[Col.Hornet]

Lone Wolf attacks would severely diminish if not outright stop .... if only moderate muslims and especially moderate muslim leadership, i.e. Imams at the very least, would publically take a stand and condemn these things on a large scale, publically denying those people paradise with religious authority and clearly defining what is "islamic behavior" and what is not in a civilized way.

And here's the core of the problem, the hardest nut to crack. Islam as a whole is very fractured and basically not centralized with many factions , some of them opposing each other (victims of Islamic terror are mostly.... Shia Muslims. Usually when something blows up in Iraq... Shias are killed) so there is no common doctrine. In the Catholic Church for example there are clear definitions and pointed goals. Things which the Church stands for. Anything less is outside. Making Islam more like Catholic Church <as an institution> should be a huge step forward. And I certainly wouldn't mind those changes to be triggered here in Europe. Though it's a naive dreaming, at least for now.

 And mind that some things which we call "civilized way" may not be viewed as such by some Muslims. Look here. Your sister goes to the club to have fun, doesn't ask for your permission, does what she wants. You're okay with that. Now the same thing happens in some place in the ME. In most extreme case it could end up with an "honor killing" (Qandeel Baloch, recent case).. Our moralities can be measured by different standards. That's why we have a*****es in the heart of Europe who complain about women that their clothes are not long enough. You say that putting a murderer in a prison will be fine, some Saudi will say that chopping his head off with a sword will be fine.

[karajorma]

Have you learned nothing from the fact the majority of lone wolves have a prior criminal record?

Has he learned nothing from the fact that several of these so-called lone wolf attacks came from people not only known to the security forces but in one case supposedly under house arrest as a threat?

[qwadtep]

Best example: Let the Saudi Grand Mufti (the prime religious authority in Saudi Arabia - you know that reliable "partner" country we sell all those weapons to!) explain to you what ISIS *really* is all about: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/205570

That should really come as no surprise, given that Saudi Arabia is both the breeding ground for and a major financial contributor to Wahhabism, the very ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam that spawns many of these terrorist groups.

[Grizzly]

Lone Wolf attacks would severely diminish if not outright stop .... if only moderate muslims and especially moderate muslim leadership, i.e. Imams at the very least, would publically take a stand and condemn these things on a large scale, publically denying those people paradise with religious authority and clearly defining what is "islamic behavior" and what is not in a civilized way.

And here's the core of the problem, the hardest nut to crack. Islam as a whole is very fractured and basically not centralized with many factions , some of them opposing each other (victims of Islamic terror are mostly.... Shia Muslims. Usually when something blows up in Iraq... Shias are killed) so there is no common doctrine. In the Catholic Church for example there are clear definitions and pointed goals. Things which the Church stands for. Anything less is outside. Making Islam more like Catholic Church <as an institution> should be a huge step forward. And I certainly wouldn't mind those changes to be triggered here in Europe. Though it's a naive dreaming, at least for now.

Thing is, Christianity is also quite fractured and not centralized with a few opposing factions as well ( the Catholic Church is itself a splinter faction and has it's own splinter factions) and Christianity as we know it very much started centralized under Constantine when it was relatively young.

Putting Islam under one big central authority is unlikely to work: First of all, you need one big central authority, and nothing akin to the Roman Empire exists nor is anything like it likely to rise again. Secondly, Constantine had the advantage of being able to utilize christianity when it was still relatively fresh. Islam has already been solidified in it's many forms. The two religions have a very different history, and the way they are now is the result of that history. One can not assume that attempting to do the same to Islam now as constantine did to Christianity 1700 years ago would create a similar result. Or indeed create any result except murder and children crying.

Lastly, I think many a person would argue that a lot of issues have been caused by making the roman church an integral part of the roman empire. One only needs to look at the political meddling of the papal state, the crusades, or lovely events such as the thirty years war to see that attempting to see that institutionalized religion isn't always all that cracked up to be.

[Luis Dias]

Centralizing Islam is impossible, due to theological foundations.

Catholicism is not a "splinter faction", what kind of historical rubbish is that? There were basically two old churches, the catholics and the ortodoxes (who shared communion till the 11th century), and then much later on Lutherism came along and split from catholicism, kickstarting a cambrian explosion of different denominations.

Lastly, what the **** is this about the crusades as if they are this really "bad thing"? I could never understand this utter lack of proportion and perspective. You realize that the "Crusades" were a real timid reaction to the overly aggressiveness of islam imperialism invading europe as if it's made of butter, right? Right?

[FrikgFeek]

Lastly, I think many a person would argue that a lot of issues have been caused by making the roman church an integral part of the roman empire. One only needs to look at the political meddling of the papal state, the crusades, or lovely events such as the thirty years war to see that attempting to see that institutionalized religion isn't always all that cracked up to be.

These have absolutely nothing to do with the Roman church being an integral part of the Roman empire. The crusades happened way after the Roman empire fell and the crusades came purely out of religion and lords of many different nations looking for war rather than any church-state meddling.

There were basically two old churches, the catholics and the ortodoxes (who shared communion till the 11th century), and then much later on Lutherism came along and split from catholicism, kickstarting a cambrian explosion of different denominations.

What kind of historical rubbish is that? In its early days Christianity was very divided due to differences in beliefs about the nature of Christ, you had at least 4 different interpretations as early as Constantine. Otherwise the council of Nicaea would've never happened. There were huge schisms way before the catholic and orthodox split.

Lastly, what the **** is this about the crusades as if they are this really "bad thing"?

Maybe the fact that they killed way more civilians than they did soldiers? Or the fact that most of those civilians were actually Europeans? They sacked way more European cities than they retook holylands.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's true, the Crusades were wars.

[Grizzly]

Centralizing Islam is impossible, due to theological foundations.

Catholicism is not a "splinter faction", what kind of historical rubbish is that? There were basically two old churches, the catholics and the ortodoxes (who shared communion till the 11th century), a

There was only one old church, subdivided into five parts: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These five seats of the pentarchy all were seated by patriarchs (the bishops of those five cities), who answered to the Emperor. It's the Roman bishop who later decided during the East-West schism that he in fact was the ruler of not only the entire church, but that his power was higher then that of any king or emperor. There were already great differences between the Church of Rome and the other four, but the bishop of Rome deciding that he should be the pope is what triggered the schism. As such it's the latin church who broke away from their parent group, making them a splinter faction by definition.

Lastly, I think many a person would argue that a lot of issues have been caused by making the roman church an integral part of the roman empire. One only needs to look at the political meddling of the papal state, the crusades, or lovely events such as the thirty years war to see that attempting to see that institutionalized religion isn't always all that cracked up to be.

These have absolutely nothing to do with the Roman church being an integral part of the Roman empire. The crusades happened way after the Roman empire fell and the crusades came purely out of religion and lords of many different nations looking for war rather than any church-state meddling.

Arguably, no, but it's doubtfull that the Catholic Church would have been as powerfull as they had been or spread as far as they had been if they had not been an integral part of the Roman empire beforehand. The amount of organization that carries the church is enormous and a legacy of it's origins. Had Constantine not done what he did, it's doubtfull that the Catholic Church would have even existed and it's very doubtfull that people would have listened to the pope when he made the call for those crusades, for instance. There is a lot of political backbone that would not have been there otherwise.

You realize that the "Crusades" were a real timid reaction to the overly aggressiveness of islam imperialism invading europe as if it's made of butter, right? Right?

You sure you are not talking about the Reconquista here? The crusades were called 500 years after the overly agressive waves of islam imperialism had ended. The First Crusade was called after the Eastern Roman Empire had called for aid, but the first Crusade also focused on Jerusalem, a city which had not been christian for hundreds of years, and the lands captured were captured for christians, not restored to the ERE.

Europe was not being invaded like it was butter: The reconquista was slowly gaining territory, whilst the turks never managed to actually seize constantinople (At which point they would be inside europe). As such, Islam was actually receding from Europe by the time the crusades were called.

[Luis Dias]

What kind of historical rubbish is that? In its early days Christianity was very divided due to differences in beliefs about the nature of Christ, you had at least 4 different interpretations as early as Constantine. Otherwise the council of Nicaea would've never happened. There were huge schisms way before the catholic and orthodox split.

Fiiiine.

Maybe the fact that they killed way more civilians than they did soldiers? Or the fact that most of those civilians were actually Europeans? They sacked way more European cities than they retook holylands.

Rethorical shenanigans. Yes, wars were not morally up to 21st century standards those days. So the **** what? Can you seriously compare the crusades to what it was generally a response to, the islamic empire expansion? No, you bloody can't. Unless you're not being serious.

Now, do the crusades hold up to the supposed moral high ground from which they spawned? No. That's a ridiculous position to hold as well. But to state that this was this most horrible terrible thing ever is silly. It's historically relevant but not really numerically relevant.

To have some inkling of a perspective: at around 1230-1260 the Khans killed approximately 50 million people in all of their wars. Entire cities were completely obliterated and their people as well. Now that is something you might feel ashamed for. But the crusades? Those ridiculous incursions from a couple hundred of cavalry units? Jesus Christ. Yeah, ****ty things happened. As they happened in every war at the time.

There was only one old church, subdivided into five parts: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These five seats of the pentarchy all were seated by patriarchs (the bishops of those five cities), who answered to the Emperor. It's the Roman bishop who later decided during the East-West schism that he in fact was the ruler of not only the entire church, but that his power was higher then that of any king or emperor. There were already great differences between the Church of Rome and the other four, but the bishop of Rome deciding that he should be the pope is what triggered the schism. As such it's the latin church who broke away from their parent group, making them a splinter faction by definition.

Curious reading of history, but fine I get your point. It's silly though. By that definition, almost everything is a schism and a splinter faction "by definition".

You sure you are not talking about the Reconquista here? The crusades were called 500 years after the overly agressive waves of islam imperialism had ended. The First Crusade was called after the Eastern Roman Empire had called for aid, but the first Crusade also focused on Jerusalem, a city which had not been christian for hundreds of years, and the lands captured were captured for christians, not restored to the ERE.

I'm comparing the "evilness" of the two, given how those are the two actors at play here. It's easy to say that X is evil. By some criteria, everything that happened 600 years ago was horrible. It's a ridiculous acusation. So I'm comparing it to things that actually make sense.

Europe was not being invaded like it was butter: The reconquista was slowly gaining territory, whilst the turks never managed to actually seize constantinople (At which point they would be inside europe). As such, Islam was actually receding from Europe by the time the crusades were called.

Europe was invaded like it was butter. And europeans couldn't do much about it other than retrieve some lands some hundreds of years later. Like Portugal. But they couldn't take "the holy land" for a long time, until they tried to do so with the crusades. Now, we can agree that being "obsessed" with holy lands is a problem that is still today destroying the middle east, but it's not atypical. It's not as if the catholic church was this singular entity that made this horror possible or whatever. No, they were incapable of achieving almost all of their objectives anyway, it wasn't that big a deal as far as wars go.

[Grizzly]

Curious reading of history, but fine I get your point. It's silly though. By that definition, almost everything is a schism and a splinter faction "by definition".

The Great Schism is the name for that historical event and that historical event alone. It's unique in history! It's a clear case of one party rebelling against both established tradition and other people who are of the same rank as his! It is as straight a definition as a definition can be.

You sure you are not talking about the Reconquista here? The crusades were called 500 years after the overly agressive waves of islam imperialism had ended. The First Crusade was called after the Eastern Roman Empire had called for aid, but the first Crusade also focused on Jerusalem, a city which had not been christian for hundreds of years, and the lands captured were captured for christians, not restored to the ERE.

I'm comparing the "evilness" of the two, given how those are the two actors at play here. It's easy to say that X is evil. By some criteria, everything that happened 600 years ago was horrible. It's a ridiculous acusation. So I'm comparing it to things that actually make sense.

But that never was the point. The point was not to say that the crusades are inherently more evil then islamic expansion or whatnot.

The point was that Col. Hornet made the argument that if Islam could be institutionalized it would be a huge step forward. My argument is that Christianity being institutionalized did not prevent various things happening, such as the crusades or the inquisition or the thirty years war. Islam has seen their own jihad and religious presecution and violent wars between different aspects of faith. The level of instutionalization doesn't really matter here, arguably all the difference is that Italian history has been made a lot more interesting (Borgias!).

[Luis Dias]

Curious reading of history, but fine I get your point. It's silly though. By that definition, almost everything is a schism and a splinter faction "by definition".

The Great Schism is the name for that historical event and that historical event alone. It's unique in history! It's a clear case of one party rebelling against both established tradition and other people who are of the same rank as his! It is as straight a definition as a definition can be.

aaaahhhhh you're mixing names now. Check it out.

But that never was the point. The point was not to say that the crusades are inherently more evil then islamic expansion or whatnot.

The point was that Col. Hornet made the argument that if Islam could be institutionalized it would be a huge step forward. My argument is that Christianity being institutionalized did not prevent various things happening, such as the crusades or the inquisition or the thirty years war. Islam has seen their own jihad and religious presecution and violent wars between different aspects of faith. The level of instutionalization doesn't really matter here, arguably all the difference is that Italian history has been made a lot more interesting (Borgias!).

Col Hornet's point is a very widespread point, namely that if you could get one head to manage all this stuff, you could put pressure into this person and make him say the politically correct things and clamp down on every muslim out there, which is something the pope is known to do. If you think this wouldn't be positive because "crusades" and "inquisition", etc., I think you're wrong. Catholicism prevented what otherwise would be a continuous fraticide between christian cells and denominations, something we saw all so clearly in protestant denominations.

However, my point is that this is a fantasy not worth having. For it is completely forbidden in islam to have a "pope" of any kind. At most, you have a Caliph. But in order to have that, you must have a Caliphate. And this is a political enterprise. And no islam country is really with any desire to be under a "Caliph"'s orders nowadays. Nor do they want to call themselves a Caliphate and be hated by all islamic governments that border them. The "Pope" thing was actually quite clever. It allowed the Vatican to hold some secular power but at the same time being able to defer most power to Kings, who in turn got their "Divine Right" as further establishment of their authority.

In essence, the Pope in Vatican was a substitute for the Emperor in Rome, but one who couldn't really muster an army or a policy of his own. But he could unify all christians into some kind of force and somewhat prevent european intra wars. He thus became a "spiritual leader" of the western world, something that the muslims totally lack today. Unless you want to say that the ISIS self proclaimed Caliph is in any way an authority in the wider muslim world.

[Grizzly]

Curious reading of history, but fine I get your point. It's silly though. By that definition, almost everything is a schism and a splinter faction "by definition".

The Great Schism is the name for that historical event and that historical event alone. It's unique in history! It's a clear case of one party rebelling against both established tradition and other people who are of the same rank as his! It is as straight a definition as a definition can be.

aaaahhhhh you're mixing names now. Check it out.

I am?

[Phantom Hoover]

It was undeniably a schism, but to call the Roman Catholic church the 'splinter group' is quite partisan.

[Mikes]

In essence, the Pope in Vatican was a substitute for the Emperor in Rome, but one who couldn't really muster an army or a policy of his own. But he could unify all christians into some kind of force and somewhat prevent european intra wars. He thus became a "spiritual leader" of the western world, something that the muslims totally lack today. Unless you want to say that the ISIS self proclaimed Caliph is in any way an authority in the wider muslim world.

Just as a side note .... part of ISIS appeal/success is that this is exactly what the Caliph is saying about himself.

[Grizzly]

It was undeniably a schism, but to call the Roman Catholic church the 'splinter group' is quite partisan.

You may even say it's a very orthodox view on things . It's just that I put a lot of weight on the papal supremacy doctrine here as a reason for the split.

[Luis Dias]

Curious reading of history, but fine I get your point. It's silly though. By that definition, almost everything is a schism and a splinter faction "by definition".

The Great Schism is the name for that historical event and that historical event alone. It's unique in history! It's a clear case of one party rebelling against both established tradition and other people who are of the same rank as his! It is as straight a definition as a definition can be.

aaaahhhhh you're mixing names now. Check it out.

I am?

My bad I thought you were referring to pre-Nicea schisms.

[Det. Bullock]

It was undeniably a schism, but to call the Roman Catholic church the 'splinter group' is quite partisan.

I've noticed this to be mostly an american thing, I've seen american protestants even stating that catholics aren't christians, really what is it with religious fanaticism in one of the first illuministic countries in the world?
I mean, I've never met a catholic priest that would never say anything like that about protestants here in Italy, can't vouch for american catholics though, americans seem to have fundamentalism in their blood.

[Mika]

Alrighty, Mika is back in the town after a vacation and a conference. A conference in Germany that is.

Very interestingly, I noted that Germany has now deployed Bundeswehr to assist with the refugees so so much for that being an unrealistic and ridiculous proposal.

The Ansbach incident happened some 80 km away from the conference venue, though I didn't feel particularly stressed about it. Knew it could happen when I left Finland. The security was the tightest in Frankfurt airport I have seen in Germany, with clear visible police presence everywhere. Hopefully that Formula 1 cup goes without a hitch.

Then a couple of general notes: younger Middle Eastern taxi drivers did not want to disclose their origins. It's quite interesting, as the older ones did. I haven't seen that before in Germany, most of the foreign origin taxi drivers said their country of origin without hicups. And yes I do speak German, but not well enough to impersonate a German national.

There seems to have been a razzia to mosque in Germany, just forgot which city it was. It's about time they started to do something like that. I mean, raids to mosque yielded only automatic weapons and hand grenades in France and Sweden. At least it is now possible to rule out or determine the role of the mosques as a hub of extremism. What is still missing are disguised informants and agents, they will still be needed.

Apparently, Merkel has finally taken it seriously that the refugee crisis really is not black and white she made it out to be. She got Germany into a mess, and now starts to take active steps to pull it out of it. Whether that is enough to get her re-elected remains to be seen. She'll likely not apologize Hungary, but the way Germany handles this is probably going to rise some Told you so's from Hungarians.

Finally, I think the big discord between the participants in this discussion is coming from that Eastern Europeans see the refugee waves as the equal of the immigration waves that brought down Rome (and a couple of other civilizations), while Central Europeans see the extremism as policing problem and compare that to home bred terrorism as was the case with IRA.

Also, tonight at eleven

(Those who did not get the reference, this is related to the EU decision of whether to bail out the Italian bank or not. Decision is scheduled to be broadcast 23.00 Finnish time, Friday. On the advent of Central and Southern European summer vacations. Hmmmm)

[Mongoose]

I am?

The term "Great Schism" is also commonly used to refer to the messy multiple-popes business in the 14th and 15th centuries.  That's pretty much exclusively how I heard the term used during my Catholic schooling years.  Amusingly enough, I'd also never heard of the Pentarchy  until you brought it up, and as you noted upon further research it seems to be very much an Eastern-pushed concept, which I suppose would explain why we didn't look at things that way.

[NGTM-1R]

You realize that the "Crusades" were a real timid reaction to the overly aggressiveness of islam imperialism invading europe as if it's made of butter, right? Right?

You have that kind of backwards, considering that in the area the Crusades were actually directed, Muslims did not invade Europe until after the last of the Crusades managed to wreck the remainder of the Byzantine Empire so badly that the Muslims got in. They were really a series of elaborate favors to the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Pope, which then misfired horribly because the Crusaders decided to ignore the Byzantine Empire as the local power that could have helped them hold what they took.

The situation in Spain and Portugal was something that does not appear to have factored into the process that lead to the Crusades.