While Europe Slept
In 1998 Bruce Bawer moved from America, his homeland, to Europe. Stunned by the accepting attitudes of Europeans, and dismayed by much of what he had experienced in the United States, he moved first to Holland and then to Norway. But all was not as it had seemed. “The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters…Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me [as a homosexual] marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamental Muslim view that homosexuals merited death” (33).
While Europe Slept documents the mounting evidence indicating that radical Islam is destroying the West from within. Massive Islamic immigration to Europe has changed the face of the continent, leading to the likelihood that the Europe of the future will bear no resemblance to the Europe of the past. He found throughout Europe rapidly-expanding Muslim enclaves in which “women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, ‘infidels’ threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.” In short, he found Muslims in Europe carrying on the religious traditions of their homelands. Disturbingly, many of these Muslim people despise the nations they have chosen to live in and look forward to the day when they will be able to form a majority and institute the sharia law. Many of them, even those who have lived in Europe for several generations, have made no attempt to integrate with the new cultures and may not even speak the language of the nations they live in. European press and politicians have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. Many of those who have dared to stand up against this have found themselves vilified as bigots. Many have been killed.
Europe, it seems, is coasting gleefully towards cultural suicide. To prove this, Bawer first examines Europe prior to 9/11, saying that at this time Europe was in denial. He then turns to the post-9/11 world and shows how blame for these attacks quickly shifted to America and Jews. The final section is ominously titled “Europe’s Weimar Moment: The Liberal Resistance and Its Prospects.”
Within Europe is a swiftly growing Muslim presence that threatens the entire continent. With the growth in numbers comes a growth in strength and militancy. Realistic estimates seem to indicate that it will only take another twenty or thirty years before Muslims become a majority in many European nations. There seems to be a deliberate movement to swiftly populate the continent. Bawer discusses a study which examined a group of 145 Turkish men who immigrated to Denmark as guest workers in 1969 and 1970. “By the year 2000…the importation of spouses and other family members, combined with a high fertility rate, had turned this group of 145 into a community of 2,813. Those who had married had all married Turkish women whom they brought over to Denmark under ‘family reunification.’ Some of these men were later divorced or widowed and then remarried, again to Turkish women. Three married yet a third time—and again, in each case, the wife was a Turkish import. The rate of ‘fetching marriages’ among this group, then, was over 100 percent, while the average number of children per family was 6.4—several times the overall Danish average (181).” The second and third generations of these families continued to marry spouses imported from abroad and largely refused to integrate with Danish society.
Through case after case, example after example, Bawer builds his argument. And it is a convincing argument. Europe is in trouble.
I was reasonably impressed with Bawer’s perspective on American politics. For a man who has made a career out of complaining about America, and for a man who is notable for his advocacy of homosexuality, his perspective on American politics was surprisingly balanced. The mere fact that he would write a book such as this attests that he is far more conservative than we might expect. While clearly not a lover of George W. Bush, he seemed to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. At the very least, he respects Bush for his resolve and his desire to solve a growing problem. He has nothing but ridicule for Michael Moore. Despite having left America, Bawer clearly loves his homeland and continues to believe in what America stands for.
While this book is long on diagnosis, it is somewhat short on cure. Of course a problem of this magnitude cannot be quickly or easily solved. Nor can it be solved by stooping to acts of barbarism. Bawer points approvingly to some of the stop-gap solutions adopted by various European nations, such as deporting particularly militant imams and forbidding “fetching marriages” for anyone under a certain age. He proposes a few of his own, though unfortunately they are not exhaustive. He does, however, point to the clear need for strong leaders, men like Winston Churchill, who have the strength and resolve to deal with such a situation. He suggests that European nations must seek to integrate immigrants rather than simply allowing them to immigrate and then allowing and even encouraging them to isolate themselves. One of the great ironies in this book is that the most obvious and surely the most effective cure for the dominance of Islam is for Europeans to increase their birthrate and produce larger families. And yet Bawer is a homosexual who lives in a country with one of the world’s lowest birthrates. He cannot be part of this solution.
One worthwhile reflection that comes near the end of the book deals with Islam and democracy. Bawer reflects on whether or not it is possible for Islam and democracy to co-exist. Clearly the U.S. government believes it is possible, for they have helped build democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, many people are not convinced that these governments can withstand the Koran which seems to indicate that democracy stands opposed to the Muslim faith.
As the reader works his way through this book, he’ll have to note the clear parallels between the situation today and the situation prior to the Second World War. There is a strengthening presence in Europe that is opposed to freedom. This may be a case in which those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The author brings this parallel to the forefront. “Now, once again, Europe is at a Weimar moment. Poised between the aggressive reality of Isalmism and the danger of an incipient native neo-fascism, it is governed by an elite, many of whose members, even now, remain determined not to face reality. The spectacular failure of integration has brought some nations to the verge of social chaos and is leading others steadily in that direction; and European leaders, unwilling to shake off their faith in multiculturalism and the welfare state, are spending ever-increasing sums to subsidize and deepen that failure, thus leading their nations inexorably toward economic ruin as well” (233).
“In the end,” he says, “Europe’s enemy is not Islam, or even radical Islam. Europe’s enemy is itself—its self-destructive passivity, its softness towards tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease, and its uncomprehending distaste for America’s pride, courage, and resolve in the face of a deadly foe” (233).
If Europe is to survive this impending crisis, she must take action. There is still time to act deliberately and rationally. But if Europe continues to sleep, she will eventually awake only to find that she has been overrun. While Europe Slept is a solid contribution to the growing discussion on this subject. It is alarming without being alarmist. I trust that it will alert more people to a problem that must be dealt with, for time may just be growing short.




Comments (37) »
1. Jim
July 4, 2006
11:13 AM
Whoah…Tim. Taking advice from a sodomite?
While it’s true he may be able to see a difference between Europe and America, to curry his advice is tantamount to disaster.
Since when was a deviant homosexual American better than a radical fundamentalist muslim?
The only answer for hope lies in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of changed lives to impact a lost and decaying world.
God bless, Jim
2. Jesse
July 4, 2006
11:22 AM
Isn’t it bizarre how a thousand years ago Europeans were desparately fighting wars to keep Muslims from moving in, and now Muslims are overrunning the continent without using much force at all? It’s very scary that Europeans of the Dark Ages better understood the threat of radical Islam than modern, educated, ‘progressive’ Europeans do. Where is Charles Martel when you need him?
3. Tim Challies
July 4, 2006
11:46 AM
“Taking advice from a sodomite?”
I’m not sure how his being homosexual impacts his ability to present fact about Islam. To write-off this book based on his sexual preference seems a mite strange to me.
“Since when was a deviant homosexual American better than a radical fundamentalist muslim?”
Never did I compare them and judge one better than the other. Nor would I, as they are in entirely different categories.
4. Lin
July 4, 2006
12:03 PM
That’s right. One of them would have no qualms beheading you in public for being an infidel.
5. david
July 4, 2006
12:05 PM
Let’s keep on topic with this. The topic is the content of the book.
6. The Aspiring Theologian
July 4, 2006
12:16 PM
when I first saw the picture of the book on Mr. Challies’ page, I thought it was a book on WWII. Now I see it is on Islam. Most interesting.
7. Jim
July 4, 2006
2:04 PM
The topic is this:
A homosexual tired of being confronted about his sin decides to move to Europe seeking the ultimate liberal utopia. However he is dismayed to find that the religion of Islam has made signifcant inroads in the decadent culture of Europe to the point where he feels threatened for his life.
He then decides to write a book portraying the passive state of secular Europe thereby hoping to stir up passions against the militancy of Islam. His goal of a humanistic live and let live mentality has been sidetracked by the threat of Sharia law and culture.
Hoping to engender the support of a drugged North American culture he writes a book about the horrors of Islam, citing examples of civil injustices.
The stunning reality is that without probably knowing it, this man has revealed the stark differences between the religion of Islam and the Christian faith. While one purports conversion at the end of a gun or sword, the other seeks peace and salvation through the mercy and patience of Christ.
Now, the author would have us to believe that a society where all views are tolerated as equal and every lifestyle is respected as valid is far better than one where opposing lifestyles are persecuted. No doubt he would, he doesn’t want his life endangered.
Here in lies the problem; we christians have accepted a pluralistic society as the norm and ever surrender ground to more and more deviant behaviour.
Now in all honesty, the sodomite and the muslim are not our enemies. Our only true enemy is Satan and his hosts. Jesus Christ shed His blood not only for the American but for the muslim, the sodomite, and any other category of person there is. To take sides in an effort to save our skin is simply to temporarily postpone the inevitable.
Now is the time for us to stand and declare the truth as it is in Jesus.
8. Johnny T. Helms
July 4, 2006
2:21 PM
Tim,
Your book “review” was excellent. I just pray that the author’s next book isn’t “While America Slept.”
9. Tim Challies
July 4, 2006
2:25 PM
“I just pray that the author’s next book isn’t “While America Slept.”“
Part of the author’s argument, which I did not get into all that much, is that European countries keep immigrants on the sidelines, seeing them more as charity cases then as members of society. They deliberately keep them feeling like outsiders. America, on the other hand, is the great melting pot where everyone is expected to chase the American dream, working hard and bettering society. So I don’t think most of the book’s argument would apply to America. Thankfully. Canada, however, may be different as we are a little more like the Europeans. The difference is that I don’t think the U.S. would allow us to fall as far as many European nations…
10. david
July 4, 2006
2:59 PM
Actually, Tim, this book’s argument applies all too well to America. Multi-culturalism and diversity are the new virtues here. Attempts to maintain our “melting-pot” status are condemned as bigotry. Immigrants are increasingly not melting, but maintaining their own cultural identities. Your discription of America was true in the past, and still is to a large extent, but we are slowly slipping away from our national identity.
11. Jim Crigler
July 4, 2006
3:17 PM
Tim —-
Was there anything in the book about the impact of the European Union as an entity? Intuitively, I sense the notion of united Europe may be important, since “united” must mean “no culture is superior.” Or do the two things merely result from the same cause?
12. Tim Challies
July 4, 2006
3:20 PM
“this book’s argument applies all too well to America. Multi-culturalism and diversity are the new virtues here.”
Well there you go. I guess there are lessons for America to learn.
“Was there anything in the book about the impact of the European Union as an entity?”
There is some. I got a bit lost in some of the discussion about the EU since I don’t know a whole lot about it. But clearly the EU has had some role to play in all of this.
13. michael
July 4, 2006
4:40 PM
“this book’s argument applies all too well to America. Multi-culturalism and diversity are the new virtues here.”
Actually, the vast majority of the newer immigrants to the USA are relatively more conservative and more Christian than the proponents (read ‘liberal’) of multiculturism and diversity. Statistically, these newer immigrants are assimilating at the same rates as immigrants to the USA have historically.
I am often amused at the complaints that the newer immigrants have Spanish language newspapers and other media and speak Spanish at home. My father and mother were third generation Poles. They spoke Polish at home. When I was growing up and visited, all of the relatives of their generation spoke Polish and my grandparents celebrated Mass in Polish and read Polish language newspapers.
Europe has never had a history of assimilation. Moreover, the reason the USA succeeded with assimiliation was not that it was a morally superior society. We had to sacrifice over 1 million soldiers just to eliminate legal slavery. New immigrants from any country other than England (even the Scottish and Welsh and Irish were discriminated against) were always discriminated against and held in contempt. Jews were ghettoized more severely than in many European countries.
Assimilation occurs in the USA because we have so many different groups and ethnicities that eventually it becomes impossible to discriminate against all of them at once. The Irish were initially the lowest of the low in Boston. Now they run the place. There are many, many examples of this.
14. Jerry Morningstar
July 4, 2006
5:49 PM
Great book review Tim. At bottom - every man wants a just and safe world to live in. God tells us we will not have that apart from Him and listening to His Word. We sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Someone should probably write a book on ‘While America Slept’ - over the ‘success’ of the homosexual movement in America. Although - David Kupelian has done a fairly good job in ‘The Marketing of Evil’. Thanks for the review.
15. 2e
July 4, 2006
6:04 PM
I’d be interested to know what you think of this.
16. Tim Challies
July 4, 2006
8:04 PM
“David Kupelian has done a fairly good job in ‘The Marketing of Evil’.”
He has. I reviewed that a few months ago.
17. Brian Thornton
July 4, 2006
11:46 PM
I’m not sure how his being homosexual impacts his ability to present fact about Islam. To write-off this book based on his sexual preference seems a mite strange to me.
Tim, I’m not sure what benefit a Christian can derive from spending time reading a book whose author is such a vocal rejector of Christ analyzing the ills of a country, and coming up with Christless solutions.
You say that to write off this book based on his sexual preference seems a mite strange to you…I say that your recommendation of this book and providing a link to purchase it seems rather strange to me.
Surely believers can better spend their time reading something else…the Bible, perhaps? Seriously, what benefit can be gotten from reading the opinions of a man without Christ concerning topics of religion and government?
Does a Chrisitan world view not mean anything anymore?
18. Bibliomaniac
July 5, 2006
12:15 AM
Brian and Jim: Do you read the newspaper? Watch the TV news? Follow the news on the Internet? Chances are, the majority of reporters and anchors you read/watch are nonbelievers offering commentary on what’s happening in the world.
How are those any different from Tim’s reading of this book, which also happens to be written by a nonbeliever? The standard to which you are holding Tim would require that you yourselves abstain from taking in any social or political commentary from unbelievers.
Sure, it’s great to develop a perspective from a Christian worldview. But much of what we Christians develop in terms of worldview is based upon the research and observations of unbelievers around us.
Is there a strongly biblical Christian teacher you can point to who has taken the time to observe and comment on the specific issues Bruce Bawer examines in his book? To the depth that Bruce Bawer has?
We as Christians have two choices: Totally ignore the learned observations of nonbelievers as we build and defend our biblical worldview, or examine the learned observations of nonbelievers to see what we as Christians can do to be more effective citizens.
Chuck Colson is a prime example of a believer who regularly interacts with secular opinion to help sharpen a Christian’s thinking on issues facing our world today. There are a number of things on which I don’t agree with Colson, but I sure don’t fault him for analyzing secular thinking so that we as Christians can think of appropriate bblical responses to secular thinking.
19. Bibliomaniac
July 5, 2006
12:23 AM
In my previous post I said, “But much of what we Christians develop in terms of worldview is based upon the research and observations of unbelievers around us. “
Before anyone misunderstands what I’m saying here, I’m going to restate this more clearly: Our Christian worldview should be anchored in and based completely upon God’s Word alone. And as issues arise in the world around us, it is important for us to properly understand those issues so that we can then determine a proper biblical response for those issues. Part of understanding those issues, of course, comes with the help of paying attention to what knowledgeable individuals have observed. It’s not necessary for a person to be a believer to be qualified to offer commentary on, say, an immigration-related issue, as Bruce Bawer has done. I as a believer can then take that information and say, “According to the Christian worldview, based on God’s Word, an appropriate response to the immigration problem would be…(insert response here).”
20. gerard charmley
July 5, 2006
5:31 AM
As far as taking advice from a homosexual is concerned, we note that Balaam’s ass gave good advice.
21. Brian Thornton
July 5, 2006
8:21 AM
Do you read the newspaper? Watch the TV news? Follow the news on the Internet? Chances are, the majority of reporters and anchors you read/watch are nonbelievers offering commentary on what’s happening in the world.
biblio…
Do you seriously equate listening to a news report or reading a brief news article on the internet or newspaper equal with reading a 256 page book from a person who is so against the absolute truth of God’s word?
This man is NOT just giving an objective synopsis of some event…
Is this really the kind of book that the Christian should be devoting time to reading? How about his other works? When are we going to see a review on the following from Bawer:
Stealing Jesus : How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity
or, how about Bawer’s other book:
Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society
-This one doesn’t really need any explanation, does it?
Oh, and let’s not forget this one too from Bawer:
BEYOND QUEER : Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy
Really…how can one seriously justify recommending an author like this to Christians?
Some select individuals, like Colson, may be called (or maybe not) to spend some of their time reading and analyzing the likes of a Bruce Bawer…but ALL Christians in general? Are you serious???
22. Bibliomaniac
July 5, 2006
8:38 AM
Brian: Yes, I am equating the two. The only difference between the two is the length of time required to intake the information. Qualitatively, the two are essentially the same. The only difference between my two examples is quantitative.
And your comment on Colson demonstrates you perceive the matter of some type of calling? So if I don’t have this special calling, I’m prohibited from examining social and political commentary?
I read the editorial page in my local newspaper, with commentary from mostly nonbelieving intellectuals, not to shape my worldview, but to understand what is going on. I am NOT one of those who believe Christians should be political activists and that reform will come through a social or political gospel. But I do believe Christians should be well-informed, and many today, sadly, are not. They fall flat on their faces in their discussions with their secular friends because they just don’t know the issues.
All I’m pointing out is that you’re establishing a standard that puts a Christian in murky waters. Bawer’s expertise on immigration doesn’t require he be a Christian to comment on the matter, much like your local mechanic isn’t required to be a Christian to tell you what’s wrong with your car. As for Bawer’s other books—that’s a different matter. We’re no longer talking quantitatively, but quantitatively. He’s going into an area in which we as Christians should take a firm “biblical worldview” stance.
23. Tim Challies
July 5, 2006
9:10 AM
Brian - I did not endorse the author. Therefore, I would not expect people to run off and buy his other books and sit at his feet to learn from him a worldview.
And you know what? I think I’d like to read “Stealing Jesus : How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity.” I’m sure I wouldn’t agree with much (or, more likely, any) of it, but I still think it would be interesting. I find it a worthwhile endeavor to occasionally read such books.
“Really…how can one seriously justify recommending an author like this to Christians?”
I did not recommend the author. I recommended the book. I think it comes down to this. If you read only one book a year, I wouldn’t suggest reading a book like this. But if you read a fair bit and like to mix your reading, I think it is a worthwhile title. I am not responsible to tell readers which books they should or should not read…I merely provide commentary on the books that I happen to read.
24. Josh Kidwell
July 5, 2006
9:47 AM
Tim and all
Once again a great article—though one of the scariest things I’ve read in awhile. Two things I’d like to point out here. One, if my house was on fire in the middle of the night and a gay man in drag was beating on the door to wake me up I’d still be grateful and get out—I wouldn’t stay in the house just because he was gay. Secondly, this sort of thing is why we have brains folks. If you want to read the book read it knowing who wrote it and that his perspective might be a little skewed and remember that the Bible is the only book you can actually take completely as it is. Everything else you have to continually be on your guard to make sure it measures up.
Use your head to guard your heart. Watch for the times are evil.
Press on! Josh
25. Bibliomaniac
July 5, 2006
10:09 AM
Whoops. In my last post, I typed “We’re no longer talking quantitatively, but quantitatively.”
That should be “We’re no longer talking quantitatively, but qualitatively.”
26. Brian Thornton
July 5, 2006
2:31 PM
“I did not recommend the author. I recommended the book.”
That’s a rather fine splitting of hairs, isn’t it? Sorta like recommending a particular car without recommending the car’s manufacturer. How do you separate the two?
“I am not responsible to tell readers which books they should or should not read…I merely provide commentary on the books that I happen to read.”
If you think that you don’t have a responsibility to use great care in what you review and recommend, then you are sadly fooling yourself, Tim. You have a following, and you have worked hard to gain that following. To casually brush this off with, “I am not responsible”, seems to me to be rather irresponsible.
People listen to you, and they react to the things you say and do, including the reading of books. And when you recommend a book, and provide a link to that book which puts money in your pocket when people click on that affiliate link when they make a purchase of that book, then you are doing more than providing commentary on a book that you happen to have read.
To whom much has been given, MUCH is required…or, for all you out there who prefer to be more culturally relevant than the Bible, let me quote from Spiderman…”With great power comes great responsibility.”
You have great power, Tim. I pray you use it responsibly…
27. Bibliomaniac
July 5, 2006
4:01 PM
Brian, you’re right that people listen to Tim. And if they “listened” to his book review, they will have noted that Tim’s book review included these words about Bruce Bawer:
“For a man who has made a career out of complaining about America, and for a man who is notable for his advocacy of homosexuality, his perspective on American politics was surprisingly balanced.”
Tim was forthright about where Bruce Bawer stands. In fact, those words serve nicely as a “warning label on the package,” so to speak.
In this way the review was responsible.
You went on to state, “for all you out there who prefer to be more culturally relevant than the Bible, let me quote from Spiderman…”With great power comes great responsibility.”
Who’s trying to be more culturally relevant? I think you’re mixing up cultural literacy with cultural relevancy. That a Christian is endeavoring to be well informed does not mean he’s trying to be culturally relevant. We as Christians should equip ourselves to explain to nonbelievers why the biblical worldview is the right alternative and makes sense. To do so is not the same as selling out to contemporary culture.
28. Renee
July 5, 2006
4:31 PM
Great review Tim.
I had heard about the book AND OTHERS by OTHER authors who may be believers or not (they don’t really say) that deal with the SAME TOPIC. The islamification of the western world without using a weapon.
It is interesting that a homosexual American wrote this book but only for the reason that he is seeing something different about Christians (and perhaps someone will share the real gospel of Jesus Christ with him through all of this…we don’t kow… we can only pray…the point is, some misconceptions he had were blown away). Prior to going to Europe he may have believed the prevailing thought in America of everyone beliefs are relevant and the same….Islam is a peaceful relgion…we worship the same God (according to GW sometimes in his politcal speeches…who knows).
I agree with the commenter who said “we note that Balaam’s ass gave good advice.”
29. Jerry Morningstar
July 5, 2006
7:17 PM
I personally find humor in the fact that a homosexual who thought america was not ‘progressive’ enough for him - went to look for somewhere else to live and found it wasn’t so bad here after all. The reality is that all types enjoy many freedoms in this country - because of a biblical morality that respected inalienable rights of man. Granted, our country’s biblical morality has vastly eroded - and with its departure so goes other freedoms that mean something to Christians. Perhaps homosexuals will realize Christian values aren’t so bad after all. We may call them sinners but we’ll let them live.
Also - let Tim run his own website. Good grief.
Do we all have to play Holy Spirit for each other?
30. Brian Thornton
July 5, 2006
10:27 PM
“Also - let Tim run his own website. Good grief.”
Who is not letting Tim run his own website? Tim…is someone not letting you run your site as you would like? Has someone hacked into your site and taken control?
“Do we all have to play Holy Spirit for each other?”
Wow…Jerry, I guess it is alright for you to disagree and comment about it, but not for those others who may hold to a different opinion from yours or Tim’s.
31. Alex Chediak
July 6, 2006
1:58 AM
Brian (and perhaps others),
It seems you do not have an adequate appreciation for the goodness of religious pluralism. Christians everywhere should be the BIGGEST advocates for pluralism. I want to be able to get in the face of atheist and homosexual neighbors and friends and plead with them in tears that they are lost sinners headed for eternal, conscious torment in hell. And I also would give my life to support their freedom to practice atheism, homosexuality, even Islam, in a way that does not threaten the freedom and safety of others. And they must be allowed to tell me they think I’m going to hell, too.
I do not need the state to give Christianity an “advantage” in the public forum; the Holy Spirit and the historic veracity of our faith are fully capable and sufficient to persuade sinners. Christians SHOULD seek to apply their moral standards in the political and social spheres, speaking out on matters that pertain to the common good such as abortion and the meaning of marriage. But this author’s credibility is enhanced by the fact that he is a homosexual and not just another conservative Christian ranting against Islam. You see, this author recognizes what I hope is clearly understood by even the vilest of sinners: Christianity advances very differently than Islam. We humbly pursuade (not seeking to limit freedom), whereas their leaders would seek to use the sword (the severest curtailment of freedom). Being mocked and killed is how Christ brought salvation to us; Mohammed killed others instead. John Piper has a great article called “Being mocked, the essence of Christ’s work, not Mohammad’s” which I highly recommend.
32. Philippa
July 6, 2006
6:49 AM
Bawer’s book sounds like scaremongering.
Let’s look at the scary facts first. 13% of British Muslims apparently think that the 7/7 bombings were justified. That makes me sad and angry, and it should alarm our government deeply. Obviously a significant portion of our Muslim population feel isolated, angry and defensive. This is worrying, but let’s look at the percentage again. 13%. Yes, of course it’s too high. But it’s still a long, long way from the 1 million Muslims in Britain - in a population of 60 million - wanting to take Britain over, impose Sharia law on Parliament, etc.
We have no cause to be complacent but let’s not be paranoid either. The moderate Muslims living next door are NOT my enemies, and I cannot afford to start regarding them as such. That way madness lies. Let’s leave the madness and paranoia (and racism) to Osama and his ilk, shall we?
Tomorrow is the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings here in London. We’ve lived with terrorism for a very long time. Before Al-Quaeda, there was the IRA.
Bawer pontificates:
Europe’s enemy is itself—its self-destructive passivity, its softness towards tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease, and its uncomprehending distaste for America’s pride, courage, and resolve in the face of a deadly foe.
heaves impatient sigh Yes, yes. America is the world’s knight in shining armour and Europe is the anti-knight. I like America, and have visited the country a number of times, but I believe that the world is more complex and murky than Bawer’s jingoistic fervour would allow for. Guantanamo Bay is an example of America’s pride, courage and resolve in the face of a deadly foe, is it? snorts
I agree with Bawer on one thing: integration is essential.
However, I still think this is scaremongering. It makes for good headlines, but the realities are more complex.
I think that commentators like Bawer underestimate the power of secularism. If militant Islam really does want to colonise Europe, it might have a tougher battle on its hands than it reckons.
33. Jerry Morningstar
July 6, 2006
7:29 AM
Brian - I think you’re going beyond disagreement to making moral judgments. You have told a brother in Christ that he is acting irresponsibly - that there are better ways to use his time, etc.
Why not write World mag and tell them to quit wasting so much time reviewing books and music, etc?
Tell - them they should be more spiritual and just reiterate the Bible.
That’s not what God has called them to do
I don’t think you are in a position to speak to these issues. I see a lot of youthful immaturity - that someday - if you are a true believer - you will look back on in regret.
Zeal is a great thing - but use it cautiously
James 3:1
34. Brian Thornton
July 6, 2006
7:54 AM
Jerry, go back and read your comments about me written to me, and then go back and read my comments to Tim and others…I think that it is YOU who is the one making moral judgments.
You have not portrayed my comments accurately at almost every turn, and now you presume to question my maturity and salvation.
I have made NO judgments upon Tim, but rather a plea to be careful with what he recommends to others…for that I will NOT regret, now or in the future.
When you make comments such as the ones in your last post, you end up doing the very thing of which you accuse others of doing…
35. david
July 6, 2006
11:16 AM
OK folks, one more reminder to stay on topic.
The topic is: Do you agree or not with the content of the book While Europe Slept as Tim has presented it?
36. Jerry Morningstar
July 6, 2006
12:54 PM
Brian - that’s fine - I didn’t expect you to agree with me. Just something to think about. Do with it what you want
37. susan
July 8, 2006
6:14 AM
I must admit I am quite intrigued by Tim’s review and am considering reading the book. Yes I do read widely - currently reading “An Ordinary Man - The True Story Behind Hotel RWanda” by Paul Rusesabagina. I don’t believe that the an author sould be disregarded just because he is a sinner. One must read using one’s God given brain. If we have been given intellectual and discernment capacities then we should use them to remain pure and blameless. Likewise if reading this book is going to cause you to sin then flee from it. For me I think it may increase my understanding insight and discernment in an area in which I already have interest.