al-Qaida Declares War Against Christianity

Isn't it ironic that the protests against the statement made recently by Pope Benedict XVI in the Moselm world are accompanied by violence? The Associated Press, in an article dated today from Cairo, Egypt, reports,

Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

Pope Benedict XVI made reference to an observation reportedly offered in (or around) the year 1391 by Manuel II Paleologos, Emperor of Byzantium, in a dispute with a Persian scholar:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...

Now, Muslims around the world have taken exception to having had the leader of the Roman Catholic Church describe their religion in this way; and are protesting against his use of this observation, despite his later backing away from this, saying that the quotation was not his position, but rather an illustration of how Islam is perceived. The "spin control" efforts, among others, have led to a followup article in today's Jerusalem Post:

The pope's intent, amply expressed during his Bavarian journey, was to stress two points concerning the role of reason.

First, reason - in the form of Western civilization's heritage from the Enlightenment - not moderated by faith leads to a Godless and amoral society that frightens the believers of other religions (including Islam). This point, praised by those who believe in strengthening the role of religion in public life, has alarmed freethinkers and those who hold that only strict separation of religion and state can guarantee progress in democracy. Some observers have expressed concern over a prospective mingling of theology and politics.

Second, faith that is not moderated by reason leads to fundamentalist extremism. The medieval quote chosen by Benedict was meant to communicate this thought.

According to a report in Frontpage Magazine,

Besides numerous demonstrations accompanied by demands for an apology, an Italian nun has been shot dead in Somalia and three churches have been firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza.

Don't violent protests and death threats, in fact, show that the Emperor's observation, as cited by the Pope, are an aspect of the Islamic faith? That's the ironic part of all this.

Far more significant, however, is the use of the remarks by a group within al-Qaida to call for a jihad:

"We say to the servant of the cross (the Pope): wait for defeat ... We say to infidels and tyrants: wait for what will afflict you.

"We continue our jihad. We will not stop until the banner of unicity flies throughout the world," said the statement attributed to the Mujahideen consultative council.

"We will smash the cross ... (you will have no choice but) Islam or death," the statement added, citing a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims they would "conquer Rome ... as they conquered Constantinople".

The question for the West is this: Do we understand the fervor that drives these types of threats? Do we understand the mentality that will not rest until the entire world has been brought into submission (or conversion) to the Islamic faith? The Orthodox countries of the world do know (and should remember) what is was like to be under the Islamic yoke. The rest of the West would be well served by learning from their experience...

September 11 -- Five Years Later

The weekday morning routine in our house is usually the same. I am the first one up and out of the bedroom, with my "canine escort" moving to see what has changed since she last wandered the halls the night before. This morning, she stopped in the bedroom of our daughter in college, who had spent the weekend with us, going back to her dorm the day before. "She's not here, dog," I said (as if such an explanation could help). There was a pang for a moment as I missed her presence myself -- and that's when it hit me: Those who lost a member of their family in the attacks of the day five years ago, or in the aftermath of fire or of the collapse of the towers may still have empty rooms in their houses -- and they certainly have an empty place in their heart, a place once filled by someone they love, who will never again in this life, in this world, return to that room. How many times does it take before the family dog stops looking for them? My daughter is only a few hours away, and has been gone for less than a day, and I miss her. What is it like for those whose loved one will never be back this side of the grave? I cannot imagine.

Amid the many reports and remembrances on radio and television in the early morning here, two things were striking. The first came from the memorial service taking place outside the Pentagon. Those who have never been in that area probably don't know that the Pentagon sits quite near the flight path to National Airport, which, like the Pentagon, is just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. As the television cameras showed Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in their seats, as a choir sang hymns, as chaplains prayed, and as the Secretary and Vice President spoke, you could not help but hear the aircraft flying overhead -- an eerie sound, given the tragic circumstances of that day five years ago. I find myself wondering what the experience must be like for those who were in the Pentagon that day, near the site of the crash and fire. I know for myself that, no matter where I was in the period after that day, whenever I saw a commercial airliner over a city center, part of me was waiting, wondering: Could it happen again? I can still see in my mind the video of the second plane striking the World Trade Center in New York City; and I was on the opposite side of the country, in San Francisco, on that day. Do the survivors in the Pentagon and in New York City flash back when they hear the sound of aircraft taking off, or landing?

The other striking moment was in a brief interview with an American convert to Islam, introduced on radio as a lifelong resident of Scottsdale, Arizona. This woman spoke of feeling threatened by the stares, and the actions, of others, since the planes crashed and the towers fell. She described an incident that took place as she was driving her car, an attempt by another driver to force her off the road. She wondered whether this country would ever return to the "melting pot" concept and accept that there are others who practice different religions, and leave them in peace; or whether the United States would continue its war against Islam.

Of course, in the United States, she has the liberty to speak in such a way, and the freedom to embrace the religion of her choice. I would have liked to ask her this question: Will the Islamic nations ever accept the “melting pot” concept and accept that there are others who practice different religions, and leave them in peace? Would Moslems accept a form of “dhimmitude” in western countries as the price for freedom? (Not that our pluralistic, and increasingly secular-pagan society would ever take such a step…)

I don’t trust my feelings. On one level, it feels as if I am being manipulated by the media. At a minimum, the images of disaster and death from five years, and the grieving today, are little more than the typical use of tragedy to sell papers (and air time) that is so characteristic of the media. That’s not new; and that’s not news. But I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t more at work here; whether or not the government is using the remembrances of that day to stir us up anew to efforts in the “War on Terror” that is changing us as a society and as a people; and whether or not the media is complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in this effort by the government. Yes, I know I’ve ranted here before on the parallels I see between the “War on Terror” and the state of perpetual warfare depicted in George Orwell’s novel, 1984; but the parallels are there – I can’t ignore them, nor be silent about them, nor be concerned about the direction we are taking, which, in many ways, leads us closer to that nightmare world… So in the end, I’m going to do my best to live this day as I would any other: To do my prayers; to keep the fast (in remembrance of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist – ironic, isn’t it, that this day falls on the day the world calls 9/11?); to fight against my passions; and to do the tasks, sacred and secular, that are among my responsibilities. I have already prayed for God’s mercy for those who have died, and those who mourn them; and for those who have died to defend this country. I hope you will join me in doing the same.

Changes in the Heavens

"My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pickles."

Are there any school children in the last several decades who have not learned this mnemonic to recall the names of the nine planets that orbit the Sun? (In order, mind you, from "nearest in" to "farthest out.") Well, bad news, campers. The International Astronomical Union voted yesterday to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, reducing the number of planets in the solar system to eight. Pluto, discovered in 1930, will be placed in a category that appears on its way to being called "dwarf planets." (I guess the conventions of politically correct speech haven't reached the IAU as yet... To make matters along this line even more interesting, the collection of astronomical bodies that are so classified once were called, "minor planets." I wonder why the IAU didn't feel it could stay with that terminology?)

As this site has among its goals the purpose to inform as well as to entertain, let me offer a new mnemonic for the schools of tomorrow:

"My Very Eccentric Mother Just Served Us... Nothing..."

New Developments in the "War on Terror"

It's all over the news today: the announcement of a plot to bring liquid explosives on board aircraft flying from Great Britain to the United States, and to detonate these explosives while the airplanes were over the Atlantic Ocean. According to the reports, six to ten aircraft flying for several airlines, were supposedly to be targeted. As of the last report I heard, some twenty-one people had been arrested; and perhaps as many as fifty were involved. News reporters and "expert" analyists alike were speculating as to whether this was a plot developed by Al Quaida. These discussions made reference to a plot, dating from the mid-1990's, to trigger in-flight explosions of U.S aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.

Who knows if all this is true? It may very well be true -- but we have no way of actually knowing if it is, or not. Here is what we do know to be true: New constraints are placed upon air travelers as a result of the discovery of the plot. In the United States, you will no longer be allowed to take liquids or gels through security checkpoints, although such items can be included with your checked baggage. In the United Kingdom, the restrictions are even more severe: no carry-on baggage is being permitted. The "terror level" indicator has been raised; more security personnel will be deployed in airports; and many airports will also be employing random "stop and search" checkpoints for vehicles traveling to the airport. Not only will travelers be unable to bring liquids and gels with them through the initial security checkpoints; if you purchase a cup of coffee or a bottle of soda or water while on the concourse of the airport, you will not be allowed to bring it on board the aircraft.

Exceptions will be made, we are told, for baby formula and medications, if the medication is in a bottle labeled by the issuing pharmacy in the name of the person with a valid ticket. This raises two immediate questions. First, what is to prevent a would-be terrorist from using just such a bottle to bring on board components needed to fabricate an explosive? Second, haven't we already seen women among the "suicide bombers" in the Middle East? What is to prevent a baby's bottle from being used to bring on board a liquid explosive, or a precursor component?

How long will it be before such questions are being asked openly by the media and the "experts" they flock to for their interviews? What will be the result of asking these questions? An increased level of apprehension among the general public? (And yes, I am as guilty of doing so as any member of the "regular" media...)

Maybe that's the point? To increase our level of fear? Because it is through the reality of our fear of being victims of terrorism that we are willing to accept restrictions upon our activities, and on our behavior. We will surrender our freedoms, allow the restriction of our liberty, to be set free from our fear. To trade freedom for security, we will think, is an acceptable transaction.

I can't help but go back to Orwell's novel, 1984. O'Brien, the Party member overseeing Winston Smith's "re-education" as he is being tortured, tells Smith a secret: the Party pursues power, not for the good of the people it rules, but for the sake of power. No one," O'Brien says, ever seeks to obtain power only to surrender it. The revolution takes place in order to establish the dictatorship. Moreover, the state of constant warfare that exists in the world of 1984 impoverishes the people of the nation-states; and that is the purpose of the state of perpetual conflict -- for an impoverished population is much more easily controlled than is one that is enjoying prosperity. Yet how ironic that it is our own state of prosperity that is being threatened by the potential acts of terrorists; and that we are willing to give it up, if only in part, in order to hang on to the remainder.

It Feels Like "1984"

Was George Orwell's political novel about the future prophetic?

Well, maybe "prophetic" isn't the word to use: perhaps perceptive might be better. There are no "telescreens" to monitor us in every room, and in every public place -- although there are many technological equivalents that can do the job as well, or better, than Orwell described. (For example, what might Orwell have done in his novel with the "eye in the sky" technology used for covert surveillance of crowds at major public events, such as a Super Bowl, or by some cities around the country; or the facial recognition software used in parallel with such covert systems?) There are no "thought police" -- at least, not on an official basis. (There is the "politically correct" element that attempts to redefine, and control, speech...) "Big Brother" -- the strong, silent, vigilant Leader -- is not watching us. For all his faults, President George W. Bush is not the Josef Stalin of his generation. (In fact, if President Bush were to be compared with a fictional political figure, Robert Heinlein's "Nehemiah Scudder" more nearly fits the bill than does Orwell's "Big Brother.")

Of course, on one level, 1984 described life in the Soviet Union under the dictatorship of Stalin. The attendance at indoctrination sessions, the rewriting of history, the atmosphere of fear and betrayal among the members of the "Party" in the novel all have deep connections to real events and experiences in that time and place. What prompts me to say now that it feels like 1984?

Oceania was at war with Eurasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

My thoughts are probably triggered by the continuing "War on Terror"; and by the deepening conflict between the state of Israel and "Hizb' Allah" in Lebanon. I can't help but feel that we are not being told everything; we are only seeing and hearing those bits and pieces that are designed to engender in us an unquestioning support for our current foreign policy -- and for what feels very much like a preparation for an assault against Iran. Today, a report on the "FoxNews Channel" made reference to the "War on Terror" as "World War III"; and the comment that followed spoke about how such a war would essentially be without end.

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Iran is undoubtedly guilty of providing the rockets being used by Hizb'Allah for their operations against Israel; and many other forms of support. An article at MSNBC.com (I've lost the link) mentioned that Hizb'Allah has received technical assistance from the North Koreans in the construction of their tunnel systems -- and, of course, the North Koreans are experts in tunneling. (How many people realize that the Korean War has never been formally ended; that we have what is, essentially, merely a 53-year old ceasefire?) We should not be blind to the connections; and I certainly understand the desire to "do" something.

What deeply concerns me is the way our society is changing to accommodate the demands of being in a perpetual state of warfare, as the "War on Terror" does not conform to what most of us imagine when it comes to trying to grasp the concept of war. For example, the news this morning showed Israeli tanks in Lebanon. According to the classic definition of war, the presence of a foreign military unit on the territory of another country without the express and uncoerced invitation of said country constitutes an invasion; and an invasion is an act of war. On the level of international law, the entry of Israeli tanks into Lebanon establishes a state of war between Israel and Lebanon, whether declared or undeclared. Yet Israel maintains it is not at war with Lebanon; it is, we are told (and it may very well be true) that Israel is acting in self-defense against Hizb'Allah -- in part, because Lebanon is unable to do so.

The transition from who we were, and how we viewed freedom and liberty, to what we must become in order to sustain the "War on Terror" is underway. When I recall that it was the state of permanent warfare that transformed the United States and Great Britain into becoming "Oceania" in 1984, I cannot help but wonder where we will arrive as the transition is completed...