That's just a line from this very interesting article from The American Conservative website:

War of the Worlds

The West doesn’t have to choose between Huxley’s dystopian future and Islam’s medieval past.

By William S. Lind

The deconstructionists are mistaken when they argue that in literature text is everything. When we come to the subject of grand strategy, however, it is correct to say that context is everything. Nothing illustrates the point better than the interventionists’ habit of presenting every situation as a replay of Munich 1938. In reality, in a world where the state is losing its monopoly both on war and on social organization, worrying about another Munich is as useful as worrying about another Defenestration of Prague. The 21st-century context is radically different from the context of Europe in the 1930s.

Conservatives in particular now find ourselves confronting vast changes in the grand strategic context, changes many find emotionally difficult as well as intellectually challenging. We were brought up in a world where the grand strategic context was easy to grasp: our country, the United States of America, represented what was good, and our country’s principal opponent, the Soviet Union, represented evil. “Us versus them” was a realistic and useful framework.

The new grand strategic context is much more complex, from a moral as well as a political perspective. And—here is where many conservatives choke —the United States, or at least its policy-making elites, no longer wear the white hats. Conservatives, especially cultural conservatives, face a 21st century where the landscape is dominated by two vast evil forces in collision. Sadly, one of those forces is largely defined and led by the United States.

Of these two baleful titans, one is easy for Americans to perceive and reject. It is the conglomeration of elements collected under the big tent of Fourth Generation war, a collection that includes al-Qaeda and terrorists generally.

The Fourth Generation of Modern War, warfare since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, is the greatest change in armed conflict since the modern era began. It is marked by the state’s loss of the monopoly on war it established with Westphalia and the rise of non-state elements that can fight states and win. At its core is not a military but a political, social, and moral phenomenon, a crisis of legitimacy of the state itself. All over the world, people are withdrawing their primary loyalty from the state and giving it to a wide variety of other things, of many different kinds: families, clans, tribes, ethnic groups and races, gangs, ideologies, causes such as environmentalism and animal rights, religions, and so on. Many people who would never fight for their state are willing, even eager, to fight for their new primary loyalty.

Further, just as the state was born from cannon, so Fourth Generation war is giving rise to new forms of social organization. It should not surprise us that al-Qaeda’s goal is not taking power within states but abolishing the state altogether and replacing it with an ummah headed by a caliph, a pre-state form of social organization.

Critics of the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation say that they represent a return to the Dark Ages. That critique is valid. Where the Fourth Generation has prevailed, in places such as West Africa, Somalia, and, thanks to an American invasion, Iraq, life is once again nasty, brutish, and short. Just as the lamps went out all over Europe in 1914, so they will be extinguished, perhaps for centuries, wherever the state fails and Fourth Generation elements come to rule. This, again, is easy for Americans to grasp.

The hard and painful aspect of the new grand strategic context is that the principal opponent of the Fourth Generation is not the Christian West but Brave New World. Aldous Huxley’s short novel by that title, published in the 1930s, is a chillingly accurate description of the soft totalitarianism that now sees itself within reach of unchallengeable world power.

Sadly, the march toward Brave New World is led by the United States. The main characteristics of Huxley’s dystopia are all too evident in post-1960s America (and Europe). They include a culture where the summary of the law is “you must be happy,” happiness coming from a combination of materialism, consumerism, electronic entertainment, and sexual pleasure; globalism, the elites’ “one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them” under de facto if not de jure world government; and endless psychological conditioning, especially through the government schools and the video-screen media. Religion is already relegated to the eccentric margins, at least among the elites, if not yet quite forbidden—note those elites’ hysteria over the thesis of intelligent design, which can be reached via the scientific method. Even reproductive processes are becoming much as Huxley envisioned them.

In the post-Christian West, sex is predominantly recreational, and if children do not yet come from bottles, not many babies result from all that sex. Soon enough, thanks to genetic engineering, the genetic conditioning Huxley foresaw will join psychological conditioning to create an inescapable prison for the human will. At that point, we will face the Abolition of Man. No wonder Huxley’s “savage,” who represents the Last Man, committed suicide.

Presciently, Huxley also foresaw America’s leading role in the creation of Brave New World; the calendar was measured “in the Year of Our Ford.” The fact that the United States is now Brave New World’s chief promoter and, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, enforcer, is not due merely to the short-term phenomenon of the neocons’ hold on national policy. (Though neocons see themselves as defenders of liberty, their Newspeak definition of “freedom” is shorthand for everything Huxley feared.) Rather, the values of Brave New World are embodied in America’s post-1960s culture to an astonishing degree. And not only embodied, but aggressively exported, in everything from our television programs and the Internet to the imposition of feminism and soon, no doubt, gay rights on Iraq and Afghanistan with American bayonets.

There is one element of the real Brave New World Huxley missed, and that is ideology. At the heart of the West’s assault on itself, on traditional, Christian, Western culture, is the ideology of cultural Marxism, the civilizational IED planted by Gramsci, Lukacs, and the Frankfurt School. Known most commonly as political correctness or multiculturalism, cultural Marxism holds sway over all Western elites; to deny or contravene it (without groveling apologies) is to cease instantly to be a member of the elite. It has already made vast progress toward its goals of “negation” of Western culture and the “transvaluation of all values” (stolen from Nietzsche), which means simply that the old sins become virtues and the old virtues, sins. Buggery is a fine, normal, high-principled thing, but for God’s sake, don’t smoke.

Just as Brave New World’s critique of the forces of the Fourth Generation as representatives of a new Dark Age is valid, so is the critique of Brave New World by much of the Fourth Generation. When they say Brave New World is Satanic, they are correct. A traditional Christian theologian might dare go further than Salafi mullahs; in its efforts to create an everlasting, all-embracing, inescapable virtual reality where man loses all free will, Brave New World may be hell’s most audacious attempt to expel Christ from this world altogether. In other words, Brave New World is anti-Christ.

Thus we see the grand strategic context of the 21st century, defined by the cosmic collision of the forces of the Fourth Generation and Brave New World. They are already physically in combat in the Middle East, the Balkans, the jungles of Columbia, and the deeper jungles of Los Angeles.

What is an American who loves the country he once had, and is even more deeply devoted to the old Western culture than that country reflected, to do? Choosing the lesser of two evils is not an option because if there is one thing Brave New World and the Fourth Generation agree on it is that “Western culture’s got to go.” The proper answer to a choice of death by hanging or by firing squad is to refuse to participate in one’s own murder.

Rather, we must do what seems impossible. We must rally the remnants of Western Christian civilization to fight Brave New World and the Fourth Generation simultaneously. Perhaps, as when the Roman Empire fell, all we will be able to accomplish is to keep the Holy Faith and (some) knowledge alive in the monasteries, whatever those may prove to be in our time. Much was then lost, but enough survived to enable the Christian West to rise again.

Yet even as Old Night comes on, there are glimmers of light. In the Third World, the advancing hordes of Islam are being met, and fought, by a growing new Christendom. That new Christendom is already strong enough to reach out into the apostate West; witness Third World Anglican bishops riding to the rescue of their oppressed orthodox coreligionists in the post-Christian Episcopal Church.

Seen from within the United States, the triumph of Brave New World appears inevitable. But here too there is hope. The globalist Brave New World elites are making what may be a fatal mistake. They think they have already won.

Whenever one party to a war believes at the outset of the conflict that his victory is inevitable, it isn’t.

Yet nothing more strongly characterizes Brave New World than its belief in inevitable victory. It permeates American elites’ rhetoric: globalism is inevitable; liberal, secular democracy, the “end of history,” is inevitable; the obliteration of Christian morals is inevitable; enslavement of the world’s population to electronic virtual realities is inevitable.

Poppycock. In the real world, the forces of the Fourth Generation are already defeating those of Brave New World in one venue after another, from Gaza through Iraq to Afghanistan. History, it seems, is not quite dead. Brave New World cannot see that the forces undermining the legitimacy of the state are more powerful than most states, especially at the moral level.

The globalist economy is beginning to raise Western middle classes against itself as they perceive that it means their extinction. In America, the governing Brave New World elite has made the classic hubristic blunder of imperial overreach, starting, then losing, avoidable wars. America’s finances are precarious, its economy depends on endless foreign loans, and its Brave New lifestyle depends on a flood of energy that is drying up. It all looks ever more like Versailles in about 1788, minus Versailles’s good manners and music.

When Brave New World’s walls come a tumblin’ down—and they will—men of the West may have their opportunity. Bewildered, shocked, sometimes panicked societies will seek alternatives but not know where to turn.

We do know where to turn. In the West, and perhaps beyond the West, survival will mean turning back, back to the old ideas, old ways of living, old morals and old faith. They have not been gone, or almost so, for so long that they are forgotten. Our task now is to take them down off the shelves, polish them up, and fit them once again for service. When the vacuum appears, we, as cultural conservatives, can and must be ready to fill it. Whoever fills it successfully will be the winner of the war between the Fourth Generation and Brave New World.

The good news is that the victor does not have to be either of the main contenders..
____________________________________________

William S. Lind is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, D.C

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/article3.html

Interesting, hmmm?

Eric The(Pro-WesternCiv101)Hun

That is far to literate for many on this site.

It's just a part of my lecture series on Western Civ 101.

I do what I can to sweep back the tide.

Eric The(EvenSt.FrancisOfAssisiPreachedTheGospelToTheAnimals)Hun

My head hurts.  Guess it doesn't help that I am skipping around to get the jist of it without tipping off to my boss that I'm not working.  Cliff notes anyone?

Quoted: Cliff notes anyone?

We have three choices:

'If it feels good, do it.'

'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum'

'When in the Course of Human Events.....'



Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun

Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site.

Unfortunately I must concur with your assessment.  I understood it just fine, it is scary that a sophmore in college can understand what many far older cannnot.

Pity that many will request a cliff notes version rather than attempt to read it through and understand it themselves.

Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun

Actually, I think that about sums it up rather nicely...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun Actually, I think that about sums it up rather nicely...

I changed it up just a bit to give the other sides 'equal time.'

Thanks!

Eric The(Succinct)Hun

Tag.

THE HUN IS BACK!!!!


i havent seen an ETH post in a long time. the GD collective IQ just went up a point or two thank G*d

War of the Worlds?  As soon as I realised it wasn't about aliens I stopped.....
j/k good story history repeats itself.

I do what I want!

Dammit, now I gotta go read Brave New World.

Seen from within the United States, the triumph of Brave New World appears inevitable.

The harder the fight, the greater the glory.  Thermopylae isn't remembered because it was a fair fight.

Good article!

Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site.

The irony here just kills me.....

Quoted: War of the Worlds?  As soon as I realised it wasn't about aliens I stopped..... j/k good story history repeats itself.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is the cliff notes of the article.  Human behavior can be talked about and written about with such certainty BECAUSE humans REPEAT the mistakes of the PAST.

Excellent article; thanks for bringing it to my attention.

BTW, Eric, the title of the post is sig-line material.

Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me.....

lit·er·ate:

Well-written; polished: a literate essay.

This reminds me that you owe me a discussion concerning Ape And Essence (it's been four years now!).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me..... lit·er·ate: Well-written; polished: a literate essay.

Here, I'll help you out. Check the highlighted area now.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me..... lit·er·ate: Well-written; polished: a literate essay.

Lemme help:   TOO literate  

A very refreshing read, ETH.  Thanks for posting it.

Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun

Well said.

Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Jeebus would never allow a species to go extinct from His Creation!  You are a sinner and will BURN in HELLFIRE for ALL ETERNITY unless you CONFESS!  Be HEALED!  The Sun obviously revolves around the Earth, since God put His Creation at the center of the universe!... Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun

Fixed it for you.

The good news is that the victor does not have to be either of the main contenders..

Good I was starting to worry there...  

Good writing.

tag

Marxism, Leninist Marxism, Maoist Marxism, Cuban and Nicaraguan Marxism are all failures, socialism such as in Europe such as free health care in England and Italy were vestiges of failed communism. Centralized controlled economies are also failures. You wanna redistribute the wealth? Take all the money away from the rich people and give it to the poor people and I guarantee you the money will go back to the rich people in probably less than 3 years. simple economics.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Jeebus would never allow a species to go extinct from His Creation!  You are a sinner and will BURN in HELLFIRE for ALL ETERNITY unless you CONFESS!  Be HEALED!  The Sun obviously revolves around the Earth, since God put His Creation at the center of the universe!... Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun Fixed it for you.

Tell you what, Sonny Boy, you don't mock Jesus and you won't have to put up with me mocking the crap outta' Mohammad.

Think the Danish cartoons were in poor taste? You ain't seen shiite.

By the way, you will never see me failing to address Mohammad by his proper name, nor do I ever fail to capitalize the 'I' in Islam.

Next time you see a grainy video of some of my co-religionists about to slice the thoat of a noncombatant, you can call Christians whatever you wish....and we will have to suffer such jeers.

How about yours?

Eric The(InternationalIntifadahIsTheOnlyGameInIslamdom)Hun

Tag for tonight

Interesting article. As I have been over here in Iraq I see us trying to keep them together after a post Saddam era, and instill a national move in Afganistan. Yet back home we want diversity instead of "Epluribus Unum".  Come to the U.S. and ignore our culture keep yours. We can't control our border and are eroding our own culture and language! How stupid are we?

I see us building and buying more than we can afford. I like capitalism but we need to live within our means. This includes asking Govt for everything. People would not think of robbing their neighbor but have no problem asking a politician to do it for them. I to wonder how long we can live on this borrowed time. Old timers say there will be a crash, so far they have been wrong. I view it as more time to try to get out of debt.

When the perverbial sh-t hits the fan will there be enough "Old Style" Americans left to fix it? Especially when we have let ourselves be watered down so much?

I've heard Texas has a succession clause in its Statehood agreement(If any Texans could shed light on this please do). Maybe Americans could move to Texas and vote to succeed. Just a thought.

Interesting article ETH.

It’s unclear to me what the author means by “globalism” in this context. Does he mean an empowered UN type organization? Does he mean free trade? Does he mean increased foreign influence? He should spell it out, because not all globalism is bad. The kind of globalism that increases US exports and makes it possible for the US to dominate certain international markets is probably not a bad thing; for us. By the same token, the kind of globalism that demands we support millions of illegal aliens, export our best jobs and the knowledge that goes along with them is not a good thing; for us.

In regard to this “Brave New World” thing, it is true that the US elite are behind a lot of it, but the US is not leading the way, not like Europe. There may still be hope for the US to learn from Europe’s mistakes.

Thanks for posting  the article Eric. I would have to agree with most, if not all, of what the author wrote. The Jihadis are right: Western culture is immoral and decadant. The Brave New Worlders (read: secularist liberals) are right: The Jihadis are intollerant and backward. BOTH are wrong in their sollution to the problems at hand.

Quoted: Interesting article. As I have been over here in Iraq I see us trying to keep them together after a post Saddam era, and instill a national move in Afganistan. Yet back home we want diversity instead of "Epluribus Unum".  Come to the U.S. and ignore our culture keep yours. We can't control our border and are eroding our own culture and language! How stupid are we? I see us building and buying more than we can afford. I like capitalism but we need to live within our means. This includes asking Govt for everything. People would not think of robbing their neighbor but have no problem asking a politician to do it for them. I to wonder how long we can live on this borrowed time. Old timers say there will be a crash, so far they have been wrong. I view it as more time to try to get out of debt. When the perverbial sh-t hits the fan will there be enough "Old Style" Americans left to fix it? Especially when we have let ourselves be watered down so much? I've heard Texas has a succession clause in its Statehood agreement(If any Texans could shed light on this please do). Maybe Americans could move to Texas and vote to succeed. Just a thought. Interesting article ETH.

The democratic forms of government that we share depend on the morality and personal responsibility of the citizenry. If we are more interested in our own little cause (especially if that cause is our own personal gratification) to the detriment of society at large, then our freedom is held hostage to the whims of selfish individualism. This morality and personal responsibility must be voluntarily undertaken. If imposed by the state, it will lead to tyrrany (anti-discrimination measures are an example of this). The civic-mindedness that made Western civilisation great sprang from it's Christian belief. The notion that others are to come before self, that the family and community are the bedrock of society, and that these notions are voluntary are Christian notions. The West, especially in Europe and Canada but to a great extent in the US and Australia, have moved past that Christian herritage and replaced it with a shakey set of ever-shifting "values" that must be enforced by tyrranical laws. This lack of confidence, and indeed, self-loathing has made our civilisation an easy target for another belief structure that is self-confident and has an unshakable faith in its own righteousness. This is Islam. It is only the first, however. Chinese civilisation has a similar self confidence. The West has only self-inflicted guilt.

Given the conservative resurgence that we've seen in recent years, I do hold some hope for the future.

Quoted: It’s unclear to me what the author means by “globalism” in this context. Does he mean an empowered UN type organization? Does he mean free trade? Does he mean increased foreign influence? He should spell it out, because not all globalism is bad. The kind of globalism that increases US exports and makes it possible for the US to dominate certain international markets is probably not a bad thing; for us. By the same token, the kind of globalism that demands we support millions of illegal aliens, export our best jobs and the knowledge that goes along with them is not a good thing; for us. In regard to this “Brave New World” thing, it is true that the US elite are behind a lot of it, but the US is not leading the way, not like Europe. There may still be hope for the US to learn from Europe’s mistakes.

I think he is talking about the broad sense of globalism, where the increasing interconnectedness of our world, combined with the growing power and influence of non-state actors, such as trans-national corporations and NGOs such as the UN, Amnesty international etc. are erroding the power and legitimacy of the soverign nation-state. When the power and legitmacy of a democratic nation-state is diminished, the notion of a soverign people is simmilarly reduced. Factional interests become the source of identity and objects of loyalty to the detriment of the nation-state, and those factional interests cross international boundaries. The environmental movement is a prime example.

The 'good' globalism that you're talking about assumes that the U.S. as an entity has meaning in this environment, which it doesn't. When a nation-state surrenders its soverignty, and thus legitimacy, to trans-national organisation, it ceases to be relevant. This is where GWB has dones some good. In asserting that the U.S. is going to persue its own national interests, he has reclaimed some of that soverignty from the non-state actors. Whether you agree with his methods of going about this reclamation or not is beside the point. The important point is that he asserted, firstly, that there is such thing as a U.S. national interest, and secondly that it supercedes all other interests.  This marginalised those who persue globalism, especially that globalism that seeks to establish a 'rules-based' international order, which is anathama to democracy.

Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me.....

You are right.

I forgot the extra "o".

I throw myself upon the ARFCOM pyre of bad grammar, and await my burning.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Jeebus would never allow a species to go extinct from His Creation!  You are a sinner and will BURN in HELLFIRE for ALL ETERNITY unless you CONFESS!  Be HEALED!  The Sun obviously revolves around the Earth, since God put His Creation at the center of the universe!... Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun Fixed it for you.

Wow! A blatant and uncalled for religious attack!

Color me suprised.....

Bill Lind is all about...Bill Lind.

I read some of his articles about 4GW and generally agreed with them, but he went off the deep end after we invaded Iraq. His articles became more about going after the Neocons and GWB than 4GW theories and their applicability to the modern battlefield. Lind disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq and doomed it to failure, but it seemed like he was more upset that the pentagon was not following HIS gameplan for the GWOT.

Quoted: Quoted: Cliff notes anyone? We have three choices: 'If it feels good, do it.' <--------------stick me in that group 'as-Salamu- 'Alaikum' 'When in the Course of Human Events.....' Eric The(IThinkThisIsWhereWeCameIn)Hun

Good read (took all of 5 minutes) why some need cliff notes is beyond me.  Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me..... You are right. I forgot the extra "o". I throw myself upon the ARFCOM pyre of bad grammar, and await my burning.....

Nahhhh! we ain't that intolerant yet but you will be subjected to immeasurable and continued verbal abuse.

Quoted:

Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit.

That is strange.

In 1840 we didn't have a 'theocracy' here in the United States, nor did we have one at any period in our history, nor, quite frankly, anything remotely resembling a theocracy.

Thanks for your choice, I suppose, of preferring to live under Christian law than Islamic law.

That's pretty much what America has been doing since its Beginning as a Nation.

Eric The(AmericanExceptionalist)Hun

Quoted: Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit.

What sort of activity are you prevented from doing now by some evil, intolerant Christian?

Quoted: Good read (took all of 5 minutes) why some need cliff notes is beyond me.  Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit.

That's the point:

America was founded by a LOT of Christian fundamentalists....and promptly created the 1st ammendment and were the most outspoken watchdogs about religion and government. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (which is twisted to unnatural extremes by certain modern parties...) was to assure them that no national denomination was going to be established in the US as it was in England. They said:

"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter  between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors;"

Fundamentalists Christians like myself are no more inclined to create a theocracy than the fundamentalist Christians around in the 1770s were.

It just isn't something we want.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is far to literate for many on this site. The irony here just kills me..... lit·er·ate: Well-written; polished: a literate essay. Lemme help:   TOO literate

The Spelling Nazi RETURNS! How was the weather in Brazil? Long time no see.

very nice,  its not often you see the word defenestration used in a sentence :)

Thanks ETH (& johnwayne777), Your input is a greatly appreciated light in the sometimes darkness of AR15.COM...

Quoted: very nice,  its not often you see the word defenestration used in a sentence :)

Peradventure, you might define defenestration for those who do not know the meaning?

Quoted: Quoted: Good read (took all of 5 minutes) why some need cliff notes is beyond me.  Any who, if I understand the article correctly, the writer is assuming that the heathen westerner and the crazy Islamic fanatic are going to square off, both will loose and Christianity will raise from the ashes and we will go back to living like it is 1840 and we will have laws on the books making "morality" the law of the land, creating a theocracy?  Well if I have to choose between Islamic law and Christian law, I would choose Christian law, but this atheist would prefer to live his life as he sees fit. That's the point: America was founded by a LOT of Christian fundamentalists....and promptly created the 1st ammendment and were the most outspoken watchdogs about religion and government. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (which is twisted to unnatural extremes by certain modern parties...) was to assure them that no national denomination was going to be established in the US as it was in England. They said: "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter  between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors;" Fundamentalists Christians like myself are no more inclined to create a theocracy than the fundamentalist Christians around in the 1770s were. It just isn't something we want.

And before someone talks about something naughty that Christians did prior to the 1770s, I'd like to point out that religious liberty is a very new idea which was introduced by Christians into the west.  For the first 30,000 years of civilization, religion was and always had been a matter of the state.  One of Caesar's titles was Pontifex Maximus, which was the chief priest of the pagan Roman church.  Every city had gods, and certain rituals and/or sacrifices were required to appease those gods or, it was believed, the gods would punish the entire city.  This is why the ancient Jews punished idolatry, and why the Romans persecuted those same Jews (and later Christians).  When Christianity spread, it grew up in this worldview.  Christianity, from its inception, however, was always much more of a personal religion.  Over time, thinkers influenced by Christianity began to question, and then overturn the idea that religion should be a matter of the state.  By the time of the founding, Christian thought had evolved to the point where religious liberty was zealously protected by the vast majority of Christians.

Quoted: Quoted: very nice,  its not often you see the word defenestration used in a sentence :) Peradventure, you might define defenestration for those who do not know the meaning?

It's death by being thrown from a great height.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: very nice,  its not often you see the word defenestration used in a sentence :) Peradventure, you might define defenestration for those who do not know the meaning? It's death by being thrown from a great height.

I was of the understanding that it was the act of being thrown out of a window

From the French:
Fenetre= window.

I knew a guy who tried to use it in as many sentances as possible. That and "vestigial".