If you think my stridency a bit disproportionate, understand that the manifesto and its authors represent the very philosophy that imperiled us in the first place, the one that even now is tearing down the walls of western civilization. They state:
“We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions.”
The above sentence contains a serious philosophical contradiction. The “cultural relativism” the writers bemoan is a corollary of “moral relativism,” and both are corollaries of the secularism they extol.
Let’s start from the top. Secularism involves the idea that there is no God and, therefore, no moral Truth (something above man that determines right and wrong). This makes man the author of morality, reducing it to a reflection of consensus opinion, which makes morals relative (for a more comprehensive explanation, read my piece The Nature of Right and Wrong). Now, if values are a product of opinion, it cannot rightly be said that some are better than others; the most we can say is some find favor with us while others don’t. If this is the case, it follows that the different values espoused by different cultures cannot render one superior to another, just different in terms of “tastes.” And this position, my friends, is cultural relativism.
The secularism of these “intellectuals” is a philosophy that collapses upon itself. Its adherents would use it as a rallying cry to fight jihad, seemingly oblivious to the fact that its relativism draws a moral equivalence between militants and missionaries. It is the very spiritual disease that has made us see everything as shades of gray, blinding us to darkness and light so that we neither defend the latter nor fight the former. How likely is it that you’ll recognize evil after embracing a philosophy stating it doesn’t exist? And why would you fight what you don’t recognize?
Moreover, secularism’s relativism has blinded scores of millions of westerners to the superiority of their own culture and to the threat posed by the introduction of incongruous and hostile cultural elements. At the same time, motivated by its antipathy for the West’s formative faith, Christianity, it has demonized the West to a point where many consider it the bane of man. And why would you take pains to preserve that which you think worthless if not destructive?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Selwyn,
I find your comments most interesting, and amusing to a degree. The comments I make here have been inspired by Dr. Eugene Narrett, who explains these concepts far better and far more cogently than I.
Christian theology has always been attempt to meld the ideas of the Greeks with those of the Hebrews, while denying the Hebrews patrimony or credit, except in the most back-handed of ways, by saying that the "old testament" has been surpassed by the "new" and the actual Israel has been replaced by the spiritual Israel.
So Christian civilization has always been an exercise in cutting itself from its roots of monotheism and Torah. This basic religious concept has set itself up as a "dugmá," an example, a model, for later philosophies stemming from Christian civilization that follow in its wake. Each successive philosophy cuts itself off from its roots, just as Christianity has cut itself from its Hebrew roots.
Jew-hatred, the act of condemning and persecuting Jews (who are the representatives of the Hebrew roots that Christianity seeks to sever itself from) is the mere act stemming from the thought. So that we are absolutely clear here, this is not a whine about Christian Jew-hatred. Jews have whined enough. This is about what comes before the Jew-hatred - the philosophical act of cutting oneself off from the roots of monotheism and Torah. The intellectuals you complain of in your article all suckled at the teat of Christian civilization, Selwyn, and are intellectually its children as much as you are. They may look like intellectual bastards to you, but they are your brothers under the skin whether you will recognize them or not, products of the same civilization.
The act of cutting oneself off from the Hebrew roots of monotheism, from the one Living G-d through its embrace of multitheism under the guise of a trinity, ands its embrace of Greek philosophical values has condemned Christianity to failure. And now we are seeing it fail and collapse in its erstwhile home, Europe, and certainly we are seeing its decay in America as well. More and more, Europeans and Americans have embraced either an atheism (just read all the atheistic screeds here at Blogcritics for a taste) or a neo-paganism and also have embraced the Greek roots of Christianity, particularly the goddess Venus - witness the pornography stretching through Europe and America. And you are reaping the fruit, the children of Venus, Deimos and Phobos - Fear and Terror. That is what the Wahhabi terrorists are, Selwyn...
Nothing is lost in the eyes of G-d...
A tree that cuts itself off from its roots will not survive. This is what Christianity has done. You are seeing the final results...
TIMBER!!!
2 - Michael J. West
Secularism involves the idea that there is no God and, therefore, no moral Truth (something above man that determines right and wrong).
No, it doesn't.
Secularism involves the idea that whether or not there is a God is fundamentally irrelevant to the existence and function of specific institutions, generally public or governmental ones.
There is little need to "protest your indictment of secularism" when you show such ignorance of what secularism is.
3 - Leslie Bohn
Faithists love the idea that there is no morality without gods. It makes one wonder what the Isrealites were up to before Moses got those commandments. Presumably killing and stealing, as they would have no way to dsitinguish whether these actions were right or wrong. Old Mo himself probably coveted all kinds of crap left and right as he strode through the old desert dishonoring his mom and dad and lying like a politician.
How would he have known not to?
4 - Lee Richards
You write as if "Christianity" is a monolith of unified faith, practice and dogma, which is an historical inaccuracy.
Christians have fought each other more than they have battled other faiths or secularism.
First, you need to define 'Christian'. Is it the pope's view--his is the only true church? Is it Mormonism, Methodism, or Moravian? Is it fundamentalist or can it be more modern?
And do you really think that only Christians in the West have regard for their culture, a sense of values, morality, and anything of worth to contribute to civilization?
That goes against the way I understand the great faith of Chesterton you're extolling, excludes rather than welcomes, seeks to dominate, and is in conflict with the spirit of our First amendment.
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Lee,
While there are different varieties of Christians, there is only ONE Christian civilization. And that is really the point. Selwyn is writing from what he views as the appropriate point of view of that Christian civilization.
That this Christian civilization is collapsing in front of his face is another issue, one that I dealt with...
6 - zingzing
"Moreover, secularism’s relativism has blinded scores of millions of westerners to the superiority of their own culture and to the threat posed by the introduction of incongruous and hostile cultural elements."
how is our culture superior to, say, japan's? (or anyone's, really?)
i think these so-called intellectuals call for "secular values" because they don't leave anyone out in the cold because of their religion. they aren't saying you can't be religious. they're saying that a system of values should be created that includes ALL religions, not just YOURS.
i don't want to live in a christian society. my semi-buddhist girlfriend doesn't either. and since this society is AS MUCH MINE AS IT IS YOURS, doesn't a society that makes christianity irrelevant to the running of itself (leave christianity for sundays) make a bit more sense?
as usual, you are just overreacting to a word. you find whatever meaning in it that you want.
and what's this "dark faith" bullshit? is this star wars or something? you're a weirdo.
7 - Baronius
Selwyn, you sure keep this site interesting. That's a great pickup on "Stalinism", by the way.
8 - Lumpy
My 'dark faith' is cthulhuism. +hat's yours?
9 - moonraven
This is the goofiest,most unreadable piece yet on blogcritics.
Congratulations.
Secularism and laicism are esentially the saame--and they decribe countries in which religious interference in government affairs is not allowed.
This is a hot topic right now here in Mexico, as the right wing radically catholic elements are in power and the catholic church is presenting its own proposed constitutional reform (to 3 articles of the constitution) which would allow religious instruction in public schools and political rabble-rousing by ministers and priests.
In themid-nineteenth century Benito Juarez promulgated the ReformLaws, which led to the church's lands (the were among the largest landholders) becoming part of the state's holdings, and the clergy were prohibited from voting and from political activity in general.
Along came Carlos Salinas and the massive election fraud of 1988--when the "system" counting the votes "crashed"--and to get in good with the church hierarchy and help legitimize his presidency (very much the same situation that we have now) he promulgated an ammendment to the consitution that allowed the church rats to come out of their nests and raise hell again.
With the rise of the right wing in the Western countries, we can expect to see more of the attempts at religious interference in government affairs--moving towards the elimination of the separation of church and state.
Clearly, democracy is not possible with the church--of any denomination--running the show, given that it trumps your vote with God's.
This should bemuch more of a concern than "islamism".
And the "author" of the ridiculous piece that started this thread should have tolearn English before he makes another post.
10 - Lee Richards
#5:
Ruvy, I can't agree that there is only one Christian civilization except, maybe, as a theological theory.
In practice, the differences between the various beliefs and believers is just too great to be called a meaningful unity of any kind. Throughout history, Christianity has been as factional and divided within nations, cultures, denominations and sects as the Muslims are today.
Try incorporating Alabama Baptists with the "one" Christian civilization of Catholic Rome, or merge the Greek Orthodox of Athens with the Mormons of Utah. Or, even blend the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland.
Certainly none of these would agree that all the others are equal partners with them in one Christian civilization.
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
the "author" of the ridiculous piece that started this thread should have to learn English before he makes another post.
Marthe,
If you're going to criticize this guy on his English, at least get your own straight...
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Lee,
You sound like one of the trees IN the forest. I have the perspective a bird on top of a bush looking at the forest from the outside. There's lots of different trees in that forest - but it is all one forest from my little roost on top of the "burning bush".
13 - moonraven
Ruvy,
I will match my use of the subjunctive against yours--in several languages--any time you feel ready.
14 - Clavos
Ruvy,
You broke the streak. We've successfully ignored the troll/crone for a couple of days, now.
15 - moonraven
Clavos would shrivel up and die--just like the underutilized part of him--if I did not post on this site.
Maybe it's time for me to stop for awhile....Hah!
16 - troll
one nice thing about being a troll is that it makes no difference to us if our pearls are 'ignored' by the swine
17 - moonraven
Right.
We are just here to bite their butts--like horseflies.
18 - Clavos
"one nice thing about being a troll is that it makes no difference to us if our pearls are 'ignored' by the swine"
We all know you're a troll in name only.
Now, get back under that bridge...
19 - troll
yeah...it's been so long since I've thoroughly insulted anyone that I feel like a sheep in wolves's clothing
thinking of changing my name to zozobra to match my mood...we are fucking doomed after all
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I will match my use of the subjunctive against yours--in several languages--any time you feel ready.
The only language you have in common with me that you are as proficient in as I am is English. I wouldn't want to wipe the floor with you using Hebrew or Yiddish, and I suspect that your Spanish is a whole lot better than mine, along with the Arabic...
But we all know just how "suggestive" you can be, Marthe. Instead, why don't you look at my comment on Selwyn's little screed, comment #1, and express your thoughts...
Who knows? They might rise above the level of unstudied insult... In the meantime, I have an article to write and a writer who needs help, so I'll see y'all later.
21 - A Concerned Citizen
Of course, one difference is that the secularists suicidal tendencies aren’t as rational as the Islamists’, as they don’t believe in an afterlife, and, even if they did, it’s virtually impossible to find 72 virgins among secular women.
LOL. That was pretty good.
22 - Jesse
Despite the cries of oppression by certain Christians, it seems to me that these militant secularists... who tend to be intellectual reactionaries, in certain ways... are a profound exception within the academic institution, and within the American public in general. Very few secularists (gasp! atheists!) or leftists or even Christians are interested in dissolving and destroying (other) religions. Most of us have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Neo-pagan, and myriad other faiths.
What the left rejects is any government bias in favor of one particular religion, or any adoption of a moral principle without extensive debate and consensus.
Of course, you wouldn't get that by reading manifestos and opinion pieces, because the only ones that get any press are the radical ones. That's how radicalization of politics comes about... by the words of a dozen manifestos like this, manifestos dedicated to establishing an epic ideological conflict between two (or three) opposing abstractions. Each of them tries to muster the muscle of classical Western culture on their side, and then tries to attribute all "evil" and "oppression" and "violence" to the other side.
And thus, whether they're collectivist or libertarian or secular or traditionalist, whether they condemn the communists or the "Islamists" or the secularists or the libertarians or the Christians or the "Dark Faith" (WTF? Didn't Manichaeism go out of style in, like, 1550?), they're all the same: absurd and ultimately irrelevant.
23 - moonraven
How is it possible to be a MILITANT SECULARIST?
I would like you to try to explain such a blatantly absurd concept!
24 - zingzing
moonraven: "How is it possible to be a MILITANT SECULARIST?"
it's possible to be a militant secularist... as possible as anything else is possible. i guess you could say stalin was militant in his secularism, in that he dismantled the church and imprisoned some of its leaders. of course, he later changed his mind, but i think that showed more political prudence than religious conversion.
25 - moonraven
Stalin was not a militant secularist. He was an ex-seminarian, in fact.
Read his biography sometime.
Militant secularist is an OXYMORON.
Look it up.