Civil Rights, Chivalry, the Golden Rule, and Morality
by Derius
At first glance, many would think that these four principles listed in the title are the same, or at the very least, similar and often compatible. However, I would like to discuss here whether this is actually the case.
Obviously, such a discussion would be worthless without defining these terms, so I will address each of them in turn. I also am aware that these definitions are very subjective, but terminology with no definition has very little meaning. Hence, these terms will be defined within the confines of this discussion.
Civil Rights shall be defined as the rights given to any citizen under a Liberal Democracy. These include the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to choose one’s own partner, sexuality, interests, career etc. These are listed in full in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR 1948), and one of the United Nation’s main responsibilities is to ensure these are upheld by every member nation. I do not intend to discuss how poorly the UN actually achieves this here.
Morality is defined as the code of conduct which is the most effective in upholding the greater good. The greater good in turn is the attempt to maximize the happiness and minimise the suffering of mankind. So in effect, morality is the best code of conduct to bring about the maximum well-being of mankind. Opposing morality shall be defined as immorality .
The Golden Rule is simply the requirement to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Most (but not all) orthodox religions have this notion contained within them.
Chivalry is a code of conduct meant to bring “fairness” to any conflict or dispute. Attacks using “dirty tricks” and such like are considered immoral, and only an open contest or resolution under strict rules and guidelines is to be commended.
Whereas I do not expect all readers to agree with my definitions, I would expect those readers to at least agree that my somewhat simplistic definitions are certainly not unorthodox from a Western standpoint, and are representative of some people’s perception of these principles.
- - - - - - - - -
Many Civil Rights groups certainly are in agreement with these principles. They want to bring about the highest level of well-being for mankind (morality). They believe that the most effective way of doing this is by ensuring that everybody has granted to them the Civil Rights mentioned above (Civil Rights). As they wish to keep their own Civil Rights, so they want everybody else to be granted such rights as well (Golden Rule). However, such goals should not be pursued by aggressive means, as the West should be seen as a model of conduct (Chivalry).
In order to see how well these four principles actually stand together, we shall add another ingredient — intolerance. Let us suppose that, in a fit of criminal negligence, the leaders of a liberal democracy let millions of adherents of an intolerant, cruel, militant and imperialistic religion to settle in that democracy. Furthermore, those adherents wished to change the culture, politics and civilisation of the host nation to their own liking. How would these four principles hold up together in this situation?
From a Civil Rights perspective, the new ideology’s advances must be stopped, as the Civil Rights enshrined in the liberal democracy would be in jeopardy if it were to gain much influence. However, in order to treat all religions fairly and equally, you would have to grant the intolerant fanatics the same Civil Liberties that everyone else was granted, even if this made the struggle against them harder.
The Golden Rule would also indicate that you must forward the same Civil Rights to the intolerant fanatics as you yourself would want to be treated in the same circumstances. Chivalry demands the same thing, as it would be unfair to oppose people without affording them the same rights as the other citizens.
Morality would, however, demand that the advance of the fanatics must be stopped, and as long as the measures employed do not cause more suffering in the long term than what the fanatics themselves would cause, then it is right and just to oppose them by whatever means necessary. This could very much include not granting them any civil liberties at all, so it could be easier to deport the fanatics back to their country of origin etc.
As we can see, however, there is now a clash between Civil Rights, the Golden Rule, Chivalry (which all agree with one another), and the well-being of mankind (Morality). We now have to make a choice between granting Civil Rights to all peoples or sacrificing the well-being of the population of the liberal democracy.
An insight into the apparent conflict of values here can be seen when examining what Karl Popper said in his book, “The Open Society and its enemies”:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
The notions of Civil Rights, the Golden Rule and Chivalry are all indirectly tolerating intolerance by forwarding to the fanatics Civil Rights that will actually make it harder to succeed in any legal or military action to remove them from the Liberal Democracy in question. Only Morality is demanding that tolerance should not be tolerated, and that the intolerant must be fought or expelled.
Karl Popper continues:
“ I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
It is clear then, that the pursuit of Civil Rights for all by many Civil Rights groups today in some instances actually opposes morality and tolerance, and supports intolerance, though this is not the intent. The same can also be said for the Golden Rule and the notion of Chivalry. In order to amend this situation, these three notions need to be changed so that they are only afforded to people who actually agree with those notions in the first place; for example, freedom of religion should only be extended to those religions which actually accept freedom of religion within its own teachings. Otherwise, they should not be protected in a liberal democracy, as they oppose the values of those democracies with regards to religious freedom. It should therefore be a great concern in any liberal democracy if this logical step is not on the radar of its politicians, as this ignorance could lead to greater immorality and intolerance, but will be justified by those politicians under the guise of morality and tolerance.
Furthermore, it should be noted why Civil Liberties were written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948) in the first place. It was done to try to ensure the well-being of citizens of the member nations of the UN, by safeguarding them against totalitarianism and tyranny. In effect, then, they were introduced to further Morality, and their attainment is not the final goal in itself. However, with many Civil Rights groups today, Civil Liberties seem to have transcended Morality, and their preservation is the ultimate goal, to be achieved even by sacrificing the well being of mankind.
The best example of Chivalry opposing Morality is the “proportional response” argument, where a force, despite being able to defeat its opponents quickly and decisively, is expected to only use minimal force against its opponents to make the conflict more “fair”. The fact that this could drag out the conflict longer than would otherwise be the case and cause more casualties and fatalities is neither here or there. Furthermore, some forces have been expected to do this when it is quite clear their enemies would not use proportional force if they could win a dispute quickly! With regards to the Palestinian conflict for example, would Hamas ever use a “proportional response” if they could defeat the Israeli military decisively?
In any event, Chivalry usually hinders Morality more than it helps it, as in any conflict, it is usually the side upholding Morality that will uphold chivalry, as the forces opposing Morality will normally not have the same moral qualms about their conduct as the forces representing Morality.
The Golden Rule also has a fundamental flaw in its application. Following this rule, somebody who wants to live under full Sharia Law would work to install Sharia Law everywhere, as he/she would like everybody else to be treated as he/she would like to be treated. The issue here is that very few values are actually universal, but the Golden Rule does not account for this, and assumes that everybody wishes to be treated in the same way. Indeed, it is a common flaw of people from a liberal democracy to project their values on to other cultures, and assume that everybody wishes to live as they do. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
In conclusion, it is my view that liberal democracies are susceptible to attack by intolerant forces through flawed applications of Civil Rights, the Golden Rule and Chivalry. As a consequence of this, Morality, and in turn, the greater good will suffer in those democracies. How bad these consequences will be is yet to be realised, though the current indicators show no sign of a better understanding of these matters by our political elite and the mainstream media, who currently presume to instruct us on these matters without feeling the need to study these areas at all.
119 comments:
If I accepted your definitions I would also accept your conclusions. However, I haven't fallen for that trick in very long time. I check my premises when I encounter conclusions at odds with observable reality.
Actually, Baron, your definitions make a lot of sense to me, as do your conclusions. Sadly, too many folks in the West won't think it logically out to that extent, they see tolerance as an ultimate (tolerate everything and everyone)and thus tolerate the intolerant. A prescription for cultural suicide, in my humble opinion.
Interesting interpretation of the perennial Western dilemma-how do we protect the liberal democratic state from its enemies without violating their, and our, civil rights?
Popper's book 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' is very thought- provoking, particularly the section on Plato.In my opinion it complements 'On Liberty' by JS Mill as Popper,unlike Mill, was writing in a very precarious period for Western democracies due to the external threats of totalitarian ideologies,as now.
We're at a disadvantage these days because of the prevailing doctrine of multiculturalism and the abject cowardice,or cynical calcuations, of our political elites and many citizens.
I disagree with the assessment for the reason that it strikes me as being too logical and not based on reality, which does not always conform itself unto the strictures of logic but seems to always find a way to resist and confound strict interpretation.
The logic is fine but limited and not comprehensive in scope.
For instance even a liberal society has its limits to tolerance and as we see they are open to change and abuse not only or primarily by intolerance but by vicious amoral liberals or tolerant ones.
Along with these changes we see large portions of a society immediately pass from being normative liberal to intolerant according to the definition of the twisted class, and this progression is ongoing.
So the logic, or rather the premises set forth here are to simple and shortsighted and therefore threatening to whoever is the newly designated conservative intolerant.
This being the case in reality and experience for us gathered here it should be evident the argument is flawed and leaves me feeling unsatisfied with it.
I don't like the quotes from Popper, they sound like something that the new Dept of Homeland Security, under the headship of Janet Nepolitano, would say about the salt of the earth.
Its time for good men of the West to reassert Christian morality and virtue as the dominant force within Western institutions.
The hedonist New Left is but liquid upon sand, they cannot and will not die to preserve the moral order that they have been trying to dismantle for at least a century, or more, especially accelerating in the last 50 years.
EscapeVelocity said... Its time for good men of the West to reassert Christian morality and virtue as the dominant force within Western institutions.
Hmm.. by that do you mean that we should always turn the other cheek, always love our enemies, and to always put our trust in the hands of the lord?
It seems to me that it was that kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I’d rather see religion where it belongs, in private homes and places of worship. I don’t think it should be allowed to permeate the policies of our governments. Mixing religion and politics has always been a bad idea. Politics should only be based on logic and it should strive to benefit the vast majority, not the loud minority.
I’m an atheist and don’t accept that I should have to submit to the wishes of any religion, whether it’s Christianity or Islam.
Apparently you missed the Protestant Reformation, culminating in the 30 Years War, and the Peace of Westphalia.
Atheist totalitarianism sucks.
Atheist hedonism got us into the mess we are in now.
But not accepting that you should have to submit to the wishes of any moral authority, you destroy the moral authority which your liberty is based upon and thus others with their own system of moral authority come to fill the void.
You may find it hard to believe, but European metaphysics is deeply Christian, and even those who profess to reject it, like yourself are deeply molded by it.
Because Western Civilization was built upon the foundations of Christianity, the liberty that you profess to cherish is underwritten by Christian metaphysics.
I dont expect you to break through your ignorance and egotism, and I know that the Godless Hedonism you cherish isnt up to the challenge of Islam. National Socialism isnt the answer, its totalitarianism has proved to be (again and again) cruel to humanity.
Christianity permeates European politics, but even deeper into the metaphysical reason for being of its structures and institutions, its government structuring, values, and aspirations.
The weakening of these by the Left (and by the general population) has left Europe wide open for colonization by a stronger culture...more confident in its rightness and virtue.
Moral and cultural equivalence is not Christian in nature.
kristik borger,
I disagree with your unfounded opinion. It was not Christianity per se which "got us onto this mess in the first place", no sir, that is a faulty view from my angle. The secularism of today is based upon the separation of churhc and state and the imposition of values estranged from the healthy sense of godly justice and fear of God. It is in a sense, mercy without justice, which doesn't add up because if there is nothing wrong then there is no need to have mercy, this type of "mercy" then is really permissiveness and decadence.
It is not healthy Christianity that has brought us here, it is as some founders have said, impossible to have a country such as ours without a religious people.
You talk about submission to a religion, what about to what is best and works well? I don't want to submit to what passes today for morality being imposed on society. Does it matter that it is not called religion? Does it then not bother you? Still it violates my freedom of conscience and pursuit of happiness in many ways and that is what the separation was always meant to protect and guard against, not simply what is called religion. In the end I find and agree as did many wise statemen that Christianity works best and produces a people who study to do good. Yes they are vehement against evil and that today is called hate, and good is called evil and evil is called good. You try to figure it out.
Baron, I just dont see how the Atheists are going to ally with the Christians...that they have been attacking for centuries...against Islam.
That is a lost cause, not worth pursuing, a waste of time and effort.
Its unfortunate that the West is so weak, because of this assault on Christianity....one that Atheists (and the Left) certainly are not going to abandon.
"Moral and cultural equivalence is not Christian in nature".
--Escape Velocity
You got that right! Well said.
I stand with Kritisk Borger on this. As a pagan and researcher of European Metaphysics, EV, you don't really know what you're talking about. Christianity, while having some minor effect on European Mysticism, hasn't influence so much as it has obliterated.
Historically, Christianity has been almost as Totalitarian as Islam. I, personally, do not wish to submit to either religion. Witch Hunts, Charlemagne and others forced conversions and executions. The Spanish Inquisition. Salem Witch Trials. Christian Totalitarianism has done more to harm Western Civilization than Atheist Totalitarianism.
I understand EV's desire for a return to Christian Morality. It is because it is familiar, known, and trusted. But, that doesn't mean it is right or correct.
Western Civilization was not built on a Christian Foundation. It was built on a foundation that is a fusion of the Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Scandinavian. It was built on the principles of Honor, Strength, and Nobility. The three inalienable rights of Western Civilization are Life, Liberty, and Property. These can be traced back to the ancient Pagan traditions. They came from the very 'hedonistic ways' EV condemns.
Christianity teaches that the poor shall inherit the earth (denial of property), that we must submit to a single god in order to be saved (denial of freedom), and that it is only through death that we can reach Paradise (denial of life). Indeed, the modern Progressive Movement (and totalitarian socialism) is the highest extent of Christian Ideals: Redistribution of Wealth (denial of the right to property), Super-Government (denial of the right of freedom), and Abortion (denial of life).
I feel, personally, that Christianity offers nothing in the way of fighting Islam other than to continue a thousand year contention over who "God" loves more.
I understand that my comments are likely to offend. It is sadly an inevitability, that this will happen. But I ask that you do not let your anger cloud your judgment. We face a grave era and with it grave truths. It is likely we'll lose and Islam will win. But if we are have a chance, we're gonna have to become something more than bound up in Christian vs Muslim or we'll end up with the worst of both or either.
As for the article, Chivalry and the Golden Rule arise from Morality, not separate from it. While interesting, this article fails to prove that we should fight Islam with Morality. Morality is fluid and designed by those in power. In a way, the only way we can defeat Islamic Morality is not with Christian Morality, but with the very Immorality (Atheist, Pagan, or other) that Islam hates about the West. Cast aside Chivalry, Cast aside the Golden Rule. Recognize that Civil Rights can only exist when everyone agrees they do, because as long as a group feels entitled to run over others, Civil Rights are as useful as the law to a corpse.
I thank you for you time.
Everyone should note that I did not write this piece; Derius did. Perhaps he will show up here to argue his points.
EscapeVelocity --
I realize that I am being quixotic, but I will continue to pursue the Grand Alliance nonetheless.
If atheists, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists do not ally against Islam, then the Mohammedans will devour us piecemeal.
You dont offend me TofT.
You just continue to attack Christianity, and have nothing to offer that would replace it. And Islam continues its march.
Thus you have a self fullfilling prophecy, the West(Europe) is likely to fall to Islam(ization)....as you continue to attack Western foundations and make it more likely.
You're right, I didn't offer an alternative. This was because I didn't want to sound like so many Christians and Muslims crying for people to convert.
That being said, I have found my answer in Paganism, especially in the Norse Religion. It is my opinion, one I do not wish to force on anyone else, that in the ancient Pagan ways, with their balancing of violence and compassion, that will offer the greatest possible tools and end game to defeating Islam and what follows.
The biggest benefit is that Paganism, especially European Pagan traditions, are something that we have direct ties to as Europeans and offer a strong cultural identity that can unify us as our ethnic groups. The only way to defy homogenization is to emphasize what makes us different, and come together as a people as Baron hopes.
As an aside, the polytheistic nature of Paganism lends itself to not starting religious wars of conversion as has occurred with Christianity's and Islam's monotheistic nature.
I again thank everyone for their time.
EV, I'm not saying I'm unwilling to impose, but I feel people must make the choice themselves. I have no interest in forced conversions to my beliefs, but rather people who come together as tribes to form a shield and sword against Islam.
As for your assertion that Tribalism will accomplish nothing but ending up on a reservation, frankly you're wrong. There will be no "reservations" under Islam for Pagan tribes. Maybe for "People of the Book" like Christians and Jews, but people like me will be annihilated. For us, the fight against Islamification isn't a fight over which version of the Monotheistic God is in charge, it's a fight for survival.
El Eng has done some very good essays on this site about how Tribalism is the only thing that can truly help us fight against Islam. You're Christianity is nothing more than a tribe based on religion rather than ethnicity. And it is you, the Christian, which shall end up on the reservation if you keep insisting your Christianity is the only way to beat off Islam.
I dont see mass Paganist systems of thought and belief arising in time to save European countries from Islam(ization).
You've also professed that you dont want to impose your beliefs and worldview on anybody else, which doesnt seem to be a bulwark against Islam(ization).
Sorry, I rewrote the comment, while you were posting, to be more congenial.
TofT
I as a Christian have many places that I would be welcome, should the need arise...like the whole of the Western Hemisphere.
You will be Geronimo, making your last stand, and end up in a sideshow for curious Muslims to entertain themselves as you do your quaint pagan dance rituals in costume for them.
Not a problem. I agree, I don't see a mass conversion to Paganism happening in a timely manner either. But Paganism can play a significant part in the fight against Islamification. The Religions themselves might not come quickly, but a restoration of the cultural ideals will especially bring back the strength needed to fight Islam and win. Christianity will play it's part, but I don't think we should give it supremacy in fighting Islam.
And I'm fine being Geronimo, if it comes to that. You can go and live, until Islam finds you again.
Me, I'd rather fight and die, knowing I would likely become a legend of terror and nightmare to those who would destroy me and hope for the chance that whatever gods there are favor me and let my people triumph over Islam and carry on. If not. I'm happy to die fighting for what I believe.
That is fine.
What you need to stop doing is undermining and attacking Christianity.
Because that is a worldwide power (thanks to Europe), which has been weakened by attacks from minorities (including paganists), demanding rights to be free from "Christian moral tyranny."
Trust me on this, you would definitely prefer to live in land where strong Christian faith prevails (like South America) than Muslim lands (like take your pick).
Respectfully I disagree, because if Christianity is strong it destroys Pagans as swiftly and terribly as the Muslims.
That is why I told Baron, that Atheists were a lost cause, in opposition to Islam.
They wont support the Christian order.
The pagans wont either, I guess.
Christianity, Islam, what's the difference? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The West is divided, and divided will fall.
Here I will have to side with Thorkell the Tall. The problem in which was are now is an extension of the ethics and universality of Christianity. And Europe isn't Christian anymore, even though we still believe that the poor will inherit the Earth while the rich will be damned and the like. I agree with EV on the need for virtue though and delayed gratification.
EV, I'd like to ask you, why won't tribalism work? Europe was basically like that until this century. Tribalism(I'm not referring to the irrational crap that takes place in Africa) will actually draw the line on the differences in between us and the others, which will actually preserve our genetic and cultural heritages. Also, I will take a page out of Conservative Swede's book - Christianity cares only about the salvation of the Jews as a people, not of Europeans. Why will that help us?
Paganism will not save European nations.
Tribalism as Ethnic Nationalism is a powerful tool. Im not saying that it isnt.
One problem that European ethnicities have is that not only is the moral order destroyed, but the national ethnic order. You are in the process of amalgamating into a superstate, which deprives you of the power to assert national and moral will. Another way you are divided and in a weak position. Ripe for the pickins.
Christianity demands moral conformity. It demands moral conformity across ethnic lines..thus it is universalist in pretension. Thus is has assimilating power with immigrants. Thus the pagans fear it, as well.
It is therefore a way out of the morass, which enforces assimilation. Ethnic nationalism only allows for ethnic cleansing and genocide....there is no room for assimilation.
This is why Christianity is superior.
Certainly, you can re-establish the Third Reich in each nation and be done with the interlopers, but there is a better way, a morally superior way. And one which is still in play, and can be easily implemented, because the traditions are still there, as well as many of the institutions.
I support a Christian revival along with a resurgence in ethnic pride, and Nationalism as anti EU, as the best route out of the mire.
BTW RV, I saw this article in my internet travels, and thought of you. Maybe you might enjoy it. Id be interested in your comments on it, as well.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/03/twenty-years-after-the-fall-of-the-tyrant.php
"And Europe isn't Christian anymore, even though we still believe that the poor will inherit the Earth while the rich will be damned and the like."
Yes, that is problematic. But its not a problem inherent to Christianity. You hold the values, but not the strong belief to force them upon anyone else, to enforce its tenets as law, backed by the force of the state. At that point you become, merely an enabler of all who have grievance upon you. You tolerate those who despise you, and welcome them into your country, because of the lack of moral certainty and the will that accompanies it.
Thus its your lack of faith, which is the problem, not Christianity itself.
Christianity without faith is a disaster, no doubt about it. It cannot endure without belief.
Especially not when attacked by the Left, Atheists, and a host of minority groups who are actively attacking it.
linbetwin --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
----------------------
linbetwin said…
Well, the US State Department just announced that Muslims are discriminated against in Europe, even attacked! See ? They are the victims.
link
Thorkell the Tall --
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the first and last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. Name-calling is also froened upon. This is why I deleted your comment.
Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.
----------------------
Thorkell the Tall said...
[redacted]
EV: It is therefore a way out of the morass, which enforces assimilation. Ethnic nationalism only allows for ethnic cleansing and genocide....there is no room for assimilation.
This is why Christianity is superior.
``````
Isn't this the very reason we're trying to stand up against Islam! To prevent the assimilation and annihilation of our ways and peoples!
And don't make the same bloody mistake of assuming Tribalism leads to Ethnic Cleansing! Paganism doesn't equal Nazism or that s***! That's only happened after Christianity and Islam came about and insisting that they were superior and that non-believers had to be converted or cleansed!!
Enforcing Assimilation to fight Assimilation is NOT THE ANSWER! Especially from another religion that insists it's superior! That's the bloody problem with ISLAM! It is Nationalism Combined with Tribalism that led to Fascism, Not Pagan Tribalism!
And Christianity with Faith is an even greater disaster than it is without it! To demand that The Faithful of Christianity enforce their values on non-faithful is to become the very thing you claim to wish to fight! If it is faith in the monotheistic God you value so much, Convert to Islam already! If you want Assimilation, Convert to Islam already! But don't insist I join with the people who wish my kin and religion wipe from the earth just so that we can fight off the people who want mine and your peoples erased. Either way, I and mine will be screwed!
Btw Ev, you sound more like a racist/moralist supremacist with this comment than I ever could: Especially not when attacked by the Left, Atheists, and a host of minority groups who are actively attacking it.
Rebelliousvanilla, I thank you for your support, It is refreshing to see honest people who are rational in the fight against religious tyranny.
Baron,
please accept my most humble apologies. I did not mean to violate the rules and shall try my best to never do so again. I thank you for your assistance with my post.
also, minor correction on my last post, it isn't Nationalism combined with Tribalism that led to ethnic cleansing, but rather Christianity or Islam mixed with tribalism that led to ethnic cleansing.
Thank you for your time
EscapeVelocity, What decent Christian moral are you talking about? Norway was conquered (made Christian) by the sword at the end of the Viking age. Christian monks and newly converted Viking war lords gave the locals the option of either accepting Christianity or have their heads cut off, pretty much the same tactic that Islam used in the middle-east to gain popularity.
Up through the ages the Christian Church have committed countless atrocities and should in no way take the moral high ground and claim moral superiority over other religions. Thorkell the Tall mentioned in one of his postings here some of the nasty crimes that the church have committed in the last centuries in Europe and America.
Let’s take the Spanish Christian conquistadors. They were guilty of ethnic cleansing in South America 5 centuries ago on par with Hitler’s third reich. Even up until the 1970’s Christian representatives practically kidnapped young women in Norway who they deemed unfit to bear children and had them sterilized. So no thanks, I do not wish to submit to this religion.
Every individual in this world, apart from hard core psychopaths knows right from wrong, and to claim that Christians have a monopoly on decency and virtues are absolutely ludicrous when considering the religion’s bloody past. In your posting you are also very narrow minded and blame atheists for what has gone wrong in the last fifty years or so. But the fact of the matter is that the western world has a Christian majority and the various policies that have paved the way for the mess we’re in today have, by and large, been carried out by Christian politicians and bureaucrats and the fact is that these policies can easily be justified by teachings of the bible.
And by the way, Western civilization is not built upon Christianity but on the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers. Scientist and free thinkers have through history regularly been assassinated by the Church because the clergy disapproved of their theories and findings. Look up Galileo on Wikipedia and see for yourself. One only has to look at the religious Christian zealots in the southern parts of the US and their dogmatic interpretation of the bible to realize that a western world run by die hard Christian fanatics is a very bad idea.
kritisk, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Galileo was locked up because he questioned the fallibility of the pope, not because of his theory of how the earth moved. Copernicus had demonstrated that a century earlier without any repercussion, and Galileo himself had postulated the theory before without any problems. Whilst being locked up for saying a man is fallible is a terrible thing, it was not a matter of science that got him in trouble, but a matter of religiouis doctrine.
The rest of your post sounds like it needs a few citations to back it up too.
In hoc signo vinces
Civil rights, chivalry, the golden rule, and morality are nonexistent in neoliberal society.
Enter Glenn Beck and others like him they have no reference points to anchor their self they are floating in a neoliberal vacuum - thus the political confusion and convolution they rebound and run up and down the political spectrum like blind men.
Megalomaniacs all that is why the counter-jihad movement will be hampered by infighting, they bring their political prejudices that were built on neoliberal foundations they bring only blunt swords and division to the Gates of Vienna.
There is only one true legend and sword to counter the foe.
Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...
kritisk, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Galileo was locked up because he questioned the fallibility of the pope, not because of his theory of how the earth moved.
No, that is not true at all. Galileio was brought before the inquisition because he claimed that the sun was at the center of the universe and not the earth. By making this claim he went against the church and had to be punished.
EscapeVelocity, you are missing the point. We also reject the superstate, which will collapse in this decade or the next probably.
I have a question though. Let's suppose that the Muslims and everyone become good Christians tomorrow and that in 200 years Europe will be filled with Arabs and Africans. Why should I care that they're not Muslim, that they're not beheading each other like crazy and that they are not civilized? Also, the culture is European, not Christian and a manifestation of the European people. There are other Christian people on Earth too and yet they didn't create what Europeans did. The culture, philosophy and cultural heritage are European, not Christian.
About tolerating those who despise us. Isn't advocating a measure that will anihilate European people as a people bordering despising? What's the difference anyway? Since the results are the same, fighting Islam is pointless, isn't it? This is why we have a slightly different fight. Basically, you could care the less if European people disappear as long as the replacing population is Christian, while we try to preserve ourselves as a people. By choosing your way, we are choosing our destruction. Defending the culture without defending the people is fairly pointless to me.
By the way, how many Muslims live outside of Europe is irrelevant since they will never have the ability to get within Europe through war. I wanted to write something else too, but I forgot what so I might come back later with a comment about it.
I thank Kritisk Borger for their words and back what he says, having read about it from sources other than Wikipedia.
4symbols, Civil Rights have existed before the advent of "Christian Morality" and can be found in Pagan traditions dating back three times as long as Christianity. Morality has existed in different form in different cultures since the dawn of time. The golden rule is a bad way to live, as discussed in this article. Chivalry was created in the Middle Ages, so you can't insist that it is the best way to live.
GDA, Galileo's questioning of the Pope was indeed part of his troubles, but so was his scientific theories.
EV, I am not fantasizing about a Brave New World. You wish to defend 2000 years of Christian Heritage, tradition, culture and philosophy? To defend forced conversions, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and a host of other evils that have been done in the name of the Cross just so you fell you have a good chance of keeping the Crescent at bay?
I fear it is you who live in a dream.
My single desire is to live, realistically, in the way of my forefathers. I stand with over 10,000 years of Pagan Traditions, Cultures, Philosophies, and Heritages!
To say that my ways are a blunted sword, when there are countless Gods of War in the Pagan traditions, while you worship a god that preaches Turn the Other Cheek, is a point of logic I don't have time to discuss.
I don't dream of utopia. Yes, I choose Destruction, because destruction is upon us and only by matching it with equal force can we hope to have some part of the West survive.
RV, I'm happy to say you get it! You're exactly right.
Thank you for your time.
EscapeVelocity --
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.
Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.
----------------------
EscapeVelocity said...
Paganism doesn't equal Nazism or that s***! That's only happened after Christianity and Islam came about and insisting that they were superior and that non-believers had to be converted or cleansed!! -- TofT
You hold some fantastical myths about paganist tribalism in Europe their TofT.
Islam is going to force you to pick a Team.
The heady days of the dissolution of Christianity are over. We went through Sovietism and Communism, and Nazism, and New Leftism, all of which were dissasterous.
I suggest, that we look to what worked before, instead of creating new rationalist monsters of the 20th Century. That is why Im a conservative in the Burkean tradition.
You are fantazing about the Brave New World to be built on the ashes of civilization, not unlike the Islamics, Marxists, and Nazis. Destroy the old order and build a new. The Islamics have the advantage though...a strong base of support outside of Europe, 1.5 billion strong.
Unfortunately, Islam is in a stronger position. And you refuse to defend the old order.
So you choose, destruction, and hope to be left standing in the end to promote your utopian vision.
Good Luck with that.
I wish to defend 2000 years of Christian heritage, tradition, culture and philosophy...not Islam. One that is proven to work promotes successful societal structures, cultures of learning and prosperity, individual moral and intellectual cultivation.... which support higher goals of humanity, while mitigating the human condition.
Youve got a pipe dream, based on foggy understandings about ancient past belief systems.
kristic borger also condemns 2000 years of Christian Civilization.
Hasnt got one nice thing to say about it.
And these are the folks on GoV, fer Christ's sake.
Europe is doomed.
RV,
Apparently you cant tell the difference between destruction and absorbing other tribes into your tribe.
As I said, all you offer is ethnic cleansing and genocide as solutions.
Your unwillingness to live with anybody else with different gene pools inside your borders, isnt new, it will however lead to just the sorts of attrocities that kristick borger and TofT are castigating the Christian order for, in centuries past.
Europe is doomed.
Interestingly enough, the Muslim immigrants share your contempt for your Christian civilization. They seem to be very well, assimilated in that regard.
Who would assimlate into a culture that even the indigenous hold in contempt?
Europe is doomed.
I have a question though. Let's suppose that the Muslims and everyone become good Christians tomorrow and that in 200 years Europe will be filled with Arabs and Africans. -- RV
Your lack of procreation is not anybodies fault but your own. Blaming others for your lack of will to propagate your ethnic group, may seem attractive, but its got nothing to do with the other.
Europes birthrates dropped as Christianity was dropped. Christians of your ethnicity have higher birthrates than you Godless types who hold your Christian Heritage, Civiliztaion, and History in contempt.
Very depressing,
The GOV crowd despises European Christian civilization just as much as the Marxists.
Both, excited by the prospect of its destruction where they can build their new vision of society and culture.
Neither will succeed, the Islamos, are stronger.
Both the Marxists and the Islamics are working the system from the inside as well, the Islamics taking advantage of the Marxists work in villifying the old order for decades, and indoctrinating the few children that are now had after women's liberation, with contempt for the civilization that they are heirs to.
Very, very depressing.
EV there is no difference between absorption of my Tribe into your "Tribe" and the destruction of my Tribe by Islam. Either way, me and my people are still gone.
Pagan traditions are far more willing to exist with other tribes and religions due to the simple fact of our Polytheism. If we have our Gods, who do not state that they are the only gods, we can easily exist with other and their gods. It is only when there is One God, who claims himself the Only God, that suddenly all other gods and their followers must be purged. As a Norse Pagan, I have no issue living next to a Chinese, Native American, or Jew. Polythiesm encourages diversity.
EV, you are saying we must conform to your religion, god, and culture, to the exclusion of our cultures in order not to be absorbed/destroyed by Islam. You say that Europe is doomed, but if we follow your path just as much will be lost as if we fall to Islam.
As for the drop in birth rates in conjunction with "loss" of Christianity, that is a correlation, not a causation. Indeed, an in depth look at the life denying nature of Christianity shows it as the source of the drop of birth rates as part of the "post-christian" era. I've spoken on this in a previous comment.
You claim KB and I are castigating the Christian order and that we can't stand to live with any ethnicity other than our own, this isn't true, but what is true is that you consistently seem more interested in the Continuation and Power of your Christian Religion as opposed to an actual, Genetic Europe that this very site is fighting to preserve.
You show as much contempt for true European culture as you claim we do for Christian culture. Besides, how can you argue that Christianity can provide the power to face a unified Islam, when there are more sects and divisions of Christianity that any other ideology in the world!? The Catholic Church in the height of its power barely had the power to hold off Islam. They left to battle to People who stood on their own. Vlad "Dracula", Ogier le Danske (Holger Danske), Charles Martel, etc.
You're right, it is very depressing and Europe may very well be doomed.
I can't speak for everyone on this site, but only for myself. I, drawing on my ancient Pagan heritage know I have the strength to face this doom.
But you have already said you can flee to anywhere in the western hemisphere.
And you will run.
As Islam takes Europe, you will run, crying for a stronger Christianity. As you already do.
As they take America, you will run and decry about how Christ could have saved us and curse the Marxist, Liberals, and Muslims. As you already do.
You will run, asking why your Religion failed to stop Islam and blaming everyone but yourself. Islam will win.
Or, you can stop insisting that yours is the only way. You can accept that Pagans and Atheists are a part of this fight, and are willing to stop Islam. Ultimately the choice is yours, fight with us, or be so intent on destroying us that Islam wins.
Thank you for time, everyone.
As late as the mid 19th century christendom was still strong in my country. Every sunday the local priest went round to every house in the village and checked the inhabitants knowledge of the bible. If they hadn't done their homework the priest had authority to whack them with a stick. The social control was strong back then. Much like islam in fact.
What happened next to counter the strong christian church was the movements against heavy drinking which was a big problem for the society back then. A couple of decades later the social democratic movement came to Sweden. Back then it was different from today. It was a grass roots movement unlike today and did much to break the majority of the citizens out of poverty and worked to give them a better life and dignity. It took several decades, it was not until the 50's the majority of people lived a decent life. Of course christianity lost it's iron grip on the citizens which was not a bad thing at all. I don't want to spend my time reading the bible and get whacked if I fail to answer the priests questions. Nor do I want to become burned alive just because I'm a heretic.
As far as I'm concerned christianity may still be allowed to co-exist with us under the condition they have no political power at all. And I most definitively don't want islam to fill that gap instead. Preferably I don't want islam in Europe at all. I don't care if they integrate or assimilate because I don't want any muslims here at all. I don't promote genocide but if they don't leave of their own we obviously have to evict them with force. Not more force than absolutely necessary though.
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Graeco-Roman, Germanic, Scandinavian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.
As far as I'm concerned christianity may still be allowed to co-exist with us under the condition they have no political power at all. --- TofT
So you wish to impose your will upon the Christians...which have no right to participate in governance.
Christians are to be your dhimmis, and the Islamics are not welcome at all.
I fully understand your position. Support of it will lead to your disaster.
Oops, that was Robin Shadowes.
The anti Christian fervancy, is very strong, and it is the cause of a very weak and fractured society, which will not be able to prevent Islam from domination. The fractured Godless society wont even have children, but at least they got rid of that vile Christianity's hold on moral and political power!
Very very depressing.
Ill note that it was the Christian order who fought Islam, successfully...and specifically not the pagan Europeans.
If not for Chrsitianity, you would already be Muslims.
This conversation is very, very depressing. Youve turned on your Christian heritage, claim to advocate tolerance, and then demand that Muslims and Islam are not welcome, while Christians are to be politically and culturally dhimmified.
And then you claim superiority to Christianity (and Islam), as tolerant and progressive.
Shakes head in disbelief.
And you will run. --- TofT
No, I will carry the light of Western Civilization, European civilization. And fight a battle that is winnable, with fellow faithful in the Western Hemisphere.
It pretty rich Europeans calling Americans cowards, who will run. We fight around the globe, promoting righteousness and good.
You cant be bothered.
Ill not be lectured by a Godless European who despises his own civilization.
Here is an interesting book and article...
Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam
Joseph Ratzinger & Marcello Pero
For those who may not know, and given the level of anti Christian bigotry on this thread, it may be many....Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
The irony of calling a Polytheist "Godless" has me laughing. Arguably, I have more gods and goddesses than you do, EV.
As for you comment about Pagans not facing Islam as Christianity fought off Muslims, I would like to direct your attention to the Varangin Guard (made up of primarily Scandinavian Pagans) and Holger Danske of this site's fame.
As for why more Pagans didn't fight off Islam, the answer is simple. Christianity Had Killed Them All!
Robin Shadowes is correct on how Christianity can still exist in the West as long as it has no political power. You claim I hate America, but this is not true. I love America and what it originally stood for. Separation of Church and State! Freedom, Democracy, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! I and all other Pagan have no interest in making Christians "dhimmis" to us.
But we pagan have fought and died over two thousand years, across nations and seas, to prevent you from gaining supremacy over us and destroying our culture in the name of your "Salvation." Our results may be mixed, but that doesn't mean we should lay down and submit to Christ anymore than to Allah.
Simply put, Christianity is an Eastern Religion, same as Islam, and they come from the same root, worship the same god, and are Peoples of the Book.
It is not a Western Religion. It is not Western Culture. It is not Western.
Fascinating that you would use in your argument a book by the Pope, an individual who belongs to several organizations of questionable virtue.
I noticed, EV, that you have refused to answer my question. Are you willing to join together with Pagans and Atheists to fight off Islam, or will you insist that Christ is the only way and fall for the sake of Christian Purity?
The time is now, and to quote a very good movie: "It's time to nut up or shut up."
Btw my name is Thorkell the Tall, EV, TtT, not TofT
I think this is a complete fallacy. If a society applies the first three principals EQUALLY and firmly then the intolerant are unable to ACT out their intolerances upon said society, thus "morality" is served.
Is it not the FAILURE of the EU and US in actually APPLYING across the board these falsly malgined principals that has caused the problems?
Would Major Hasan have gotten past Lieut. Hasan in a REAL Liberal Democracy?
Hmm?
It is un-chivalrous, and not treating others as you would be treated, nor giving people their HUMAN rights to argue as you do.
As such, I submit that you are not behaving in a moral fashion, as you sem to be reacting more to what yo do not liek than asctually proposing a humane solution to said problems.
Good point on the article DeWhitney.
EV, the European civlization isn't the result of Christianity, but that of European people. South Africa and South America are mostly Christian, yet they didn't create civilizations comparable to Europe. There isn't such a thing as Christian civilization. Sure, Christianity is and was a part of the civilization created by Europeans, but it isn't what created the civilization per say or otherwise places with the same or higher rates of Christianity would have fared in the same way.
And by the way, I don't advocate genocide or racial purity, you did. I just recognize that there are differences among people, which is just a scientific fact. Actually, you are the one that doesn't show much difference to the multicultural people, you just have a different desire related to the ruling ideology. And there are a lot of factors related to the birth rates that have nothing to do with Christianity. I wonder how people had children before Christianity by reading your posts. I also missed the part where we chose to import foreigners here and you failed to answer my question. Why should I care if Europe is Christian or Muslim, civilized or barbaric if the people who will live in it aren't my people?
As Thorkell says, to me it looks like you are more worried about preserving Christianity than the people who spawned European civilization and who this civilization is a vector of. Also, this civilization can exist only as long as the people exist. I would also like to politely ask you to not make it personal.
As a Romanian, I can tell you that Christianity isn't the solely thing that made us fight the Ottomans. Actually, Christianity was an engine for our fight simply because we were Christian and they weren't and being Christian was an exponent of being Romanian in that fight. Basically, this was just the rallying banner that we used to fight others. We fought the Poles and Hungarians too, we used different banners for that one. You see, Christianity worked in defending Europe against Islam because Christianity was dominant only in Europe and it worked in the framework of preserving our people. Also, since I'm Romanian and I know my country's history really well, I can tell you that Christianity didn't give a flying carpet(ha :P) about our fight. We didn't get much help from anyone in Christdom. It wasn't really Christianity that kept us from becoming Muslims.
I see that you don't understand what morality is. Morality is a framework for guiding action in order to preserve and maximize individual and collective values in a certain context. You are basically falling in the is-ought fallacy here. A moral code is a normative standard that says what is right and wrong, good and bad. Right and good for what and for whom? For example, look at murder. Making murder immoral and illegal is right and good because it's the way to allow a group of people to live together, which allows people to do more than watching their back. So a proscription of murder is a successful strategy given the human reliaty in social contexts and so on. It has nothing to do with religion or Christian morality. Basically, morality is about maximizing values and yes, what happens now is immoral. But it has nothing to do about Christianity.
I find it fairly amusing that you find the United States being present everywhere a good thing. I won't go into how it bankrupts us, but what about Kosovo? You basically are the facilitators in the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the Serbs there and the destruction of 10% of their churches in quite a short period of time. You are clueless about what you are doing around the world because it isn't promoting righteousness and good. Also, you fell back in the is-ought logical fallacy. I would also like to tell you before you say that I hate America is that I love what America meant and stood for and the vision that founders had. If that was true, I would have worked my ass off to become a citizen there, wrap the American flag around me and kiss the American soil in the day in which I was awarded citizenship. But the US wasn't meant to be a propositional nation and because of this, it will fail. Do you even look at what's happening in your country?
Another thing, I will prefer Europe to be Christian than Muslim 1000 times over because I care for the people living inside it.
EV, I heard on Coast to Coast AM the other day that Gabriel Amorth, the official vatican excorsist claims there are demons even within the Vatican itself!! What is your comment to that?
TtT, out of curiosity, which scandinavian country did your ancestors originate from? I'm a native swede myself but feel close to other scandinavian people too. Even the finns even if our languages does not share the same roots. Mostly because Finland was a swedish province for 700 years and that is a pretty long time!
My grandfather was a pure blooded Norwegian and my grandmother was a Dane/Swed. Thank you for asking. It's nice to meet another Scandinavian Robin.
RV, Christianity has a very successful moral code.
I suggest you might want to read up on it, and not from sources that hostile to it, like Conservative Swede.
Ive read it all in Marxist and NeoMarxist, Feminist, and Indigenous diatribes regarding Christianity.
They've turned people that care about preserving Western Civilization against Islamization (you) into the enemy of Christianity. That kind of splintering and division will not be overcome. The West is weak, the Marxists have done their job. However it will be the Muslims who are the main benefactors and not he Marxists creating their utopian visions.
Also, addressing your anti American screed, would no doubt take more effort than I am willing to commit to it.
Every American action abroad will be criticized by some (or all) of the other participants. And certainly the US will be rightly criticized for making mistakes...or missing the geopolitical long term significance. But that is the price of being involved. Its easy to sit on the sidelines and sneer. Sneer all the way to suicidal oblivion, apparently. But at least you got to sneer at the Americans, who actually have a lifeforce and reason for being, a metaphysical purpose, rather than hedonistic tribalism.
Robin Shadowes,
I dont listen to Coast to Coast AM, but it is interesting to learn that you value it as a source of news and information. I shall keep that in mind, regarding your posts.
As Christian Nations of strong moral and metaphysical compass you became the stongest most powerful nations on Earth, and then you turned your back on Christianity embraced decadence and are hurting towards Civilizational calamity, and you cant put 2 + 2 together, indeed you maintain fervent contempt for Christianity. You are doomed.
I see anti-christian feelings and opinions being expressed here which are as rotten as worm infested fruits of the worst leftist Marxist interpretation, resulting in the typical nativistic liberation type theology. I also feel that these sort of sentiments are equally hostile to my values as real Islam and virulent leftism. I consider leftism an evil.
I guess it all boils down to what each of us thinks we are defending, preserving, saving. For me my God is my lord and Christianity my people and country, my dearest and highest value . Nothing can come before it, not race, not country. It transcends them both.
There is obviously great disagreement on this point but the difference that gives my Christianity the edge is that it provides a way for people of good and common will to unite. I don't want to be united with evil people of my physical race, they are my foes. The good and the truth and the God I aim for are universal and absolute, not tribal.
EV, you're absolutely right, Christianity has a very successful Moral Code.
After all, that is why so many of the religious leaders of Christianity are brought up on charges of child abuse, sexual abuse, embezzlement, and so many other evil actions that they defy listing and violate the very Moral Code they say they follow.
Rome, one of the greatest Powers ever seen in Europe, only fell after Christianity came to power. That you advocate a life denying, violence denying, world denying religion as the best option to fight a religion that has the same qualities is mind boggling.
Michael Servetus, I am no leftist Marxist. I am a pure capitalist and have views that many would consider conservative. As for leftism, it draws its very ideals from the Christian religion and there are many people who can explain it better than I can here. The only edge your Christian religion grants you is the Moral Certainty that you are doing the "Right Thing" for the "Greater Good." It is the same argument put forth by this article.
You say you're aiming for a truth that is universal and absolute. But is that not also what Islam is doing? Seeking to enforce a universal and absolute truth of submission to the One God, same god you Christians worship?
As for the rejection of Christianity leading to the collapse of Civilizations, the average Christian run Civilization collapses at about a couple of centuries. On the other hand the "rotten," "evil," "decadent," and so on civilizations that were around under Paganism not only lasted longer, they were more powerful. Egypt lasted Five Thousand Years alone. Yet every nation falls, so to say it only occurs after people reject Christianity is foolish.
People are different. We are unique individuals, each with our quirks. To demand that we all live by a single, uniformed ideal is cruel and goes against everything it is to be human.
Latin American is on the rise, with its strong Christian faith, Europe is on the wane, they turned their back on God and Christianity.
Amen Michael Servetus.
EV, I actually bothered to read the Bible, something that most Christians didn't. I wonder where is the so called amazing morality of a rape victim having to marry her rapist. I won't go into all the other moral quirks of Christianity. I don't see how Christian morality as in the weak and poor inheriting the Earth and the rich being evil are upholding the greated good, which is what morality is. I will give you that a lot of things from Christianity are good like women being chaste and marriage emphasized(I won't go into why).
I don't really care about obliterating Christianity, it's just that what is paramount is the survival of my people. An economy is easier to recreate than a culture and a culture is easier to recreate than a people, which can't be recreated. And in this case, adhering to universal principles it's actually immoral because it undermines the greater good of my people. And as I said before, I would have liked you to not make it personal, but you did. Since you can't carry a rational debate without make it personal or smearing, I will end this here. By the way, Spain lost it's colonial empire due to Christianity. And before you say we are doomed, half of the children under age of 5 in the US are non-white and here are some interesting statistics. 99% of black people and 75% of Hispanic people voted for Obama.
Michael, I have a question for you. What is the leftist Marxism to you? How do you spot it? Because you and EV use that in the same way the left uses the fascist smear, which is fairly funny considering you are blaming the left(and rightfully so). And by the way, because of Christians seeing Christianity as their 'country and people', Christianity can't be used to Europe. Basically, it would be the same as submitting to Islam and to continue the replacement of the native population. It's funny to me, but this type of thinking is the door to multiculturalism and the problem we have now. It's sort of amusing that you and EV actually prove ConservativeSwede right.
Oh, I forgot to include in my last post. EV, the United States are in a worse situation economically BY FAR compared to Europe. Medicare will go bankrupt in 8 years, for example. You have liabilities exceeding 80-85 trillion dollars and a national debt of 15 trillion(I included all the Freddie and Fannie guarantees and so on that are just as good as treasuries that are backed by the government since they are the same as debt). The United States will probably fall way before Europe does.
Thor of the the Thunder Hammer,
That men are fallible, that the institutions of and by men are fallible is without question.
You might as well condemn all ideologies (in fact that is what Europe(ans) has(ve) done). You are adrift and thus vulnerable, because you have no absolutes...but the absolute of tolerance (which is actually intolerant of Christianity, white Euro ethnicities, males) etc.
You are left with the morality of sentimentality, totally disconnected from universal truth, adrift and longing, morality based on demanded rights and indignation, emotion and feeling with no direction.
Here is ...Chantol Delsol from Icarus Fallen...as reviewed by Claire Berlinski...
-----------
European man has in recent memory suffered two great losses, first his Christian faith and then its replacement — a vision of human perfectibility absent supernatural guidance. Failed experiments in utopianism, particularly in its communist and fascist expressions, have left him, like Icarus, singed at the wing-tips and fallen, paralyzed by self-doubt.
Utopian ideologies were, as she says, “systems of reference structured like cathedrals,” and her use of this rich simile is no accident. Europe has spent the past several centuries, not just this one, in a series of struggles to find a replacement for its lost Christian faith. Until recently, for example, nationalism was a substitute for religious belief; in France, the idea of France itself and its civilizing mission lent meaning to the lives of Frenchmen, just as the mystical Aryan ideal stood in for religious belief in Germany. The nation-state, the arts, music, science, fascism, communism, even rationality itself — all of these were substitutes for Christianity, and all failed. “We have watched all the cathedrals fall into ruin,” Delsol laments, “one after another.” But where McGrath sees in this the inevitability of religious revival, Delsol discerns no such thing. She finds her contemporaries’ fear of ideological certainty fully reasonable: Rigid orthodoxy, after all, did give rise to both the Inquisition and the Holocaust. So a return to the past is impossible, and no one has the faintest idea what the future might hold.
Man continues, nonetheless, to long for utopia and for the absolute — this is a design feature, to paraphrase Delsol, not a bug — and for a means to interpret his existence. But he no longer possesses a coherent ideological vehicle by which to express this longing. Here she sees the source of the profound risk-aversion of the modern European: “In general,” she writes, “our contemporary cannot imagine for what cause he would sacrifice his life because he does not know what his life means.” Though Delsol does not explicitly say as much, this is as good an explanation as we are apt to find for Europe’s recent approach to international affairs: How better, for example, to explain the willingness of the Spanish people instantly and obediently to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists who last year slaughtered some 200 of their countrymen?
continued...
Lacking any sense of purpose, Delsol asserts, modern man enshrouds himself in technological and physical comfort, leading a life that is at once free of risk and mediocre, mouthing vapid, unexamined clichés. These she calls “the clandestine ideology of our time” — clandestine because no overt adherence to ideology is now socially permissible. Yet the banishment of the economy of ideology, she astutely remarks, has encouraged a black market to flourish in its place: “This underground moral code is saturated with sentimentality yet arbitrarily intolerant.” The code is a close cousin to the political correctness of the Americans, and it is the unspoken foundation of the modern European welfare state — a society predicated on an ever-expanding sense of entitlement:
Anything contemporary man needs or envies, anything that seems desirable to him without reflection, becomes the object of a demanded right. Human rights are invoked as a reason for refusing to show identification, for becoming indignant against the deportation of delinquent foreigners, for forcing the state to take illegal aliens under its wing, for justifying squatting by homeless people, for questioning the active hunt for terrorists. It is not only desire or whim that leads to rights claims, but instinctive sentimentality and superficial indignation as well.
Another principle of this code is the estimation of tolerance above all other virtues. Once defined by the absence of state prohibitions against certain ideas and behaviors, tolerance has come to be conflated with legitimization — as the state itself now actively encourages those ideas and behaviors through legal and material aid. Delsol finds this pernicious, and rightly so. One need only look at the Netherlands to see exactly where this orthodoxy leads: When an artist created a street mural with the words “Thou shalt not kill” in response to the murder — by a Muslim radical — of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Dutch police immediately destroyed it in the name of tolerance. Deputy Prime minister Gerrit Zalm was widely criticized for declaring the Netherlands to be at war with Islamic extremism. “We fall,” said Green-left leader Femke Halsema, “too easily into an ‘us and them’ antithesis with the word war.” No more perfect example of Delsol’s thesis can be imagined. “Dominated by emotion,” she observes,
our era overflows with treacly sentiment. It is almost as if the feelings that were once associated with a certain type of piety have contaminated the whole population. . . . Seeking the good while remaining indifferent to the truth gives rise to a morality of sentimentality.
My only quibble: This is not just a morality of sentimentality; it is a morality of eager, collective suicide.
Delsol’s is certainly not the first baleful assessment of our ambient culture of moral relativism — perhaps quasi-relativism is more apt because, as she rightly notes, its practitioners unquestionably accept moral absolutes (“one must be tolerant”) while insisting that they indignantly reject them. But her criticism is particularly lucid, and her analysis of the reasons for the rise of this ideology — and the kind of culture to which it in turn gives rise — unusually canny.
Hmmmm.....
Is my choice here to either be burnt at the stake by a Christian for heresy, or be hung from a tree after my throats been slit by a Nordic Pagan as part of a ritual sacrifice?
Seriously though, whether each of you steps on a single toe separatly or together stomp on the whole foot does'nt matter. What matters is that your shared enemy says OUCH!!
I'm not trying to be flippant. I just want to point out that people of opposing beliefs can come together to defeat a common enemy.
In the Spanish civil war of the 1930's, both sides had varying ideologies and were able to conduct the conflict with gusto.
WWII is a perfect example of how Commies and Democracies came together to defeat shared enemies.
The positive outcome of this essay is that many agree that the Western worlds ideological base is flawed and must be redefined if islam is to be turned back.
I suggest everyone read John Kekes book -Against Liberalism- it draws attention to what he calls "General Benevolence". A major flaw in Liberal(Western) thought. Its a rich read.
cont...
Mcgrath contends that a new “cultural sensitivity” has “led to religious beliefs being treated with new respect.” Yet on the pages of our major news organs we find the faithful described in the most disrespectful terms. Here is novelist Jane Smiley, in Slate, depicting them as “unteachably ignorant,” advising us to “[l]isten to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are — they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.” Brian Reade of the Mirror calls the faithful “self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-loathin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport ownin’ red-necks.” Maureen Dowd, predictable as sunrise, sees “a vengeful mob — revved up by rectitude — running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.” And Nicolas Kristof echoes his New York Times colleague with his nod to “wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting” Americans. If Delsol’s thesis needs further confirmation, consider this: These critics are exercised about the intolerance of the religious.
No, not much newfound respect for religion on display here — just a good deal of what Delsol calls the “ideology of the apostate.” Mainstream moral thinking remains, above all, structured around the rejection of religious morality. “The drama of the present age,” she observes, “does not lie so much in the return of certain figures of existence as it does in the fact that these figures were — and in many cases still are — despised.” Evidence for Delsol’s somber assessment of Western man, with his limited, repulsive view of truth and transcendence, is everywhere, belying McGrath’s sunny appraisal of man’s renewed spiritual sensitivity.
Keep telling yourself that RV, if it warms your heart. Nothing like bashing America to distract the locals from their internal problems.
As for me, I do not relish the impending doom of Europe and Europeans and European Nations.
Its interesting that even Godless Europeans, get upset when Muslims take over a more or less abandoned Christian Church to use as their Mosque.
One wonders if they are sentimental about Christianity, or if they sense that a menacing vibrant new religion is encroaching upon them....threatening their hedonistic ways.
Probably some of both, even existing within the same person. And that person might be virulently hostile to Christianity.
Elan-tima, I agree with you. The entirety of my speaking here has been to argue for a unified front of different peoples against Islam. However, I do wish to assure you that is highly unlikely you'll ever hang from a tree as a human sacrifice from Pagans in this era. I can't speak as to your end for heresy against Christ.
EV, while I have addressed you directly I have had no intention to make this a personal fight. You are entitled to your beliefs and I have no interest in making you accept mine.
You're right, South America is on the rise. But look at South America. It is a land ruled by drug lords, corrupt officials, and lawlessness. It's people are poor, their lives ruled by fear and greed. Is this the great salvation of Christianity in our Modern Era? Is this what Europe and America must turn into in order to not become Muslim? Such a thing would be as much a destruction of Europe and the West as Islamic take over.
But I wish to correct you on one last thing before I end my part in this discussion. I am not left with the Morality of Sentimentality, disconnected from universal truth, filled with longing and no direction.
I have my direction. I might not have your Universal Morality, but I have something even greater: Honor and Nobility. I stand above Good and Evil to see what must truly be done and I do it. I keep my word, act with both compassion and ruthlessness. I do not kneel before anyone, but rather I stand tall.
I make my own destiny and my own Morality. I define what is right for myself and my people by my Gods and their Morality. Because I am not a slave to my Gods and Goddesses, but their friend.
I thank everyone for their time. May we all stand together in the Fight against Islam, because otherwise we not only loose the war, but what we were fighting for to begin with.
Thorkell the Tall: There are legitimate reasons for criticizing the way many Western Christians support mass immigration. However, your version of criticism is a bad caricature of Marxist brainwashing and I would request that you take it somewhere else. It is neither truthful nor helpful and you are undermining the purpose of this website, either deliberately or because you don't know better.
Again, you make criticism of South America...foibles which are all found on the continent of Europe.
Drug Lords, Fear and Greed, lawlessness, corrupt officials.
But that isnt what we are talking about. Man is by nature a flawed creature, that doesnt mean that professing higher aspirations of morality and good and righteousness (via Christianity) are also flawed. Indeed the man without the higher aspirations, is more of a lout. Sinners abound, but those who seek atonement for their sins and repent, and strive for good, while not always attaining it is better than the man who debases himself with no higher aspirations and claims his right to live as he pleases, irrespective of the damage it does to himself and others.
When you make your own morality, and everybody else makes their own morality, what you have is a no morality...because their is no universal standard. What you have is moral relativism and moral equivalence. Your ego drives your will, and your will is your morality. This is where Hitler was coming from by the way.
You cannot stand above Good and Evil, that is what European man is learning the hard way. You cannot transcend Good and Evil, and relegate it to the dustbin of history. What follows is Evil on a grand scale, because you have abolished it in your mind, means that you fail to promote Good, and fail to prevent Evil....and when Good Men do Nothing (or men who have sought to abolish Good and Evil) then Evil is free to flourish. You may have re-defined it as Not Evil because you no longer acknowledge Evil, but it is non the less. And thus Civilization crumbles, and the vultures swoop in to pick up the leftovers.
Thorkel,
I don't know what passes for Christian over in Europe nowadays but Christianity has never been relativistic or the house of traitors. Christians have a view of truth that is pure and unchanging and we are commanded to honor and love it. In addition we have the OT reference which teaches us the severity of justice without mercy, which some criticize, but is a perfect picture to keep the soul focused and teaches us to remember Gods strict justice without mercy. This reminds us to never think we can or ought to think we can get away with dishonest living or thinking. This has slashed kept Christians in line in a world gone mad and forsaking the lord, turning grace into lasciviousness. The saying goes, God is not mocked. So we have truth and mercy, we know and meditate on them daily. Modern people have abandoned this and gone whoring after the idols of false philosophy. I don't know why those who have apostasized still call themselves Christian, o wait yes I do.
It is typical leftist move to undermine, subvert, pervert, redefine without honesty. Keep the name, claim ownership, demonize and marginalize the truth of anything and transform it from within.
So please do not confuse Christianity with its parody, meant to mislead. Leftists are simply apostates from truth.
I dont think that TofT understands that he is fundamentally miming the Marxist criticism of Western Civilization and Christianity in particular.
He is just another minority group that desires protection from the imposition of Western Norms on his group.
Elan tima,
Western democracy flawed? Yes and no. Flight from truth, rebellion from reason is more the problem. Our systems work for a good people, not a society succumbed by perversion and raging indecency.
Escape,
That's some deep stuff your postin'. Crispy stuff man, especially that post 79 .
TofT seems to be on the Nietzschean precipice, staring into the abyss.
I also wanted to state, that Christianity is more than the Bible.
There are 2000 years of Christian philosophers and thinkers to consider under its umbrella, as well as the its Jewish philosophical roots.
Michael, the problem with democracy is universal suffrage and that voting is a right, not a privilege given to people qualified for it - for example, men in between 25 and 65 that are married with children and own property or business and are net tax payers.
I don't see how you can look at the Old Testament for moral guidance though. For example, if you believe that it should be the case, then why beef on Muslim men being allowed to have sex with their slave girls since the OT condones that too(Exodus 21:9-11 and Deuteronomy 21:10-14 describes capturing female slaves, while Genesis has some nice parts about that too)? I guess I should have pulled a page out of EV's debating strategies book and say that Christians want to bring back slavery(Exodus and Deuteronomy are filled with nice bits about it), like he rambles about people who want to preserve themselves as a group promoting genocide. Or how about the great guidance of marrying a raped woman to her rapist(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? And I don't get why he had beef with Thorkell about sacrifices, since the OT promotes that too(Deuteronomy 17:1), just like the stoning of adultresses(Deuteronomy 22:22) or whipping of female slaves if they have consensual sex or get raped(Leviticus 19:20-22).
Actually, Christianity is different than Islam simply because it rejects these things now, as well as literal interpretations of the Bible(and according to Matthew 5, these are still valid today if you do a literal interpretation). Now, luckily, morality has progressed(and not in the way the Marxists use the word) since those days simply because the context is different. The problem is that currently there's no such thing as morality anymore. I wrote about this earlier, but it was ignored. lol
I had intended to stop my part in this discussion as civilly as I could, but it seems I must add but a little more.
Fjordman, I have gone through your articles and I give you much respect. It is nice to see love for my Scandinavian people. But I must correct you on something. I do not support Marxism, nor have I fallen prey to a bad caricature of Marxist brainwashing. Everything I have said has been based on empirical Historical research. I do not see how I am undermining the purpose of this website when I have done nothing but advocate the halt of Islam via a joining together of All the peoples and traditions of Europe without granting supremacy to any one group. I have held here that tribalism is the answer, following in the footsteps of your esteemed fellow on this site El Ingles. I am sorry you feel that I have betrayed this site, that was never my intent.
I have studied Nietzsche and I have not only been on the precipice, I fell into the Abyss and came out the other side a stronger and better person. I know EV, Micheal, and others may disagree with me, that is their right and I have never intended to force my ways on anyone. I stated initially that I was reluctant to share my views simply because it would start an argument like this.
Rebelliousvanilla, I congratulate you on raising so many good points. I am proud to stand with you against tyranny. Thank you for your assistance in this discussion.
Thank you for you time.
Yeah, warm and extra crispy.
EV. That point is getting sharper.
Keep working it.
Fjordman said...
"Thorkell the Tall: There are legitimate reasons for criticizing the way many Western Christians support mass immigration. However, your version of criticism is a bad caricature of Marxist brainwashing and I would request that you take it somewhere else. It is neither truthful nor helpful and you are undermining the purpose of this website, either deliberately or because you don't know better."
What exactly in Thorkell the Tall’s posting here on this page is it that can be labeled ‘Marxist brainwashing”? As far as I can see Thorkell has been very truthful and honest in all of his postings.
How on earth are ‘westerners’ going to defeat Islam, if only deeply religious Christians and those with the ‘right views’ are allowed to join the fight?
It's interesting how passionate, intense and flamed the Scandinavians become in their criticism of Christianity. Besides, they seem to follow the same process of thinking - return to the Norse heritage, honor and nobleness instead of compassion, via Nietzsche. A sure case of living with the wrong religion. They reject it naturally, like an alien part in their body.
Armance said...
It's interesting how passionate, intense and flamed the Scandinavians become in their criticism of Christianity. Besides, they seem to follow the same process of thinking - return to the Norse heritage, honor and nobleness instead of compassion, via Nietzsche. A sure case of living with the wrong religion. They reject it naturally, like an alien part in their body.
Well let’s go back to where this debate started to get heated. It started when Escape Velocity suggested that it would be a great idea ...
“ for the good men of the West to reassert Christian morality and virtue as the dominant force within Western institutions.”
My response to this proposal of a western Christian theocratic empire was;
“I’d rather see religion where it belongs, in private homes and places of worship. I don’t think it should be allowed to permeate the policies of our governments. Mixing religion and politics has always been a bad idea. Politics should only be based on logic and it should strive to benefit the vast majority, not the loud minority.”
No one here has expressed intense hatred of Christianity and Christians. The only hatred expressed here has been against atheist and people with other beliefs, vehemently and passionately spewed out by god fearing Christian commenters.
I have simply questioned certain claims and pointed out that the Christian church, throughout history, has committed countless atrocities and persecuted atheists and other individuals who haven’t lived up to the churches criteria. If this claim is not true then maybe someone can prove me wrong?
To express a desire of living a life without being told what to do whether it’s from radical Islamists or fanatical Christians is not anti-religious, but pro-personal freedom. I believe that the US Constitution guarantees this right to every individual in the US. Is the US Constitution wrong in this? Should the US become a Christian theocracy ala Iran?
I have no problem with people practicing their religion as long as they don’t push their views on me or tell me how to live my life. That’s why I’m very concerned about Islam’s rapid growth in the western world. OK, was that clear enough for you?
Kristik, no one here has said non Christians can't join together with Christians against an obvious hostile enemy. We are one in other ways which count and should bind us together. There is no need for attacking Christianity.
Concerning mental disorder leftism ,the reason it is easy to associate it with some of the criticism here is because it is the same. If someone can't find the overwhelming good displayed in Christianity but instead sees and speaks only evil, then, in my mind, there is something wrong almost perverse in that person.
you and others don't believe in Christ Jesus, so be it, you will not find me blaming all the evils committed by non Christian people on you or enumerating them in an attempt to blacken you.
Rebellious vanilla yes there may be a problem in the way you mention. Privelege vs right. I agree in principle, but I think it all goes back to a good virtuous people, whose love for the good would produce in them that respect, as it does in you and I.
It's a one of the themes of Hilaire Belloc's Europe and the Faith that the Northern Germanies and Scandinavia were the first parts of Europe to join the Reformation because they lay outside the old Roman civilisation. He wrote than these outlying parts - newly incorporated – were never sufficiently penetrated by the Christian faith and the proper habits of ordered men. Nietzsche was born in North-West Germany and it was he who came up with the "meme" that the Christian god is a Hebraic, alien god who is unsuitable for European comsumption.
Clearly the deep sense of alienation from Christianity that Scananavians feel is also affected by the way in which they were forced to adopt it through violence. Most parts of Europe can point to a patron saint, a great missionary, often French, who came and inspired the people with religious devotion. Instead, in Scandanavia and the outer Germanies, you have the "Christianisation" of Charlemagne which as others have pointed out did itself go against the Christian spirit.
Then why do the Latin Americans not feel the same alienation from Christianity.
They were forced to it later, and just as if not moreso brutally.
The alienation that Europe feels from Christianity is not alienation at all (note alienation is a Marxist term and forces the blame onto others as if you were a victim of said alienation). Its a conscious rejection of Christianity.
"I have no problem with people practicing their religion as long as they don’t push their views on me or tell me how to live my life. That’s why I’m very concerned about Islam’s rapid growth in the western world. OK, was that clear enough for you?"
---
And my point was that your rejection of Christianity and the resulting atomization of society, which is now dominated by the Marxist view of things (which is extremely hostile to Western Civiliztaion and Christianity) has left you wide open for Islam to step in.
Do you deny that?
E.V.,
I said that the alienation - but let's call it a conscious rejection - Scandinavians feel towards Christianity is affected by the way in which they were forced to adopt it through violence. Similarly, Mexican socialists who reject Christianity complain about having the white's man religion forced on them. (I've seen it on Youtube.) Though others will embrace liberation theology and pray to Che Guevara as a saint. In any case they have homosexual marriage and liberal abortion laws in Mexico, so who knows how Christian they really are? Many Mexican Indian peasants still resent the Iberian Spaniard conquistadors, and the presence of any European-descended peoples in the Americas, and flock to Mexico's Communist Party to represent them.
But Christianity forcing its beliefs isn't the problem or the cause of any problem is it and never was a problem for anyone living today, including you. You suffer from anti Christian derangement syndrome because you have been persecuted by Christians? No, because Marxist leftist ideas have implanted that meme in your head.
What about parents who exercise authority over you as a minor, what about the state imposed immorality of today, that doesn't bother you, homosexual confusion taught and enforced on kids in public school. The problems you face are the results of atheistic secularism which claims it doesn't need religious moral guidance, that it can figure out morality all on its own. Now all this is staring you in the face and you are complaining about something that could not possibly have been an significant issue in your life or even your grandparents lives. I can also say the same right back at you, you can not believe, just don't force your atheistic amoral beliefs on me.
I only say it to show how shortsighted and incomplete your thoughts are korik.
Indeed Michael Servetus.
S O'B.
The Marxists are a crafty bunch arent they. They have white Europeans hating themselves and their traditional religion. And some(many) without even realizing that they have been brainwashed by the Marxists!
EV, why the need to mock me for the C2C-thing? It's by far not my only source of information. I just enjoy lostening to it, that's all. I'm sure you can read about Amorth on many other sites, both fringe and MSM. But you never answered my question what you think about the devil is running the Vatican...
Take the sexual revolution, which is destroying bonds and the nuclear family. Combined with women in the workplace, where they arent having children.
Kristik Borger demands the right not to have those Christian moralists (or traditional moralists guiding society). He embraces the causation of the massive decline in birthrates, while demanding a luxurious welfare state, then becomes incensed and incredulous when immigration occurs to prop up the welfare state.
He wants his cake and eat it too.
What he will get is the wholesale collapse of his culture and society, to be replaced by others, with a superior system of human propagation. (I say superior, in the sense that they are propagating and replacing Europeans who are obviously failing to propagate.)
Its all really quite ludicrous and surreal.
Hey, sorry about that, I like the X-Files and Fringe too.
Im big on Ratzinger, Pope Bennie.
John Paul had his moments, but mostly I didnt care for his reign. Though I do think the Catholic Church can use some reform. Bennie for example opened up a path to take much of the CofE under the Catholic Church's wing while still allowing Anglican liturgy and rites.
Trying to peel off those that are displeased with the liberal leftist post Christian Rowan Williams crap.
Michael, as I pointed out, the Christian morality supports the things I talked about earlier. Slavery being immoral or women being forced to marry their rapist being immoral are products of secular morality. As I said earlier, the problem isn't that the West dropped Christianity, but because it dropped morality, which are completely different things. I mean, sure, Christianity was part of the West's morality, but when people gave that up, it should have been replaced with another moral code. For example, I'm an atheist and as I stated earlier, I believe it is good for women to be virgin until marriage, that children being raised inside families should be the norm and that divorce is immoral. I don't need to be Christian to get to those conclusions because morality is independent of religion. Morality is merely a set of normative principles that are designed to further the individual and collective values of a society.
Also, you conflate different things. Because Marxists are atheists, it doesn't mean that atheists are Marxists. That's a huge logical mistake. For example, I'm an atheist and I reject multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, the centralization of power within a government, non-discrimination and the myth of equality. I'm also against abortion from the moment in which science says that life begins.
Also, I don't have a problem with most Christians who actually bother to analyze the Holy Scripture by themselves and say that I'm immoral because I'm an atheist. I wasn't an atheist my whole life, I actually went to church at least once a week and I prayed every night before bed for quite a bit of my life. I'm mostly the same person, I just found that Christianity isn't congruent with my spiritual needs after I read the Bible a couple of times(the Old Testament who you say is good was a big part of the reason why). So yes, I obviously consider these people my allies, especially since in terms of morality I believe in at least a part of the things that Christianity teaches.
About right vs privilege, the whole problem is that a meritocracy creates virtuous people, not a mediocracy. I wanted to write more, but I have some things to do so I will stop here.
Thorkell, I don't consider Christianity as tyranny. I consider Christianity as part of the European heritage, I was baptized as Christian and I will probably batpize my children, even though I am atheist and marry in church. The problem is that we need to use some ethics within a national system, like it was used until the 20th century. For example, my country's Christianity is different than any other countries(and I'm not joking, we have different Christian holidays and customs and so on).
Lord knows that Christianity and Christians are not perfect.
But the Christian order and morality, produced a self propagating society and system, in which children were socialized within the procreating family unit which formed the basis for some of the greatest nations on Earth and sustained a viable culture.
You now have families falling apart, lack of sustainable pro-creation, a general degredation of society and its institutions.
And are angry at the state of affairs, where your culture and peoples are dissappearing and being replaced by others.
But you still reject the working system of your forebears.
Pure insanity!
Rebellious Vanilla said: "Michael, as I pointed out, the Christian morality supports the things I talked about earlier. Slavery being immoral or women being forced to marry their rapist being immoral are products of secular morality. As I said earlier, the problem isn't that the West dropped Christianity, but because it dropped morality, which are completely different things. I mean, sure, Christianity was part of the West's morality, but when people gave that up, it should have been replaced with another moral code".
RV,
The things you mention, it should be obvious, are not a "part" of Christian morality. Just because they are in the Bible does not mean they are a part of its morality but yet there are some things in the bible that were a part of OT morality. Nevertheless I think if you take the time to understand it better you will find that the things you mention were done for reasons you might be able to understand or even relate to. The idea I get is that justice requires us to do and accept harsh things, justice gives no breaks, justice is scary and yet we are attracted to it like a moth to light and that is the key.
Slavery is an economic system and there are many factors involved, too much to discuss, but let it suffice to say, it does not require abuse. Christianity is something that does not directly obliterate it but certainly mitigates it. From my readings of the NT,I find many beautiful and good things, some of which deal with slavery, caaliong upon masters(bosses)to respect and be kind to thier slaves(workers)and to treat them like brothers. It also calls upon Christian slaves to be faithful and obedient subjects. It seems that the apostle accepted slavery as a worldy institution. Have you ever read the epistle to Philemon? It is a letter written about a runaway slave. Again old ideas about , contracts, obedience, honor, masters , slaves, obligation seem to rule but the good Christian spirit is discernable. You also have the creator and creature ideas of relationships, where emperors ruled and had absolute subjects, it was not feasible to call upon all slaves to rebel or all masters to give up their slaves. Anyway I don't see any evil coming from The OT or NT concerning slaves, only the fact that it is accepted as a fact of life. there
Concering the women and rape you don't get the impression that the women was being punished but rather it was an idea for taking responsibility and also a deterent. In those days men and women would not be hangin out together nor would women be out alone, there was always family around to protect ideally and so perhaps this was a way of preventing other things from taking place. Not sure exactly but I don't get the impression that it is evil or immoral, it is an attempt at being moral. As an atheist where do you get your standard of morality from by which you judge these things with certainty?
Concerning abolition, I do not accept the validity of your statment that it was a secular issue.
You also say that the West dropped morality not Christianity and they are not the same. Christianity is a morality and they are the same, Christian morality and Christianity. There are other moralities and yes they are not the same with Christianity. But what has the West come to as a result of its new morality? It was never the stated goal of the west to drop morality but to drop christianity and replace its morality with a new morality. Where has this new morality led them? Marching towards today, going from one morality to another, all the while claiming they know what morality is, along the same line of progression.
They wanted to separate morality from Christianity. Have you ever read Psalm 2? Its interesting in this context.
I am sorry to hear you have lost precious faith temporarily, but I can understand your troubles with these things.
The root of Christianity has always been pure. Unfortunately, bad things, such as jihad, were grafted onto it in the Dark Ages (dark, not because Rome "fell" -- its elites actually just relocated to Venice -- but because of the rise of Islam in the 7th century).
When Christianity was exposed to the poison that is Islam, Christianity became corrupted. Just as we should not blame modern Europeans for the fact that many of their ancestors became sick with bubonic plague, do not blame present-day Christianity for having become infected with Islamic ideas in the past.
Know your enemy. It is Islam. It is not Christianity.
Michael Servetus said...
“you and others don't believe in Christ Jesus, so be it, you will not find me blaming all the evils committed by non Christian people on you or enumerating them in an attempt to blacken you.”
So tell me where I have claimed that Christians as a group today or in the past are evil people guilty of all the world’s ills. What I have said, and which you and Escape Velocity seem to be incapable of understanding, is that the Christian church in the past has on countless occasions acted in a very undemocratic way towards people who have different views. Give me some examples of how western atheists have persecuted and killed Christians, and please don’t give me examples of how the rabid communist Marxists of the former east-bloc countries persecuted Christians because I’m anti-communist and I consider Marxism to be just another type of religion.
Here are some of the statements made by Christian commenters about non Christians on this page;
“You suffer from anti Christian derangement syndrome because you have been persecuted by Christians? No, because Marxist leftist ideas have implanted that meme in your head.”
“I dont expect you to break through your ignorance and egotism, and I know that the Godless Hedonism you cherish isnt up to the challenge of Islam.”
And to Escape Velocity, if you are going to debate someone at least do it honestly and don’t make virulent and desperate assumptions about others. You calling me a marxist because i’m an atheist is ridiculously an dishonest. You don’t see me calling you a catholic child molester or anything other sordid in those lines.
"What I have said, and which you and Escape Velocity seem to be incapable of understanding, is that the Christian church in the past has on countless occasions acted in a very undemocratic way towards people who have different views." - Kritisk
And you are proposing to act in a very undemocratic way towards Muslims....while castigating Christianity for same.
That you dont like Marxists matters not. They were Atheists enforcing their will and morality upon Christians (and others).
Saddam Hussein did it to the Islamics in Iraq. So did the Shah in Iran.
What I am trying to get across to you, is that uniting behind the Christian banner is the most logical path forward, to prevent Islamization and beat back the Marxists and Neo Marxists.
Tearing down Christianity helps both the Marxists and the Islamics. Yet you are determined to keep doing it.
When did I say that I propose pogroms against muslims?
There’s no point in arguing against you, it’s like urinating upwind.
Well, since I didnt say you propose pogroms, I agree there is no point.
You seem to have no proposed solutions and are just waving your hands around, fretting.
The Problems of Neopaganism
By Patrick J. Ford
Michael, a moral code/morality is a normative set of rules of a society that promotes the individual and collective values of that society in the context in which it is found. And what I described from the OT are just that - and considering the context in which the OT was written, I understand why those things were valid. For example, I understand why a man who raped a woman had to marry her. What I was trying to get to is that each set of normative rules by which a group is organized is related to the context in which that group is found and that even if you say that slavery isn't part of the Christian morality, the fact that it is regulated by it means that Christianity didn't find slavery on itself as immoral(and the NT says that the OT is still applicable). Now, I agree that Christianity went through a reformation and that this was possible due to factors in which I won't get into that aren't applicable to Islam. The rejection of slavery came as a change in the morality of the people due to the context in which they were found.
As an atheist, what is moral isn't defined by a higher truth given by a God, but it comes from the definition of morality - it's moral what furthers the interests of the society in both collective and individual terms. For example, I don't find having sex outside of marriage a sin, but I do find it immoral because female chastity makes a fair distribution of women to most of the men, which makes everyone contribute to that society. Basically, restraining the polygamous desires of men and the hyergamy of women are the basis on having a proper society in which people have a vested interest to further. Or about child rearing - because of the factual truth that children fair better when raised by both parents(less dropouts and criminals, higher results in life), it is immoral to have children outside of wedlock. Also, forcing the consequences of your mistakes on others(being a single mother would force the consequence of my poor decision making on my child, in this case, but it's applicable to all social behaviour, not just child bearing) is immoral because it decreases social trust, which is another staple of civilization.
What I meant to say by the West dropping not Christianity, but morality altogether is the tolerance towards behaviours that hurt the long term interests and values of the West and European people. This makes the West immoral and this is what I said that is the big problem - we basically have no moral code, everything goes. I mean, even if you consider non-discrimination, equality and so on as normative principles by which the West is organized or the Marxists tend to organize it by, it doesn't promote the long term interest of the West or anyone, except free riders who actually should be punished because they harm the things that morality should protect. I hope I made myself understood, at least a little bit.
Also, I disagree. We are not attracted to justice - this is why we need morality for. To punish unjust behaviour that causes harm to the interests of the society tht uses that moral code. By the way, I would like to thank you for keeping this civilized, I actually enjoy debating issues because this is how we learn. :) And yes, I read the whole Bible from the first to the last page, including Psalm 2.
The atheist who lives in a society founded and developed not by his ilk but by Christians is arrogant beyond belief to think like the foolish rooster that the sun rises because of his crowing.
How does someone who says "Christian Totalitarianism has done more to harm Western Civilization than Atheist Totalitarianism" expect to e take seriously? The illiteracy for history is breathtaking. The mention of sins from centuries ago of minor scope, witch hunts involving at most a few thousand, the Spanish Inquisition with under two thousand victims, blown out of all proportion by the same academics who excuse the Soviet and Mao's China extermination of a hundred million souls with more hundreds of millions bereaved and oppressed. That's numbers in the thousands vs hundreds of millions, a ten thousand fold difference in victims.
Atheists do not own the fruits of North American civilization. They own the fruits of communist atheism.
The Spanish Inquisition helped protect Christian Spain (and Europe) from Muslims.
You people should be cheering it, for God's sake.
Escape Velocity said...
“The Spanish Inquisition helped protect Christian Spain (and Europe) from Muslims.
You people should be cheering it, for God's sake.”
Jawohl, herr obersturmfuhrer..
Escape Velocity has here just shown his true colours, by defending the torture and killing of people with other beliefs than his own, in order to defend the power of the church. The views that he promotes here are similar to the views that he accuses Marxists, Islamist and other fascists of being guilty of. His views have no place in a modern western democracy. He should seriously consider moving to Mecca as his views are more in tune with the theocratic rulers of that particular state.
Laine said.
“The mention of sins from centuries ago of minor scope, witch hunts involving at most a few thousand, the Spanish Inquisition with under two thousand victims, blown out of all proportion by the same academics who excuse the Soviet and Mao's China extermination of a hundred million souls with more hundreds of millions bereaved and oppressed. That's numbers in the thousands vs hundreds of millions, a ten thousand fold difference in victims.
Atheists do not own the fruits of North American civilization. They own the fruits of communist atheism.”
Maybe Laine can point out to us where on this page atheists have defended Marxist mass murder of dissidents? I can only see one commenter who on this page has defended the murder of innocent people and that person is Escape Velocity who wants us all to celebrate the very undemocratic and barbaric Spanish Inquisitions. If Laine can’t find any evidence that proves his claims then maybe Laine could have the decency to apologies, and perhaps strive to be more constructive and truthful in his postings from here on.
I believe that all the atheists who have commented on this page have repeatedly stated their dislike for Marxism, and other totalitarian ideologies for that matter.
Kristik,
I do not wish to irritate you or misinterpret you. Allow me to say to you one thing further. The idea that the church has been undemocratic is true and yet not as you may think. Christianity must be undemocratic as must anything that has a definition and wishes to retain its identity but of course you mean it has been undemocratic politically.
First if you want me or anyone to believe that you are not just a hater, but a valid serious critic of Christianity, then I would expect you would make many careful distinctions and show a sensitive side when dealing with something so grand.
All things are defined by what they support and what they oppose, what it is and what it is not, when you say the church has been undemocratic what could you mean?
Could it mean that the church didn't allow what it defined as immorality? Which is what you should expect from any government and which is something every society on earth has ever done and will continue to do. Can a criminal say that the law is undemocratic?
In addition if you wanted respect for your opinions, you would note that this is not unique to Christianity or Catholicism, but all societies have been intolerant and as we know that is not always a bad thing. Our parents were probably more intolerant then we are and our grandparents before them more so and about things we would consider trivial and unimportant. Does that make your father evil, undemocratic, or a tyrant? I'm sure you could find something good to say about your forefathers and that there was a human behind there undemocratic ways. I want to reiterate at this point though that this interpretation of history and Catholicism is decidedly anti-catholic and to me in some ways anti-western. Not simply because it comes to a conclusion that is critical of the church but because of its origins and the schools of thought that gave birth to it which are based on unbelief and in some cases pure wickedness. It is a very negative project and exhibits intellectual dishonesty or ill will. It seems to thrive on the erroneous notion that what is evil is the truth and what is good is fake, a typical leftist, liberal colored lens. It purports to tell the true story of the church when it delights in things as laine has said , are of small scope in comparison to larger and truer reality. This is not the true story of the church, but it is in truth a work of revisionism.
It has already taken on a life of its own and is a meme that has spread very well and exists now independently of its anti-catholic umbilical cord in the minds of millions. Just as millions of kids today are brainwashed to believe that the West is guilty of “countless atrocities”. Would you agree with that assessment of the West? I doubt you would if you love it or at least appreciate it and respect its great history. Sure there are actual things you could point to as wrong and undemocratic but so what?.
You also talk about the church or christians as a whole in generalizations not noting the many christians who lived and died under Catholicism and struggled under the same “undemocratic” regime. While a few hundred or thousands governed, millions upon millions had no part in these things but were living simple lives. So I do get offended and upset when you go off at the mouth saying all these things like you are some arbiter of truth of things you have never experienced.
You may think of yourself as judiciously tolerant and democratic, so should we be democratic towards Islam? Or should the left call you or I undemocratic as you call the church undemocratic, which likewise resisted perceived dangers and enemies?
He isnt democratic or tolerant, he demands that Christians and Muslims not be able to participate in a democracy and public sphere.
He is the intolerant undemocratic discriminating excluder from society that he superficially decries.
Anyways, if those damn Christians didnt slaughter the Muslims at Pontiers in 762, and instead had welcomed them in a democratic and multicultural multimoral spirit of brotherly love, all this would be moot.
But that wont stop the mindnumbing stupidity that passes for intelligence and morality these days, from cursing the Christians.
OK, enough is enough. Nobody here is going to convince anybody of anything. This has evolved into a "YES YOU ARE!!", "NO I'M NOT!!" type of argument. It's totally useless.
I'm closing this thread. Don't start this up again at a new one, either.
Post a Comment