Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Marxism or Decadence? The Cause of Western Weakness

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

I sometimes am criticized for being too focused on the left-wing of the political spectrum and ignoring the problems caused by right-wing parties. First of all, the line of separation between what constitutes “Left” and “Right” in politics now tends to become blurred. And second of all, only a fool believes that everybody on one side is always right, and everybody on the other side is always wrong. I have been consistent in pointing out that the European Union, which I loathe, cannot be explained simply as a one-sided Leftist endeavor. It also contains elements of Big Business interests, political corruption and the general desire of politicians and bureaucrats to rid themselves of the restrictions imposed on them by a democratic society.

Angela MerkelAt the time I write this, the conservative German chancellor Angela Merkel continues to push for the implementation of the awful EU Constitution, and I just read a column by a free-market activist who champions continued mass-immigration, including from Muslim countries, because his ideological convictions lead him to conclude that free migration is always good and beneficial.

It is also true that not all those who undermine Western civilization through support for Multiculturalism and mass immigration do so out of a hidden political agenda. Some do it out of plain stupidity and vanity. “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s most open-minded of them all?” It’s a beauty contest for bored, Western intellectuals who use immigrants as a mirror to reflect their own inflated egos, a sport where they can nurse their vanity in the mistaken belief that denigrating your own cultural heritage is a sign of goodness and lack of prejudice.

I suspect that part of the craziness on display now stems from feelings of guilt because of affluence. I hear so many of these open border activists talk about “solidarity,” but in reality it’s all about me, me, me. They don’t show much solidarity with their own children and grandchildren who are going to inherit the Balkanized nightmare they leave behind. It’s all about making them feel good about themselves right now, without regard for future consequences of their actions. So their “solidarity” is really an extreme form of egotism and holier-than-thou self-exaltation. Besides, many of them have lived sheltered lives for so long that they honestly don’t understand that something bad can ever happen to them. They’ve never had to fight for their freedom or their prosperity, which had been ensured by others.

So yes, there is a component of decadence, materialism, hedonism and nihilism without any specific ideological agenda at work here. But still, even if I try to be as objective as possible, it is difficult to avoid seeing that a disproportionate amount of our problems come from political left-wingers and that elements of it are indeed ideological. Besides, it is sometimes difficult to define where decadence ends and cultural Marxism begins. The Marxist-inspired “revolution” of the 1960s and 70s, which both at the time and in hindsight has been viewed as a watershed in Western history, was staged by people who had enjoyed unprecedented economic growth throughout their entire lives.

I can see no connection between Islamic terrorism and poverty, but maybe there is a connection between wealth and politically correct nonsense. Western Europe has enjoyed decades of affluence and welfare state boredom, and is crazier than any civilization before it in history, even paying its own enemies to colonize it and thinking happy thoughts about cultural diversity as it is being wiped out. Is cultural Marxism caused by boredom, which is again caused by affluence created by capitalism? It would be sort of ironic if that is the case.

To quote The True Believer by Eric Hoffer:

Eric Hoffer“The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility. The goals are concrete and immediate. Every meal is a fulfillment; to go to sleep on a full stomach is a triumph; and every windfall a miracle. What need could they have for ‘an inspiring super individual goal which could give meaning and dignity to their lives?’ They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement.”

And later Hoffer points out that “There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society’s ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved boredom. In almost all the descriptions of the periods preceding the rise of mass movements there is reference to vast ennui; and in their earliest stages mass movements are more likely to find sympathizers and support among the bored than among the exploited and oppressed.”
- - - - - - - - - -
In The Weekly Standard, Michel Gurfinkiel notes that indeed, there are intellectuals “who relish the prospect of a new French Revolution, and welcome the suburban rioters as its spearhead. Nothing is more revealing, in this respect, than the success of a feverish political novel, Supplément au Roman National (A Sequel to the National Narrative), by 28-year-old author Jean-ric Boulin. Published two months ago, it forecasts a ‘social and racial’ revolution in France in 2007. First a wave of suicide bombings in Paris. Then martial law. Then, finally, the great rebellion of the French poor: the native underclass, the Arabs, and the blacks, who unite under the green flag of Islam and the tricolor of France and march on Paris — as a sort of Commune in reverse. Boulin gallantly supports such an outcome.”

The French RevolutionThere is, admittedly, something special about France and their love of revolts and mayhem. The French still haven’t recovered from their great Revolution of 1789. It is strange that a modern nation can celebrate as their national day the birth of a bloody upheaval which paved the way for mass-murder and authoritarian rule. But the fascination with Islamic movements is far from limited to France. It is partly based on hatred of the West and a belief that the world must be “liberated” from Western civilization, which is the cause of global injustice.

Elin BrodinNorwegian author Elin Brodin wrote an essay entitled “Western values are the worst.” According to her, “Modern Westerners are the most bigoted, self-righteous and deaf-blind creatures that have ever walked the earth’s crust. This goes for the left-wing and the feminists just as much as for everybody else. We really have to change our attitudes, not just our clothes, because now the question is whether this civilization should be transformed or fall. Because the West neither can nor should endure in its present form.”

City on FireIf you want to see a really nasty example of the hatred against Western civilization on display, here’s a link from Danish blog Uriasposten. Thyra Hilden and Pio Diaz projected video images of flames onto 1,000 square-metre glass screens in a museum in the central Danish town of Aarhus. The “art” exhibition was called “City on Fire – Burning the roots of western culture.” The artists assured us that “It is not actual fire that destroys actual buildings – but the idea of fire that destroys the historical and ideological roots of Western culture.” Part of their vision was “to create an aesthetic image of the deconstruction of the cultural roots of the Western world,” because as they said, Western culture was “very aggressive,” while Islamic culture has been far less so.

Bruce Thornton writes about Robert Conquest’s book Reflections on a Ravaged Century. especially his chapter on Soviet Myths and the Western Mind:

“As Conquest documents, many Western intellectuals and academics were delusional about the reality of the communist threat. For a host of reasons — a quasi-religious faith in utopian socialism, neurotic hatred of their own culture, vulnerability to an ideology that dressed itself in scientific garb, an adolescent romance with revolution, and sheer ignorance of the facts — many professors, pundits, politicians, and religious leaders refused to believe that Soviet leaders meant what they said about revolution and subversion.” Because of this, “throughout the Cold War, the Western resolve to resist Soviet expansionism was undercut by ‘peace’ movements, nuclear disarmament movements, calls for détente and ‘dialogue,’ and claims of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.”

According to Thornton, other parallels between Cold War Sovietophiles and today’s rationalizers for Jihad present themselves. The academic establishment for most of the Cold War “was predisposed to leftist ideology.”

Arne TreholtUnfortunately, the Soviet-appeasers never had to endure the consequences of their actions. In Norway, I heard recently several left-wingers state that Arne Treholt, a senior diplomat who was convicted of high treason in the 1980s for spying for the Soviet Union, was actually a misunderstood hero who wanted “dialogue” with the Communists. A former member of the Labor Party, he was reprieved by the Labor government in 1992. He has always claimed his innocence, but admitted later that he was both careless and negligent and “drifted into some questionable areas” when he turned over confidential state documents to Soviet representatives and accepted money for them in return.

Ban the Bomb!When US President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, after Jimmy Carter had made a mockery out of the presidency and his inaction contributed to the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the massive Soviet military machinery placed medium-range SS-20 nuclear missiles to intimidate Western Europe and split NATO. They also encouraged massive demonstrations and campaigns within the West for unilateral Western disarmament. Yet Reagan chose to up the ante by deploying new U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe. He denounced the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” and engaged the Soviets in a military build-up that bankrupted their fragile economy. Reagan, who dared to challenge blackmail from one of the most brutal regimes in human history, was reviled and ridiculed by the leftist intelligentsia, and is still hated even a generation after the Cold War ended. Yet a man such as Mr. Treholt, who appeased the same regime, is viewed in positive terms.

Sadly, conservatives demsontrated negligence after the Cold War. We never properly denounced Marxism as an ideology as well as discredited those individuals who had supported it, the way it was done with Fascism after WW2. That was a mistake. We had a massive fifth column of left-wingers during the Cold War who sapped our strength and appeased our enemies. These very same groups have been allowed to continue their work uninterrupted, and went straight from appeasing Soviet Communism to appeasing Islamic Jihad.

The Seventh WarThe book The Seventh War, by Israeli journalists Avi Yisacharov and Amos Harel, is based on interviews with Hamas Islamic terrorist leaders in Gaza and Israeli prisons. Hamas leaders told them clearly: “It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks. We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing’s reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach.”

The West and Westerners in general are treated as the “global oppressive class” by our Marxist-inspired academic elites. From historical experience, in Socialist societies, those deemed a part of the “oppressive class” have at best been deprived of their property, at worst been physically eliminated. Western Leftists really believe their own rhetoric about the West being the cause of most of the problems of the world, and want to “liberate” the planet by bringing down the oppressive class, aka the West.

We could go into long debates as to whether this is compatible with the doctrines of classical Marxism, since most Islamic and Third World nations are far from industrialized. It is true that Karl Marx initially stated that capitalism was a necessary transitional stage for Socialism. Most Socialists before WW1 believed that the Marxist revolution would start in Germany, precisely because it was a more advanced capitalist and industrialized economy. But Lenin decided to start in Russia after the opportunity provided by the first revolution in 1917, despite the fact that it was far from a developed capitalist economy at that point. Marxist strategies have thus changed considerably during the past century. By far the one element that has remained most consistent is the tendency to view society primarily in economic terms, through the prism of groups exploiting other groups. In general, Marxist tools for analysis have survived far better than their practical solutions and are still influential.

Karl MarxIt is, in my view, impossible to understand Multiculturalism without taking into account this profound influence of Marxist thinking. Marxism states that culture is only of minor or secondary importance, while the primary moving factor is the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. This leads to treating cultural differences as insignificant, and thus the conclusion that major differences in performance between groups are caused by poverty and exploitation. This is exactly the picture we are presented by our media as the source of the difficulties in the Islamic world.

Moreover, the very idea that it is ok to stage massive and risky social experiments involving millions of people is one that was passed on from Marxism to Multiculturalism. As Friedrich von Hayek warned: “We must shed the illusion that we can deliberately ‘create the future of mankind.’ This is the final conclusion of the forty years which I have now devoted to the study of these problems.”

Antonio GramsciThe Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, with such thinkers as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule by undermining the hegemonic culture. According to Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, and particularly from their “Christian soul.” As Lukacs said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” This could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and family patterns and undermining the established institutions from within. In 2007, we can see clearly that this strategy has been quite successful in Western media and academia, which are not only neutral or lukewarm in defending our civilization, but are in many cases actively aiding our enemies. The irony is that most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on their lives.

In Scandinavia, it is a well-documented fact that journalists are much more left-leaning than the general populace. In France during the Muslim riots in 2005, several journalists stated openly that they downplayed the problems caused by immigrants in order not to boost the support for “right-wing parties,” and in Britain, leading figures from the BBC readily admitted that they actively champion Multiculturalism in their coverage. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, himself from the Labour Party, complained in the January 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine about relations with Muslims that “many in Western countries listen to the propaganda of the extremists and accept it. (And to give credit where it is due, the extremists play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.)”

Daniel Pipes notes that “Significant elements in several Western countries – especially the United States, Great Britain, and Israel – believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This ‘we have met the enemy and he is us’ attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements. Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an out-sized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists’ auxiliary mujahideen.”

Pipes warns that “Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been. Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, but instead stick to the lawful, political, non-violent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them.”

In short: You know you live in a Western country when the media is cheering for your enemies, when your schools and universities teach your children that your civilization is evil and when your politicians think it’s a sign of “extremism” if you want to protect your nation’s borders.

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once said that “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” Perhaps we will win this struggle for liberty only when Western left-wingers decide that love their children more than they hate Western civilization. If they have children in the first place, that is.


Anonymous said...

Fjordman, I very much appreciate your work. Great analysis, eloquently articulated. Excellent job!

You quote Hoffer:

“The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives.
They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement.”

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I wonder just how serious our politicians in America are about solving the problems that face society.

I wonder if, by taxing us so heavily and thus keeping us working to make ends meet, they aren't just ensuring that we don't have enough leisure time to really question what's going on, and to really bring about some changes -- most significantly, derailing their gravy train by voting them out of office, then tearing up the tracks so there will be no more gravy train for them in the future.

"There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society’s ripeness for a mass movement than the prevalence of unrelieved boredom."

And we're not bored; many of us are struggling just to make ends meet. That's a safe situation for folks who are milking the status-quo cow.

Anonymous said...

A couple of more comments:

Marxism states that culture is only of minor or secondary importance, while the primary moving factor is the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. This leads to treating cultural differences as insignificant, and thus the conclusion that major differences in performance between groups are caused by poverty and exploitation. This is exactly the picture we are presented by our media as the source of the difficulties in the Islamic world.

This is also what Islam preaches: fellow Muslims are brothers, regardless of where they are from; infidels can be categorized as Russians, English, Chinese, or whatever. Of course, since Islam is not just a religion, but also a political agenda and a world view, complete with its own legal code, it is in fact a culture of its own. The saving grace is that since Islam is so heavily founded on some of humanity's worst traits, hatred being chief among them, that the Islamic world is far from being as monolithic as it might wish. Many of these groups are just snakes of the same species; they snap at each other as willingly as they snap at us. (No offense intended to our reptilian friends by comparing them with Islamic fundamentalist Khawarij terrorists.)

Pipes warns that "Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been."

That's exactly what happened when our society faced its enemies in World War II, who were so ideologically similar to those we face today.

OMMAG said...

I can sum this up in a few words.
The prime characteristic of the self styled intellectual left is to be completely full of shit.

16 words is still just a few...right?

Evanston2 said...

The Gramsci quote about attacking the "christian soul" is the heart of the matter, and the true point of continuity between Marxism, Islam, Nazis, and all principalities and powers that hold themselves up. This is fundamentally a spiritual battle -- the political debates and gunfire are an outgrowth of that battle.
I am not just saying this to be a religious kook. I am a retired USMC LtCol and veteran of Iraq. When we talk about "Western" values, the foundation is clearly christianity. Those western nations that do not turn to God will surely perish, just as He frequently used evil nations to punish Israel when it worshiped other "gods."

Reliapundit said...

good one.

over at my group blog - the astute bloggers - over the past year or so we have posted nearly 30 convergences between the left and the jihadists - we call this series birds of a feather.

the basic affinity that the oleft has woith the jihadists is simple: the post modern left an the jihadists are both opposed to moderniity.

and both revile traditional Judeo-0Christian/Western Civilization.

they both sees these things as bad - the relativist left even seemingly makes an exception to their relativism in oirder to assert that the J-C West
is truly bad. the post modern left blames the J-C West for Third World poverty, most of humanity's genocide, and global warming.

each if these charges are demonstrably false. (even if one believes that global warming is caused by man, the emerging Third World nations of China and India are just as "guilty" of creating atmospheric CO2 as the USa and the West, but the left gives them a free ride/ZERO criticism for this - and this proves that it's more about being anti-USA/J-C West than anyhting else.)

the jihadists blames the West for the sad state of affairs inside the former Caliphate.

they are united in their hatred of the J-C West, and the since the USA is the defender of the J-C West they hate the USA.

The post modern left wants to destroy the USA through their Gramscian agenda (which we have posted on extensively at TAB). And they are willing to appease the jihadists if this will HURT the USA an the West; chastise the West, if you prefer.

The jihadists want the West to become dhimmis and withdraw from all lands which were ever muslim. And they will do anything within their means to accomplish this: including nuclear holocaust.

The left is the enemy within, and - because they are also a Fifth Column of the jihadist enemy - until we defeat them we will not be able to defeat the jihadists until we defeat the post modern left.

Because the MSM and the academy and a few key bureaucracies (CIA, FBI, State) are dominated by the post modern left, this is a very difficult chore. It is tougher in Europe where the post modern Left is even more entrenched.

Basically the left has been anti-USA since Truman broke with Stalin. The left supported the USA dutring WW2 ONLY because FDR was allied with Stalin. The left has opposed every war since WW2. Iraq is just another in a long line of wars the left would have us be defeated in. Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, the Gulf, Panama, and Iraq. Many also opposed the Afghan War - arguing it was about gas.oil or deliberate starvation of Afghanis.

About 30% of the USA public are OK - hawkish and pro-West. About 30% are leftie doves - Gramscian or dupes of the Gramscian left. About 15% are unreachable and don't give a damn.

And then there's the indecisive 15%: and these folks blow with the wind: when the news from Iraq is bad, then they oppose the war.

In addition to attacking the jihadists with everything we've got, in addition to attacking the post modern left with everything we've got, we have to do whatever we can to reach THIS last group.

But without MASS MEDIA this is very VERY tough. these are the folks who take their cues from the MSM TV news which takes its cues from the post modern leftist of the NYTIMES.

Fox cable has helped but cable is 1/20th the size of broadcast and there is still not enough convergence between Fox and news-talk radio and blogs ad podcasts.

If we are ever going to liberate the MSM from the stranglehold of the post modern left then we are gonna have to create synergies to reach the masses and to undercut the leftist lies of the MSM.

LIKE: the embed reortage of Malkin and Yon and Ardolino and others - this should be getting as close to wall-to-wall coverage as we can muster with Fox and radio and the blogosphere.

And then there's supporting Horowitz's efforts to bring ideological diversity to the academy - an extraordinariliy important efforts, but one which cannot possibly have a payoff for a few DECADES, and we might not last that long!

oh boy. no matter... we must:


Anonymous said...

Fjordman, nice job! I thought that was a great analysis.

Jim Simpson said...

Beautiful, articulate piece. The key that ties it all together is that the Left wants Western governments to fall. No matter the source: Islamofascism, economic malaise, bureaucratic overreach, the hope is that the confluence of whatever factors necessary to accomplish the job will overwhelm us and we will collapse. David Horowitz discusses this on, a site everyone should have bookmarked. Look up "Cloward/Piven Strategy," the deliberate plan to overwhelm U.S. bureaucracy with welfare dependents.

The Left still cares because communism has not died, and their intention to impose it on the West is alive and well.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

It is, in my view, impossible to understand Multiculturalism without taking into account this profound influence of Marxist thinking.

Classic marxism was economical, the Frankfurt school translated the principles of marxism to cultural terms (as opposed to industrial economics) and gave us much of what we know today as politicial correctness.

Multiculturalism in turn may be thought of as racial marxism, where the industrial proletariat has been replaced by the "exploited" third world masses.

Maghull said...

Well said Fjordman.

@Evanston. You're right. Too few people these days seem to acknowledge the Christian roots of the lost values and morals they say they pine for.

Reading posts mourning the loss of morality across the post-Christian West I often find myself thinking "Yes, you're right but what are these morals you say we've lost and where do they come from? Your mother? Your best friend? Yourself?

That so many obviously conservative people seem utterly incapable of recognising the Christianity on which our civilisation is founded merely illustrates how far moral relativism and secular ideology have permeated our culture. Depressing really.

Nelson said...

Let me say that the only longer essays I read on blogs are from Gates og Vienna.


Nelson Guirado


Flanders Fields said...

I am constantly astounded by the number of people who think that leftism is not a monolithic movement and that it is not organized and not set on particular goals. People believe that so passionately that they fail to open their eyes. I think this must come about because it is one of the things that instructors in the social arts always stress when beginning any discussion of leftism.

Another thing that is obvious, if it is looked for, is the symbiosis between leftism and those who are supposed to be their biggest enemy, big business. Leftism gains tremendous amounts of funding from business. Business gains assurances of monopolistic practices and both have political interests in maintaining a socially engineered society. Both share an oligarchy of power in the upper levels of those societies.

Common problems faced by Europeans and Americans are due to the left and corporate implementation of multiculturalism and political correctness. Both seek change for power or for money which is enhancing to the bottom line and the power base.

Anonymous said...

Ursus, you're right on the money and way off at the same time. Your comments about a conspiracy of shared values and cumulative effects are right on; however, there is a conspiracy against humanity, and it is driven from Hell. Many of the "conspirators" have no idea the role they're playing, hence the "shared values" and "cumulative effects" aspect. That's also why, although the packaging is different (Nazism, Communism, Islamism, etc.), so much of it looks the same once you scratch the surface. Hence Flanders' observations that elements from such different parts of society actually seem to be on the same sheet of music: in many ways they actually are, even though they may hate each other. Hate is what fuels that side; it is the common trait. Hatred is why Islam's borders are so bloody, and, when left to itself, Islam's innards are so bloody, too; same was true of Nazism and Communism. That's what hatred leads to.

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Don Miguel said...

"As Conquest documents, many Western intellectuals and academics were delusional about the reality of the communist threat. ..."

This reminded me of a great story about Robert Conquest (a great historian of Soviet brutality, often savaged himself by the plethora of Soviet apologists in academia) from the book "In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage." As noted by the authors:

"When Hoover Institution historian Robert Conquest used newly available data from the Soviet Union to update The Great Terror, his account of Stalin's murderous purges of the 1930s, his publishers asked for a new title. 'How about I Told You So, You Fucking Fools?' Conquest suggested."

BTW, Fjordman -- an excellent post.

serbialives admin said...

This perverse view that multiculturalism is an asset is being imposed on my country, Serbia. People will probably wake up, as fjordman rightly says, when they are personally suffering human and property losses.

Evanston2 said...

In a sense the ethnic Serbs just got too darn greedy for too long. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. That said, world political opinion may change. The notion of backing the "poor muslims" in Kosovo and Bosnia is still mandatory with the cultural elite, but the common folk in the U.S. and the greater West no longer suffer any illusions regarding the merits of muslims.

You need to fix what you have left, and bide your time, like the Serbs always have. The history of Islam is that without infusions of money from trade (spices from the far east), conquest, or oil, their cultures become totally disfunctional (medieval in structure and technological achievement).

Make your culture a success, and then decide whether it's worth it to fight for Kosovo, etc. Pick your battles carefully.

Dee said...

i've just discovered this site though i've seen it recommended lots of times...i love it and am adding you to my own blogroll
i was just commenting on the breakdown of morals in a discussion re: christianity's stance on homosexuality...the question was, why does it get so much airtime in churches when there are so many other issues to focus on...personally i've never heard (that i can remember) it getting any serious airtime and i've been a churchgoer for a long long time...but i thought it was an interesting was my answer to one aspect of it (others had given other good answers before me) first, the comment that i was refuting:
The reason so many evangelical Christians focus on homosexuality is because deep down they are bigoted and repressed. It's quite simple. If they cared so much about following the Bible they'd focus on the hundreds of passages commanding Christians to feed the poor and not the 2 or 3 passages that mention sodomy.

and then my answer:

you're speaking for evangelical christians and you obviously have no idea where we stand...we don't "focus" on homosexuality, we obey the bible which focuses on many moral issues, including murder (over 5 million unborn children have been murdered since the beginning of the iraq that today) and promiscuity ...why does the bible emphasise morality? because without moral standards a society breaks down (as we can see in the west now) many people believe that this is the end of the western dominance of the world ...this is because the west basically hates itself and i believe that's because there is nothing left to admire...other cultures, disgusted by our moral decadence, are turning on us too

if we'd only maintained and treasured our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, how different might things be today?