Women. 
Posted on 09/25/2006 10:59:47 AM PDT by PDR
It’s notable, I think, that religion — not so long ago pronounced irrelevant by most everyone in proper society — now dominates the global debate. Even a Communist like Hugo Chavez used religious terms to denounce W., perhaps because he is now in a tag team with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who speaks for a theocracy. But despite the fundamental importance of religion, most of our sages and scribblers are poorly equipped to deal with it, as you can see from the awkward coverage of the pope’s speech at Regensberg. It was, as you’d expect from a pope, a religious text, but the religious content was rarely reported, aside from Benedict’s remarks about Islam — themselves a part of a broader religious message aimed primarily at Europeans. A big part of his message was that Greek philosophical thought is central to Roman Catholicism, and that Catholicism evolved in Europe, in the constant interplay between faith and reason. It’s almost impossible to find that in the discussion.
The stuff about Islam was predictably discussed in the usual context of political correctness, according to which it is always wrong to criticize another person’s beliefs, and very wrong to criticize the beliefs of a foreign “culture.” They seemed unable to comprehend that, in ultimate issues, this sort of total tolerance doesn’t work. And the pretense that violently conflicting views of the world can be smoothed over in pleasant conversation only has the effect of intensifying the conflicts. We have arrived at the present unhappy situation not so much because we challenged those with different worldview, but because we ceased to assert our own values and advance our world view. In my graduate-student days, I met a fine New York editor by the name of Howard Fertig. Howard edited the books written by my boss, the great historian George L. Mosse, and from time to time I got to have lunch with him in Manhattan, usually at a long-gone German restaurant, Luchow’s. At one of these lunches Howard shook his head sadly — we’re talking 1963 or 64 — and pronounced the death of America. Why? Because, he said, we had adopted the view that everyone is entitled to one hang-up. Yes, so-and-so was a child molester, but hey, that’s his hang-up. This attitude used to be applied to great artists and writers, like Ezra Pound, whose hang-up was the embrace of fascism.
The combination of this crackpot toleration with a general contempt for religion made it difficult for us to comprehend the nature of the current war. Everyone from W. on down has been at great pains to assure us and themselves that we have no basic conflict with Islam, that our battle is with some lunatics who say falsely that they speak in the name of Islam. So we feel quite uncomfortable when the pope — quite deliberately — poses a question about Islam itself: Is it capable of responding to reason, or is it, as he put it, completely transcendent, beyond the reach of man, and hence unchallengeable by man under any circumstances?...
SNIP.
This is akin to when medicine fights only the symptoms, but not the disease. Terror is the symptom, islam is the disease. If Western attitude about islam doesn't change soon, the disease will metastasize throughout the world and snuff out every last vestige of light, hope, love, truth and freedom. Islam is straight from Hell and needs to be sent back from whence it came.
What prevents reason from making itself transcendent?
I suspect (and hope) that the "religion of peace" claptrap is strategic deception. Eventually, there will come a time when that pretense will be dropped, but not until we are a good bit farther down the road of this conflict.
Women.
Hopefully that will be before there is a terrorist instance using WMD.
Beautiful.
That probably accounts for the lack of chivalry among academics.
So how precisely do you fight a war against Islam? So far “nuke Mecca” is about all I’ve heard from the armchair generals who populate this site. Anyone got a plan that doesn’t involve a worldwide trade embargo against the United States and the subsequent collapse of our economy?
Simple & to the point. I'd love to hear your thoughts, back it up.
Of all the various aspects of life with which one must deal, the opposite sex is vastly the greater. A man working to apply reason is no match for a woman to whom debilitating oceans of emotion are effortlessly available.
Your logic is flawed, because it relies on a generalization. Your conclusion was an emotion based argument, not one based on logic.
I call it the Aunt Emma argument. Aunt Emma is an expert at making observations in support of anything.
Take a look at societies & organizations where males demonstrate your claim, where reaching for reason first predominates. Based on my own observation, reality turns out to be quite the opposite. Little head thinking quickly overtakes all logical thinking, even when there are no women around.
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.