0 comment Monday, November 17, 2014 | admin
Did you watch the '100 Days' press conference? Neither did I, though I've looked at the transcript just to see what was said. But the following question and the ambiguous answer given has me puzzled. At one point, #44 says that waterboarding was torture, and that it 'violates our ideals and values' but then he says he is convinced it was the right thing to do. However I don't expect logic or consistency from him or his administration; it looks like he is trying to have it both ways, predictably:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding in your opinion is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
MR. OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways -- in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "we don't torture," when the -- the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And -- and -- and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.''
I have not blogged about this waterboarding/torture issue, because it is rather a thorny subject with which I haven't concerned myself very much. On the one hand, I find little sympathy for terror suspects but on the other hand, I cannot and could not bring myself to share the Rush Limbaugh attitude that, say, the incidents at Abu Ghraib were 'no worse than a fraternity hazing', just no big deal. I remember when that scandal first broke I was still somewhat of a mainstream conservative in many respects, but broke ranks with the dittoheads on the subject of the War on Terror or the Iraq War specifically.
So is waterboarding 'torture'? I don't know. I don't have a clear-cut answer. I do see a danger of simply reacting, as most Republicans do, in knee-jerk fashion to the rantings of the left. In other words, if the Democrats are agin' something, we have to be for it, and not only for it, but rabidly so. If they think waterboarding is torture, we have to say it's not only not torture, but in fact a good and virtuous thing. I reject knee-jerk politics or partisanship.
Overall, though, this issue is not high up on my list of priorities. But here is an interesting discussion from What's Wrong With the World, where Lydia writes about the changing views among conservatives on the ethics of 'torture' and capital punishment.
The End of a Consensus
This post is going to be full of sociological claims about which I am uncertain. It's okay if you disagree with me about them, so long as you do so nicely.
First claim: Thirty-five years ago, most conservatives were both very strongly in favor of the death penalty and strongly opposed to torture, where "torture" would have included waterboarding, if they had been asked about it.
Second claim: This is no longer true today. Now, conservatives who are strongly in favor of the death penalty tend to be the same ones who support at least some forms of torture, and conservatives who are opposed to those same forms of torture tend to be, at least, uneasy about the death penalty rather than strongly in favor of it.
Suppose these are both true. What caused the change?'
There is a paradox here. I would say she is right that a generation or so ago, most conservatives were pro-capital punishment yet they would not have approved of torture, or of some of the 'interrogation methods' that are apparently being used in recent years. She asks why views have shifted among conservatives. It does appear that more conservatives now have misgivings about the death penalty, but there is also a much more cavalier attitude about 'torture' in interrogation. I found the approval of torture by many conservatives to be surprising when it first became apparent a few years ago. I wondered at the time why this was so; I always, even when I was liberal, had a picture of conservatives as being more gentlemanly and civilized than many liberals. I suppose the generation of 'conservatives' who were dittoheads or listeners to talk radio generally tended to be less genteel than the old-time conservatives.
This isn't your father's conservatism.
But why has there been a change, as Lydia asks?
Further down, she says:
There is something to my mind bracing and healthy about a person who recognizes, sternly, uncompromisingly, and forcefully, the importance of the death penalty, who takes a manly position also on self-defense, who is nowhere close to pacifism, but who views torture with unmitigated disgust and rejection. Can anyone imagine John Wayne torturing anyone? But I can certainly imagine him solemnly sentencing a murderer to death. And what about the Marine hymn? "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean."
Regardless of what John Wayne would have countenanced, or more accurately, what his movie characters would have done, would, say, Robert E. Lee have approved of torturing anyone? Stonewall Jackson? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Yet all of these men would, as Lydia says of Wayne, would have no objection to the death penalty where appropriate.
We live in a strange and inconsistent age; some of the same people on the right who support the death penalty for certain criminals are too squeamish to send illegal invaders home, or to close our borders, because that would be cruel and inhumane.
As far as the death penalty, this subject has come up here before. I notice something strange about the comments on Lydia's post at WWWtW: almost no one references or cites the Bible on the subject of the death penalty. Someone quotes G.K. Chesterton as an authority; I admire Chesterton as much as the next, and a quote of his adorns my sidebar. But he is not my authority on ethics and morals. Another commenter references C.S. Lewis; I would say the same of him that I say about Chesterton. But shouldn't a Christian look to the Bible to know God's will on that subject? Surely the absence of Biblical references is surprising on a site which espouses a Christian worldview -- or perhaps more accurately a Catholic viewpoint.
I think the question of the Church's teachings on capital punishment is an interesting topic which should be explored, although I won't attempt that here, as I am not a Catholic and I don't feel qualified to explore that. It's a subject for those who are Catholic or who are more knowledgeable about Catholic theology or doctrine than I. I do know, simply, that the Catholic Church used to favor capital punishment for certain crimes like murder, though I don't know how or why that position was reversed.
Even less do I know why Protestants, in some cases, are abandoning Biblical teaching on the death penalty. I was talking about capital punishment with a very conservatively-brought-up Christian recently, when we were discussing various crimes. This person told me that she was not sure about capital punishment because the Bible says ''vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.'' I attempted to point out that this is in reference to personal matters, admonishing us not to take revenge on someone who has wronged us, just as with the 'turn the other cheek' admonition. But I fear it fell on deaf ears. She thinks capital punishment is revenge, and that it is a failure to show mercy and forgiveness. Again, I tried to point out that God is not only merciful but just and holy, not tolerating sin. She was unconvinced. And I know there are many more like her, who are now becoming more liberal and vacillating on issues like punishment in general. Many have been persuaded by years of exposure to the Oprah approach, and the emphasis on mental illness as the cause of crime, not human sin or evil. Punishment, according to that worldview, is backward; an enlightened society 'understands' and 'rehabilitates' its 'sick people'; it does not punish criminals. That is so 'medieval.'
Someone on the WWWtW thread opines that the tendency to favor harsh interrogation methods for terror suspects is driven by the tribal defense instinct; we feel under threat so we are willing to justify harsh measures to protect our own in wartime or other such extraordinary situations. I think that makes sense; perhaps it's why I am not inclined to feel sympathy for terror suspects or actual terrorists. I don't believe that the Islamic threat is a bogeyman created by the neocons or the media. On the other hand, neither do I see Islam as the primary threat, so I don't fit in with the mainstream right on this issue.
As for the capital punishment question, I think it will assume more importance as the ascendant far left tries its best to abolish capital punishment. They have been relentlessly working towards that goal for decades and they are sensing victory, so they will ratchet up their efforts to end it. And what with the liberalizing of many formerly conservative churches and denominations, I fear Christians will lose the will to defend the death penalty, and concede the moral battle to the left, probably feeling good about themselves as they do so. It's all part of the same phenomenon which causes the Christian 'conservatives' to reverse themselves on homosexuality, same-sex ''marriage'' or other such social issues. What's next?
Addendum
Here are some good defenses, from a Biblical point of view, of capital punishment. They do a very thorough job of examining many possible objections or questions from skeptics on the issue:
Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
by Gregory Koukl
The Bible and Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment and the Bible
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding in your opinion is torture. And torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?
MR. OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.
I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways -- in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "we don't torture," when the -- the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And -- and -- and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.''
I have not blogged about this waterboarding/torture issue, because it is rather a thorny subject with which I haven't concerned myself very much. On the one hand, I find little sympathy for terror suspects but on the other hand, I cannot and could not bring myself to share the Rush Limbaugh attitude that, say, the incidents at Abu Ghraib were 'no worse than a fraternity hazing', just no big deal. I remember when that scandal first broke I was still somewhat of a mainstream conservative in many respects, but broke ranks with the dittoheads on the subject of the War on Terror or the Iraq War specifically.
So is waterboarding 'torture'? I don't know. I don't have a clear-cut answer. I do see a danger of simply reacting, as most Republicans do, in knee-jerk fashion to the rantings of the left. In other words, if the Democrats are agin' something, we have to be for it, and not only for it, but rabidly so. If they think waterboarding is torture, we have to say it's not only not torture, but in fact a good and virtuous thing. I reject knee-jerk politics or partisanship.
Overall, though, this issue is not high up on my list of priorities. But here is an interesting discussion from What's Wrong With the World, where Lydia writes about the changing views among conservatives on the ethics of 'torture' and capital punishment.
The End of a Consensus
This post is going to be full of sociological claims about which I am uncertain. It's okay if you disagree with me about them, so long as you do so nicely.
First claim: Thirty-five years ago, most conservatives were both very strongly in favor of the death penalty and strongly opposed to torture, where "torture" would have included waterboarding, if they had been asked about it.
Second claim: This is no longer true today. Now, conservatives who are strongly in favor of the death penalty tend to be the same ones who support at least some forms of torture, and conservatives who are opposed to those same forms of torture tend to be, at least, uneasy about the death penalty rather than strongly in favor of it.
Suppose these are both true. What caused the change?'
There is a paradox here. I would say she is right that a generation or so ago, most conservatives were pro-capital punishment yet they would not have approved of torture, or of some of the 'interrogation methods' that are apparently being used in recent years. She asks why views have shifted among conservatives. It does appear that more conservatives now have misgivings about the death penalty, but there is also a much more cavalier attitude about 'torture' in interrogation. I found the approval of torture by many conservatives to be surprising when it first became apparent a few years ago. I wondered at the time why this was so; I always, even when I was liberal, had a picture of conservatives as being more gentlemanly and civilized than many liberals. I suppose the generation of 'conservatives' who were dittoheads or listeners to talk radio generally tended to be less genteel than the old-time conservatives.
This isn't your father's conservatism.
But why has there been a change, as Lydia asks?
Further down, she says:
There is something to my mind bracing and healthy about a person who recognizes, sternly, uncompromisingly, and forcefully, the importance of the death penalty, who takes a manly position also on self-defense, who is nowhere close to pacifism, but who views torture with unmitigated disgust and rejection. Can anyone imagine John Wayne torturing anyone? But I can certainly imagine him solemnly sentencing a murderer to death. And what about the Marine hymn? "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean."
Regardless of what John Wayne would have countenanced, or more accurately, what his movie characters would have done, would, say, Robert E. Lee have approved of torturing anyone? Stonewall Jackson? Thomas Jefferson? George Washington?
Yet all of these men would, as Lydia says of Wayne, would have no objection to the death penalty where appropriate.
We live in a strange and inconsistent age; some of the same people on the right who support the death penalty for certain criminals are too squeamish to send illegal invaders home, or to close our borders, because that would be cruel and inhumane.
As far as the death penalty, this subject has come up here before. I notice something strange about the comments on Lydia's post at WWWtW: almost no one references or cites the Bible on the subject of the death penalty. Someone quotes G.K. Chesterton as an authority; I admire Chesterton as much as the next, and a quote of his adorns my sidebar. But he is not my authority on ethics and morals. Another commenter references C.S. Lewis; I would say the same of him that I say about Chesterton. But shouldn't a Christian look to the Bible to know God's will on that subject? Surely the absence of Biblical references is surprising on a site which espouses a Christian worldview -- or perhaps more accurately a Catholic viewpoint.
I think the question of the Church's teachings on capital punishment is an interesting topic which should be explored, although I won't attempt that here, as I am not a Catholic and I don't feel qualified to explore that. It's a subject for those who are Catholic or who are more knowledgeable about Catholic theology or doctrine than I. I do know, simply, that the Catholic Church used to favor capital punishment for certain crimes like murder, though I don't know how or why that position was reversed.
Even less do I know why Protestants, in some cases, are abandoning Biblical teaching on the death penalty. I was talking about capital punishment with a very conservatively-brought-up Christian recently, when we were discussing various crimes. This person told me that she was not sure about capital punishment because the Bible says ''vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.'' I attempted to point out that this is in reference to personal matters, admonishing us not to take revenge on someone who has wronged us, just as with the 'turn the other cheek' admonition. But I fear it fell on deaf ears. She thinks capital punishment is revenge, and that it is a failure to show mercy and forgiveness. Again, I tried to point out that God is not only merciful but just and holy, not tolerating sin. She was unconvinced. And I know there are many more like her, who are now becoming more liberal and vacillating on issues like punishment in general. Many have been persuaded by years of exposure to the Oprah approach, and the emphasis on mental illness as the cause of crime, not human sin or evil. Punishment, according to that worldview, is backward; an enlightened society 'understands' and 'rehabilitates' its 'sick people'; it does not punish criminals. That is so 'medieval.'
Someone on the WWWtW thread opines that the tendency to favor harsh interrogation methods for terror suspects is driven by the tribal defense instinct; we feel under threat so we are willing to justify harsh measures to protect our own in wartime or other such extraordinary situations. I think that makes sense; perhaps it's why I am not inclined to feel sympathy for terror suspects or actual terrorists. I don't believe that the Islamic threat is a bogeyman created by the neocons or the media. On the other hand, neither do I see Islam as the primary threat, so I don't fit in with the mainstream right on this issue.
As for the capital punishment question, I think it will assume more importance as the ascendant far left tries its best to abolish capital punishment. They have been relentlessly working towards that goal for decades and they are sensing victory, so they will ratchet up their efforts to end it. And what with the liberalizing of many formerly conservative churches and denominations, I fear Christians will lose the will to defend the death penalty, and concede the moral battle to the left, probably feeling good about themselves as they do so. It's all part of the same phenomenon which causes the Christian 'conservatives' to reverse themselves on homosexuality, same-sex ''marriage'' or other such social issues. What's next?
Addendum
Here are some good defenses, from a Biblical point of view, of capital punishment. They do a very thorough job of examining many possible objections or questions from skeptics on the issue:
Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
by Gregory Koukl
The Bible and Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment and the Bible
Labels: Capital Punishment, Conservatism, Creeping Liberalism, Crime, Death Penalty, Justice System, Liberal Christianity, Traditional Morality
0 comment Sunday, October 19, 2014 | admin
In my previous post, the issue of a Catholic Bishop's liberal position on illegal immigration was raised. Unhappily, there are many Protestant clergy and lay people who share the post-modern liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
Labels: Babel, Bible, Christendom, Death Of The West, Ethnonationalism, Liberal Christianity, Nationality, Nations, Political Correctness, Western Decline
0 comment Saturday, October 11, 2014 | admin
Here, DanielJ of the blog Tomorrow in Vinland writes about Philip Rieff and the Triumph of the Therapeutic.
I will not even attempt to discuss Rieff and his ideas. I know little but that he was Jewish, and that he was married to Susan Sontag, she of the infamous ''the White race is the cancer of the human race'' comment.
Now that does not necessarily delegitimize his ideas or writings, but nonetheless I haven't been inclined to read his works. There is a thread at the Kinism Forum on Rieff, here, for those interested.
The excerpts I have read show his writing to be too abstruse and arcane and too intellectual for my liking; I am not one of those who can deal in abstractions and ideas about ideas on a sustained basis. So I will leave Rieff and his ideas to those who have a head for such rarefied stuff. I am, however, interested in the idea of the role of the therapeutic culture in a post-Christian West. That may be a topic for another entry. And even more, I am concerned with the ongoing anti-Christianism that many self-identified neo-pagans promote on the racial right.
Taking that last into account, this first reply to DanielJ's post was expected, and all too typical:
If today�s Christianity is a defence mechanism against non-White invasion of Euroman�s lands then I�m a baked hedgehog with mushroom sauce. Christianity, that ancient Hebrew heresy foisted upon White people by Jews and their proselytising, brainwashed catspaws, is the natural parent of multi-culturalism�s sponsor, Marxism. Of course, the supernatural element of Christianity�s arrant nonsense had to be excised in order for those foolishly egalitarian Whites who, at least, valued observed reality above blind, racially alien, Middle Eastern deity worship to accept the worthless religion�s new Communist guise.''
He pretty much hits all the usual notes sounded by the anti-Christian zealots on the racial right.
But wait, one pro-Christian comment appears:
1. Christianity has been for a long time the religion of the West. As an empirical proposition, as Europe has dispensed with the old faith, it has been transmogrified into a bunch of non-reproducing, non-white-ass-kissing pansies and socialists. Correlation or causation?
2. Must Christianity lead to multiculturalism? I genuinely do not know (and neither do you - this is one of the most profound yet largely unexplored areas of intellectual concern). All patriots should avoid this easy inference, however, as it is not clear that multiculturalism is a latent outgrowth of "taking Christianity seriously". At least as likely is the hypothesis that Christianity�s replacement, sentimental secular humanism, the aptly called Religion of Humanity, is what has directly lead to our modern hysterical denials of racial differences, and acceptance of race-replacement.''
Yes. If 'taking Christianity seriously' is the issue, then just about any generation before the 20th century took it much more seriously than today's lukewarm liberal Christians and CINOs (Christians In Name Only). So if Christianity was the toxic ingredient that killed off the spirit, and is killing the body, of the West, it would have done so long ago. None of the critics ever address this little anomaly.
3. Another empirical proposition. Most conservatives generally, and most racial conservatives in particular (I don�t mean celebrity racialists, or extreme rightists - just the plain people who vote against immigration, affirmative action, etc) describe themselves as "conservative Christians", at least here in America. There is, in other words, a much stronger correlation between Christian conservatism and racial conservatism, than between atheism and racial conservatism. Why this should be, or WHETHER this should be, intellectually, I don�t know. But this fact ought to influence political thinking about explorations of the intersection of Christianity and race-liberalism, especially when calls for a new paganism or similar nonsense start issuing forth.''
This is a point I haven't made sufficiently: there is at least as much of a case, if not more, as the commenter says, for a correlation between conservative Christianity and racial conservatism. I keep asking, with no response, why, if Christianity is guilty of destroying the West, it took millennia to do so. That's like saying that a meal eaten a decade ago could kill someone today. Presumably if Christianity was so destructive to the West, the West would not have survived and prospered and expanded for centuries.
4. I am sufficiently confident in my comparative theological knowledge to make this claim: the only philosophically and scientifically tenable alternatives to atheism are either some form of rational Christianity, or a deism as yet not fully articulated; that is, all existing non-Christian forms of supernaturalism, including various Christian sects, fail intellectually and scientifically. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is very strong, however. The more it is studied the more (intellectually) impressive it becomes. Paganism, however, whatever its former tribe-unifying merits, cannot be resurrected by the modern mind.''
The last sentence seems convincing to me. The fact is we know very little about the pre-Christian religions of Europe; there was no extensive body of writings, no holy books, nothing other than bits and pieces written by Roman historians or others in various places. Much of what is called 'paganism' today is a cobbled-together 'tradition', mostly the work of Gerald Gardner, who lived in the 20th century, far-removed from the traditions he was supposedly resurrecting. In Victorian times, Sir James Frazer and his work The Golden Bough also contributed a great deal to this reinvented paganism. In other words, the authenticity of it is very much in question, but then I suspect that matters not at all to its proponents, because it appears that to them, neo-paganism is merely a means to an end, a supplanter of Christianity which they deem as more useful to their cause of creating a new Europe in which the hated faith of our fathers will not exist. A Christendom without Christ, as some have put it.
5. Even if all religion is, finally, empirically false, white nationalists may want to encourage a new efflorescence of traditional Christianity, if only for its healthy, life-affirming aspects. The old faith encouraged large families (biological reproduction). We need this now. For centuries, moreover, the old faith was not seen to be incompatible with anti-miscegenation laws, with ethnic expulsions, with ranks and hierarchies, and with anti-immigration statutes. Instead of jettisoning the faith because it has been racially corrupted, the easier as well as more politically prudent and fruitful course would be to recover and reapply the earlier, non-multiculturalist understanding of Christian obligation."
[Emphasis mine.]
6. The Faith presided over great periods of Western (biological) expansion. It may have helped cause that expansion, directly and certainly indirectly. The Faith is therefore not necessarily inimical to the West; secular liberalism undeniably is. Oh, and the Faith may even be true ... racialists should adjust their thinking accordingly. ''
That last little point is not made often enough. What if Christianity is true? That should be the central question. Is it true? Is there a God, one God, as the Bible states, and is Christ his son and our savior? If so, then it behooves those who revere truth to seek out the true God, rather than inventing or 'rediscovering' a set of 'gods' who will serve as mascots or talismans for their new Christless Eurotopia.
I'm often tempted to ask those who profess to be pagans: do you really believe in your gods or are they just intellectual symbols for you? Props in your scenario for a new Europe? If they do exist, and if they are specifically tribal gods of the White race or the Northern European race, are they not there to help their people now? Or are they dormant until Christianity is overthrown?
Truth be told, I've known people who professed to be pagans or Wiccans or sort of freelance witches, or Druids. Before I was a Christian, I was something of a seeker, spiritually, and I learned about all religions, Eastern and Western. I never got the sense that the pagan gods were real and vital in the minds of those who called themselves pagans. How is worshipping them supposed to spiritually and racially revivify the West? Come to that, why did the pagan West fall to Christianity, if the gods were so potent, and if paganism was authentic while Christianity was alien and artificial for Europeans?
And I don't buy the allegation that Christianity was 'forced' at swordpoint on Europeans. Those who say that must be confusing Christianity with Islam. Christianity was not forced on Europe. The story of Constantine forcing his supposed 'faith' on Rome (his profession being in doubt, according to some observers) does not apply to Europe generally.
I have no grudge against the pagans or neo-pagans on the right, as long as they are not calling for the stamping out of Christianity, nor engaging in wholesale slanders against our Christian ancestors. I think that all of us who care about the future of our people have to come to some kind of modus vivendi, and tolerate one another. We can't afford the divisions, and I don't see these divisions as originating with the Christian side; the hostility consistently shows up in the constant blaming and vilifying of Christians and the faith of old Europe. I simply don't see how one can love Europe and hate the faith which informed it during its height of achievement and strength.
I will not even attempt to discuss Rieff and his ideas. I know little but that he was Jewish, and that he was married to Susan Sontag, she of the infamous ''the White race is the cancer of the human race'' comment.
Now that does not necessarily delegitimize his ideas or writings, but nonetheless I haven't been inclined to read his works. There is a thread at the Kinism Forum on Rieff, here, for those interested.
The excerpts I have read show his writing to be too abstruse and arcane and too intellectual for my liking; I am not one of those who can deal in abstractions and ideas about ideas on a sustained basis. So I will leave Rieff and his ideas to those who have a head for such rarefied stuff. I am, however, interested in the idea of the role of the therapeutic culture in a post-Christian West. That may be a topic for another entry. And even more, I am concerned with the ongoing anti-Christianism that many self-identified neo-pagans promote on the racial right.
Taking that last into account, this first reply to DanielJ's post was expected, and all too typical:
If today�s Christianity is a defence mechanism against non-White invasion of Euroman�s lands then I�m a baked hedgehog with mushroom sauce. Christianity, that ancient Hebrew heresy foisted upon White people by Jews and their proselytising, brainwashed catspaws, is the natural parent of multi-culturalism�s sponsor, Marxism. Of course, the supernatural element of Christianity�s arrant nonsense had to be excised in order for those foolishly egalitarian Whites who, at least, valued observed reality above blind, racially alien, Middle Eastern deity worship to accept the worthless religion�s new Communist guise.''
He pretty much hits all the usual notes sounded by the anti-Christian zealots on the racial right.
But wait, one pro-Christian comment appears:
1. Christianity has been for a long time the religion of the West. As an empirical proposition, as Europe has dispensed with the old faith, it has been transmogrified into a bunch of non-reproducing, non-white-ass-kissing pansies and socialists. Correlation or causation?
2. Must Christianity lead to multiculturalism? I genuinely do not know (and neither do you - this is one of the most profound yet largely unexplored areas of intellectual concern). All patriots should avoid this easy inference, however, as it is not clear that multiculturalism is a latent outgrowth of "taking Christianity seriously". At least as likely is the hypothesis that Christianity�s replacement, sentimental secular humanism, the aptly called Religion of Humanity, is what has directly lead to our modern hysterical denials of racial differences, and acceptance of race-replacement.''
Yes. If 'taking Christianity seriously' is the issue, then just about any generation before the 20th century took it much more seriously than today's lukewarm liberal Christians and CINOs (Christians In Name Only). So if Christianity was the toxic ingredient that killed off the spirit, and is killing the body, of the West, it would have done so long ago. None of the critics ever address this little anomaly.
3. Another empirical proposition. Most conservatives generally, and most racial conservatives in particular (I don�t mean celebrity racialists, or extreme rightists - just the plain people who vote against immigration, affirmative action, etc) describe themselves as "conservative Christians", at least here in America. There is, in other words, a much stronger correlation between Christian conservatism and racial conservatism, than between atheism and racial conservatism. Why this should be, or WHETHER this should be, intellectually, I don�t know. But this fact ought to influence political thinking about explorations of the intersection of Christianity and race-liberalism, especially when calls for a new paganism or similar nonsense start issuing forth.''
This is a point I haven't made sufficiently: there is at least as much of a case, if not more, as the commenter says, for a correlation between conservative Christianity and racial conservatism. I keep asking, with no response, why, if Christianity is guilty of destroying the West, it took millennia to do so. That's like saying that a meal eaten a decade ago could kill someone today. Presumably if Christianity was so destructive to the West, the West would not have survived and prospered and expanded for centuries.
4. I am sufficiently confident in my comparative theological knowledge to make this claim: the only philosophically and scientifically tenable alternatives to atheism are either some form of rational Christianity, or a deism as yet not fully articulated; that is, all existing non-Christian forms of supernaturalism, including various Christian sects, fail intellectually and scientifically. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is very strong, however. The more it is studied the more (intellectually) impressive it becomes. Paganism, however, whatever its former tribe-unifying merits, cannot be resurrected by the modern mind.''
The last sentence seems convincing to me. The fact is we know very little about the pre-Christian religions of Europe; there was no extensive body of writings, no holy books, nothing other than bits and pieces written by Roman historians or others in various places. Much of what is called 'paganism' today is a cobbled-together 'tradition', mostly the work of Gerald Gardner, who lived in the 20th century, far-removed from the traditions he was supposedly resurrecting. In Victorian times, Sir James Frazer and his work The Golden Bough also contributed a great deal to this reinvented paganism. In other words, the authenticity of it is very much in question, but then I suspect that matters not at all to its proponents, because it appears that to them, neo-paganism is merely a means to an end, a supplanter of Christianity which they deem as more useful to their cause of creating a new Europe in which the hated faith of our fathers will not exist. A Christendom without Christ, as some have put it.
5. Even if all religion is, finally, empirically false, white nationalists may want to encourage a new efflorescence of traditional Christianity, if only for its healthy, life-affirming aspects. The old faith encouraged large families (biological reproduction). We need this now. For centuries, moreover, the old faith was not seen to be incompatible with anti-miscegenation laws, with ethnic expulsions, with ranks and hierarchies, and with anti-immigration statutes. Instead of jettisoning the faith because it has been racially corrupted, the easier as well as more politically prudent and fruitful course would be to recover and reapply the earlier, non-multiculturalist understanding of Christian obligation."
[Emphasis mine.]
6. The Faith presided over great periods of Western (biological) expansion. It may have helped cause that expansion, directly and certainly indirectly. The Faith is therefore not necessarily inimical to the West; secular liberalism undeniably is. Oh, and the Faith may even be true ... racialists should adjust their thinking accordingly. ''
That last little point is not made often enough. What if Christianity is true? That should be the central question. Is it true? Is there a God, one God, as the Bible states, and is Christ his son and our savior? If so, then it behooves those who revere truth to seek out the true God, rather than inventing or 'rediscovering' a set of 'gods' who will serve as mascots or talismans for their new Christless Eurotopia.
I'm often tempted to ask those who profess to be pagans: do you really believe in your gods or are they just intellectual symbols for you? Props in your scenario for a new Europe? If they do exist, and if they are specifically tribal gods of the White race or the Northern European race, are they not there to help their people now? Or are they dormant until Christianity is overthrown?
Truth be told, I've known people who professed to be pagans or Wiccans or sort of freelance witches, or Druids. Before I was a Christian, I was something of a seeker, spiritually, and I learned about all religions, Eastern and Western. I never got the sense that the pagan gods were real and vital in the minds of those who called themselves pagans. How is worshipping them supposed to spiritually and racially revivify the West? Come to that, why did the pagan West fall to Christianity, if the gods were so potent, and if paganism was authentic while Christianity was alien and artificial for Europeans?
And I don't buy the allegation that Christianity was 'forced' at swordpoint on Europeans. Those who say that must be confusing Christianity with Islam. Christianity was not forced on Europe. The story of Constantine forcing his supposed 'faith' on Rome (his profession being in doubt, according to some observers) does not apply to Europe generally.
I have no grudge against the pagans or neo-pagans on the right, as long as they are not calling for the stamping out of Christianity, nor engaging in wholesale slanders against our Christian ancestors. I think that all of us who care about the future of our people have to come to some kind of modus vivendi, and tolerate one another. We can't afford the divisions, and I don't see these divisions as originating with the Christian side; the hostility consistently shows up in the constant blaming and vilifying of Christians and the faith of old Europe. I simply don't see how one can love Europe and hate the faith which informed it during its height of achievement and strength.
Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Europe, Liberal Christianity, Western Civilization
0 comment Monday, August 11, 2014 | admin
PC won't permit illegal immigration opponent to speak
The 'PC' alluded to in the headline is Providence College, by the way:
PROVIDENCE -- Tom Tancredo, former congressman from Colorado, Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak in Rhode Island Wednesday. But he will not be addressing students at Providence College as he had originally planned, after college officials rejected a request from a student group to invite him to campus.
[...]
Student group Youth for Western Civilization asked PC officials if they could also host Tancredo, but the request was denied, said PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira. "They are not an officially recognized group," Vieira said. "They asked very late in the semester when there was not enough time for the request to go through the usual channels." Just as important, Vieira said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's.''
Happily, another venue has been found for Tancredo's speech, under the sponsorship of another group.
What is going on with this treatment of Tancredo? He has had a long record of opposing illegal immigration, but I don't remember him being shut down as much as he as been in recent times. Why, now, are his views intolerable, or more so than they used to be to the PC 'tolerance tyrants'?
I realize the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is it meant to be, so the Church leadership is not accountable to church members for their political stances -- but it seems a little separation of church and state is in order here.
I also understand, though, that Providence is a Catholic college, but as the article notes, the college has not prevented pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy from speaking, though abortion is against Catholic teaching. It would seem that immigration, legal or not, is a more 'sacred' principle than life to some of these liberal theological types.
The 'PC' alluded to in the headline is Providence College, by the way:
PROVIDENCE -- Tom Tancredo, former congressman from Colorado, Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak in Rhode Island Wednesday. But he will not be addressing students at Providence College as he had originally planned, after college officials rejected a request from a student group to invite him to campus.
[...]
Student group Youth for Western Civilization asked PC officials if they could also host Tancredo, but the request was denied, said PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira. "They are not an officially recognized group," Vieira said. "They asked very late in the semester when there was not enough time for the request to go through the usual channels." Just as important, Vieira said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's.''
Happily, another venue has been found for Tancredo's speech, under the sponsorship of another group.
What is going on with this treatment of Tancredo? He has had a long record of opposing illegal immigration, but I don't remember him being shut down as much as he as been in recent times. Why, now, are his views intolerable, or more so than they used to be to the PC 'tolerance tyrants'?
I realize the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is it meant to be, so the Church leadership is not accountable to church members for their political stances -- but it seems a little separation of church and state is in order here.
I also understand, though, that Providence is a Catholic college, but as the article notes, the college has not prevented pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy from speaking, though abortion is against Catholic teaching. It would seem that immigration, legal or not, is a more 'sacred' principle than life to some of these liberal theological types.
Labels: Academia, Church-State Separation, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Illegal Immigration, Liberal Christianity, Liberal Intolerance, Political Correctness, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Saturday, June 21, 2014 | admin
The list of blogs I read is shrinking. Why? Because it is hard to keep one's morale up and one's spirits high when the mainstream (so-called) media bombard us with propaganda, lies, and character assassinations all day, every day. The mainstream media are a disgrace to our society and to humanity. I wonder how they sleep at night. They have made themselves the enemy, the declared enemy of traditional America, specifically White America, even though many of the individuals who work for the media are themselves White. For that reason, they are also traitors to their own people.
The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.
I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.
One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.
I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.
However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.
It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.
So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.
For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?
Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?
How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?
Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.
And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.
I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.
Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.
Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.
And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.
I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?
I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.
Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.
I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.
I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.
What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.
The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.
I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.
One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.
I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.
However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.
It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.
So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.
For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?
Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?
How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?
Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.
And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.
I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.
Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.
Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.
And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.
I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?
I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.
Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.
I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.
I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.
What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.
Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christianity, Divisiveness, Liberal Christianity, The Right
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