Thou Shalt Hate Christianity and Judaism

By Fjordman

As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naive Christian compassion[1] related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organisations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd.

A number of executives and star presenters at the British Broadcasting Corporation admitted what critics already knew: The BBC[2] is dominated by Left-leaning liberals who are anti-American and biased against Christianity, but sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a very senior news executive about the BBC's pro-Multicultural stance, but was given the reply: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it."

The anti-Christian element seems to be a trait shared by Multiculturalists in all Western countries. Thomas Hylland Eriksen[3] is a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo. He has written many books and is a frequent contributor of newspaper essays. He is also leading a major project for studying the Multicultural society in Norway.

Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of nations as if he took pleasure in it, and has stated that the Nidaros Cathedral (Nidarosdomen), the most significant church in the country, should no longer serve as a national symbol in our Multicultural society. Mr. Eriksen has recently clashed[4] with two brothers named Anfindsen, who run the bilingual website HonestThinking.org.

According to[5] Hylland Eriksen, "Cosmopolites insist on a world comprising of more colours than black and white. In such a world, the problems presented by Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen are not just petty, but irrelevant."

What are the problems presented by Mr. Anfindsen? Well, he has published numbers indicating that if the current immigration continues, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a couple of generations. And a large proportion of the new population will be Muslims.

Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and virtually always get persecuted when the newcomers are Muslims, one would assume that this would be interesting information. But for self-proclaimed "Multicultural cosmopolites" such as Thomas Hylland Eriksen, it is "petty and irrelevant" to even consider that this could represent a problem.

Eriksen calls Anfindsen "stupid and ignorant," and hints that "Maybe Anfindsen's agenda is inspired by a kind of perverted Christianity (he has a Christian background)."

"He has a Christian background." Is that supposed to be an insult, and disqualify a person from worrying about whether his grandchildren will be persecuted? In a newspaper essay co-authored by Eriksen, he states that: "Is he [Anfindsen] asking us to once again repeat the obvious in that the murder of Theo van Gogh, various acts of terrorism and death threats against newspaper editors have nothing to do with Islam?"

Nothing to do with Islam? Really?

Mohammed Bouyeri[6], born in Amsterdam of Moroccan parents, killed Theo van Gogh as he was cycling in Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004, shooting and stabbing before slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. "I did what I did purely out my beliefs," he told judges while clutching a Koran[7]. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan," but because he believed van Gogh insulted Islam in his film criticising the treatment of Muslim women.

So a peaceful Christian is accused of having a dark, secret agenda, while a Muslim murderer who brags openly about his Islamic motivations has nothing to do with Islam? Needless to say, Mr. Hylland Eriksen is also rather anti-Israeli. Christians and Jews are bad, Muslims are "misunderstood." This confirms my thesis that Political Correctness is a hate ideology[8] disguised as "tolerance." It is based upon hate against anything considered Western and a desire to eradicate this.

The First Commandment of multiculturalism is: Thou shalt hate Christianity and Judaism. Multiculturalists also hate nation states, and they even hate the Enlightenment, by insisting that non-Western cultures should be above scrutiny.

It is sometimes claimed that Islam is a "European" or Western religion. Ironically, we can test this by using "cosmopolitan Multiculturalists" such as Mr. Hylland Eriksen. They hate everything that's seen as Western and they like Islam, precisely because it's anti-Western.

Is religion a necessary component of society? Catholic historian Christopher Dawson wrote in his book "Progress and religion" from 1929:

"It is the religious impulse which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and a culture. The great civilisations of the world do not produce the great religions as a kind of cultural by-product; in a very real sense the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilisations rest. A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture"

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French 19th-century political thinker, stated in Democracy in America[9]:

"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

Lee Harris[10] is the author of Civilisation and Its Enemies and The Suicide of Reason. According to him, Christian Europe was a fusion of diverse elements: The Hebrew tradition, Christianity, the Roman genius for law and the Germanic barbarians' love of freedom, among others. What created the communities of reasonable men that eventually made modern reason possible? This was the question taken up by Johann Herder:

"What were the necessary conditions of the European Enlightenment? What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn't he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?"

For Herder, modern scientific reason was the product of European cultures of reason, the world-historical encounter between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, "with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage."

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was an atheist. Yet according to him, it was the Christian idea of God that permitted Europeans to believe that the universe was a rational cosmos.

As Harris points out, "Human beings will have their gods--and modern reason cannot alter this. Can even the most committed atheist be completely indifferent to the imaginary gods that the other members of his community continue to worship?"

And if modern reason required a pre-existing community of reasonable men before it could emerge in the West, maybe modern reason "must recognise that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don't believe in it yourself. "

According to Theodore Dalrymple[11], the underlying problem in Western Europe in particular is a lack of purpose, which gives rise to a large amount of social pathology:

"Quite a large proportion of the population does not derive any self-respect from having to work for a living because some people are no better off if they work than if they do not work [due to the welfare state]." They "do not feel they belong to any larger project than their private lives. (…) I am not myself religious. However, I am not anti-religious. I am pro-religion provided that it is not theocratic, so long as there is still a division between church and state."

Dalrymple also believes[12] that "Discipline without freedom leads to misery, but freedom without discipline leads to chaos, shallowness, and misery of another kind," alluding to the total lack of freedom in Islam, but also to the seeming lack of direction in the West.

I agree with Harris and Dalrymple: As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will. As Australia's Cardinal George Pell[13] says, "some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."

Indeed it could. Maybe if Western Multiculturalists get their will, and Islam does conquer parts of the West, they will discover that the new religion is infinitely worse than the old one. Of course, by then it will be too late.

Source:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013705.php

1. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013179.php

2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hylland_Eriksen

4. http://www.document.no/weblogg/archives/010192.html

5. http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2006/09/23/477597.html

6. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007124.php

7. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010004.php

8. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-is-nature-of-multiculturalism.html

9. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1192

10. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/736fyrpi.asp?pg=1

11. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1345

12. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-03-13td.html

13. http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/Pelltranscript.htm

14. http://48.871.2.310plusf65:JEockwk658246375668ЊБ

2.85 A future Christian identity for Europe?

By Kyle Spotswood

Most commentators understand ‘Politics’ as the pursuit of power within a given relationship. Politics it is said is the art of this world, and the science of society, Robert Hutchins defined politics as: ‘the architectonic science, which determines what shall be studied in the state.’ For us politics shall be as David Martin explains: ‘the arena within which authority, violence, cohesion, and the maintenance of boundaries are conspicuously at play’. ‘Religion’ is understood by most commentators as being a generic term referring to ways of life other than the Liberal Modern, such as, ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’ et cetera. However, as we have discussed earlier, ‘religion’, is a practice within the much larger worldview of Christianity. As Christianity is a way of life, and life involves power relationships, Christianity is at once a political way of life. One can not separate out ones politics from ones faith and beliefs, they are intertwined as ones beliefs effects ones politics. Thus, within the Christian worldview, there is no separation of ‘Christianity’ and ‘politics’, as distinct spheres, ‘politics’ is but another sphere of the way of life that is Christianity. Politics is subsumed within Christianity.

Within Christian political thought there has been traditionally a distinction, if not a separation, of the institution of the state and the institution of the church. Ironically, this distinction Liberal Secular Democracies inherited from a Christian political entity called ‘Christianitas,’ more commonly known as Christendom. The distinction was made to safe guard the institutional church from being interfered with by the kings, (and other leading members of the laity) in its appointment of Bishops and clergy. The idea of ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, referred to the power of the king and bishops in their respective spheres and execution of duties, one concerned with the temporal and profane, the other with the spiritual and sacred. The church to bring men to salvation, and the state to create Christian peace, order and justice: the best environment in which the church can perform its task. The state had the extra role of defending the church from pagans, infidels, heathens and helping to suppress heretics. (Much like Liberal Modernity suppresses Nazism, Radical Islam, Communism, Dictators, Despots, and let’s not forget Christianity, when these ideologies take root in a society and it is no longer in its best interest to support them!) There are various Christian political theories which outline how the state and the church should relate; just to list some of them. (I should note that the explanation that I am about to give has in it an ecumenical reading, which one may not see looking at these formulations within their particular historical context) there is idea of:

Concordat: where the state and the church as two separate entities agree boundaries between the two and separate spheres of responsibility. This assumes the state is willing to recognise the church in some way but is not necessarily Christian.

Erastianism: where it is postulated that if everyone in a given society is Christian then the state should control the church. This assumes a completely Christianised society.

Establishment: this is where within a given state the church is given preference above that of other faiths, though they may be tolerated to some degree. This assumes a context of some diversity in matters of beliefs.

Symphony: Where the leaders of the state and the leaders of the church and state submit to one another in matters regarding their distinct spheres, one with the salvation of the soul and the other with regards to the running of secular affairs. This assumes a Christian society.

Caesero-Papism: Where a Christian monarch rules the state in matters of religious organisation as he rules in matters of secular organisation, though this is not to do with matters of faith but rather structure. This assumes at least a Christian monarch.

Christendom: Where the state and the church work jointly to govern society in there separate spheres but where the church takes a lead in the direction of secular affairs including governments.

We should note however that these approaches are more concerned with the idea of how the institution of the church and the institution of the state should relate, they each assume a predominantly Christian society with the exception of concordat which assumes at best an ambivalent state.

Our discussion however will begin at a slightly different nuance concerned with Christian politics, identity and a Christian political agenda in a modern world, which is a subtly different discussion to ones with which the above are concerned. It begins with the assumption of ‘the one ecumenical catholic church militant’ in the setting of a non-Christian world or post Christian world with varying degrees of hostility to its existence.

Christianity has increasingly become perceived as being linked by some, to a bygone culture, having already lost its political direction, cohesion, and influence. The wall that both Martin Luther and Thomas Jefferson spoke of has switched, in modern times it is no longer a means by which the Church defends its rights and position over the state, as in pre-modern times, but rather how the state increases its power over the Church. Historically there have always been tensions between the powers secular and the powers religious, which in times gone by through the prides of men resulted in out right conflict between the two; however, with the emergence of the modern secular state and its incumbent ‘ideology of reason’. This ‘wall’, has become the means via which the state has secured power away from the church and is challenging the identity of Christians as well. Attacking our beliefs and values and presenting modern liberal alternatives in short all that makes us who we are as Christians by presenting alternatives with the assumption that these alternatives are better and the polemical engagement of the ‘enlightenment’ elite. The Liberal Moderns command the heights of the wall. This process is called differentiation: where the state, driven by the ‘ideology of reason’, ‘the religion of humanity’, or more simply - Liberal Modernity, seized what were once church roles. This forced conversion of society has pushed the Christian faith back into a metaphysical box, where some argued it would die an irrelevant death. Such as speculated by Marx and others, and assumed by Nietzche!

Clearly for Christianity to be authentically political, it must attempt to set the paradigm in which politics plays its self out. Contexts are all important, for what is a left wing cause among the Aymora of Bolivia, is a right wing cause among the Greeks of Albania. What we have seen in modern times is the slow erosion by enlightenment militia, upon Christianity’s presence in the structures of power that mould the paradigm of culture and society. Christians must reclaim the commanding heights of media, parliaments, councils, business and governmental authority. They must storm the walls between church and state and remove all traces of Liberal Modernity. They must do so from an authentically Christian narrative and worldview.

Christian political thought therefore cannot concede that the secular realm should have been, should be or should remain, in the hands of a godless ideology. Within a Christian political framework, however, it is so conceived (and there are a variety of opinions; some listed earlier) that both the secular and religious realms were supposed to be filled with Christians and Christian thought working together for the good of all. Christianity then is highly political, and political actions themselves are subject to the service of God, in the form of political devotion, much like religious devotion or spiritual devotion.

“When Christians enter politics they have a long and rich tradition upon which to draw, but their influence lies not in the authority of that tradition, but on the efficacy of the programmes and solutions they propose.”

Christians need to fashion a more robust Christian culture and community, rather than allowing themselves to be assimilated into the world around them. Where the church merely takes its cues from wider culture it ends up being the puppet of the state; much like the Dutch Reformed church of South Africa through the apartheid. When it has a strong sense of its own identity it can speak both authentically and clearly for its own political values and agenda!

Christianity however, goes further, it transforms the very understanding of politics, for politics is never about domination, it is about service. Liberal Democratic political culture is thankfully influenced by this Christian imperative, even though its view of what is the ‘common good’ is seriously in need of refinement. The ‘common good’ must be measured in how one is brought towards or away from relationship with the living God, this should be the end of goal of all branches of government from economics right through to foreign policy. The present end goal of Liberal Modern states is how each person and community can be grafted into the economy, this is what is interpreted as being the common good. However, this suffers from an ideological blind spot that has been the bane of Liberal Modernity from the outset. Humans are more than material beings! A Christian state would be more balanced in its approach to the material and spiritual needs of its citizens; contrary to the extreme materialism fashioned by Liberal Modernity. For example the truth and reconciliation commissions that are now working in South Africa, El Salvador, Rwanda, Northern Ireland, and has even been imported into Bosnia, as a means of reconciling countries with a history of division; accepting the non material solutions to real problems faced in society.

Christians then must commit themselves to the struggle of bringing to bear every political framework to perfect submission under God! One is pained however, to dispel any illusions that this translates into forcing anyone to become Christian, no more than our present Liberal Modern society would accept that it forces people to become materialist consumers; people will be free to opt out of the main stream of Christian culture. Within Christian political thought one leads by serving, one does not lead to serve or lead to be served. This is an important distinction, in societies where leaders, lead to be served, we often see horrific abuses of power, such as with Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam. Leadership based around the notion to serve, we have seen, has a tendency to see it despoiled by disingenuous politicians, or by those who have an idea to serve their own interested parties. We see that in most politicians in most modern democracies. However, a leader in a Christian society becomes a leader because he/she is already serving the people before he/she receives any authority, his/she record is established long before he/she find themselves in political office. Corrosive social attitudes cultivated through notions of ‘celebrity culture’ would be undermined; they would in due course become retarded. It would be in doctors, nurses, servicemen, priests and pastors, community workers and the like, that society would find its heroes, not in trivial actors, singers, and sports figures. A Christian society would value holiness, learning and communal service above that of selfish self-gain and self-promotion.

Christian political thought is not bound to any one system of government, it is not innately dictatorial or democratic, whether there is rule of law or rule of power; Christian political thought can exist in many political realities. However, no matter the political system: electoral, oligarchy, totalitarian, confederacy or federation, republican or monarchical; one thing that remains is the idea that in some way government is firstly accountable to the revealed will of God. By whatever system of accountability employed, the government of whatever nature, is held accountable by the Christian militant, in how it subscribes to the cause of God in terms of the needs of The Kingdom. Also its service rendered to the servants of Christ in the pursuit of their call to holiness and the fulfilment of the ‘Great Commission’. In this respect all truly Christian political systems are innately Theocratic; in that they seek to allow God to rule. Christian commentators have suggested various ways that this could be done via human agency, in keeping with apostolic authority, or through acting upon the clear writ of scripture as interpreted by those of sufficient training. Alas, no matter the medium used, the aim is the same, to make real the revealed will of God on earth. This requires the Church and State to work in unison.

However, some may argue that this is impossible, that men can not bring about God’s kingdom here on earth, alas, they miss the point - we do not need to, The Lord Christ did this two thousand years ago, this would merely be and expression of The Kingdom on earth. It would be no more perfect than our present democracies are perfect (to their own principles), and God knows they are not perfect! Democracies constantly fail to reflect the true will of the people, by their very nature they can not; however, they attempt to reflect the will of the people, though in actual fact, this tends to be the will of the rich and better off! In the same way, Christian theocracies can not hope to reflect perfectly God’s will, but would attempt to reflect God’s will on earth.

Now some, let’s call them ‘drama queens’, immediately draw parallels to Islamic or medieval theocracies, seemingly forgetting that we are neither in the middle ages nor are we Islamic. Societies reflect their gods and as Islam reflects a god of ‘will’ in the Shari’ah, and Liberal Modernity reflects a god of mammon in Capitalism, a Christian state reflects a God of love in theocracy. Should we dismiss a form of government for its past errors then we should dismiss all forms of governments and become anarchistic, for none are without their mistakes, and none have been perfect! However, only one can claim to be a priori and deontologically correct, and that is a Christian theocracy. Liberal Modern relativistic arguments have no bearing due to their own laughable inconsistencies, as it claims that ‘all truth claims are relative’, except this most relative of all claims to truth; by which it seeks to govern all others! However, one hardly believes that the ‘irreligious’ will be ‘equally willing to accept the prescription of non establishment’, that prescription only exists for those unlike themselves. It is one rule for the Christians and another rule for the Liberal Moderns!

Further more, Christian politics is not confined to any nation state; it is ‘internationalist’, within the present context of the world. It recognises no border, or authority above that of its King. Therefore, where there is a single Christian being persecuted it is the concern of every Christian to come to his/her assistance by every justifiable means including, but not necessarily…war! Much like Liberal Modern states believe that it is their right to wage war on those that offend their concept of ‘human rights’. So it is the right and duty of Christians to wage war on those that blaspheme our God and persecute our brethren.

The silence of a politically impotent church in the west with regards to its brethren around the world is staggering – and quite telling of its spiritual state. The humiliations and abuses of the persecuted church are too many to list, and are a denigration of their Christian dignity. Only if the persecuted Christians lift themselves out of their state as persecuted will they be able to live in dignity. This calls them and us to their liberation and the usurpation of the status quo. The persecuted church should not depend upon western imported theologies that justify their persecution, but instead fashion a theology that begins with the articulation of their own experience as persecuted Christians. We should understand the Church’s identity not through dogmatic preaching, but through the historical reality of the persecuted church. Persecution of Christians and oppression of Christianity is contrary to the will of God. Thus, ‘the universal and global church on earth’ should enter into solidarity with persecuted Christians wherever they are found. The church should centre its life, not around sacraments, or dogmas, (though these should never be done away with), but on the experiences and the cause of the martyred, and the oppressed, and suffering Christian. Christians should come together and study and support one another in tackling persecution and oppression of Christians. Theology should be rooted in the experiences of the persecuted.

Source:

Kyle Spotswood (Sheffield) wrote, on Nov 2, 2007:

http://www.new.facebook.com/board.php?uid=2204703039#/topic.php?uid=2204703039&topic=3836

Дата добавления: 2015-07-17