The article below was written four years ago, yet with the events in the Middle East with ISIS (or ISIL, or whatever we want to call them today), it is still relevant; in fact, probably even more so. Some would say that we should let that part of the world kill itself and not concern ourselves with it. Problem is, the concept of world submission and domination is being exported actively into our back yards. It is impossible to ignore, or be satisfied with them killing each other.

If one question may be asked, is it the intent of radical Islam to bring the rest of the world to submission, or is it more a reaction to the western world’s affluence and inconsistent meddling into the affairs of the Middle East, where the majority of Islam has not really known what to expect, and now is fighting back with the ultimate aim to be left alone to its own way of life?

I’d like to say it’s more the latter, but I don’t have confidence that that is the case.

One observation that can be made is that the U.S. has not maintained a cogent or consistent position toward this part of the world over the last few decades. One reason for this is that we have had different Presidents, with different foreign policy positions, strategies and executions. We also have done, through the concept of capitalism and the free market, an exportation of sorts of our ways, dress, customs, etc., that traditional Islam sees as an intrusion into its way of life. I respect that point of view. To capitalism, it’s all about the buck. To their culture, it’s more about the way of life, and the economics be damned. I submit that Flyover Country would have no problem with that, as long as they keep it there. The issue is that they’re NOT keeping it there.

And before anyone tries to say that turnabout is fair play, I say bull-shoot. In capitalism, if you don’t want to buy, you don’t have to. Radical Islam provides for no such choice.

I submit that we need a “doctrine”, much like the Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800’s, where it is stated exactly where we stand and what we’ll do under certain circumstances. George Bush 43 tried that in a way (not a very complete way, but a way) by taking the position that we should attack those who are actively attacking us on their soil, rather than react to them on our soil. This made sense after 9-11, and makes sense now, but it doesn’t go far enough. We need to be clearer and more comprehensive in what we’ll do, based on what is being done to us and to others. The world needs to understand that there is no political wishy-washiness, no nuanced “diplomacy”, no cutesy definitions of genocide, aggression, infiltration of covert operators, or cross-border operations where one Middle Eastern sovereign state which may be of Islamic background is able to coddle or protect ISIS – but not really – on the grounds that no one else can have military operations within its borders. We need to have the big brass ones to say that as long as you use any part of the world to stage destruction on others or plan such, we’re gonna get you – period. I also submit that if we did have the big brass ones to be forceful and have such conviction that the world would line up with us in support – including Middle Eastern countries that know very well what we could do if crossed. The crux is that we must say it and mean it, without change. It may not be perfect, but this is not a perfect world – screw ‘em.

And, don’t even get me started on the Sharia Law issue. If you live in the U.S., where so many have made an issue of separation of Church and State, then you WILL live under the laws of this country having their basis in English common law, with all the trimmings. If you want Sharia Law, go back where you came from.

I by no means profess to be prescient, or a sayer of the sooth. But much of the world wants to move forward in peace. Sadly, this is not the case with radical Islamic extremism. Please read (or re-read, as the case may be), and consider. Many thanks.


This title is no misprint – we are in the midst of a modern day 100 Years’ War. The only misprint might have been that a zero was left out of the number (meaning, for those of you not following my drift, this could well be a 1000 Years’ War – no kidding!). And just think, the antagonists still live on dirt floors. Some things will never change.

Islam is a different religion to digest than most of us are used to. Christianity has its different sects, but it has as its basis peace and understanding from a loving God. Is it perfect? Well, it depends on whether you’re referring to its thesis and dogma, or how we mortals go about living such. I prefer to characterize it as a perfect religion, practiced imperfectly. We could elaborate, but that pretty much sums up all the perspective we need to refer to in this discussion.

Now about Islam. Not only doesn’t anyone know much that is universally agreed to be definitive about it, what we can glean from it suggests none of the aspects we normally associate with the word “religion”. It is not hierarchical. Not that it has to be, but whereas Christianity’s sects (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheranism, the other Protestant strains, etc.) have uniformity of principles and a uniform way of delivering the message, Islam is decentralized to a dangerous (the correct use of the word) extent. A Christian strain will control how its message is practiced. Islam has Imams and Ayatollahs, each of whom is professed to be a teacher of the Qur’an, and each of whom has no higher authority to which he must answer. There are literally thousands of Imams, all of whom have their own followings and each controls his following as he wishes. Therefore, each will put his own spin on a teaching found in the Qur’an, and instruct his following to be as benign or as militant as fits his style. Often that style has a heavy philosophical or political bent, and we can never, it seems, find concurrence from one to the other.

Indeed, look at Islamic “scholars” who make the news programs. Have you ever found two who might interpret any teaching the same? The problem here is not that we are deprived of enjoyment of a comedic element in it all (oh, but that it could be so simple), but we can’t begin to effectively deal with Islam as a whole because we really don’t know what tenet to address and respond to. One says women can’t wear anything but burquas, while the other insists women can dress in the style of the country they are in. One insists Islam is a peaceful religion, while the other says it will wage jihad on anyone or thing that is contrary to what it allows. When we read selections from it, it refers to anyone who is not a believer as an infidel, worthy of nothing short of death, and its law, called Sharia, is to be sternly practiced in every aspect of life. That is, when we read the words one by one, then review them collectively, that’s what they say. But we are told differently by Islamic scholars who have their 30 seconds of fame on a cable station. Come on, guys, what is it? Who are we Pardon us in Flyover Country, but if it looks confusing, and is explained in a confusing way, then as the old saying goes, well, you know the rest.

Christianity has come to the world from someone who never lifted a finger against anyone else. He preached peace, He lived in peace, He did everything and instructed in every way to support and reinforce peace. He never even resorted to physical defense when attacked, but professed love for those who would mistreat Him. On the other hand, Islam was started by a desert warlord. Forgive me, for I mean no disrespect, but it is written that Mohammed led armies, killed untold many, and acted peacefully only when there was no one left standing who disagreed with him. Can one interpret Mohammed’s life any other way? One may consider him a holy and great leader, but that is a separate issue from what he did on the way to cementing his fame. So, if the Christian perspective of peace (even if not practiced perfectly) is as we know it, we cannot easily make the segue to an Islamic definition of peace.

Regarding understanding, any Christian can point to Christ’s ability to understand and how he went about getting people He met to see it His way. Islam seems (please, will someone tell me definitively it isn’t so) to understand nothing but what it states in the Qur’an. If you don’t believe, off with you head – no if’s, and’s or but’s – what else do you want to talk about, that is, while you can still talk? Christianity has had its share of infighting, but it has gotten over that, and today, indeed, universally it will admonish people who take a position that is blatantly abhorrent to Christ’s basic teachings. Indeed the two principal Islamic sects, Shia and Sunni, each think the other is wrong, and any Imam who wants to take out another one of the other sect can and will make a declaration of holy war and send his minions out to execute (no pun intended) his will. Help me, where is the understanding?

As regards a loving God, we are told in Christianity that although God isn’t crazy about everything we do, He still comes from a position of love toward us. If we were to count every reference to Allah and his teachings in the last decade that we have seen on the boob tube, how many references would there be to a loving Allah, and how many would there be to Allah’s wrath? Excuse our simplicity, but this entire perspective is foreign to Christian minds. And, there should be no apologies made for the fact that the vast, vast majority of minds in this country are indeed Christian ones (there are other religions that come from a peaceful genesis, and these are not forgotten or discounted, so please don’t nitpick, just hang So, what does all this have to do with 100 years (or longer) of war? Well, this background is a necessary one to comprehend, because I submit that we are in a war that may not have a practical end, and we have been in it for at least two decades now. I wish I could say 20 down, only 80 to go, but that would be naïve. This is a pitched battle, and may be the one to end all pitched battles. Sorry for the downer – there’s more to come here, so stop reading now if you’re having feelings of ending it all for yourself.

As long as there are independent Imams, there will be no structure to rein in extremism or extremists in Islam. Any Imam can decide to declare jihad, holy war. And as long as the violent, inflexible and absolute tenets of the Qur’an are acted upon, there will be no peace. As long as people of Islam continue to emigrate to countries not Islamic, there will be a call to allow Sharia law and to have it supersede the laws of the particular sovereign nation. There will be no blending in, no negotiation, nothing but a demand that the world bow down to Islam, or else. This is the ultimate example of “our way, or the highway”. Problem is, we are being told that we will not even be allowed to take the highway. As long as there is one radical cleric, the extremism and violence will be relentless and continuous. Can anyone rationally see any other resolution?

This is not to say that every follower of Islam is a terrorist. Far from it. Most – the vast, vast majority – willingly come in true peace, harmonize with their new surroundings, yet keep their native traditions alive and are willing to share them, as many of us native to this country share (hey, I’m second generation myself – my parents each spoke Greek before they knew English, and they were born in Flyover Country). A few years ago, when the first democratic voting took place in Afghanistan, I was having a discussion about the disruptions being caused by Islamic extremists over the whole thing. I made this point, and this illustrates how the bad apples make the whole bunch look bad, which is unfortunate and something we must protect against as we live among truly peaceful people of Islam. I said, consider that Afghanistan is 25 million people. Now get a soccer stadium, and fill it up to 100,000 with extremists and terrorists. That’s four tenths of one percent! Sounds small, but it’s still 100,000 wack-o’s. Now have them divide up into cells of two or three and disperse among the populace, and tell them to randomly wreak as much havoc as they can before they blow themselves up. That’s a lot of individual acts of violence. It will take a long time, indeed a very long time for all 100,000 of them to get to 72 virgin land. In the meantime, life is precarious for the other 24,900,000. Hardly seems fair, but that’s the way it is.

Now, consider that there are a billion and a half people of Islam. Even if you reduce the terrorist numbers to far below four tenths of one percent, how long will they keep pressing for the world to submit?

World leaders, especially ours, it seems, don’t get it. It doesn’t take a genius, nor even someone from Flyover Country, to think to the next step. These extremists will not stop until all of them or all of us are dead. Period. World leaders act like they are a rational group of statesmen. Let’s negotiate or give in to them on one or two points, they say. Well, they’re not giving in to us, nor will they, so why should we extend an olive branch if they have a torch waiting for it? Look at the Israeli situation with Hamas and Hezbollah. For how many years have concessions been made to these groups, and what have they conceded? Nothing. Nor will they. When will people understand this? The Israelis do seem to understand this, however. They are derided in the world press for it and for their hard line towards these groups, but if this is understood and explained truthfully by anyone else but our wonderfully objective media, it explains the Israeli position.

If martyrdom is so exalted an action, then time means little to these people. The rest of the world looks at time and says, this war has been waged for so many years, so there must be a way to end it. No, there isn’t. Sad to say, 100 years or 1000 years, it all means little. Remember the knight in the forest who wanted a swordfight in the film, Monte Python and the Holy Grail? He was still wanting a fight, even though all that remained of him was his head. Well, the extremists and terrorists are making that guy seem like an amateur. In the end, whose side will time be on?


  1. Michael Kinsey says

    The Imams will answer to a Mahdi, which they expect to appear , popping out of a well. They expect he will be as Mohammed was, a warlord.. Then the billion or so of them will be ordered to kick butts and take names,(Heads too) Rather a dismal utopia, to look forward to.. But it promises all the goods of the earth, of which Islam gets first pick, forever.
    The alternate media, via the internet is claiming ISIS is funded by the CFR, and will be it’s helper, which points to US .us as the antichrist.

  2. “In capitalism, if you don’t want to buy, you don’t have to.” If only we DID live in a capitalist country! Under Obama, if we don’t want to buy health insurance, we STILL have to.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Well, yes, you DO have to buy health insurance, because if you get in a catastrophic accident or have a serious illness (God forbid), I don’t want to have to pay for it when Medicaid becomes your only option. I also don’t I want to wait two hours in an ER filled with people who just need antibiotics or walk around in malls where kids aren’t vaccinated and people are coughing and sneezing because they don’t want to (or can’t) pay the $100 for a doctor visit. I’m not a fan of Obama, but yes, you SHOULD pay for your own healthcare. It’s too bad it took Obama to get you do it.

      • You pay taxes; you don’t get to specify what tax moneys collected from you go to “pay for.” If medicaid, food stamps, and any other federal programs that “conservatives” love to hate would be immediately discontinued tomorrow, do you really think that your tax bill would decrease? “I don’t wanna pay for …” Who cares? Write your congressmen!

    • Well, if you don’t buy it; hospitals still provide it; only via the e.r.; driving cost. In Minnesota, we are required to have car insurance to drive; why not health insurance when you dial 911 for an ambulance? The right never complained about car insurers raking in money all these years….

      • Lola J. Lee Beno says

        If you don’t want to have a car, you don’t have to buy car insurance. If you don’t have the extra $4K/year to buy the minimum health insurance you need for your family because one of your needs exotic medicine to survive for a lifetime ailment and only one of insurance plans you have to chose from allows that medicine to be dispensed, you still are forced to buy health insurance. Herein lies the difference.

      • The “Right” NEVER complains about corporations raking in money … seems that’s their end-all and be-all nowdays … workin’ well in Kansas, huh?

        • Oh my! And just who is it that primarily benefits from citizens being compelled to purchase health insurance? You guessed it! Those greedy corporations! This includes, but is not limited to, the very same health insurance companies who gladly accept being publicly demonized in exchange for the additional ‘private’ market share – a market which, unlike what previously existed, is now heavily subsidized with Federal Funds. This additional market share is far better, in fact, for these evil corporations than their other markets because most of the deductibles are so high that they will only have to pay claims for severe illness or injury.

          • Michael Bauman says

            The health carriers also love it because it means they don’t have to pay as much in commissions to qualified agents and eventually none since there won’t be any. People will know less and less about the coverage. The frog has been boiled.

        • Michael Bauman says

          The biggest problems in Kansas are an education establishment that fundamentally wants all the tax dollars with as little as possible making it to the class room; a state employee pension plan that is wildly underfunded most of which goes to teachers and school administrators many of whom “retire” two or three times. The pension fund alone makes the state technically bankrupt. Combined with a Republican party that is at least half Rhino and haven’t met an abortion they didn’t love and you have a very strange “red” state.

          The current deomcrat candidates for govenour and US Senate atr immoral ideologs beholden to money outside the state. The Republican incumbants are little better.
          Take your pick. A corrupt moralist or a corrupt amoralist. It is no different anywhere else. Why pick on Kansas? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

          Politics is a pit of corruption. There is no hope for virtue there. It is worthless as an example of righteousness. Neo-Fascism as an economic ideology rules both parties. What do you expect?

      • Michael Bauman says

        When Kansas introduced the mandatory auto liability coverage the number of people insured actually went down. As it is there are many was to get a “tag policy” go get your tag and drop the policy.

        The differences are legion and way too numerous to explain. Some significant ones: auto insurance is on a state by state basis, the mandatory minimums are really low (so low they are a joke), the rates are still underwriting based upon the insured’s driving history, age, credit score, type of car and the length of time they have had auto insurance in force. Those with good underwriting credential get better rates, the worst ones are put into the states’ assigned risk pool for basically uninsurable drivers and pay the highest premiums. There is no subsidy and the only financial penalty is if one is caught in a moving violation without insurance: small fine, driver’s license suspended, costlier insurance in the future (3-5 years). Even among this crowd there are numerous competitive options.

        Everything is handled by qualified insurance agents and/or on-line; there is no mega-death federal government clearing house staffed by incompetents and possible felons or a incompetently designed web-site with many security issues.

        Only someone with little knowledge of insurance, politics and economices would think that they were at all similar

        Just another little factoid which most will ignore: My 28 year old son has a grandfathered individual plan with a $2500 maximum out of pocket exposure for all medical treatment and is paying $94.00 a month. Last year it was $84.00/month The lowest cost ACA plan available to him starting January 1, with no option but to pay the premium or go bare and pay the fine has a max out of pocket of $6600 and a monthly premium of $140.00. That is real affordable no?

        Since where he works at the moment offers a group plan, no subsidy is available to him. Although he would otherwise qualify for about half. He does not want to be dependent on his employer or the government (wow–what an anachronistic soul I raised!)

        The reaction of everyone of my agency’s clients (many faced with an even bigger increase in premium) is “why should I work? I’d be better off on welfare.”

        Hospital ER coverage for those without insurance is limited to stabilizing a person so that they don’t die and are reasonably ambulatory so they can walk out of the hospital.

        But those who are enamored with the ideology behind Obamacareless don’t care about reality. There were many, many ways to achieve most of the positive aspects of ACA with little of the major crap that was stuffed down our throats. Now we are beginning to find out what is in the bill we will be wading through a pile offal for the rest of our lives.

  3. Actually, I think we are involved in two wars – “we” being Orthodox Christians. One war is against the philosophies of the Enlightenment (the surviving group being Liberals – either of the Progressive or Conservative variety). The other is against Islam. Though, really, it might be better to focus on what we’re fighting for. For we are fighting for theosis and thus against the wiles of the evil one and our own passions.

    In the short term, the more dangerous of the two are the Liberals. Liberals seem to have won in the West. But this is an illusion. Demographic and economic reality are just beginning to catch up with these misguided societies. The population of their native ethnicities is declining at the same time as their moral compass has failed abysmally and they are now devaluing their currencies at an alarming rate. Their military and economic power are thus in decline and this explains much about the activities of America’s adversaries in the world. But America’s adversaries are not my adversaries. And America is not the object of my allegiance. It is merely where I live. I serve God; not the United States (or its Constitution), not the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation.

    Liberalism is a more serious immediate threat. Islam is the more serious long term threat. Islam has been around for almost 1400 years. It has staying power, something that Progressivism has not yet demonstrated. However, I”m not averse to making deals with Islam if it means rolling back Liberalism, or vice versa. We have some moral sensibilities in common with Islam and so cooperating with them to stymie international efforts at abortion, feminism, the normalization of homosexual activity, birth control, etc., might be worth the effort. Yet, we also have something in common with Liberals (again, whether Progressives or Conservatives) in that we can see the threat of not only “radical Islam” as they can, but Islam itself as an ontological enemy.

    We (again, “we” being “Orthodox Christians”) might be wise to adopt a policy similar to Iran’s regarding the “Two Great Satans”. I would prefer “two demons”, however, just to keep the theology clearer. We just always have to remember that in the end we intend to destroy both Liberalism and Islam, neither is a friend but rather only a temporary ally at times (“the enemy of my enemy”).

    Yet we have no like-minded people in charge in the West and this type of thinking is not conventional here. Progressives think that Conservatives are the enemy. Conservatives may appreciate the Islamic threat to some extent, but they are far from being capable of the resolute and harsh measures needed to win on that front. Moreover, vis a vis Progressives, Conservatives do not even understand the position in which they find themselves.

    William F. Buckley once famously remarked that “a conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” The problem is that since American Conservatism shares the intellectual foundations of American Progressivism, it cannot radically alter the route of the train, only commit to retarding its onward course, leaving it running as slowly as they can manage.

    What is necessary is for someone to blow up the tracks and, beginning at the ragged smouldering end, construct a line which loops off and is headed in a different direction. American conservatives [let alone libertarians] have failed miserably in this regard. That is why I will have nothing more to do with them in terms of politics. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Never put your trust in “the people”. Never imagine that Man is the measure of all things. Never make the mistake of suggesting that the legitimacy of a government emanates from the consent of the governed.

    God has given us a moral law. It is one of the external means by which we pursue theosis. It rights our external lives and even reaches into our souls to do necessary rearranging and accomplish growth within. Yet our government and our society in most all of their manifestations tell us on a daily basis that popularity/democracy is the measure of morality and legitimacy. Even those Conservatives who oppose, for example, SCOTUS decisions, often do so on the basis that the decisions undercut the popular will as expressed through the legislative process. The greatest sin seems to be to impose something, or fail to impose something, against the wishes of the majority.

    Now, of course, this is curbed to some extent in American society in that we require constitutional majorities to override certain basic propositions enshrined in our Constitution. Yet even that supposed safeguard has been exploited to introduce unserious reasoning in the service of propositions that were not popular at the time the court decisions were issued, all the while having nothing objectively to do with the Constitution, merely judicial fiat. Moreover, whether through the ballot (electing conservative senators and presidents, the officials responsible for filling the Court) or through overturning Court decisions through amendments requiring constitutional majorities, the masses could put SCOTUS out of the business of moral redefinition if they so chose. Yet they do not.

    Neither the majority of the Court nor the masses have a reliable moral compass. Only the Church,” the pillar and ground of Truth”, has that type of compass.

    Thus it is probably not wise to think of “we” as America or Americans or even “the West”. Never hold hands with a jumper. The Orthodox (at least those who actually have some appreciation for Tradition) have a different perspective. America does not even really know that it is in a war or who the enemy is. Americans do not oppose the passions, they delight in being ruled by them.

    • “What is necessary is for someone to blow up the tracks and, beginning at the ragged smouldering end, construct a line which loops off and is headed in a different direction.”

      Thus spake every radical revolutionary in history, from Lenin to Mao to Pol Pot to extreme Protestants who think going to war will usher in the Day of Judgment. They all believed that if they could blow everything up, humanity would start again. Their designs failed precisely because man is fallen and cannot be redeemed through secular ideologies or any form of human action.

      The “someone” who will blow up the tracks can only be God – not even the Church, which though in possession of Truth is governed in large part by all-too-flawed humans.

    • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

      Misha – And yet you continue to sound an alarm of sorts. I don’t understand where your “need” to express as you do on the affairs and state of the world and at the same time give the overwhelming impression that there really is no hope…. comes from? If as you say the only proper response is to work out theosis in the Church, then why spend any time expressing yourself on this or any other blog, forum? Go and work out your salvation with fear and trembling; even in your estimation the probability of seeing others “saved” by this means is greater than any other, and cease “wasting time” blogging. The principal and most obvious fruit of theosis is to love as God loves and joy in the Holy Spirit – virtues which are significantly absent in your blog entries, IMO. And to engage such glittering generality, “Americans do not oppose the passions, they delight in being ruled by them.” As if you have met every American and know what is in their heart. Your blog entries, though obviously the expression of an intelligent and talented person, portray the image of a soul in conflict. I pray you find peace.

      • Thank you for your (unsolicited) opinion, Fr. Peter. And Happy Halloween. I pray we all find the peace of God which passeth all understanding.

  4. James Denney says

    “If one question may be asked, is it the intent of radical Islam to bring the rest of the world to submission, or is it more a reaction to the western world’s affluence and inconsistent meddling into the affairs of the Middle East, where the majority of Islam has not really known what to expect, and now is fighting back with the ultimate aim to be left alone to its own way of life?”

    Let me take a shot at answering this. First off, I’m not sure that I would have used the modifier “radical” to inquire about the intent of the islamists. The islamists are followers of Islam and the Quran and other islamic scripture. Those who are the strongest believers of these scriptures and the biggest supporters of terrorism.

    Those who tend to be secular, although nominally muslim, tend to not support terrorism by their co-religionists. It is estimated that about 10 to 20% of the 1.4 billion Muslims world wide support islamist terrorism. Using a conservative 10%, that amounts to 140,000,000 million advocates of islamist terror across the globe. Even in the U.S., 47% of muslims consider themselves muslim before they consider themselves as American. According to the same 2007 Pew Research poll, an average of 10% of American muslims even believe that suicide bombings can be “often or sometimes” justified.

    My study of islam has brought me to the awful conclusion that Islam is not worthy of being called a religion, but that it indeed is a 1,400 year old ideology of hate and death. I realize that there are many muslims who see themselves as God-fearing, but it is my opinion that they have been deceived by satan. The vicious nature of islam has not been brought about by anything the west has done; it has been vicious from its inception.

  5. Gail Sheppard says

    RE: It is impossible to ignore, or be satisfied with them killing each other.

    We had no problem excusing it when Assad was doing the killing. How many was it? 10,000 to 11,000?

  6. Groundbreaking of St. Nicholas in New York, ground zero says

    groundingbreaking at Ground zero, the video

  7. Tim R Mortiss says

    “… this type of thinking is not conventional here.”

    No kidding!

  8. Francis Frost says

    “For God do loved the world that He gave up his only begotten Son, for the life of the world and for its salvation”
    St. Basil’s Anaphora.

    The Gospel is the testimony of God’s patient and ever self sacrificial love; yet you have reduced Orthodoxy to a list of enemies. You, Misha, have far more in common with the ISIL jihadists than you have in common with Christ.

    Our Lord said: “Love you enemies. Do good to those who hate you.” ; but you, Misha, are determined to destroy your enemies. Where do you get this thought or such a mentality?

    It does not come from God, who is love.

    How utterly sad. May God help you!

  9. Francis Frost says

    And one more thing…

    George, you claim to uphold the “sanctity of life” and yet you publish what is clearly an incitement to genocide. What possibly can you be thinking of?

    Don’t deny it. Clearly Misha knows that he isn’y going to destroy the Dar-al-Islam and the degenerate, liberal West, without bloodshed. After all, both entities have withstood your rapier wit these past years.

    So, Mishka, tell us just how many innocents are you willing to slaughter in order to achieve your “Triumph of Orthodoxy”?

    At the risk of raising the shades of ‘Georgian victimhood’, i will point out that both you, George, and you Misha have mocked and derided the suffering of Orthodox Christians who just happened to be in the way of your Putinist Anschluss. You have justified the untold suffering of innocent civilians and blamed “their own government” for having the temerity to side with “the West”.

    You have not only publicly justified murder and ethnic cleansing in the name of you political “Orthodoxy” in the past, now you are inciting out right genocide! This, dear,,sirs is pathological. It is insane and dangerous.

    May the Lord rebuke you!

    At the same time, I question our resident moralist clergy: Father George, Father Patrick, Father Alexander. Where do you stand on the justification of the destruction of entire civilizations, the murder of innocent civilians in the service of a triumphant “Orthodoxy”?

    If you want to know why our orthodox Church is a dying institution, you have the answer right here: a Gospel tainted by hatred and there refusal of our leaders to speak out on behalf of the victims of violence. Forget about the violence against Christians committed by Muslims. Address the violence against Orthodox Christians committed by other Orthodox Christians.

    “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, the you will see clearly to remove the speck form your brother’s eye.” Mathew 7:5

    • Misha wishes to destroy liberals, but they are the very same people that would help him in an instant if he needed it and the very same people that would fight beside him against raducal Islam.

      And Frost brings out the best point, yet. Orthodox conservative self righteousness is the reason for the decline. My first recognition of this problem happened about 25 years ago at a youth gathering where the priest’s son expressed his disbelief toward me suggesting non-Orthodox persons would enter heaven. To which I began to question Orthodox teachers a tad.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Your roseate views of Liberals (really Progs; real liberals are Jeffersonian, limited government types) is delusional. Modern liberals are chintzy when it comes to philanthropy and as we can see now from the mayor of the People’s Republic of Houston, totalitarians at heart. As for Mr Frost’s indictment of “Orthodox self-righteousness,” I’m at a loss to finding examples of this self-righteousness among serious Orthodox people. Regardless, in a nation in which we barely comprise 1% of the population, I seriously doubt that we could pin the blame for the Gomorrhan excesses of our nation on us, regardless of whether we are “self-righteous” or not. There has been no harsher critic of the buffoonish of our bishops than Your’s Truly, but even I would be hesitant to blame the squalor in which we live on them.

        • Well, how about Misha suggesting liberals are more dangerous than Islam?

          Sort of silly really.

          • George Michalopulos says

            They’re infinitely more dangerous in that they’ve burrowed from within. I agree with the young Abraham Lincoln who said that no army even one “led by a Napoleon Bonarparte” would ever be able to conquer America. Our nation would fall only “from within.” Thanks to Liberals who have undermined the Church, the family, schools, etc, we are ready for collapse and conquest by whomever.

            I’m not a warlike man but I’d much rather have it out with the combined forces of Islam and get it over with once and for all, provided we were still a resolute, manly people. We’d win in a heartbeat.

            • Carl Kraeff says

              Ah but the sappers include Mishas, those who maintain that “…we are involved in two wars – “we” being Orthodox Christians. One war is against the philosophies of the Enlightenment (the surviving group being Liberals – either of the Progressive or Conservative variety). The other is against Islam.”

              I am quoting Misha’s most fascinating post above, where he sets himself way above all other American Orthodox folks. Why, I believe he and other folks like Father Alexander, fancy themselves to be so much better than the run-of-the-mill American Orthodox that they fancy themselves to be Archangel Michael’s chief deputies.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                Carl you actually do not believe that we are at war between Islamic Terrorists on one side and secular humanism on the other? I understand what Misha is saying. That the roots of modern day Secular Humanism and Atheism have their genesis in the Enlightenment. You doubt this? I don’t and I actually like the principles of the Enlightenment.

                The problem is this when you take the Enlightenment to its logical conclusion it leads smack-dab into moral relativism. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc., are not only a benefit so as to end wars and persecution among various groups, but once the fighting end and you are left with the just the principles of the Enlightenment then what are you left with?

                Freedom of Religion – all religions are valid OR all religions are invalid. Either way because the Enlightenment did not proclaim truth, but a live and let live philosophy one naturally devolves into moral relativism. From there its an easy jump to nihilism.

                Freedom of Speech – All speech in valid OR all speech is invalid. Again, either way there is no proclamation of which speech is true and which is not. Again, a slide into moral relativism.

                This is the inherent flaw of the Enlightenment and our Nation as well, and why we are seeing what we are seeing in our Nation.

                Government has always been the Restrainer of Evil, especially a government made up of Christians, but when that influence dwindles because of Apostasy or Apathy or both then there is NO moral center to the Enlightenment except a live and let live and do not harm philosophy that naturally gives way to abortion, acceptance of homosexuality, violence, drugs, etc.

                So the principles of the Enlightenment are good as long as the society is ethical and moral, but once it loses that then it devolves into moral relativism with a quick jump to nihilism.

                So I happen to agree with Misha insofar as our people need the Gospel and a direct encounter and experience with the Living Christ to return to moral clarity, and not the Enlightenment.


                • George Michalopulos says

                  You’ve pretty much nailed it: secularism (tolerance/relativism/etc.) is merely the transition stage between one orthodoxy and another. In our case the first orthodoxy being Christendom, the second being Islam.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  Peter–I mostly agree with you. (My issue with MIsha is his attitude. He seems to enjoy pontificating like an Olympian). Now, getting down to specifics, I disagree with your statement “The problem is this when you take the Enlightenment to its logical conclusion it leads smack-dab into moral relativism.” I think that this is not the inevitable conclusion. Orthodox Christians can and should subscribe to opening declaration of the US Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (my emphasis) We must cherish and protect the First Amendment rights that we have in the written Constitution. We should not be passive bystanders while they are corrupted, adulterated and ignored. We can elect folks to high office who will appoint judges to the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court who will not corrupt, adulterate or ignore the basic law of the land. A good example is Roe v. Wade. The Orthodox Christian position has been anti-abortion, both in terms of faith but also in consonance with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Yet, we see Orthodox Christian politicians who belong to the political party that is pro-abortion, and some who have consented to the appointment of judges and justices who have been instrumental in establishing and maintaining an legal abattoir of babies. What have our bishops done with these politicians? How many Orthodox bishops, priests and laity participate in anti-abortion movement? I submit to you that most retreat into a defeatist’s platitudes about the need to pray or to reflect that “So the principles of the Enlightenment are good as long as the society is ethical and moral, but once it loses that then it devolves into moral relativism with a quick jump to nihilism.” In this quote from your post, you yourself hint at the answer: instead of bemoaning what came out of enlightenment, let us endeavor to keep society ethical and moral.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Are, but Carl in context that phrase “endowed by their creator” simply means God gave us these rights and we get to use them — God is no longer required.

                    There is little in the founding mythos of the US that is compatible with Orthodox understanding.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Moral clarity is insufficient.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  There is certainly what appears to be a war: nothingness and death against life. But it had already been won. Darkness cannot abide joy, laughter and love. It quails at mercy and forgiveness preferring instead to keep us bound up in moral judgements and self-righteousness and justice.

                  • And, of course, we must never forget that we know how the Great Story ends – victory of Christ, defeat of the evil one, etc.

      • How awful, I thought everyone went to heaven. Even pets. Was that crazy priests son reading some sort of chatechism to get the crazy idea salvation comes through Christs church alone? Sarcasm aside, while there is no consensus amoung the fathers on the matter, its hardly an ungrounded opinion.

      • Isa Almisry says

        Misha wishes to destroy liberals, but they are the very same people that would help him in an instant if he needed it and the very same people that would fight beside him against raducal Islam.

        You’re delusional Dan. Take the example of the present US regime-they can’t even bring themselves to call it radical Islam when a jihadist shoots up an American military base on US soil shouting “Allahu Akbar!”
        “Help him in an instant” You flatter yourself. Study after study has shown that Liberals are among the most stingiest and self centered people-IIRC Biden’s tax return only showed a few hundred dollars, if that, donated to charity, when he makes hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
        Liberals-the Jihadists’ useful idiots.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Indeed. Liberals are the first to throw their allies under the bus. Look what FDR did to Eastern Europe. Of the Dem Congress did to South Vietnam.

          • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

            Eastern Europe did not constitute “allies” of any liberals, including FDR, at any time. Yes, America, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative DID lose the Vietnam war, but the American congress threw no one under any busses, ever. That’s an almost hysterical construction based on conservative ideologues’ embarrassment at being found wrong by the facts and history. Next someone will blame Afro-Americans for most criminal activity, EVEN THOUGH none of the frequent slaughters by gun in our schools has been perpetrated by any but WHITE kids.

    • Francis Frost (October 19, 2014 at 6:03 pm) says:
      (among other insightful things)

      ‘If you want to know why our orthodox Church is a dying institution, you have the answer right here: a Gospel tainted by hatred and there refusal of our leaders to speak out on behalf of the victims of violence. Forget about the violence against Christians committed by Muslims. Address the violence against Orthodox Christians committed by other Orthodox Christians. ‘


      Mostly agreed.

      As Jesus says (MT 23): ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! Hypocrites! You tithe mint and dill and cummin, but you neglect the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These are the things you should have practiced without neglecting the others.’

      We rightly decry muslim-on-christian violence, but we must not ignore christian-on-christian violence, which is a far worse sin.

      Jesus goes on to say: ‘You blind guides! You strain out gnats but swallow camels. Woe to you!’

    • “George, you claim to uphold the “sanctity of life” and yet you publish what is clearly an incitement to genocide. What possibly can you be thinking of?”

      What a sick heart you have, Francis! The Soviet Union has been destroyed, in fact, most of Communism is destroyed except for Cuba and North Korea (China has morphed into something else).

      Moreover, even conquering an enemy militarily and converting them by occupation does not amount to genocide.

      You are one sick puppy, Francis.

      And again, Dan wrote:

      “Misha wishes to destroy liberals,”

      But I wrote:

      “We just always have to remember that in the end we intend to destroy both Liberalism and Islam . . .”

      Did the allies commit genocide by killing every last German when they “destroyed Naziism”? Were they simply dedicated to destroying Germans? I think not. Some Germans helped us in our war effort, if you recall. We accepted the surrender of a great many more. Good grief, can’t you people read!

      I will admit this though, the battle against Islam will likely be bloody when it comes.

      • You can’t defend your rant Misha. That is unless the moral sensibilities you share with Islam include stoning, clitorectomy, or capital punishment for blasphemy or apostasy among a few. Those are certainly far worse than a liberal suggesting taxing Mitt Romney for a kid to get Cheerios is okay.

        If not, then we shall part ways here forever.

        And, on birth control, since Islam has no defined hierarchy (at least in general), the are no solid schools of thought on the matter.

        In fact, since Islam has no defined leaders across borders, the interpretation of the Islamic holy book is really varied. And that is the real problem with it.. For you to suggest common ground with conservatives is absurd, because they don’t have common ground within two different mosques.

        The Imams are just as politically motivated as our politicians here. Only Mitt Romney doesn’t suggest you take your conservative ideals and convert them into dead liberals via jihad.

        And, thankfully, here in the US, we don’t have the Shia killing the Sunnis and vice versa, but you probably just overlooked that in your spite of liberal thinking….

  10. Michael Bauman says

    The violence of Islam calls to the violence in my own heart. As the libertine secularism calls to my own desires.

    It is said: be careful who you think of as your enemy, who you fight for you will become like them.

    In his book “Two Storey Universe”. Fr. Stephen Freeman quotes a monk at the monastery of St. John of Damascus when asked how they have survived all their enemies: “We are monks, we have no enemies”.

    Contention and aggression are an integral part of the world. Not the Kingdom.

    Cultures and societies fall, the Church may and will shrink visibly. My prayer is that we all enter the Kingdom