Wednesday, August 10, 2005

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.


At August 10, 2005 1:46 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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!

At August 10, 2005 3:16 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

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.


At August 10, 2005 3:43 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Fjordman, In an earlier post you said " I am not a religious person, and I used to be almost hostile of Christianity." I'm curious, why were you hostile to Christianity? I was at one time hostile to Christians, but never Christianity (sometimes they're very self-righteous and hypocritical). Just curious.

At August 10, 2005 4:40 PM, Blogger bosaxi said...

Is this a joke? Please. I used to have romantic notions of religions like christianity, but it is just a farce - it is mind control. Does anyone actually beleive that there is an imaginary god looking over their lives, or that jesus came back from the dead. That is simply impossible! It is asinine! It is beyond idiocy!

The value of a religion is soley based on how closely it adheres to universal ethical principles, most notably, the concept of fairness, or 'the golden rule.'

If we are to judge christianity by this standard, it is one of the 'good' religions. Conversely, Islam judged by this standard, is practically the opposite - a purely evil religion.

So the good news is that christianity is not too bad. But it is by no means perfect. It is, at best, a flawed ethical 'rule-book.'

Besides, who is kidding who? We live in an entirely secular society. We follow secular rules based on reason and fairness. 'let there be freedom of religion' Means there is no religion - It means I can believe in any Tom Dick and Harry god I like. It means that a god is like a grain of sand in the desert of human imagination. is that a powerful god then? Something that is only limited by the human imagination?

You fools should think about what a religious society would be like. Imagine having to listen to a preist and have his word be law! That does not make a strong society, that is tyranny; that is no better than sadr city or basra.

At August 10, 2005 4:55 PM, Blogger erp said...

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.

At August 10, 2005 5:29 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

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.


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.

At August 10, 2005 6:37 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Pastorius, You made a good point. "There are a lot of stupid things about Christianity, because Christianity is a religion built by human beings."

This is true when you look at the organized denominations within Christianity, because it was influenced by humans. Augustine (400 AD) for example introduced the idea that it's okay to "compel" people to believe, which was the seed of the Inquisition.

Aquinas (1200 AD) folded Aristotelian philosophy into the Catholic faith, thus resulting in a clash with Copernicus over the earth revolving around the sun.

It would lead one to wonder why God couldn't just send ONE person to "get the message" right! Well, surprise, he did and his name was Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. The Bible tells the story. It is the most documented, archaelogically verified book in the history of the world. The dead sea scrolls confirm it reproducibility, as does the Ryland manuscript. See

People are not perfect. They make mistakes. Read "City of God" by Augustine, and you will be astounded by his brilliance; however, he made that huge mistake of believing that compulsion to belief is acceptable.

I can accept that people may have limited brilliance, and I can admire that which they are good at, and dismiss their failings without dismissing them.

:>) Sissyblue

At August 10, 2005 7:12 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

pastorius, CS Lewis is a great reference. Actually, his argument that the style of the Bible was so fantastically different than any other ancient document, that convinced me of it's validity.

Those arguments between Moses and God had me laughing out loud! It was so "real". The Bible is full of embarrassing stories about "real" people, which was unheard of in ancient times. The ancients would only tell the stories that made them look good.

It wasn't until after that,that I started looking at all the other arguments in it's favor.


At August 10, 2005 10:06 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

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.

At August 10, 2005 10:52 PM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

It is unthinkable that "christians" or Republicans, etc, in todays 'modern' age, do not know, or care about Islam, or Illegal Immigration. BUT - If they did, we wouldnt be posting in rage so much, as THAT would be the norm. It has yet to be the norm. Even after the london bombings, 9/11, etc.

This is largely because of Political Correctness. Just as LONG HAIR became fashionable for even conservatives, in the 70's, P/C is fashionable today...

Apparently the message is not getting out....We are still, too rich,fat and happy to give a rats patooti...

At August 11, 2005 12:12 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

"Bring back that Old Time Religion" - exactly how old time are we talking about here? I suppose in the context of the times, one is thinking of the religious zeal that motivated Crusaders to go to the Holy Land to protect their brethrens in faith.

That time has long since past. It maybe good to reminisce about the "good old times", but we are in the era of liberalism and secular traditions. This is not going to change anytime soon. It was the natural progression of the Protestant Reformation that has given us the benefits of freedom, and the scientific and industrial revolutions. There is no going back.

I do not believe that the secular state is insipid, valueless and toothless. Far from it, it was the seculars states of the UK and the US that fought and defeated the Fascist regimes. It was the secular state that risked the destruction of the planet in the Cold War. These are not the attitudes of a "live today for tomorrow we die" generation.

We fight for freedom, not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren and generations still to come. That is long enough.

I dont think we need to invoke God or religion in this war which islam, in the name of allah, has declared on us. It indicates a certain measure of desperation besides mimicking islam.

Islam has several Achilles heels, and as it is like a house of cards. If one or at the most two central tenets are destroyed, it is finished. Besides, its war is conducted strictly according to the book, quite literally. They even tell us about Taqqiya. The secular state OTH is bound by no such moral, ethical or divine constraints. When push really comes to shove, the secular state is on its own in ruthlessness.

At August 11, 2005 12:55 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

pd111, I don't think anyone is thinking about going back to 1000 AD, except maybe the Islamo-fascists.

I don't think we need to invoke religion in this war on terror either, although I think we should be very aware of what's taught in the Koran and believed by 1+ billion people, and stop the PC BS.

What is Taqqyia? What do you see as the Achilles heels?

I think the article made a good point about secularism promoting selfish, short term goals, which explains the drop in birth rates in the "west", among other things.

I don't think anyone can "use" true religion in any constructive way to manipulate societies. It has to come from the heart of the individual, which then transforms society. It's not a cloak you put on, but rather food you ingest, speaking metaphorically.

At August 11, 2005 1:40 AM, Blogger Pastorius said...

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.


At August 11, 2005 1:53 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Pastorius, VERY well said!

At August 11, 2005 2:29 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


We need to fight the war in the environment that we are in.

One of the complaints that has been persistently made, is that European women have far fewer children then muslim women, and consequently Europe will become Eurabia. Well, Muslim birth rates are higher then every other groups. By that argument, not just Europe but the whole world will become islamic sooner or later.

Well exactly what are we to do? Many commentators want to encourage European women to haver more children. How do we plan to encourage Western women to have more children? I don’t think that bribe will work. And even if it did, we will never be able to compete with muslim women in birth rates, unless Western women were put on some kind of war footing. Even in India, the muslim birth rate is 4% above the average. So even the vast majority of Hindu women, who BTW are mostly uneducated and thus are more likely to have larger families, are beaten by muslim birth rates.

Our societies are what they are, and women have made a choice to have fewer pregnancies. That’s it. Ali Sena and many many others, are talking pure rot in this matter. Besides women are an integral part of the economy of the West. Large families 6 to 7 children on average to compete with muslim birth rates, will effectively remove them from the work force.

The way forward is to liberate muslim women from slavery, and that would also liberate them from the drudgery of continuous pregnancies, There is need to go into some kind of demographic arms race with muslim women. That way we will just end up over populating the planet. The demographic race with islam is not the race we wish to compete in, as it is a losing one. Besides, it is pointless and bad for the planet.

The other issue is apostates of islam. The liberation of muslim women from slavery, or the issue of the apostates, will be the death knell of islam. That is use Freedom, the most powerful of all religions, to destroy islam and liberate muslims.

We do not need to invoke any other principle for complete victory except the very one that has brought forth this unique civilisation of ours, that puts the individual at its centre, rather then religion or ethnicity or some other group identity.

Islam is a house of cards, and the destruction of just one or two of its central tenets, will lead to its collapse.

A lot of people are now aware of the horror of islam. Even the MSM is getting the message. I for instance knew that islam was a vile creed, back in 1967. The trouble is how to defeat this creed without a huge war leading to countless casualties. We will win such a war but fatally compromise our own civilisation.

"Bring back that Old Time Religion" i.e. a more muscular Christianity that will take on islam on its own terms. But a good Christian has to turn the other cheek and love his enemies. How on earth are we to reconcile this, as muslims would regard this as a sign of weakness and redouble their Jihad. Once the real message of Jesus became widely know, it became necessary to come up with the separation of Church and State. The secular state came into being.
Achilles heels -

1. The enslavement of women.

2. The sentence of death on Apostates.

We need to start putting real pressure, social and legal, on islamic doctrine, particularly on two issues

I wrote a post on Gates of Vienna "The Freedom of the Burqa" (Title was very aptly provided by Bodissey). You may need to look in August archives. It is easily identifiable as it has two women in burqas. In the article is some of the stuff which I dont think needs to be repeated here.Let me know if you can't find it.
Taqqiya and Kitman.

I'm going from memory here but you can google these.

Taqqiya is enjoined on the muslim, to lie to the Kaffir in the interests of islam.

Kitman - is dissimulation i.e. the agreeing to something but in your heart to keep the faith. Muhammad’s treaty with the Meccans is an example.

Also read about the treaty of Hudaibiyah. This is an example of “Hudna”. Even Pakistan’s president quoted this treaty when he had to agree to Colin Powel’s ultimatum to Pakistan in 2001, to save faced with his populace. Arabs are forever quoting this treaty in their dealings with Israel. Israel and the international community regard treaties as solemn and binding. Muslims OTH regard them as merely stratagems when one is in a weak position, and to immediately revoked when muslims are militarily stronger.

All this is in the Koran and the Hadiths – the most important one being the Sahih Bukhari. Sahih means correct, and thus Sahih Bukhari means the correct interpretation by Bukhari of the life of muhammed, which all muslims must faithfully copy.

You can get all this information these days by just googling. At the time when I was curious about islam and why it was so blood thirsty to spill Jewish blood and other infidel blood( June 1967), I had no such wonderful tools at my disposal.

At August 11, 2005 2:34 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

Lots of spelling and other errors in my last post. Apologies but its 1.30 am, and so am off to bed.

At August 11, 2005 2:57 AM, Blogger bordergal said...

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".

At August 11, 2005 3:01 AM, Blogger PD111 said...


Thats the right approach.

Now how does one set about implementing it.

At August 11, 2005 4:02 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

pd111, Good question... Actually, I was wondering about that. There's a lot of "talk" but where's the action? Any brain storming ideas for ACTION?

At August 11, 2005 5:00 AM, Blogger bosaxi said...

Pastorius...Ethical principles like fairness were not created by judeo-christianity. That is like saying newton created gravity. Ethical principles have always been there, and like jumping off a cliff with no wings, those who choose not to follow them have all, in the end, gone down the path of ruin and destruction. But more importantly, these principles are too important to risk framing them as simply a Judeo Christian concept or creation.

By framing them as a christian creation/concept, you're giving them a qualifier which makes their validity tenuous. Couldn't someone simply 'disprove' them by disproving judaism or christianity? Or the existence of god?

Muslims, for example, have become experts at ridiculing christianity and judaism. Does that mean that fairness is not a valued ethic to live by? Muslims certainly think so. Their evil, vile cult has practically turned them into savage monsters with no human feeling whatsoever for non-muslims.

But muslims do not have to become christian to be fair and just - they just have to, in essence, abandon islam, and treat others how they themselves would like to be treated.

Your claim of tolerance in christianity is pretty silly. Especially when one of the ten commandments is 'thou shall not worship any other gods before me.'

And perhaps you should use the scientific method to analyse your statement that god created the earth. I don't really think that is true. I think the earth is a floating ball of rock in the universe, and is one of many others planets which may or may not contain life.

And if the bible was supposed to be scientific, then it would contain scientific knowledge, I mean god should know scientific things like, the earth's weight right? Why didn't he put it in the bible for kicks? The questions never end, and they never will. I personally have never read the bible, in fact most people have never read the bible. Do they have to in order to be good people?

Or is judeo-christianity relegated to a feel good vagueness that is hardly perceptable, but yet still relevent? And at what point do we stop being christians? There's a lot of whacky stuff in the bible and then there's some good stuff. At what point does our abridged version of christianity stop being christian?

The fact is we don't know. And it really doesn't matter. Because ethical principles will guide us, long after christianity is dead.

At August 11, 2005 5:40 AM, Blogger bordergal said...

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!

At August 11, 2005 6:11 AM, Blogger Brian Olsen said...

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.

At August 11, 2005 3:49 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

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.


At August 11, 2005 3:50 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Bosaxi, I disagree with you that the concept of treating others like you want to be treated “has always been there” like gravity. I think it’s quite the opposite. People in their natural state look out for #1, and care little about the consequences to the rest of society. In many cases they don’t even care that much about their direct relatives (look how many old people died in the French heat wave a few years back). As the Christian ethics fade in our country, we are finding that we need more and more laws to try to corral the people who misbehave, which I think will eventually lead to a totalitarian state where everything is controlled. No, people are not fair or nice by nature. They’re always scheming, trying to find ways to get more for themselves, at the expense of others. The big “pot of gold” of course is to control countries, and people have invented ingenious methods, schemes, lies to achieve that goal (Communism, Islam, Fascism,,,). Your absurd comments on the Bible and Christianity do not even deserve an answer, since you by your own admission have not even read it.

At August 11, 2005 8:43 PM, Blogger bosaxi said...

pastorius: Is fairness a disembodied principle not worth fighting for? It seems like all the wars ever fought had something to do with fairness. Last I heard, Americans thought taxation without representation wasen't too fair, and so they were willing to fight the most powerful empire in the world to free themselves from the unfair arrangement.

What about the Constitution - ever read it? The Bill of rights - ever read it? The declaration of independence - ever read it?

Which is a better document? The constitution or the bible? If tomorrow, Bush made the Bible the constitution, would you be a happy camper? I certainly wouldn't.

Why doesn't our supreme court use the bible instead of our constitution? In fact, why do we even have a supreme court or even a president! Is this what G-d wanted? Government run by man? Heck if this is what G-d wanted for us, he certainly dragged his feet on this one!

I think we should all be relieved that we don't have to defend christianity or western civilization when championing what is good and just. Because the two are separate and distinct.

Arguments like this happen all the time, imagine if the tenets of what is right and wrong actually hedged on the outcome? That is scary! But if the tenets are always true and absolute, then we have nothing to worry about!

Sissyblue - those who choose not to treat others with respect and fairness suffer the consequences. That's all I said. Is that not true?

If people are to get along, they must be fair to eachother. You can't, for instance, run around punching people in the stomach without getting into trouble!

I also I think people are simply confusing cause and effect. They think that religious conservatism has something to do with our strength. I'd argue that it has more to do with enlightenment and modern secular values. Napoleon himself, a powerful tyrant to some, a powerful liberator to others, ridiculed god and created his own pagan sun god, even building a temple in the vatican. That was about 200 years ago.

So I guess that isn't far back enough to truely appreciate the glory of a religiously conservative society and its supernatural power I keep hearing about. How far back do we have to go to reach this imaginary judeo-christian society of peace and justice? Seems the farther I go the worse it gets - war after war - catholics vs protestants vs anglicans vs lutherans vs orthodox vs jews vs pagans vs Huguenots. They all thought their religion was right and they were willing to kill everyone for it!

But now, in the modern world, we just have to agree on a set of principles and values, some cherry-picked from our judeo-christian heritage, some not, and everything works out fine! Isn't that great?! =)

At August 11, 2005 9:02 PM, Blogger bosaxi said...

And if I may add, both the bible and the constitution were made soley by humans anyway. There was no supernatural power that created either. And if you think otherwise please prove it. So this argument is kinda silly. Man made it all up, and both documents are made up of principles and values. In effect it's like a puzzle, with the pieces being different values and principles we live by, and the finished product representing a mosaic of an ethical life.

At August 11, 2005 9:41 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Bosaxi, You are one angry, bitter person! Good luck with your modern values. Last time I checked, some 200 million people died following the politics produced by your atheistic value system.

At August 12, 2005 6:54 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

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.

At August 12, 2005 11:01 PM, Blogger bosaxi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At August 12, 2005 11:26 PM, Blogger bosaxi said...

Ok first off, judeo-christianity, What a stupid word. You're a christian. Why don't you stop butt-kissing the killers of christ and stand up for your religion? Jews have nothing to do with christianity - they consider you all heretics, and they killed jesus.

We christians have been killing and harassing jews for centuries. We've corralled them into ghettoes like cattle, burned them at the stake, murdered them in mass pogroms, stole from them, burned down their houses, and we perpetrated a holocaust upon their poor innocent selves, and that final insult will forever be a blight upon our culture's legacy.

Remember 95% of poland's jews were killed during the holocaust. That kind of astonishing percentage cannot be achieved without extreme collaboration on the part of the civilian population, which was largely made up of the Jewish victim's polish catholic neighbors. The burning anti-semitism was there thanks to christianity and all Hitler did was fan the flames and turn your precious religious-based society into a churning couldron of hellfire.

The term Judeo-Chistianity was made up by godless enlightened and 'PC' athiests who wanted to form a watered down, american civil religion devoid of any trappings of anti-semitism... btw you're welcome.

Second: You talk about christianity's absolute respect for life. It should already be apparent to you that that is a bunch of baloney. Furthermore, Any belief system that has an after-life cannot possibly compare to an athiestic one when it comes to respect for human life. Christians have a saying - just kill them all and let god sort them out. Ever heard of it? I've heard that saying a lot and it sickens me.

Third: Though you may not know it, you are simply following a watered down version of 'christianity' that conforms to modern ethical principles. That is why, unsuprisingly, christianity is tolerated and percisely why islam should not be tolerated.

The only difference between you and I, is that you base your absolute moral code within the framework of a religion, which makes its validity dubious. Please think about that. And I've said this before: It means If I can disprove your god, your values are no longer true. But my values are absolute and secular and devoid of any religious qualifier, so they are superior to yours in every way.

We all know that god is imaginary. So one way or another we're going to have to figure out what is good and what is not without him, and I think we are doing an ok job. We are after all blessed with rational intelligence. But you seem to think we are not doing well, and I believe that opinion is simply dervied from a belligerent misunderstanding or ignorance of economics and modern civil principles.

Lastly my confused, but well meaning christian. I want you to read the hippocratic oath, and get back to me...

...If all you can muster is some nonsense fear-mongering about protecting bits of flesh, the legally nightmarish world of assisted murder, and some imaginary fear of a future ripped right out of a recent box office bomb, then I guess, by your own admission, I don't need Christianity at all. I can simply 'worship' the hippocratic oath, for example. But should I? The hippocratic oath has been modified slightly to fit modern values, god forbid it might not contain the clause about abortion. God what shall I do? I cannot think for myself I need an obscure heretical sect of judaism to tell me what is right and what is wrong!

Edit: p.i.m.f.

At August 13, 2005 12:19 AM, Blogger Pastorius said...

I can't beat that argument. I concede.


At August 13, 2005 1:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

At August 13, 2005 1:58 AM, Blogger Pastorius said...

I don't know what would be a bigger drag; to be gay, or to be Pat Robertson.

At August 14, 2005 3:56 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

What's so wrong with being gay, anyway?

At August 14, 2005 5:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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