Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teddy Roosevelt On Islam
Infidels bloggers alliance ^ | 1916 | Teddy Roosevelt

Posted on 09/09/2010 12:35:36 PM PDT by pissant

(snip)

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.

Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.

Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor. .....

The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.

There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do -- that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: islam; teddyroosevelt; trop
One of Teddy's strong points
1 posted on 09/09/2010 12:35:39 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pissant

And we go and put one in the White House!


2 posted on 09/09/2010 12:39:35 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Check out the one comment at the blog. Teddy was a racist. But, they always cite him as the founder of the “Progressive” movement!


3 posted on 09/09/2010 12:45:15 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Wow, what an amazing quote! He says it all.

I guess the liberals have to brand him a bigot now too . . .


4 posted on 09/09/2010 12:46:16 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.

Apparently there was no room in Roosevelt's world for Divine Providence.

More Christians attend Divine Liturgy each week in Muslim Egypt than attend Sunday Service in allegedly Christian England.

The Copts cannot point to military victories, but to God's mercy, as the source of their surviving faith.

Likewise the Catholics of Japan, who survived as a faithful community during 266 years of persecution without benefit even of clergy or sacraments.

The mighty Zoroastrian Empire of Persia fought the Muslims tooth and nail, but were vanquished almost completely. Only a handful are left.

5 posted on 09/09/2010 12:49:21 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Photobucket

"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."

King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993

("At Any Price: How America Betrayed My Kidnapped Daughters for Saudi Oil" By Patricia Roush)

For the source of that quotation, visit the link below (copy and paste if necessary), go to page 272 and scroll to the bottom of the page.

http://tinyurl.com/28sn557

I guess their oil is the only POSSIBLE reason to shed American blood for these people. It begs a question: WHY THE HELL AREN’T WE USING OUR OWN?? ARE WE MAD? (Don’t answer that.)


6 posted on 09/09/2010 12:50:09 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (The upcoming election is the most important in our lifetimes!!! BE THERE!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
While the West is (for the moment) military strong, we have psychologically disarmed ourselves. For the long term, this is actually worse, because military strength can be ramped up relatively quickly (as in WWII), but it takes generations to impact civilisational psychology. It is not a good sign that 9/11 seems to have FURTHERED rather than hindered the Islamic cause. Post 9/11 you have more people bending over backwards to avoid offending Muslims than ever before—and most of them are in high places.

My own take on this is that the plenty and security of the West have allowed people to discard common sense, and even the survival instinct. In such an environment, people can promulgate liberal ideas and political correctness. However, our material advantages and relative safety will eventually disappear. When it does (and people finally wake up and fight back), I only hope our position isn't untenable.

7 posted on 09/09/2010 12:50:31 PM PDT by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Good post and reminder of whence we came.

Unfortunately many ‘Christians’ today have been indoctrinated with universalistic Marxism. All things, people and beliefs are equal and at the very least we have no right to defend our culture and/or way of life. In fact they insist on helping to destroy it least we be called a bigot and hater.


8 posted on 09/09/2010 12:51:51 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

God helps those who are at least trying to help themselves......


9 posted on 09/09/2010 12:52:41 PM PDT by freedombird (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness. -A. DeTocqueville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Say what you want about Teddy, but he was a patriot to his toes, and had no use for political correctness.


10 posted on 09/09/2010 12:53:17 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Check out the one comment at the blog. Teddy was a racist. But, they always cite him as the founder of the “Progressive” movement!

I would not say TR was a racist. He was denounced in the south for inviting Booker T Washington to the White House, and he appointed several blacks to government posts. However, the fallout was so bitter he eventually backed off somewhat on showing favor to blacks.

The "Teddy bear" craze started over a cartoon of Teddy sparing a little bear on a hunt in Mississippi. The bear was originally drawn with caricatured black features to make a pun over Teddy's perceived preferences for blacks. He frequently made speeches that denounced lynching. However, some consider his flippant condemnation of the soldiers in the Brownsville Incident as proof that he did not care about blacks. It may well be that he sided against the black soldiers because of all the negative publicity he'd received over his favoring of blacks.

And he did help propel the progressive movement. Thank goodness he did not run for a third term.

11 posted on 09/09/2010 1:06:07 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Actually, the Christians of Asia, led by a rejuvenated Roman Empire, made a comeback in the tenth century. They retook Syria, which had been lost to the Arabs in the seventh century, as well as part of Palestine. However, the Seljuk Turks proved to be tougher customers tnan the Arabs. A decisive victory over the Romans at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 put the Turks on the road to regional supremacy in the Middle East.


12 posted on 09/09/2010 1:07:30 PM PDT by Taft in '52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

When men were men, and weren’t afraid of their own principles ...

SnakeDoc


13 posted on 09/09/2010 1:09:30 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

>Post 9/11 you have more people bending over backwards to avoid offending Muslims than ever before—and most of them are in high places. [...]
>However, our material advantages and relative safety will eventually disappear. When it does (and people finally wake up and fight back), I only hope our position isn’t untenable.

Agreed. The way things are going it makes me wonder if (perhaps in a few centuries) the one-world religion will be some amalgamation of Islam and Catholicism. I’m not saying that Catholics cannot be Christian, but there are some disturbing sayings [I don’t have the ref on-hand] wherein (IIRC) the Pope states that there is no fundamental reason for strife between Catholics and Muslims.... this, in conjunction with the continued non-excommunication (or at least non-public) of people like Nancy Pelosi who are actively defying the Church’s teachings in the public field, makes me wonder at what a ‘marriage’ between Catholicism and Islam would look like. (Imagine the ideology of Islam combined with the structure of the Catholic church.)


14 posted on 09/09/2010 1:20:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Bully on Teddy!
15 posted on 09/09/2010 1:23:35 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
It seems that only people in this country that support Islam are Jews, such as Bloomberg, Muslims, and liberals. You would think that a Jew would be the last person in the world to support such things as the GZ mosque or to ignore the dangers of Islam. Do American Jews even care what happens in Israel? I can understand Muslims and liberals supporting anything that is destructive to Christianity, but I have a difficulty in grasping the reasons that Jews support Islam in this country.
16 posted on 09/09/2010 1:36:39 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I think many of our elites probably view Islam with some degree of ..... envy. Consider that Islamic clerics have close to absolute power over their adherents. If the Mullahs can motivate someone to be a suicide bomber, convincing them to pay higher taxes should be a piece of cake. That is why many of our Leaders must salivate at the thought of having that much control over the individual. Leading a free people is HARD WORK. Leading a bunch of ignorant slaves is much easier.


17 posted on 09/09/2010 2:10:20 PM PDT by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
They pervert the term "progressive" just as they do the word "liberal". TR was the first US President to ever formally host a black man as a guest in the White House, Booker T. Washington, IIRC, and as a Republican of that era was anything but a racist. The Democrats (e.g. the party of the Confederacy and slavery) tried to use it against him in the 1904 election but he was reelected (sans the Jim Crow democrat southern States) by a landslide.

The "progressive" movement of his time was not what the Marxists mean when they use the term now. TR's progressives were focused on fighting the political corruption of the party machines and the business trusts and monopolies.

The Republican Party at that time was the party of business and what most of us would recognize as positive progress: equal civil rights for all citizens (including blacks), protecting genuine natural treasures like Yellowstone and Yosemite, busting up corrupt monopolies, a strong military (Big Stick), and a strong manufacturing economy protected by a wall of tariffs. Except for the trade / tariff aspect, these are themes which a conservative like Reagan would not have had any problem with.

He was also an acknowledged historian (the book he wrote on the history of naval armament is still a classic) and certainly understood that Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since its founding in 622 AD.

18 posted on 09/09/2010 2:19:10 PM PDT by katana (No pity, no mercy, no quarter for traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Taft in '52
A decisive victory over the Romans at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 put the Turks on the road to regional supremacy in the Middle East.

And the First Crusade started shortly thereafter.
19 posted on 09/09/2010 4:29:16 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: katana

I get a little tired of hearing the uneducated Glenn Becks of the world warble on about Roosevelt with only the vaguest notions of what his entire career and philosophy encompassed.


20 posted on 09/09/2010 11:15:34 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“no room for Divine Providence”? That’s absurd. You expect Christians to do nothing just to prove their “faith”?

God provided for all when He sent His Son to pay for sin; that doesn’t mean that He suspends natural law or common sense. Evil still exists, and God’s people suffer.

When the Muslim hordes come to violate your wife and daughters in accord with Muhammad’s command and example, will your only response be, “Divine Providence”?


21 posted on 04/30/2012 3:07:29 AM PDT by Amillennialist (http://amillennialist.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson