0 comment Sunday, May 18, 2014 | admin
This kind of thing is what gives fuel to the anti-Christian faction on the nationalist right.
When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: "What would Jesus do?" The answer given was simple: "Vote BNP."
This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image. It is this belief which underlies those British values of human dignity and equality. There can be no compromise about such values. It is recognised that the number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain. Nevertheless, the Christian value of hospitality demands that those who come legally are welcomed. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.
So when we ask "What would Jesus actually do?", the answer is clear. He would include all in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they begin to live for others, to meet the needs of strangers and to work for a just and compassionate society.
Such work is badly needed. Not only have we witnessed the sometimes deliberate destruction of a moral framework for our social and economic life in Britain, but we have also seen the steady erosion in the formation of character. For example, if The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is the woeful lack of that character building, which leads us to behave with integrity and put service to the nation before self. But before we give in to scapegoating people, we have to admit that there has been a lack of emphasis on the formation of conscience and moral awareness in the nation. Once, responsibility, trust, truth-telling and hard work characterised what was best about us. These are virtues derived from Christian beliefs. Have our schools and universities been inculcating such virtues? If they have, how have we come to such a pretty pass in our national life? ''
I understand that for those in the post-Christian churches of today, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28) and thus nationality and race are obsolete, if not downright heretical notions. But somehow, having foreign-born clerics lecturing Britons (or Americans, for that matter) on their own traditions is ironic to say the least; as if we have no leaders from among our own, and must be led and shepherded by our moral betters from among the world's victim groups.
Nazir-Ali is lecturing the British people about political matters, and justifying his moral prescriptions on the basis of Christian ethics -- or more accurately, on his interpretation thereof.
This kind of thing is why church and state should be separate; the church should not become a shill for the liberal regimes in the West, and Christians should not be full-time advocates for the globalized beggar classes who are looking for better pickings in the West. Does this sound uncharitable? Christian charity is a good thing, but so few people today understand the voluntary nature of charity; if it is compulsion, done with the force of government behind it, it is not 'charity'. No one can or should compel people to show charity or to offer hospitality to the point of giving up one's home and country to the ''poor''. This is what Nazir-Ali and those who preach 'another gospel' of open borders are doing.
A Christian moral and spiritual framework would lead, instead, to genuine hospitality towards those arriving to share our freedoms, on the basis of a principled integration into national life. Such integration would be based on sharing a common moral framework and a lingua franca. Integration of this kind should not be mistaken for assimilation. It is quite possible to respect people's faith, culture and language while insisting on a common framework for public life and reasoning.
[...]
In terms of our political culture, I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads not to voyeurism or recrimination, but to a national catharsis, a purging of all that is unworthy. We should reaffirm a Christian basis for society and the need for a common framework for our life together. If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life. This is, of course, to be welcomed � as long as it is understood that their participation, and ours, is on the basis of a common moral understanding.''
It's funny how the multicultists and globalists generally despise Christianity, wanting to expunge it from public life and strip it of any political influence, but they are eager to marshal the meager moral authority of today's Christianity to try to make their case for their one-world Babel regime. "Christianity" is allowed to have its say as long as it speaks the language of the multicult and bows down to Baal.
I've written before about how the liberalized apostate Christianity is a precursor to leftism/Marxism, which is an attempt to counterfeit the faith to use it toward political ends. Yet this faux Christianity passes as the authentic faith, while those who believe as their fathers believed, and their fathers before them, are condemned by the left as being uncharitable and in fact un-Christian. At the same time, we are condemned by many on the secular or pagan right as being weaklings and liabilities, who are causing the West's destruction.
Thomas Fleming offers a welcome defense of Christianity:
And yet it is Christianity, not Marxism or liberalism, that usually receives the credit or blame for the repudiation of loyalty and patriotism. Pseudochristian leftists�including far too many Catholic bishops in the United States�make the preposterous claim that Christ came to liberate us from the duty to defend borders or respect the law. Antichristian nationalists, following in Nietzsche�s drunken meandering footsteps, complain that Christianity weakened Western man�s resolve to defend his interests against other peoples and races. Paradoxically, many of these neopagans are also followers of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman�the liberal gurus who did their best to dissolve all the bonds linking human beings and to replace them with (to use a phrase Marx borrowed from Carlyle) the cash nexus.
If the neopagan nationalists had ever read any history, they would, perhaps, be puzzled by the behavior of Christian warriors like Justinian and Charles Martel, Saint Louis and Saint Joan, but their response would be that Saint Joan was a bad Christian who did not understand Christ�s message as well as they do�ill-read pagans though they are. What else did Jesus mean in His Sermon on the Mount?'
[...]
To delegitimate nations, some radicals misleadingly cite Paul�s statement that, in baptism, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28), but this statement is aimed at repressing quarrels that broke out between gentile and Jewish Christians. The sentence continues, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, so far from uttering a word against slavery per se, he instructs slaves to obey their masters, and Paul, who has been unfairly stigmatized as a misogynist, can hardly be accused of pursuing a feminist agenda.
Some leftists have pretended that Christians cannot restrict immigration into their country, even if they believe it is harmful to their nation�s security and prosperity. They cite such statements as "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Like most prooftexts taken out of context, these sentences are open to misinterpretation.''
Why are these points so hard to get across to most people? The secular/pagan right does not want to hear any good word about Christianity, because they wish a world free of Christianity and especially Christian morality. The liberal Christians whose faith is liberalism first and Christianity only insofar as it can be made to conform to liberalism, have to 'feel good about themselves'' and this means being 'non-judgmental, open and welcoming, unprejudiced', even to the point of self-immolation. So nobody wants to hear the other side of the story.
I agree with the point of view expressed by Cambria Will Not Yield: it is only through embracing our the Christian faith of old Europe that we can hope to survive and renew our people. Christianity was at the core of what made Europe what it was. There can be no strong and whole nationalism that does not embrace the faith of our fathers.
When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: "What would Jesus do?" The answer given was simple: "Vote BNP."
This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image. It is this belief which underlies those British values of human dignity and equality. There can be no compromise about such values. It is recognised that the number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain. Nevertheless, the Christian value of hospitality demands that those who come legally are welcomed. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.
So when we ask "What would Jesus actually do?", the answer is clear. He would include all in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they begin to live for others, to meet the needs of strangers and to work for a just and compassionate society.
Such work is badly needed. Not only have we witnessed the sometimes deliberate destruction of a moral framework for our social and economic life in Britain, but we have also seen the steady erosion in the formation of character. For example, if The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is the woeful lack of that character building, which leads us to behave with integrity and put service to the nation before self. But before we give in to scapegoating people, we have to admit that there has been a lack of emphasis on the formation of conscience and moral awareness in the nation. Once, responsibility, trust, truth-telling and hard work characterised what was best about us. These are virtues derived from Christian beliefs. Have our schools and universities been inculcating such virtues? If they have, how have we come to such a pretty pass in our national life? ''
I understand that for those in the post-Christian churches of today, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28) and thus nationality and race are obsolete, if not downright heretical notions. But somehow, having foreign-born clerics lecturing Britons (or Americans, for that matter) on their own traditions is ironic to say the least; as if we have no leaders from among our own, and must be led and shepherded by our moral betters from among the world's victim groups.
Nazir-Ali is lecturing the British people about political matters, and justifying his moral prescriptions on the basis of Christian ethics -- or more accurately, on his interpretation thereof.
This kind of thing is why church and state should be separate; the church should not become a shill for the liberal regimes in the West, and Christians should not be full-time advocates for the globalized beggar classes who are looking for better pickings in the West. Does this sound uncharitable? Christian charity is a good thing, but so few people today understand the voluntary nature of charity; if it is compulsion, done with the force of government behind it, it is not 'charity'. No one can or should compel people to show charity or to offer hospitality to the point of giving up one's home and country to the ''poor''. This is what Nazir-Ali and those who preach 'another gospel' of open borders are doing.
A Christian moral and spiritual framework would lead, instead, to genuine hospitality towards those arriving to share our freedoms, on the basis of a principled integration into national life. Such integration would be based on sharing a common moral framework and a lingua franca. Integration of this kind should not be mistaken for assimilation. It is quite possible to respect people's faith, culture and language while insisting on a common framework for public life and reasoning.
[...]
In terms of our political culture, I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads not to voyeurism or recrimination, but to a national catharsis, a purging of all that is unworthy. We should reaffirm a Christian basis for society and the need for a common framework for our life together. If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life. This is, of course, to be welcomed � as long as it is understood that their participation, and ours, is on the basis of a common moral understanding.''
It's funny how the multicultists and globalists generally despise Christianity, wanting to expunge it from public life and strip it of any political influence, but they are eager to marshal the meager moral authority of today's Christianity to try to make their case for their one-world Babel regime. "Christianity" is allowed to have its say as long as it speaks the language of the multicult and bows down to Baal.
I've written before about how the liberalized apostate Christianity is a precursor to leftism/Marxism, which is an attempt to counterfeit the faith to use it toward political ends. Yet this faux Christianity passes as the authentic faith, while those who believe as their fathers believed, and their fathers before them, are condemned by the left as being uncharitable and in fact un-Christian. At the same time, we are condemned by many on the secular or pagan right as being weaklings and liabilities, who are causing the West's destruction.
Thomas Fleming offers a welcome defense of Christianity:
And yet it is Christianity, not Marxism or liberalism, that usually receives the credit or blame for the repudiation of loyalty and patriotism. Pseudochristian leftists�including far too many Catholic bishops in the United States�make the preposterous claim that Christ came to liberate us from the duty to defend borders or respect the law. Antichristian nationalists, following in Nietzsche�s drunken meandering footsteps, complain that Christianity weakened Western man�s resolve to defend his interests against other peoples and races. Paradoxically, many of these neopagans are also followers of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman�the liberal gurus who did their best to dissolve all the bonds linking human beings and to replace them with (to use a phrase Marx borrowed from Carlyle) the cash nexus.
If the neopagan nationalists had ever read any history, they would, perhaps, be puzzled by the behavior of Christian warriors like Justinian and Charles Martel, Saint Louis and Saint Joan, but their response would be that Saint Joan was a bad Christian who did not understand Christ�s message as well as they do�ill-read pagans though they are. What else did Jesus mean in His Sermon on the Mount?'
[...]
To delegitimate nations, some radicals misleadingly cite Paul�s statement that, in baptism, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28), but this statement is aimed at repressing quarrels that broke out between gentile and Jewish Christians. The sentence continues, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, so far from uttering a word against slavery per se, he instructs slaves to obey their masters, and Paul, who has been unfairly stigmatized as a misogynist, can hardly be accused of pursuing a feminist agenda.
Some leftists have pretended that Christians cannot restrict immigration into their country, even if they believe it is harmful to their nation�s security and prosperity. They cite such statements as "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Like most prooftexts taken out of context, these sentences are open to misinterpretation.''
Why are these points so hard to get across to most people? The secular/pagan right does not want to hear any good word about Christianity, because they wish a world free of Christianity and especially Christian morality. The liberal Christians whose faith is liberalism first and Christianity only insofar as it can be made to conform to liberalism, have to 'feel good about themselves'' and this means being 'non-judgmental, open and welcoming, unprejudiced', even to the point of self-immolation. So nobody wants to hear the other side of the story.
I agree with the point of view expressed by Cambria Will Not Yield: it is only through embracing our the Christian faith of old Europe that we can hope to survive and renew our people. Christianity was at the core of what made Europe what it was. There can be no strong and whole nationalism that does not embrace the faith of our fathers.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christendom, Christianity, Cultural Marxism, Liberal Christianity, Mass Immigration, Open Borders, Political Correctness