

    Every day, some 20 US military veterans commit suicide, most of them wracked by mental breakdown. That’s over 7,000 deaths every year. Tens of thousands of other veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas American killing fields are reckoned to be silent victims of post-conflict trauma, committing acts of violence and crimes against other citizens, or degenerating into self-destructive lives of alcohol and other drug abuse. Similar numbers of American families are ruined by dysfunctional veterans who can’t readjust into normal society.

    The economic cost of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone is put at $6 trillion – or a third of America’s crippling national debt pile.

    But a proper accounting reveals a much greater toll when the full social damage of these wars is assimilated. Medical bills, unemployment, crime, personal breakdown, unproductive members of society are just the tip of the iceberg.

    In real, but intangible magnitude, American society is sitting on a massive “dirty” time-bomb from its criminal war-mongering. This is the “justice” for US wars of apparent impunity. The violence and destruction that American leaders have unleashed – are unleashing – on countries around the world are coming back to haunt and corrode American society to its core. Killing millions of people remotely in far off villages and deserts is exacting a righteous revenge on American society.

    The story of Chris Kyle is not just a story about an ill-fated American sniper. It is a metaphor for America as a whole. Part of this destruction, and what makes it so profoundly terminal, is that the American public is largely oblivious to its own collapse. When mass murder of humans is hailed by popcorn-munching morons as heroic, it is a sure sign that America is doomed. Fatally.

    • GG

      Go move to Saudi Arabia.

      • Sebastian

        No way, it’s government controlled by American Interests.

  • Sebastian

    The original misrepresentation of what did and did not happen on 9/11 has been very instrumental in giving murderous intensity to the currently round of Zionist-fomented, Zionist-exploited Islamophobia.

    This intensity of Islamophobia in the poisoned minds of many Westerners is being stimulated anew with the kind of Zionist-fomented false flag terror events that took place on Ottawa on Oct. 22, in Sydney Australia in December and in recent days in Paris.

    These violent, stage managed episodes are all a part of truly diabolical process of rebranding the so-called Global War on Terror. A major aspect of this rebranding is to replace the US-constructed enemy of al-Qaeda with the Zionist-constructed enemy of ISIL/DAESH.

    The US Armed Forces have been parachute dropping weaponry directly to ISIL units.

    As with the outcome of the 9/11 deception, the real beneficiary of the deceptions of ISIL/DAESH is the government of Israel whose operatives are clearly hard at work stage managing a psychological operation with the object of further poisoning the minds of Westerners.

    The resulting stimulation of Islamophobia is part of the necessary task of preparing a sick and psychotic mental environment to create citizen support for the military operations aimed at dividing Iraq, a process that may well be a prelude to the future eastward expansion of Israel’s territorial base towards the Persian Gulf.

    Obviously these machinations extend to Zionist plans for the demise of the Islamic Republic of Iraq in its present form. The background of this evil intent needs to be emphasized.

    Clearly the recent background of anti-Iranian operations includes Israeli-American cyberattacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program, the Zionist-directed murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, frequent surges of economic warfare directed at Iran in the name of so-called “sanctions,” and the Zionist-directed MeK terror attacks.

    These and many other acts of aggression signal the unbroken intent of Zionist forces, including the Zionist federal government of Canada, to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran as presently constituted.

    Justice-minded citizens of conscience the world over must join together to see that this ongoing war crime, this crime against all humanity, is not pushed to its ultimate conclusion, to see that the process of aggression is reversed to move towards peace, trade and the reciprocity of harmony between bothers and sisters throughout the world.

    Indeed, the prospect of moving towards peace, prosperity, and a federation of enlightened stability in the global community depends very much on working together to bring about a future where the people and government of Iran can assume their proper places as well integrated members of the community of nations, as respected sources of spiritual nourishment.

    I believe there are some colleagues in Iran and elsewhere with enough knowledge of my work to vouch for the veracity of the assertions I am making about how my prior studies have given rise to the ideas I am expressing here and have expressed in a number of public venues in North America and Iran.

    It is very important at this crucial moment in history to raise awareness in the West about the sources of Islamophobia; about the way this severe contamination of the mental environment has been created and exploited by Zionist operatives to advance a very dark and demented agenda of global despoliation.

    We Must do what we can to try to change that.

  • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

    The thing I most dislike about the approach is when they go to mosques and pray together.
    It is beyond absurd. Islam doesn’t believe in the same God. They do not believe in a trinitarian God. They do not believe in Jesus’ divinity or his resurection. They’re God is another not the one true God. When they go to mosques and pray together with the Imams they’re doing the same thing the apostate clergy did in the 1st century when they agreed to offer incense to the pagan Gods.