Bring back that Old Time Religion
From Faith Freedom International. He's got some points, but I must admit that I have met many Christians who are very naive about the Islamic threat, and more of a liability than an asset:Bring back that Old Time Religion
Western society, especially Europe is increasingly becoming secular with people losing traditional religious beliefs. Church attendance in Europe has gone down. Christian ideas are been eroded as can be seen by the legalization of same sex marriage in most parts of Western Europe . What are the societal and economic consequences that flow from secularism? To begin with, secularism promotes a more short term and hedonistic attitude towards life. Since secular people have little faith in God or an after life, the tendency is for them to adopt the attitude of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. Of course, not all secular people are like that. But in general, secularism promotes such attitudes. In the current war against terrorism, secularism is a hindrance. It encourages political correctness, low birth rates (fatal against the high birth rate of Muslims), self-doubts and apathy. The West, especially Europe , is in a deep spiritual crisis. Secularism could be a fatal weakness in its body politic against a resurgent Islam as polytheism probably was in 7th century Mecca . Modern Europeans are the lucky heirs of Christian civilization which has contributed so much to human progress. It has brought on the scientific revolution, abolition of slavery and human rights. The separation of Church and State also created the space for democracy to take root.
posted by Unknown @ 9:12 AM
16 Comments:
Fjordman,
The article to which you linked makes this point: "Secularism and Polytheism produce societies that are too tolerant, too undisciplined, too lacking in a moral compass to resist an aggressive monotheism like Islam. I fear that what happened to the ancient polytheistic Meccans is beginning to happen to secular Europeans." An important point, I think.
As a Christian, I am constantly frustrated that many fellow-believers don't see the danger of Islamism. They don't want Islam criticized because it's "a religion." Well, Islam is first and foremeost a geopolitical ideology--as opposed to being a personal faith.
Christians need to come to the realization that Islam will turn any who are not its followers into dhimmis.
Now, having said that, a very large church in my area has been sounding the alarm about Islam since the early 1990's. The alarm has both a theological and a politcal basis. Still, many members of that ocngregation cannot seem to accept the reality.
Centuries ago, Christianity stood united against Islam. We Christians need that unity again today, and we need to unify with those who "get it" about Islam, even if those realists are not Christians.
Infidels, unite!
The reason many Christians are a liability, rather than an asset in the fight against Islam is because Christians often confuse being nice, with being good.
It doesn't seem "nice" to criticize a persons religion, so Christians refrain from doing so, and dislike other Christians who do.
But, of course, it is not truly Christian, and it is not good to whither in the face of lies.
The Christian tradition, which gave birth to Western Civilization, is a theology which has unshakeable confidence in it's world view. This worldview created Christians who believed their beliefs were the truth, and therefore anything which deviated from their beliefs were lies. A traditional Christian would look at Jihadi Islam, or Islamism, and would have no qualms about saying it is a theology based on lies.
I believe the Enlightenment shattered Christianites confidence in it's worldview. This has brought about relativism within the church. Which, in turn, has created a Christian church that finds it hard to criticize Islamism.
There may be some positives to the fact that Christians are less dogmatic than they used to be, but overall, this fact has led to a weakening of our Civilizational resolve.
Pastorius
Pastorius said: "... confusing being nice with being good."
An excellent insight simply stated, but it would help if he or she defined the terms "nice" and "good." My take on it is that being nice means courtesy and manners while being good is much more complicated.
To the left, of course, it's not complicated at all. There is no intrinsic good or bad, right or wrong, other than remaining non-judgmental no matter the situation or provocation.
They allow one exception that proves the rule, America, Israel, capitalism, free trade, personal freedom and individual responsibility are intrinsically bad/wrong, and are to be despised.
Hi Bosaxi,
Many of us over here in America think of America as a Judeo-Christian society in that our Constitution was found on Judeo-Christian principles. This is not the same thing as a society where Priests govern by Biblical Law. I know that Europe is a secular society, and I know that America is a largely secular society.
For the record, I do not oppose separation of church and state. In fact, I am very much in favor of it. Without such a separation, religious people get to dictate by their own interpretation.
A Judeo-Christian society believes that human beings were created with inalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The reason this is a Judeo-Christian idea is because it is based on the Biblical idea that man was created in the image of God. God, above all, is a free and creative being. Therefore, the first thing a society must recognize, before any law is instituted is that man is to be free and creative.
Does that make sense?
There are a lot of stupid things about Christianity, because Christianity is a religion built by human beings. But, Christianity is not wholly stupid. And it's world view has proven to be productive. Given the logic of your assertions, before you throw out Christianity completely, I would suggest you read the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.
Erp,
I use the word "nice" to mean "polite" as one would be when one was in anothers home. In other words, one wouldn't visit the home of a friend and tell them their religion was built on false premises. But, in the public forum it is ok to exchange ideas.
I use the word "good" to mean, adhering to Truth.
Bosaxi: It is actually true that the void left behind by religion has been used by pseudo-religions such as Communism to fill the empty space. And they can be more dangerous than the traditional religions.
It's unfortunate that we can't seem to agree that there is a distinction between
1) a secular society
2) a Judeo-Christian society with a separation of church and state,
3) a religious society, where there is no separation of church and state.
Bosaxi made the point that there are rules that we can judge religions by. Because of these rules, he has come to the conclusion that the Christian religion is "one of the good religions."
I agree with Bosaxi.
Bosaxi says that everything can be measure by Universal Ethical Principles, based upon the concept of fairness, or the Golden Rule.
See, the thing is, you have no argument from this Christian. And I would point out that the Golden Rule was stated by Jesus Christ, and that it was a restatement of a Jewish saying, "Do not do unto another what you would not have him do unto you."
So, you see this Universal Ethical Principle comes out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The concept of an objective world, which was created by a rational being, and is therefore rational, is Judeo-Christian. And this is the idea that gave rise to the Scientific method.
The idea that each individual has direct access to His Creator through words, was born of the Old Testament, and the Protestant Reformation cemented this idea. And it was this idea that gave birth to the idea that all men are created equal, and that all men should have a say in how they are governed. For if they can talk to God, and even argue rationally with God, as Moses did, why can't they argue and reason with their leaders? Indeed, why can't they have a hand in choosing their leaders and their government?
Even the modern idea of "tolerance" is born out of the Judeo-Christian principle of the Golden Rule. Why would we deny another the ability to practice his or her faith? We wouldn't want that right to be denied of us, right? Yes, that's true.
Here's the rub. When anothers faith calls for them to kill me, then their faith is wrong. Why? Because it violates the Golden Rule. And because it violates the principle that I was created to be free.
That's more than two cents. I better get out of here for now.
Pastorius
One thing you can do to bring the population problem to a screeching halt is to stop all immigration from Muslim countries to the west, period. Make the west responsible for repopulating their own territory. Western society can be restructured to support native families that are large enough to reach replacement. This will probably require a complete overhaul of the tax and benefits system, etc.. Less perks, more work. Cherry pick immigrants from other countries that are also compatible with western values, and keep immigration at a low rate.And start a energy Manhattan Project using the best scientists from across the western world.
Keep the pressure on for women's rights in Muslim countries, as this usually helps to lower the birth rate. No aid, no Muslim students going overseas to learn technical skills, etc. As population increases in Muslim countries (and they become more and more dependent on outside food sources), they will either have to stop their massive birthrate, invade other countries (which due to a lack of technical skills will be less then sucessful once Irans nuclear program is destroyed), or face total social breakdown.
Unpleasant, yes. Darwinian, yes. However, THEIR CHOICE, yes. If they won't play nicely with others, they need a serious time out until they "get it".
The Muslims themselves are doing a good job of educating others about their "peaceful" religion. At the risk of sounding heartless, the more they show their true colors through violence, the more they will force the west to use a containment strategy. I'm more worried about the slow, insidious approach to the caliphate through demography.
In the US, we need to educate, educate, educate, the public and our elected representatives. I have sent my state reps the Freedom House Report on Saudi Funding of US mosques, along with some additional information about religious visas and a vignette of information on Muslim SOPs in other countries. I will be attending open houses to meet with them in person, and discuss my concerns. DC isn't the only place you ccn make changes....
The the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act pending in Congress. I will be contacting the appropriate staffer to discuss this issue and provide background information. It's amazing what doesn't get passed on to folks in DC...
There is also a BIG fight brewing this fall over immigration. I suggest anyone from the US join Tom Tancredos Team America PAC. He will be going to the mats in order to stop the flow across the Mexican and Canadian borders. Support the Minuteman Project, and if you are in California, support the initiative for the California Border Patrol. This will help with infiltration of illegals and make potential jihadi infiltration more visible. It could also be used to limit immigration from countries that are hotbeds of anti US sentiment.
What I would love to do is get some of the greats in educating people about Islam to speak to Congress. Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Walid Phares, Steve Emerson. Ultimately, what might be most useful is a PAC regarding the threat Islam poses to the US, and that would allow these gentlemen to spend some time educating those in DC.
More options, but it is late and I am tired after a day of shopping for kids back to school clothes!
Just some thoughts on this matter.
Religion helps, I think. But, religion or not, certain people seemed to have lost their love of identity. One reason is because there is a political stigma against it. For those who are guilty of their own backgrounds, they compensate with sophistic left-liberal ideas. They may want families, but also want to have a career, or "be their own person" (which is silly.) Those things contradict with identity.
Muslims don't have the stigma. They don't have the conflicting goals. Allah is great and for some, they'll make sure everyone knows that. Poor? Rich? Who cares? We got Allah!
Anyway, I say we should have the religion just for the traditional aspect of it. (There was a French journalist, a name that has slipped my mind, at the beginning of the 20th century, who argued this point - sort of "religion without the god".) If people find faith in it, wonderful. Organized religion does seem to have some cultural aspect that embodies identity, I suppose.
Bosaxi,
How are those ethical principles working out for you?
And by you, I mean, you know, all you countries who have abandoned the religious foundation of your ethical principles.
Read Fjordman's blog. (I think you do. I'm pretty sure I've seen your name here before.) Read about Western Civilization rotting out from the inside.
Why is this happening? Is is just that we have become a "cult of self?" Why were we not such a cult before? What might motivate our citizens to once again become something more than a cult of self?
And here's a real interesting question to ponder: Will people be willing to die in large numbers in order to protect the sterile and disembodied "Universal Ethical Principle" against the onslaught of Jihadi Islamofascism?
Hmm. May the Force be with you.
Pastorius
Hi Bosaxi,
Let me first say that it was unfair of me to imply that America is not a largely secular nation, as are the European countries. We have become very secular, and we are suffering for it, just as the European nations do.
To answer your questions, Bosaxi, let me say the answers were in my previous comments. No, I wouldn't be happy if Bush made the Bible the Constitution. As I said, the idea of separation of church and state came from the Judeo-Christian tradition. America was founded by very relgious Christians who wanted to make sure that no leader would ever have power over their right to worship as they please. This is why we have the freedom of religion clause in our Bill of Rights.
Now, let me explain what happens when the concept of right and wrong becomes disembodied from our Judeo-Christian tradition. When the Universal Ethical Principle of fairness is all that matters, then we measure all action by whether it hurts others "unfairly." This leads to people like Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer making the case for the idea that children who are born handicapped should be put to death, because their lives would be miserable, and that would be unfair.
The disembodied concept of fairness leads to assisted suicide. It leads to harvesting embryos. Possibly to the cloning of second human beings for every person who exists, to use the second body as an organ bank.
There are no good reasons to not do these things if the whole of our ethics is based on fairness.
The Judeo-Christian tradition of absolute respect for life, even as it struggles in it's early days, or dwindles towards the end, is something we throw away at our own peril.
Where would such an absolute respect for life come from if not from the Judeo-Christian tradition? I don't see how it popped out of the Universal Ethical Principle.
Fjordman: sorry to run this thread so long. I find the discussion fascinating, but at the same time, I recognize this is your house. You say that you are not religious and I can understand why. Much wrong has been done in the name of religion. It is embarrassing for me to tell people that I am a Christian because of the image I know that conjures up in the minds of people. But, a few years ago, I started to realize that as the old saying goes, "If not me, then who?"
I believe the framework of Western Civilization is it's Judeo-Christian values. Post 9/11, it has become all the more important to me to defend these values.
I think your blog is also working to defend these values. Whether you are a believer or not doesn't matter to me, I feel a kinship with your blog, and I want to thank you for your work here.
I can't beat that argument. I concede.
Pastorius
It is embarrassing for me to tell people that I am a Christian because of the image I know that conjures up in the minds of people.
There is no reason whatsoever to feel embarrassed for your Christianity. None. This is a modern, liberal induced, unfounded guilt whose sole purpose is the destruction of Christianity. It has done a pretty damn good job, I have to admit.
I am not extremely religious due to my own personal reasons, however the assault on Christianity has been nothing but a perfect example of extremely hostile warfare.
Let's see, what would be more embarrassing? To admit homosexual proclivity or being a devout Christian?
Ethnocentrist,
I don't know what would be a bigger drag; to be gay, or to be Pat Robertson.
What's so wrong with being gay, anyway?
What's so wrong with being gay, anyway?
Nothing, in my mind. Homosexuality is a variant of human and animal sexuality. I do not want to officially call it "normal" for the sole reason that sexual intercourse's main purpose is for procreation. Let's face it, the only reason we are put on this planet and given the appropriate "tools" is to propagate the species. The fact that we have sex for pleasure most of the time is irrelevant to the main reason. If you accept that, then having homosexual sex or being homosexual cannot be viewed as completely "normal" because it will lead to extinction, eventually. At least that is how I have it packed away in my mind.
The point that pastorius and I were making is that in the current times, homosexuality is viewed in a higher and more acceptable light than Christianity. That is how much it has fallen and been vilified by the liberal ideology of our times.
Very much similar to a comedian I heard several years ago that joked when he was young, it was embarrassing to ask for condoms at a drug store but had no concerns asking for cigarettes. Now, asking for condoms is no problem however cigarette use is viewed so negatively, he has to wisper whenever he asks for smokes. Obviously his version of the joke was funnier. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home