Friday, 28 March 2008

Do we need Christianity after all?


The more astute of you will have realised that I don't exactly carry a torch for religion, my views being located approximately equidistant between those of George Bernard Shaw and Stalin. Among its more pernicious attributes is the capacity to embody a sense of ‘us’ and ‘the other’. Some of the more illustrious results can be seen in Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

But maybe this very characteristic is what the West requires now. Secular humanism, which would the closest of the ‘isms’ to my own views, has spectacularly failed in defending Western civilization. Why this should be is puzzling, as secular humanism is the logical apogee of the Enlightenment. One would think, this being the case, that it would be the toughest opponent of obscurantism and intolerance. Yet it’s suffused with a terminal existential guilt – for what, and why, I don't know.

Failed Islamic conversion
So as we all can see, it bends over backwards to accommodate and support even the grossest manifestations of Islam. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." That’s secular humanism as it appears to me. And it isn't even liberal, despite much hoopla to the contrary.

Liberal to me means the acceptance of others’ beliefs and their expression of them, provided this doesn’t impede the freedoms of others. As we all know, today’s so-called liberals are the opposite, having closed down a whole range of conversations, and banished certain topics from the public domain in a way that would do a Fascist dictatorship proud.

Nonetheless, violent aggressive intolerant Islam, incorporating death for homosexuals, adulterers, apostates, and recognising no distinction between secular and religious, would appear to be the ultimate enemy of all that secular liberal humanism professes to stand for. Yet they prostrate themselves before The Beast.


This is where strong Christianity could come in. We all saw how the Catholic Church in Ireland (before it collapsed under the weight of its own corruption) gave short shrift to competing faiths. If Muslims tried in ‘the good old days’ to impose their will on us the way they routinely do now they’d have been run out of town in a flash.


Certainly, the loss of Christianity, or what passed for it, seems to have undermined our will to defend ourselves. The devil you know???

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You may jeer at Chistianity, but I ask you, was it better then or now? At least we were our own people and culture, and yes, religion.

Anonymous said...

The following is my letter to the Sunday Tribune about the Danish Cartoons controversy 2 years ago. I was amazed that they printed it!

Catholics Subject To Insensitivity (Letter in Sunday Tribune, 12 February 2006)

"ALL people, all religions, have to be open to criticism but it must be constructive and sensitive. [A debate] . . . cannot be achieved by extremism in either culture."

"We in the Sunday Tribune are against censorship and believe passionately in freedom of speech. But the publication of cartoons that Muslims find so offensive was not correct. For that reason we are not reproducing them today"
(Sunday Tribune Editorial 5 February).

Is the Tribune serious? Do you recall the obscene and vicious attacks on Nora Wall (Sister Dominic). "Vile Nun", "Pervert Nun", "I was Raped by Anti-Christ". Did you imagine that these came from people who were concerned about child abuse? Do you remember the article by the Sunday World 's crime correspondent Paul Williams "Rape Nun's Abuse Pact by Smyth". He claimed that Nora Wall had procured children for Fr Brendan Smyth! Nora Wall sued and got damages of 175,000. I don't recall the Sunday Tribune (or any "Liberal" newspaper) highlighting the issue. Did you even mention it and if so when?

Several years ago, The Irish Times did an article about "Piss Christ", an artistic masterpiece that showed a crucifix in a bucket of urine. American Christians who wanted to deny public money to the artist were called "fascists" by The Irish Times. What was the constructive and sensitive response by the Tribune?

Do you really think that liberals can (literally) spew vomit over Christianity and their own culture and then demand tolerance of Muslims?

Berthold Brecht was the leading intellectual in the Weimar Republic. He was also a Stalinist bootlicker. His own mistress Carola Neher, star of The Threepenny Opera, visited the Soviet Union, was arrested and disappeared forever into the Gulag. Brecht did not protest or lift a finger to help her (it would have meant allying himself with "reactionaries"). The obscene treatment of Nora Wall, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and Sister Xaviera by Irish "liberals" is on the same moral level and you are equally unfitted to fight against our modern fascists.

Rory Connor, 11 Lohunda Grove, Dublin 15.

SAVANT said...

I'm amazed it was publsihed i n the 'Turbine'

Skot German said...

"Do you really think that liberals can (literally) spew vomit over Christianity and their own culture and then demand tolerance of Muslims?"

That is a very good point. How can one expect the respect of others when they don't respect themselves.

Now, what I really wanted to talk about is the salvation of Europe. If the Pope would only quit being such a pussy and call for a crusade, I think things would get turned around.

kerdasi amaq said...

There are some people in the West who hate and loathe Christianity, reading these articles, no doubt, gives them great joy and pleasure to see what insults they can give to Christianity in Christendoms' own media. Their disdain and contempt for Islam will be their undoing.

Big Bill said...

My goodness, Irish, you call them "illustrious results" of Evil Christian Warfare? Hell, son, more people were killed in the civil war of '22-'23 than the 3300 killed in Northern Ireland over 80 years of the Troubles.

Evil Abolitionist Warfare killed more in a few hours of the Battle of Gettysburg than "Religion" killed in Northern Ireland.

Evil Imperial Warfare killed over 3300 men in a few minutes at the Battle of the Somme.

Yet you strain at the most pathetic gnats to get your digs in at The Warmonger Christians.

Lebanon, the Balkans, Ireland.

Feh.

The reality is that most of the current worldwide troubles have Muslims one one side. On the other side are the rest of us: atheists, Hindus, Jains, Animists, Buddhists, Christians and Jews.

Now either there is some Cosmic Secret International Religious Conspiracy against Muslims, or there is something about Islam that just can't get along with the rest of the world. I think the latter, don't you?

What I can't figure out is why you are bounden determined to scrape the bottom of the war-mongering barrel in order to come up with three pathetic examples of pissant conflicts in order to justify your need to hate Christianity, while at the same time you bemoan our lack of solidarity.

Having a superior white boy college educated intellect, you tell us that our religion, which forms the primary piece of our culture (and in the case of Irish Christianity, has already saved Western Civilization once) is a Warmongering Evil, yet you also tell us that we ought to fight Islam. What the hell do you WANT from us?!?

"Fight Islam! But don't think that you are any better. Heavens no! You Christians are Evil Warmonger Intolerant Fools just like the Muslims ... but don't let that stop you -- go out here and fight!"

Just tell us this one thing (no bullsh!t, now) who is the real threat? The Evid Prod down the street with his nefarious designs on the Six Counties or the nice friendly Muslim/African/Asian invasion.

Which would you rather live with: a one-in-a-million chance of being killed in Northern Ireland, or all your daughters worshipping Allah, speaking Arabic, wearing potato sacks over their heads, and squirting out a dozen babies for some domestic tyrant?

Look, Irish, we are long past the days of piddly PC atheism. Go ahead, feel superior to us. But don't trash us with pathetic examples and then wring your hands wondering why we cannot muster enough intestinal fortitude to fight back.

It is a New World, Irish, and we need men with b@lls who can see reality for what it is, see the real threat, and stop scoring College Educated White Boy Intellectual Superiority Points by sneering at little old Irish ladies who go to Mass everyday.

If you are on our side, you will find a way to inspire us, and that means dropping the gratuitous Smart College Educated White Boy digs about evil Christians.

Are you going to take away any pride we have in our ethnicity/religion/culture or are you going to make common cause with us.

The time has come. There are only a few years left for Europe and the Anglosphere. Which side are you on? Are you a liberal guiltmonger or are you with us? Make up your mind.

PS: If you sincerely wonder why liberal humanism has no backbone, go read extensively at Lawrence Auster's website (www.amnation.com/vfr) "View from the Right".

It has many extensive and well-thought analyses of liberalism/humanism and why it is gutless. This is the core focus of his website since it is the debilitating rot at the core of Western thought. He explains things like why atheists attack Christianity and their own cultures for mere trivialities and excuse horrible crimes committed by The Other in their midst.

john said...

Big Bill is, of course correct. He states it more eloquently than I could, so I'll not attempt to expand. What i will say however is "Please, quit equating catholicism with Christianity - they are NOT the same". Don't believe me? Simply do the "fruit" test - no , not how many fruits have become priests, but the fruits of their labours. Or better yet, simply read the Bible. you will find that catholicism bears no relation to, and is often in direct conflict with, true Christianity.

SAVANT said...

John and Big Bill - true enough. I'd be more than happy to see true Christianity taking root. But what we've seen from the various 'Christian' denominations over the centuries makes them almost mutually exclusive, I'd say.