Quotations

“The Christian Example for Modernizing Islam”

by

Kevin Madigan revisits a theme that is anathema to many on the Right but deserves serious consideration:

As Pope Francis recently remarked, reflecting this relatively new attitude of tolerance and pluralism, “Each individual must be free, alone or in association with others, to seek the truth, and to openly express his or her religious convictions, free from intimidation.” It has been said, and not without reason, that the church changed more from 1960-2000 than in the previous millennium. Yet even today, outside Western Europe and the U.S., predominantly Christian states—Russia and Uganda, for instance—have notoriously repressive laws.
 
All of this is to say that traditionalist Islamic states and Muslims have not, historically speaking, had a monopoly on authoritarianism, violence against apostates, the wholesale rejection of religious pluralism, and the manipulation of religion to realize political agendas. But in the same sad set of facts lies some good news: The startling changes experienced by Western churches over the past several centuries suggest that similar changes might occur within the world of Islam.

Madigan’s piece is worth reading in full.

Bernard Lewis pointed out that the fascist authoritarianism we take for granted in today’s Arab world is itself a European import. Who’s to say that the direction of future political changes there must be negative.

One strong takeaway from this analysis is that the West should support Muslim moderates and modernisers. We don’t do that consistently, which may be an indirect cause of the Middle East’s current dire condition.

Sound Familiar?

by

From “Raw Materials for War” by John Steele Gordon:

Still, many thought that globalization made war between the great powers impossible. In 1909, the British journalist Norman Angell wrote an internationally best-selling book, “The Great Illusion,” that argued that financial interdependence and the great growth in credit made war self-defeating, since it would result in financial ruin for both victor and vanquished.
 
Angell was dead wrong. (Oddly, it didn’t prevent him from winning the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize.) Extensive trade and financial relations did not stop Germany from declaring war on both Britain and Russia, its two largest trading partners, in 1914.

(Gordon is reviewing When Globalization Fails by James Macdonald.)

A couple of thoughts:

-“When globalization fails” might not be the best title. The real theme of the book appears to be complacency and overconfidence.

-The fact that China holds large amounts of US debt and is economically intertwined with the West may not be proof against war.

Anything is possible, and sometimes the odds aren’t what they appear to be.

Quote of the Day

by

What has changed for the Jewish people over the past 75 years isn’t that we have ceased to love the countries where we live. It is that we are no longer compelled to bet—with our lives—that our love will be requited.

From: “Two Scenes From the Grand Synagogue of Paris: Netanyahu, the French national anthem, and what it all means” in Tablet Magazine.

(Via William A. Jacobson)

Department of Unintentional Irony

by

House Minority Whip: DC has undermined confidence for too many years:

Congress has been undermining confidence among the private sector for too many years, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said on Friday, referring to comments from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers earlier on CNBC that confidence in and of itself is an economic booster.
 
“For instance, [the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act] was allowed to expire. The good thing we did with over 415 votes was to approve it this week. Frankly, we could have done that six months ago, and we…

Now he tells us!

To which Party does Rep. Hoyer belong, and which Party has done more to undermine business confidence over the past decade by systematically increasing taxation and regulation as a matter of governing philosophy?

Oh, and which Party is about to take control of Congress?

Quote of the Day

by

The conclusion of Progressives and Disorder, a WSJ editorial:

The final two years of the Obama Presidency will thus be the most dangerous since the end of the Cold War as the world’s rogues calculate how far they can go before a successor enters the White House in 2017. A bipartisan coalition in Congress may be able to limit some of the damage, but the first step toward serious repair is understanding how Mr. Obama’s progressive foreign policy has contributed to the growing world disorder.

Interesting times ahead.