In part 5, I mentioned the rifts that exist in the Counter-Jihad. Some of these rifts may not be that serious; but one in particular does strike me as important enough to give us pause -- the rift, that is, between those who are tough on Islam, and those who seem to be tough on Islam but who really have a soft, chewy, nougaty core beneath their apparently no-nonsense toughness.
In light of this, I posed the question:
Can a Compromise be developed between these two camps?
Part of the problem of a compromise is that the definition and characterization of what constitutes the two camps is not an exact science, but is subject to a degree of relative, subjective impression & opinion. Of course, I have pretty definite notions of that definition and characterization, as anyone who has read some of my essays here will know; but at least I'm open to the fact that my conception will be in some respects disputed, and some form of hashing out and compromise will be inevitable. (Some people, I have noticed, seem to think that if you have definite principles & positions, you are then incapable of compromise.)
So, the definition of a "Softy" is not necessarily set in stone; and, in addition (and closely related to that), there may well be quite a few varieties of "Softness" in this regard -- and sometimes the differences do matter. Particularly, one expects, in the terms of the goal of a compromise.
One way I can approach this is to turn the question on myself: Can I imagine coming to a compromise with the dreaded Counter-Jihad Softy? And what would such a compromise look like?
Let me chew on that a while...
27 comments:
Hi Hesp,
Here is an interesting essay: http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-greatest-quotes-censored.html
The reason that there can be NO compromise between believing Christians and other groups is that this is ultimately a POWER struggle. Namely, who has the POWER to rule the West (which until recently has been comprised of Christians - but now will be comprised of non-Christians)?
Other groups inevitably attempt to co-opt Christians to enforce ideas and laws that abrogate Christian power and ideals - which Christians believe are immutable from God. Either you believe in a triune God and the Ten Commandments OR you do NOT. There is NO middle ground. The triune God and Ten Commandments built the civilized West that Jews, atheists, Mormons, sodomites, etc., are busy trying to 'remake' in their own image - without believing Christians and the Christian religion - but with the same - and, as they would argue, 'better' results. Well, the proof is in the pudding. Now that Jews, atheists, Mormons, sodomites, etc., are ruling the West, the West is quite quickly disintegrating before our eyes. If Christians choose to take this matter into hand, Christians will NEED to establish the absolute primacy of Christian rule - or the West will simply disintegrate again where non-Christian values are allowed primacy. Rinse and repeat.
You can take Christianity out of the West, but you cannot have the West without Christian rule. You have tried it and failed.
P.S. I have lately begun to think that atheists are cultural Jews - rather than cultural Christians.
This idea of Western Jews adapting various non-Jewish groups (including atheists) to act as cultural Jews arises as the result of an idea that I heard or read (I cannot remember which) that militant homosexuals consciously set out to change the modern West by propagandizing via mass media that everyone should act the way that homosexual men did and do with unfettered sex with random partners of any sex(versus the Christian ideal of people 'saving' themselves for marriage with one partner of the opposite sex). The commentator made the point that homosexuals had been utterly successful and completely changed Western culture to be non-Christian in this regard.
Note here that the next homosexual goal that militant homosexuals have publicly bragged about is the complete dissolution of marriage. Militant homosexuals said that, while they would claim to want homosexual marriage, they would then press for group marriage which they predicted and intended to lead to the dissolution of marriage as a meaningful institution (once speculates, for Christianity).
Anyone following the marriage issue knows that Muslims are using 'fringe' polygamous Mormons to challenge laws against group marriage. Of course, 'fringe' polygamous Mormons are NOT truly 'fringe' Mormons according to Mormon scripture - where the mainline Mormon religion STILL fully supports polygamy as the FOUNDATION of the Mormon version of heaven (and we all know that heaven is an ideal for which to strive). Mainline Mormonism now tells it members to follow the current law of the land, so we can reasonably expect polygamy and its attendant child marriage to reoccur once group marriage is legalized via the court system.
But, when I tried to make the point on GoV that 1) Mormon Mitt Romney is NOT a Christian, and, 2) as a very high-ranking Mormon church leader, Romney should be made to answer some difficult questions about a) why Mormons exclude non-Mormons from Mormon marriage ceremonies, b) alleged public nudity and public sexual exploitation of women during Mormon marriage ceremonies, and c) his stance on polygamy and child marriage, GoV refused to publish my comment (because, one presumes, GoV believes that an Islamic Obama would be worse than a Mormon Romney).
For believing Christians, the point is that whether Muslims are polygamous or Mormons are polygamous, polygamy is an evil non-Christian practice that directly challenges the best ideal of the Christian West - one adult man marrying one adult woman by choice to create a loving family devoted to God. Yet, no matter how many years Muslims or Mormons live in the West, one suspects that, given the chance, Muslims and Mormons will attempt to 'remake' the West to accept polygamy.
In the same way, other groups each want their 'carve-out' from Christian rule so Christianity - and the West - dies the death of a thousand small cuts. What could be wrong with Western Hindu guards wearing turbans or beards etc.? What could be wrong with Western Muslim women wearing head scarves? What could be wrong with multiple 'wives' receiving welfare benefits? What could be wrong with removing 'under God' from the pledge? What could be wrong with removing the pledge altogether? And on and on and on....
hello Egghead,
Do you prefer religious government to secular democracy?
Hi Liberty,
Regarding secular:
ALL governments are religious. It is simply a question of WHICH religion. Even falsely-labeled secular governments are religious governments wherein secularism is the religion - choosing winners and losers - and enforcing that choice by laws backed up by the threat and enactment of violence and death against those who dare to blaspheme or cross the chosen religion. Look up democide and see that self-professed 'secular' governments have tortured and murdered vast amounts of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
Regarding democracy:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America consciously designed the USA to be a Republic rather than a democracy. Democracy is simply mob rule where two wolves and a sheep 'vote' what to eat for dinner (Just now, believing Christians are first on the menu).
Talk to me about democracy when Muslims outnumber Christians in the West. Recent Pew polls indicate that, in the first election that Muslims have numerical superiority in the West, 'nice' and 'radical' Muslims alike will 'vote' for Sharia Law to oppress non-Muslims.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
If as Rummel argues, power kills, it is clear that a BALANCE of power among groups is better than unfettered mob rule of democracy where 51% rule 49%. The problem is that various minority groups have overstepped their bounds in the West and are attempting to subordinate - really eradicate - believing Christians in the West - except where Christians serve specific necessary purposes for minorities. Thus, minority Jews, atheists, Mormons, sodomites, etc., fully expect majority Christians to bail the West out of the current mess (that has been largely created by ruling Western minorities) WITHOUT the minorities allowing Christians to rule - or even live with - Christian values. The same Jews, atheists, Mormons, sodomites, etc., who as litigants, lawyers and judges 1) overrule the clear will of the Christian majority regarding the definition of marriage as one adult man married to one adult woman, and 2) who persecute Christian wedding cake bakers, etc., will fully expect Christian soldiers to save Jews, atheists, Mormons, sodomites, etc., in the coming world war.
In any case, it is increasingly clear that there will be few, if any, democracies moving into the future because various minority groups are consciously acting to cheat the democratic system in a myriad of meaningful ways including fraudulent court rulings (Obama is quite obviously ineligible to be President of the USA.), rampant computer fraud (It has been well documented by True the Vote.), and vast amounts of illegal immigration intended to literally change the composition of the electorate to achieve the results desired by ruling groups (Note that Jews provide the bulk of individual financing to the Democratic Party which is busy perpetrating voter fraud in countless ways.).
So, the question of whether a secular democracy is a superior form of government to a religious government is effectively moot at this time. However, it is easy to demonstrate that 1) 'secular' governments are demonstrably violent and murderous against their own citizens (and others), and 2) 'religious' Muslim governments are demonstrably violent and murderous against their own citizens (and others).
Correction: 1,400+ years instead of 2,000 years
Sorry Egghead,
I could not quite adduce the answer to my question in your reply.
My guess is that you don't think it matters between secular and theocratic, as long as the people with the power are Christians.
Please correct me if (and I apologise in that case), I am wrong.
Egghead,
Thanks for that Rupert Murdoch quote; another mainstream voice to join the still glacial, but discernibly progressing change in the climate of opinion.
As to the discussion you and Liberty are having, while I agree that Islamic governments and Communist governments have been pernicious, and while some can argue that the current secular order of the West has a lot of problems -- whether or not one deems it pernicious or not -- that is not directly relevant to whether it's feasible to expect a replacement of it with a Christian government. I also oppose the "Real-Problem" implications of such a view; which perforce includes the problem of adding to our plate which is already burgeoning high with the mere problem of Islam. It would then be rather tendentious if not circular to assert that the plate has to include this ulterior problem because the ulterior problem is the cause of the problem of Islam, which cannot be solved without the former problem being solved.
P.S.:
I noticed from an older comment thread here going back many years I articulated at length my problem with the anti-Jewish argument. It's a lot of reading, as I responded to a person here at great length (and his responses also figure in) -- the pertinent part begins from this comment forward:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/12/refuting-holistic-analysis-of-problem.html?showComment=1229651820000#c868106336551255408
Hi Liberty,
Interestingly, just today, Karl Denninger (who, I believe, is a Catholic and libertarian) wrote an essay about the same topic where he appears to take the opposite point of view to mine.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229727
So, what do I think about Denninger's argument? Well, I think that his argument is exceedingly weak on the merits, both practically and philosophically.
Denninger asks, "Isn't it time that we insisted that religion be separated from policy?"
To which I answer, It is impossible to separate religion from policy because EVERY policy maker has a personal 'religion' - most especially those policy makers who most assiduously claim NOT to have a religion (i.e., atheists). Someone smarter than me said that atheists replace the authority of God (and generations of Western Christian religious and cultural tradition) with their own imperfect authority, and each atheist is effectively acting as his or her own God - deciding which morals and life rules are valid or not (often based on giving a free pass to their own personal sins).
When a policy maker claims adherence to a major world religion - including atheism, other people have 1) a basis to judge where that policy maker is coming from - and going to - when making future policy decisions and 2) a defined measure by which religious constituents can judge whether that policy maker is legitimately representing the interests of his or her religious constituents. For example, all Westerners should be aware that Western Muslims who elect a Muslim policy maker fully expect for that Muslim policy maker to vote to institute Sharia Law in the West.
Then, Denninger asks, "Isn't that, at it's core, what the First Amendment is really about?"
It is my understanding that the First Amendment was enacted to protect the individual states from the federal government establishing one central federal religion (leaving the individual states free to establish their own state religions).
"Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
"In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Apparently, it was only during the 'Civil Rights' movement that the federal government (with now regular over-reach) assumed the right to enforce the religion of atheism upon formerly overtly Christian states.
Denninger continues, "Indeed, there's a clean argument to be made that atheism provides the most-reliable moral compass of all. After all, if you act ethically without the threat of being damned to hellfire then isn't that superior as a personal trait than if you merely cower in fear of some dude on a big chair condemning you to eternal sodomy at the hands of a another dude with red skin and horns?"
Now, there's an argument that is as IMPOSSIBLE to prove as the existence of God. It is a HUGE assumption to conclude that any, or most, or all atheists act ethically - or act more ethically than Christians. It is also a HUGE assumption to conclude that any, or most, or all Christians act ethically at all - or act ethically because of a fear of Hell - rather than a true love of and reverence for God, or good, or truth, or beauty represented by God.
Ironically, by his assumptions, Denninger falsely imputes the best possible 'spiritual' motivations to atheists and the worst possible 'spiritual' motivations to Christians.
However, we can study and see that nations founded by atheists have bloody beginnings, middles, and presumably ends, and people who live under atheist rule try to LEAVE that rule. This reality indicates that unfettered atheist rule is less than ethical - and fundamentally flawed. Where do people try go to? The Christian West steeped in Christian values.
Denninger states, "As soon as you bring your religious beliefs into the public policy and law you inherently are taking up arms and shoving them in my face to demand adherence to your beliefs."
Again, ironically, Denninger's position appears to be the SAME position as devout Evangelical Christians who have consciously ceded the public square to non-Christians with the philosophy that Christians should NOT participate in worldly affairs. Simply convincing Evangelical Christians to vote is difficult, and, according to Christian radio, their lack of voting in the last presidential election was a major reason that Obama was re-elected.
While Christians have ceded the rule of the West, other groups have been busy taking advantage of the power vacuum to enforce their religious beliefs, public policy, and law upon Christians.
Lastly, Denninger goes off the same rails as many atheists in attempting to use the cudgel of Islam and Muslim immorality to beat Christianity out of the public square. I have long stated that atheists imported Islam in order to use the false premise of 'fairness' to ban Christianity (under the morally thin pretense that all religions are equally evil). Denninger even suggests that Christians who want to influence public policy and law should move to Saudi Arabia to suffer flogging and imprisonment.
A word here about the Founding Fathers: It is IRRELEVANT whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or deists or atheists because the Founding Fathers generally publically presented themselves as being Christian - because the founding population was Christian. IF - and it is a big IF - the Founding Fathers lied to the founding Christian population that would only speak to the unethical character of deists or atheists. The DEFINING point would still remain that the founding Christian population instituted a government ruled by Christians for Christians based on the idea that human rights are derived from the Christian GOD - rather than human rights accruing from man - or from government of men.
Egghead
As one of the founding fathers said that the government they gave us was 'for a moral, religious people.' It won't work for any other sort.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Why because people need to have a intact moral compass to make important decisions. To know right from wrong, good from evil, etc.
Break the compass and insert modernity with it's situational ethics and morality or worse - post-modernism and it's 'truth is what you make it' mentality. Well you're up the creek as they say and can no longer spot nor resist evil. That's how keep electing horrible people that otherwise wouldn't be allowed to babysit a pet rock.
You become easy prey. You end up like the authorities and locals at Rotherham, who apparently didn't care a bit all those girls were molested. A hundred years ago the locals would have killed everyone of those involved in it.
Now we just get some complaints.
cronk
Thanks Egghead, I'll try to get back to all your commentary & material at a later date. To cronk (also relevant to Egghead's point), I think it's arguable that as "situational" and seemingly relativistic the current secular order is, it also retains a great deal of substance from the previous order. While that of course presents a problem of political (i.e., moral) sustainability, I don't think it's apodictically the case that the current secular order isn't a phase in a process of the previous Western order (insofar as that previous order was not gnostically perfect, but was, like all else that is imperfect about human nature and endeavors, subject to change in a context of the ongoing unfolding of the mystery of history).
Hi Hesperado,
Thanks for your comments. :)
C.S. Lewis believed that the mere passage of time does NOT equate to moral progress. Phrased differently, modern people do NOT have a lock on either truth or good behavior.
From Wikipedia:
Universal morality
"One of the main theses in Lewis's apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. In the first five chapters of Mere Christianity Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect people to adhere. This standard has been called Universal Morality or Natural Law. Lewis claims that people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. He goes on to claim that there must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles.[76]
'These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.[77]'
"Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "deep magic" which everyone knew.[78]
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature ... is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
'I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did – if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.[79]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
hi all,
Wow! I did not expect the fact(?) that secular democracy is way superior to all current and recent systems, probably historical systems as well, to be controversial.
Must say I'm a bit downhearted about that.
I will go back to trying to learn to sing La Marseillaise, I dont really speak french so it isnt easy, but the exercise certainly helps to cheer me up.
Vive La France!
Hi Hesperado,
I address only you because I am so angered by Egghead's ignorant sinister remark, something to do with there being more pink Christians than brown ones apparently, who knew?
I fear I will be impolite if I try to talk to egghead again, so I probably won't.
.
Hi Liberty,
Save your anger for the Muslims. We are going to need it. :)
Facts are facts.
Historically and currently, there are more white Christians than brown ones - and, I would wager that nations defined by white Christians provide the vast majority of 1) public and foreign aid, 2) private charity, and 3) advanced technology to Christian (and non-Christian) brown people at home and abroad - which raises the serious question as to whether brown Christians (and brown non-Christians) would survive or thrive if white Christians were seriously compromised in the West. We only need to look at South Africa and Detroit, Michigan, to see what happens when white Christians cede Christian civilization to brown peoples.
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/
By the way, why would you label white Christians as 'pink' Christians when 1) no one else calls white people to be 'pink' people, and 2) that makes white people sound distinctly Communist - which does rather go with your demonstrably incorrect assertion that 'secular democracy is way superior to all current and recent systems'?
First, I bet that, on paper, Communist Russia is a secular democracy - which aligns with those who sadly 'joke' of Europe as the EUSSR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100185609/you-thought-the-whole-eussr-thing-was-over-the-top-have-a-look-at-this-poster/
Second, if secular democracies are so 'superior,' why are we having this conversation at all? The truth is that, by conscious choice, secular democracies are ceding white Western civilization to brutal brown barbarians called Muslims. Oh, and those brutal Muslims are implementing Muslim religious governments WITHIN all 'secular' states (except perhaps Japan) and imposing Sharia Law UPON the non-Muslim inhabitants of secular states. How can we accurately label a state to be a secular state when that state voluntarily cedes vast swathes of actual land, assets, and human rights to admittedly religious Muslims?!
At least past European Christians had enough religious morals to recognize evil and sin - and thus ban ALL Muslim immigration and ideas. Modern 'secular' Europe is a continent full of 'secular' irreligious immoral fools begging to be conquered and incorporated as dhimmis in Eurabia. Fear not, the USA is full of the same type of fools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia
If you want to believe or claim that secular democracies are a 'superior' form of government, then you should offer facts and evidence rather than self-serving personal opinion. Let's have an actual discussion instead of a lame quiz session with leading questions.
"A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more responsibility for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting the ego from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html
Hi cronk,
One more thing: The reason that non-Christians other than Muslims want to align with Christians is that they want a seat at the table to negotiate their moral carve-outs of Christianity if Christians win against Muslims. For example, LGBT people would want to maintain 'marriage' as being among any number of people of any sex or age (that's coming).
This situation would be akin to the United States winning World War II and then giving Eastern Europe to Russia to enslave under Communism. Christians need to learn to stop 'bargaining' bad moral deals with non-Christian groups.
Hi Hesp,
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/01/14/atheist-lawsuit-causes-nc-town-to-remove-sculpture-of-soldier-and-cross-2/?subscriber=1
Stuff like this is what makes atheism just another religion that persecutes Christianity instead of simply an innocent expression of a modern 'secular democracy.'
Stuff like this is what will turn Christians from 'compromising' with atheists who refuse to compromise with Christians.
Hi Hesp,
Karl Denninger wrote yet another related essay today that I shall analyze here later. :)
Hi Hesp,
Here is the article that Karl Denninger cites as a basis for his essay.
Here is one paragraph:
"The matter was complicated by the fact that Europe was no longer simply Christian. Christianity had lost its hegemonic control over European culture over the previous centuries and had been joined, if not replaced, by a new doctrine of secularism. Secularism drew a radical distinction between public and private life, in which religion, in any traditional sense, was relegated to the private sphere with no hold over public life. There are many charms in secularism, in particular the freedom to believe what you will in private. But secularism also poses a public problem. There are those whose beliefs are so different from others' beliefs that finding common ground in the public space is impossible. And then there are those for whom the very distinction between private and public is either meaningless or unacceptable. The complex contrivances of secularism have their charm, but not everyone is charmed."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-between-two-worlds#axzz3OhzQSlhg
Hi Egghead, you've presented a lot of different material, so it will be a long time before I can adequately review it. On that latest Denninger quote, it strikes me that he may well think that modern secularism came from Neptune or something. I.e., the reasonable inference to make is that modern secularism is some kind of an organic outgrowth from Christendom. One can, of course, insist on forcing a model onto that historical fact such that anything that varies from one's verities must be a corruption due wholly to evil. I disagree with this model (which doesn't mean I think modern secularism is wholly good, either).
Hi Hesp,
Yes, that IS the $64,000 question as to whether secularism is a 1) terrible corruption, 2) natural or neutral progression, or 3) positive improvement upon Christianity.
The answer seems to depend upon whether a person believes in the primacy of the Christian God and the rights and responsibilities that the Christian God imbues to man and requires from man. :)
Hi Hesp,
Regarding Karl Denninger's latest essay:
I think Denninger presents false options as the ONLY options - and then draws the conclusion that he has framed as his ideal answer to a rigged question.
Denninger claims that secularism is the ONLY 'peaceful' solution for a pluralistic society - and that religious people (presumably Christians) who refuse to accept a (false) truism that Denninger presents as incontrovertible are 'choosing violence at a structural level.'
Thus, Denninger makes the EXACT argument that I have been making for a long time. Namely, that dedicated secularists fully plan to use the import (pun intended) of Muslims in order to ban ALL religious practice - especially Christian - in the West.
Next, Denninger references the founders as if he has a magical direct mind line to what their thoughts 1) were at that time and 2) would be in the present day. But, I think that Denninger widely misses the mark on both counts.
First, I have heard that the founders viewed the individual states as unique experiments in government - where different states were envisioned to try - and succeed - and fail - applying unique laws that fit their own circumstances. The successes and failures would be visible to all as people compared states to each other - and decided which states were best based on comparison of differences and results of those differences.
Different states had populations that practiced different versions of Christian religion. So, the idea was that people would be able to pick a state that best fit their needs - including their religious needs. The founders actively supported a pluralistic set of states - and actively sought to prevent a strong federal government that would enforce a state religion - or lack thereof.
Second, one important pastor on Christian radio says that the biggest misconception is that Christians came to America due to persecution. He says that their letters say otherwise - that they came to America to claim and evangelize the New World for Christianity. Our founders - who had timely knowledge of the evil of Islam - could NEVER anticipate that secularists would import and support hordes of non-Christians with the desire and purpose to eliminate Christianity.
Next, Denninger unwittingly disses the founders with his claim, "If you can't justify a law, regulation or other government act without resorting to a religious argument then you have no ethical argument in defense of it in the first instance."
Someone needs to remind Denninger that the American revolution was fought by Christians who resorted to a religious argument. Anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence remembers, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the CAUSES which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Denninger ends with his criteria for citizenship: "That in turn inevitably leads to exactly one criteria for citizenship (and, by extension, immigration to or living within) such a nation: You must accept the secular government option with all that it entails."
At this point, I suggest that Denninger re-read the Declaration of Independence which gives the founders' criteria as the consent of the governed.
Denninger finishes with a hollow morally bankrupt suggestion: "If your particular belief system is incongruent with that 'secular' ("in which the government and legal code is agnostic") form and fashion of government then your only peaceful option is to choose to live in a nation with a religious government that happens to be congruent with your personal definition of faith."
We all know that Muslims have 57 OIC member states, and Jews have one state in Israel, but we also know that devoted secularists are determined that Christians are to have NO modern state in which to believe and practice Christianity as has been our historical, cultural, and moral tradition for thousands of years. Our Western Christian nations ARE the nations that were founded by Christians to be Christian homelands. White Christians are being purposely dispossessed of our homelands - and secularists expect us to submit without complaint and then send our precious children to die in wars to secure the secular religion. In a word, "No!" I withdraw my consent.
Hi Egghead,
I agree there are moderns like Denninger (or like Alinsky, Gramsci, Alger Hiss, Bill Ayers, et al.) who have that kind of subversive vision; but that doesn't mean that 1) that vision is generalized; nor that 2) it is widespread enough to succeed. These two points can only be hypothetical inferences based upon real data; they are not facts by themselves. For many reasons (including that their inferential obverse smacks of a gnostic alienation), I just don't see they are plausible
Hi Hesp,
It is irrelevant whether the vision is generalized BECAUSE a clear minority of very powerful secularists now impose a legal and social application of the secular religious vision upon the unwilling Christian majority in ALL formerly Christian - and now culturally JEWISH - countries.
That's what I meant when I said that Christians can now clearly see that secularists have to - and do - CHEAT to impose their own secular religion.
The majority of Christian and cultural Christians are fine with the Ten Commandments being displayed in the courthouse and public school classroom, Christmas carols being sung in a public school recital, non-denominational prayers being spoken at a public high school graduation, veterans memorials that display crosses in public parks, girls - and ONLY girls - using girls public bathrooms in public school, Christians who run bed and breakfasts CHOOSING which clients will stay in their own homes, etc.
Yet, because of lawfare which is encouraged and supported by recent rulings of a Western legal system now full of racial and/or religious Jewish lawyers and judges (many of whom may identify as atheists and/or secularists), secularism is now imposed upon Christians against their will.
During the thousands of years that Christians controlled the Western legal system, Christians were willing, able, and allowed to express the Christian religion in the public sphere. With the introduction, establishment, and promotion of Jews (far exceeding their proportion in the general population) into the Western legal system, secularism became the state religion in the West.
With the introduction of Muslim lawyers and judges, I am REALLY worried about the Western legal system mutating further from the Christian ideals that formed the basis for Western values, law, and culture. It is bad enough when Muslims apply Sharia Law to themselves in their own Sharia courts, but we will see gross injustices as Muslim lawyers and judges use the Western legal system to apply Sharia Law upon the Christian population (i.e., dhimmis ALWAYS lose to Muslims, and women ALWAYS lose to men).
I think that secularists blithely underestimate the true price of imposing injustice in the name of 'fairness' - on Christians.
Ironically, Hesperado, one way that secularists make this underestimation is to convince themselves that Christians REALLY want and like the secular religion - that sprang from Christianity (no less) so HOW could Christians possibly deny or dislike it? As I have written previously, this situation is akin to the masters of a house actually believing that their servants REALLY like the masters (no matter how great or unjust) - when the servants do NOT.
Well, as a Christian, I think that the secular religion sprang from a liberal (pun intended) modern overlay of Judaism onto Western Christian culture - rather than the organic growth of Western Christianity left to its own devices. If PC MC were organic to the progression of Christianity, then there would be NO need for clear legal ruses to obtain and cement the control of secularists over Christians. No, secularists are IMPOSING their religion upon Christians, and everyone knows it. The way to PROVE that secularism is an artificial construct is to REMOVE all of the secular laws (really judicial fiat rulings) that now disallow people from practicing the Christian religion in the public sphere. Christianity would quickly return because Christians believe and see that Christianity provides crucial values that secularism denies and destroys.
Post a Comment