The Catholic Book Club discussion

John made this point elsewhere, but i thought it might be worth its own own thread.

He noted that conflict between different religions was a part of our history and that it shouldn't be avoided or glossed over (paraphrasing).

I agree with that. HOWEVER.....in my view the bigger conflict we are in now is between believers in God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) and militant secularists who want to eradicate belief in all ita forms.

Personally, i feel much more kinship with a devout Muslim who honors Mary and Jesus (albeit in a limited way), prays 5x per day, and loves God with all of his heart than I do with many of my fellow Americans, who either hate God or ignore Him completely.

I'll go even further---at the risk of alienating some of my friends here. Western societies are, at this point in history, organized to promote unbelief while calling it "freedom". In that respect, they are more spiritually dangerous than, say, societies thst follow Sharia law. The latter, properly applied, at least grants specific rights to Christians, while we in the West find ourselves being arrested for the "crime" of praying silently outside of abortion facilities or standing for traditional values.

Andrew wrote: "I'll go even further---at the risk of alienating some of my friends here. Western societies are, at this point in history, organized to promote unbelief while calling it "freedom". In that respect, they are more spiritually dangerous than, say, societies that follow Sharia law. The latter, properly applied, at least grants specific rights to Christians, while we in the West find ourselves being arrested for the "crime" of praying silently outside of abortion facilities or standing for traditional values."

I fully agree with you.

On the other hand, we should define the meaning of the word "conflict." It may have violent connotations, and in that sense I agree it should be avoided. Or it may have other meanings:

a) A conflict of interest (not necessarily violent).
b) A conflict in the family.
et cetera

This is the definition of the word in the Oxford Dictionary:
a situation in which people, groups or countries disagree strongly or are involved in a serious argument

"Strongly" and "serious" do not always have violent connotations.

I think "avoiding conflicts between religions" should be understood in the violent sense of the word.

Andrew wrote: "I agree with that. HOWEVER.....in my view the bigger conflict we are in now is between believers in God (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) and militant secularists who want to eradicate belief in all ita forms.

Personally, i feel much more kinship with a devout Muslim who honors Mary and Jesus (albeit in a limited way), prays 5x per day, and loves God with all of his heart than I do with many of my fellow Americans, who either hate God or ignore Him completely.

I'll go even further---at the risk of alienating some of my friends here. Western societies are, at this point in history, organized to promote unbelief while calling it "freedom". In that respect, they are more spiritually dangerous than, say, societies thst follow Sharia law. The latter, properly applied, at least grants specific rights to Christians, while we in the West find ourselves being arrested for the "crime" of praying silently outside of abortion facilities or standing for traditional values."

I disagree, and here I would say that I agree with Pope Benedict XVI in his speech at Regensburg in which he criticized both faith without reason, citing Islam as the exemplar and noting that it led to irrational violence, and reason without faith, citing modern scientism (my word, not his) as the exemplar, which leads to an empty and hollow life.

The same societies that will arrest you for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic will tolerate mass public Islamic prayer blocking streets, and will jail you if you protest, will ignore or excuse crimes if committed by Muslims, yet punish the victims or those who protest. While there are issues on which moderate Muslims and Christians can agree and work together, in general militant secularists and Islamists have allied in a common opposition to the Christian (Catholic) foundations of Western Civilization. Is there any more powerful demonstration of that alliance than the alphabet people marching in the US in defense of a terrorist organization that would happily slaughter them if they were in Gaza?

My point was based on the lack of any Muslim society that was sufficiently powerful or ascendent that was not also violently expansionist, so I struggled with the depiction of the Caliphate in your book.

John wrote: "The same societies that will arrest you for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic will tolerate mass public Islamic prayer blocking streets, and will jail you if you protest, will ignore or excuse crimes if committed by Muslims, yet punish the victims or those who protest."

So who are worse? Muslims, who at least believe in God, or atheists who think Muslims are their allies because they actually are anti-Christian rather than atheists?

But I think this point was discussed in a different thread (6. Can the Catholic Church have Muslims as allies?) and in particular, in this comment I made there:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...