Moderate anything is not any intelectual position or interpretation as such

Submitted by Dhavar (Spain), Sep 8, 2010 at 10:48

What means "moderate" when referred to a moral-religious-political code? Well, simply being "lax"-in its strict original theological sense- about it, letting it drop down partially or almost totally out of daily life practical concerns or not being sufficiently convinced about its true and validity,and having many doubts on the subject.

Therefore being MODERATE ABOUT ANY DOCTRINE -whether secular or sacred- IT IS NOT AND NEVER COULD BE ANY THESIS, EXEGESIS OR INTELECTUAL VIEWPOINT but, on the contrary, it is a pragmatic blur. A doctrine may die from stagnation when it does not get sufficiently strict adherents to its tenets.BUT DOES MEANS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED, simply ignored.

Why no one in the 1940's cried about the creation of a moderate NAZISM OR BOLSHEVISM?

Because our forefathers still new something about the historical dynamics of doctrines and human orders and where not as stupid as we are. Go back to french revolution and then onwards and see who is always the winner.

The only possibility lies in the complete refutation and intelectual full destruction of such a monstrous and insane doctrine as ISLAM. The doctrine, not the people who adhere to the doctrine. So, being agaisnt ISLAM, NAZISM OR SOVIET STATE means being absolutely agaisnt any muslim, nazi or sovietist "qua" nazi, mulim or sovietist. And that´s all falks.

... go and read again "The Clouds" of Aristofanes.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".