cnt faitlis might come together in harmony, perhaps to watchrnschool plays or see children unwrap presents. He recognizedrnthat the whole underlying doctrine of Christmas was the mostrnstark, uncompromising, and vaunting assertion of the corernChristian idea, Verhum cam factum est. Tliis is scandal to Jews,rnfolly to Greeks—and unspeakably horrible blasphemy to Muslims.rnThe Koran devotes a whole chapter or sura to having JesusrnHimself condemn this appalling doctrine.rnChesterton knew enough of the history of the two religions tornunderstand how very closely related their ideas were, how inhmaternthe two sisters had once been, and this very closeness goesrnfar toward explaining the irreconcilable hatred between Christianityrnand Islam in their mature years. He argued that Chrishanityrnitself had always contained a powerful element of worlddenyingrnIdealism, which derived idtimately from Platonism,rnand he believed (not impossibly) that Islam might itself haverngrown out of this rival tradition. As he argued in his great biographyrnof St. Thomas Aquinas,rnthe Greek element in Christian theology tended morernand more to be a sort of dried-up Platonism; a thing of diagramsrnand abstractions; to the last indeed noble abstractions,rnbut not sufficiently touched by that great thing thatrnis by definihon almost the opposite of abstraction: Incarnation.rnTheir Logos was the Word; but not the Wordrnmade Flesh. In a thousand very subtle ways, often escapingrndoctrinal definition, this spirit spread over the worldrnof Christendom from the place where the Sacred Emperorrnsat imder his golden mosaics; and the flat pavement ofrnthe Roman Empire was at last a sort of smooth pathwayrnfor Mahomet. For Islam was the ultimate fulfillment ofrnthe leonocla.sts.rnIn another direction, that anH-incarnational Idealism wouldrnflower into the progressive utopianism of the Enlightenmentrnand, subsequently, into modem liberalism. And, as we will .see,rnChesterton would argue that this .seemingly secidar traditionrnwould never quite lose its kinship with Islam.rnAccepting the Inearnahon transforms our understanding ofrnmatter, of the created world, which shoidd be seen as arnsacramental reality. Chrishans have thus achieved astonishingrnsuccess in the visual arts, which reach their greatest heights inrnimages of Christ and, especially, of the Virgin Mary; Muslims,rnhowever, eschew all such images. The division between therntwo religions is symbolized by their respective portrayals of JesusrnHimself. In Islamic tradition, Jesus is the focus of countlessrntales and scriptural passages, which always represent Him as arnfierce aseehc who renounced all in the pursuit of Cr)d. Wlienrnthe devil taunted the Muslim Jesus for using a stone for a pillow,rnHe direw away the stone, renoimeing His last luxury, and sleptrnon bare ground instead. Also, “the day that Jesus was raised tornheaven, he left nothing behind but a woolen garment, a slingshot,rnand two sandals.” The Christian Jesus, on the otherrnhand—Who is, of course, a far better documented figureseemedrnto enjoy wine, .spumed pious niceties, and delighted inrnthe company of women. It is difficult to imagine anv sane hostrninvihng the Muslim Jesus to the wedding feast at Cana.rnFor Chesterton, Islam was “essentially a simple creed forrnsimple men,” characterized by an “isolated and simplified deity.”rnBecause of its neglect of the Inearnahon, it was, above all,rnunbalanced. As Chesterton wrote in The Everlasting Man,rn”The truth is that Islam itself was a barbaric reaction against thatrnvery humane complexity that is really a Christian character;rnthat idea of balance in the deity, as of balance in the family, thatrnmakes that creed a sort of sanity, and that sanity the soul of civilisation.”rnIslam was foimded upon a great denial of matter, arngran rifiuto perfectly symbolized by its rejection of wine and alcohol.rnThese were things which a Chrishan should sec as goodrnand redeemed, intended by God to promote human pleasurernand conviviality. To quote a verse of Hilaire Belloc: “Whereverrnthe Catholic sun does shine / There’s music and laughter andrngood red wine / Or I have always heard it so— / BenedicamusrnDomino.” The Muslim rejecfion of this kind of pleasure was arnform of world-denial that almost constituted blasphemy in itsrnown right. In Christian terms, it was certainly heresy.rnChesterton was doubly alarmed to find that the Muslim rejectionrnof wine—with all that it implied—was echoed by manyrngood and rational non-Muslims in the early 20th century, thosernChrishans and secular liberals who championed the prohibitionrnof alcohol. Worse, those reformers were trying to remodelrnhuman behavior to eliminate the taste for wine—and often,rnthey tried to impose their puritanical standards by seeking torneliminate meat. Tellingly, the progressives were also the onesrnwho rejected the Incarnation and espoused a liberal Chrishanityrnthat lacked such ideas as the Virgin Birlh and the Resurrection.rnChesterton argued that their political follies could only bernunderstood in light of their deviant Christology.rnIn a striking imaginafive leap, Chesterton used tlie symbol ofrnthe war against wine to present what might be described as the secularrnIslamicization of contemporary England and (by implication)rnthe United States. One of his least-known novels is hisrnbizane 1914 work The Flyitig Inn, in which he depicts a near-RiturernEngland in which secular progressives are riding high. (Thernbook has just been reissued by Dover.) Tlie progressives hope torncreate a well-organized Utopia, free of tlie curse of alcohol and purifiedrnfrom the horrors of (Chrisfian) religions fanaticism. Ilien asrnnow, tlie tenn “religious fanaticism” was defined as the obviouslyrninational idea tliat religious belief .should make any difference torneveryday conduct, especially when such amended conduct mightrncause any personal convenience to the believer or to tliose nearrnhim or her. If Christians behaved according to their lights, tlienrnthey were ipso facto dissidents, who needed to have their personalitiesrnmodified to eonfonn to contemporary secular mores. So, too,rndid those bizarre and troublesome eccentrics who foil thernschemes of social engineering by creating tlie “flying inn” of the tidernand organizing hit-and-nin attacks tliat peniiit ordinary citizensrnto obtain their necessary booze and pub food. In the face of siiehrndepraved monsters, no official measures were too severe.rnChesterton’s point was that the humanistic campaign forrnprogress, science, and reason was itself a kind of fanaticism thatrnhad its own powerfully religious quality. He is often quoted asrnsaying that “When Man stops believing in God, he doesn’t thenrnbelieve in nothing, he believes anything,” but this quote provesrnelusive in his writings, and it may represent a collage of severalrnof his apothegms. What he actually did write in his 1924 storyrn”The Miracle of Moon Crescent” was that ‘Ton hard-shelledrnmaterialists were all balanced on the very edge of belief—of beliefrnin almost anything.” Justified by their dogmatic credulity,rnthe social engineers of The Flying Inn inflict a dictatorshiprnworse than anything attempted in the name of orthodox religion,rnusing draconian police powers to root out dissent. Aidrnliberal secularism finds its culmination in the purest form ofrnworld-denying fanaticism — Islam.rnDECEMBER 2001/15rnrnrn