Europas undervurdering av religion

Europa i dag undevurder religionens innflytelse og betydning for kulturen. Dette truer med å gi Europa en dobbel dose med negative konsekvenser. For det første undervurder Europa kristendommens betydning for utviklingen av europeisk kultur. Kristendommens bidrag i forhold til utvikling av f. eks. universitet og skoler, sykehus, omsorg for fattige, menneskeverd, menneskers likhet og individualitet, vitenskap, demokrati osv. osv. er betydelig større enn de fleste av oss er klar over. De negative holdningene til kristendom som en ofte møter i dag, har for en stor del sitt opphav i en del filosofer fra opplysningstiden, som svartmalte ,og prøvde å undergravde mange av de positive konsekvensene kristendommen hadde hatt for Europa.

Da Romeriket gikk i oppløsning, var det kristendommen som ble fundamentet og bæreren av det som skulle bli den nye europeiske kultur og identitet, og som løftet Europa opp til nye høyder. Kristendommen gav Europa identitet,verdier, kultur og virkelighetsforståelse. Hilaire Belloc gikk så langt som å si at "Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe. "

På den ene siden undervurder Europa kristendommens positive inflytelse på kulturen, og på den annen side undervurder Europa radikal islam, og den fare den representerer. Men det store spørsmålet er om den "appeasmentpolitikken" som ofte føres ovefor radikale elementer i islam faktisk bare blir sett på som et tegn på svakhet fra islamistenes side, og dermed virker mot sin hensikt, og faktisk bare oppmuntrer islamistene i deres forsett. Det er fristende å trekke parallelen til Chamberlain forsøk på "appeasement" i forhold til Hitler i perioden før 2. verdenskrig.Europeiske politikeres naive holdning til religionens betydning kommer også til utrykk i hvordan man forholder seg til Irans president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fordi europeiske politikere selv i betydelig grad bruker retorikk som politisk virkemiddel, regner man med at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordbruk i stor grad er retorikk. Men sett i lys av Ahmadinejads religiøse forestillinger er hans ordbruk om å fjerne Israel og hans ønske om å besitte atomkraft sterkt knyttet til hans forestillinger om imam Madhis gjenkomst. Imam Madhi er den 12 shiamuslimske imam som "forsvant" men som skal komme til syne i endens tid som en slags frelsesskikkelse og opprette en muslimsk æra. Irans president kan i motsetning til hva europeiske politikkere tror og håper, mene nøyaktig hva han sier, nettopp fordi det er så nært knyttet til hans religiøse overbevisning.

Et annet eksempel på vestlig naivitet så vi da Ahmadinejad sendte et brev til USAs president i noe som kunne virke som en forsonlig tone ,hvor Bush ble oppfordret til å omvende seg til Islam.Dette brevet kan vise seg å være av større betydning en det ser ut til ved første øyekast. Det finnes en tradisjon i islam for å invitere en fiende til å bøye seg for islam. Dersom tilbudet ikke aksepteres kan en jihad føres mot fienden. Noe som taler for at dette brevet nettopp har denne betydningen, er at den siste setningen som irans president bruker i sitt brev "fred bare til de som følger den sanne vei", også ble bruk av Muhammed da han skrev et brev til den Bysantinske keiser og ba ham enten å vende om til islam, eller bli beseiret. Dette brevet gikk forut for et muslimsk angrep. Vestlige politikere evner for det meste , ikke å se i hvilken kontekst Ahmadinejad snakker, og undervurderer dermed også den faren Ahmadinejad representerer. Dette er i stor grad representativt for europeisk politikk i forhold til radikal islam.

Hva blir så konsekvensene av denne undervurderingen av religionens betydning som vi ser i dag? Det gjenstår å se, men om Europa forsetter å undergrave sin kulturelle og religiøse arv, og samtidig stadig bøyer seg for stadig nye krav fra radikal islam, tror jeg Europa har en vanskelig tid foran seg.

Jeg har lenge sett for meg Europa som den bortkommne sønnen som blir beskrevet i Luk 15 i Det Nye Testamentet:"En mann hadde to sønner. Den yngste sa til ham: ”Far, gi meg den del av arven som faller på meg.” Han skiftet da sin eiendom mellom dem. Ikke mange dager etter solgte den yngste sønnen alt sitt og dro til et land langt borte. Der sløste han bort alle pengene i et vilt liv. Men da han hadde satt alt over styr, kom en svær hungersnød over landet, og han begynte å lide nød. Han gikk da og tok arbeid os en mann der i landet, og mannen sendte ham ut på markene for å gjete svin. Han ønsket bare å få mette seg med de belgene som grisene åt, for ingen gav ham noe.Da kom han til seg selv og sa: ”Alle arbeidsfolkene hjemme hos min far har mat i overflod, mens jeg går her og sulter i hjel. Jeg vil bryte opp og gå til min far …".

Det er en så tydelig parallell mellom Europa og den bortkommne sønnen. Europa er bygget på en rik arv. En arv som har sitt grunnlag i den kristne tro, men akkurat som den yngste sønnen holder Europa på å sløse bort arven sin. Og akkurat som den yngste sønnen glemte sitt opphav, og hvor arven kom fra, brer det seg i dag et kollektivt hukommelsestap, og en skremmende historieløshet i de europeiske landene. Man er ikke lenger villig til å vedkjenne seg sin egen arv, og hvor den kommer fra. Man er i grunnen mest opptatt av å ”sløse den bort i et vilt liv” slik den bortkomne sønnen var. Hvor i fortellingen Europa befinner seg i dag er ikke godt å si, men en ting er sikker, Europa har ennå ikke kommet til seg selv, og Europa har ennå ikke begynt å si ”jeg vil bryte opp og dra til min Far”. Jeg frykter at Europa blir nødt til å gå gjennom en kraftig åndelig og kulturell ”hungersnød” slik den yngste sønnen gjorde. Men jo før Europa kommer til seg selv og bestemmer seg for å gå hjem til sin far desto bedre.

Do we need religion. Part 2

Wolfgang Bruno has written a eminent essay on the role of religion in culture. The author has stated that his essays can be republished, so I publish it her at my blog, and I highly recommend that you read it:


Do We Need Religion? Part 2
Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina writes the following in his book about the Islamic threat: “When you embrace Islam, from what to wear to what to eat, from how to run the government to toilet manners are already decided for you. For those who have never had any control in their lives, Islam is godsend. In fact the more a society is devoid of morality, the more attractive prudish and non-permissive doctrines look. This war has to be fought in two fronts: One is to fight Islam itself ideologically – directly and frontally. But there is also another front that has nothing to do with Islam and has to be fought at home. This fight is against immorality and decadence that has characterized America and the West since the 1960s.” Yes, but isn’t Christianity just as bad, as many non-religious people claim? Sina disagrees: “Christianity, despite its excesses and errors and despite plunging the Europe into centuries of darkness, has eventually managed to pull itself out of obscurantism and give birth to the Judeo-Christian civilization – one of the greatest that world has seen. If Islam takes over, it means the death of civilization. It is no exaggeration to say that mankind may never recover again.” “We are running against time. If we don’t destroy Islam soon, Islam will destroy the world.“However, later on Ali Sina contradicts himself. After having denounced not just religions, but all forms of ideologies, he then goes on to say that most people need to be told what to do, as they can’t figure this out by themselves. Well, how do you tell them what to do without religions or ideologies? “Masses are not strong enough to do the right thing and are unable to chart their own destiny. Most people are not mature enough to take full control of their lives. They want to be TOLD what to do. Even though they are smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong, they won’t choose the right unless they are told to.”Most significant human civilizations throughout history have been deeply religious. Some have argued that Chinese civilization is an exception to this rule. This is only partially true, as both Buddhism and Taoism have exercised a strong influence on Chinese thinking. But it is true that religion is not as crucial for the understanding the Chinese have of their own history as it is for many others. The Cambridge Illustrated History of China writes the following: “Unlike other peoples who pointed to gods as their creators or progenitors, the Chinese attributed to a series of extraordinarily brilliant human beings the inventions that step by step transformed the Chinese from a primitive people to a highly civilized one. Fu Xi, the Ox-tamer, domesticated animals and invented the family. Shen Nong, the Divine Farmer, invented the plough and hoe. Huang Di, the Yellow Lord, invented the bow and the arrow, boats, carts, ceramics, writing and silk.” (...) “These legends reveal how educated Chinese from the time of Confucius (c. 500 BC) onwards constructed “China.” To them China was defined by technology and statecraft – agriculture, writing, flood control, monarchy combining virtue and hereditary succession, and so on.”Although China is thus not quite as tied to a specific religion as the West is, this space has been occupied by the belief-system of Confucianism. Chinese civilization has been one of the most powerful and influential in human history, and undoubtedly has many great qualities, but it also has its flaws. Confucian philosophy instills many virtues such as a strong work ethic, but it is an authoritarian world view, with emphasis in the individuals to know their place in a fixed hierarchy. The individual is first and foremost a Western concept, and one of the reasons why Europe became powerful and surpassed China in recent history.One of the persons who understand this is the Chinese American writer Ohmyrus, one of the most intelligent contributors to Ali Sina’s website next to Sina himself. In an essay entitled “Bring Back That Old Time Religion,” Ohmyrus describes how Christianity has been an invaluable part of what made the West into what it is. According to him, “secularism promotes a more short term and hedonistic attitude towards life. Since secular people have little faith in God or an after life, the tendency is for them to adopt the attitude of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. Their time horizon is therefore their own lifetime. “Religious people on the other hand have their eyes are on eternity. If you go to Europe, you will come across many Cathedrals that took centuries to build. For example, Cologne Cathedral took more than 300 years to complete.”Ohmyrus also shows that religious people have an advantage simply because they tend to have more children than non-religious people. This same point has been made repeatedly by writer Spengler at the Asia Times Online, such as in the essay “Death by secularism: Some statistical evidence:” “By far the strongest predictor of population growth rates is adult literacy. (...)Nonetheless, religious belief remains a strong predictor even when adult literacy is introduced as a control variable. Wealth, that is, per capita GDP, shows no significance in the equation.” According to Spengler, “underlying the demographic crisis of the industrial world, I believe, is a spiritual crisis. If the above analysis has any merit, the issue is not wealth, but rather the desire of men to continue to inhabit this planet."Ohmyrus also argues that, contrary to what many critics claim, Christianity has in fact been good for science. “When our ancestors invented the wheel, the benefits were immediate. As time went on, all or most of the "easy" inventions were made."“Roman civilization lasted 1,000 years and did not make the scientific revolution. Neither did the Egyptian nor Chinese nor Indian civilizations which have been around for even longer time than did the Romans." According to Ohmyrus, you need a critical mass of accumulated scientific knowledge before the Scientific Revolution could be ignited. “Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) said that rational laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible except for miracles which occur rarely. Other scientists during the Age of Enlightenment who also shared this view of a rational Creator God who created the universe according to rational laws were Newton, Kepler and even Galileo. Thus you have a group of people eager to discover what these scientific laws are in order to glorify God even though they may not yield any immediate benefits.” Thus scientific discoveries can accumulate for years, decades and even centuries without any practical use for them. Eventually, of course these scientific discoveries yielded new inventions and other benefits. This permitted the eventual breakthrough which became the Scientific Revolution.Ohmyrus sums up his argument by saying that “in the current war against terrorism, secularism is a hindrance. It encourages political correctness, low birth rates, self-doubts and apathy. The West, especially Europe, is in a deep spiritual crisis. Secularism could be a fatal weakness in its body politic against a resurgent Islam as polytheism probably was in 7th century Mecca. Modern Europeans are the lucky heirs of Christian civilization which has contributed so much to human progress. It has brought on the scientific revolution, abolition of slavery and human rights. The separation of Church and State also created the space for democracy to take root. (...) But for it to be useful, Christianity needs to be revived, particularly in very secular Europe which was once part of Christendom. Bring back that Old Time Religion.”Now, I don’t disagree with the fact that Christianity does have its flaws. Monotheism’s inherent potential for intolerance is one of them. But so is the opposite, the potential for naïve pacifism and turn-the-other-cheek mentality when confronted with Islamic aggression, a flaw which is too frequently displayed by many Christian leaders. As Bat Ye’or has pointed out in “Islam and Dhimmitude,” Christian leader have frequently participated in selling out their own in Muslim majority countries. The church needs to understand that Islam is an enemy and can never be an ally, otherwise the church may die and will deserve to die. Both these potential flaws in Christianity have been balanced out in the modern West by the worldly institution of the nation state, made possible precisely because of the separation between the spiritual and the temporal inherent in Christian teachings. This is what has made individual choice and modern democracy possible. Contrast this with Islam, where the individual hardly exists except as a cell of a larger organism, the Ummah.For example, in Islam, if a man and a woman are left alone with each other in a room, it is normal for many Muslims to assume that they have had sexual relations. The rational behind Islamic thinking is that it is the responsibility of society to remove the possibilities for temptations. The logic behind the modern, Judeo-Christian West is that society does bear some responsibility, but that ultimately, individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions. This is why democracy, in which the whole point is the possibility of individual choice, is so difficult to establish in Islamic countries, in which the thinking is to remove any possibilities of making a “wrong” choice. Muslims thus hate our freedom because it permits people to think and decide for themselves. The Muhammad cartoons affair is a good example of this. The protesting Muslims see countries as collective entities in which governments are to be held responsible for the acts of individual citizens. The concept that what matters in Western nations are individuals is alien to them.What made Europe strong and dynamic earlier was the power of the individual, but still an individual that felt part of something larger than himself, his nation and his religion. At the beginning of the 21st century, Europe is weak. We are weak both because we have lost our religion and subdued our nation states, as embodied in the Eurabian Union, and because we have been weakened by collectivist ideologies. The USA, the most individualistic of the Western nations, but also the most religious and the most patriotic, has retained some of this Western dynamism, even though the same weaknesses are very much present there, too. At the same time as Islam is advancing in Europe, individualism is spreading in other parts of the world. Unless Europe returns to her roots, we could get a situation where notions of the individual, which have been previously championed by Europe, will slowly die in Europe while they are advancing in parts of Asia.The traditional, Western idea is that not everything we consider to be immoral can be punished, at least not in this life. What we have done wrong now is Egalitarianism, the concept that all choices and viewpoints are equally valid and equally worthy of respect. Islam creates an extremely inflexible society where the autonomous individual hardly exists. On the other hand, we have Western Multiculturalism and nihilism, where there is no right or wrong and where the individual is so autonomous that the country and the civilization largely is left defenseless, because nobody any longer identifies with it any longer, and because short term gratification of individual desires is the only thing left. We need a balance between the two. For Europe, that means ditching the European Union, or the Evil Empire as some of us call it, and a return to our traditional, Judeo-Christian religion. Since religious people have more children than non-religious people, Europe in a couple of generations from now will be much more religious than now. The only question is what religion this will be. If the current Islamic advances continue, anything that can be remotely described as European culture will die. The alternative is a revival of our own religious heritage. I agree with Ohmyrus: Bring back that old time religion.

Do we need religion? Part 1

Wolfgang Bruno has written a eminent essay on the role of religion in culture. The author has stated that his essays can be republished, so I publish it her at my blog, and I highly recommend that you read it :

Do We Need Religion? Part 1
Ali Sina is the Iranian ex-Muslim behind the website www.faithfreedom.org. Along with other former Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Sina is spearheading what may be the first organized movement of ex-Muslims in Islamic history, made possible during the past ten to fifteen years by Muslim immigration to the West and the growth of the Internet. Publishing rational criticism of Islam, reaching hundreds of thousands of people and potentially hundreds of millions of people across the world, has never been done before until a few years ago. This is also part of the inspiration for my own suggestion of creating an Online Infidel Library, with dozens of books critical of Islam being made available online. It is no exaggeration to say that if the likes of Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan prevail in the face of the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam, then Islam will never again be the same. Ibn Warraq has estimated that 10- 15% of the Muslims in the UK are actually apostates. If that percentage reflects the Islamic world as a whole, we are talking about a number of people the equivalent of a country the size of Japan. Even half of this is a country the size of Britain. This is the soft underbelly of Islam.I am fortunate enough to have read Ali Sina’s excellent, upcoming book, which, sadly enough, hasn’t found a publisher yet. I agree with Sina on most important points, especially the fact that Islam probably can’t be reformed and that we are very close to a new world war triggered by Islamic fanaticism. Sina writes a lot about reclaiming the West's morality and what's wrong with the West. This closely mirrors what I am doing in my own book, which so far has the working title: "Reformation Impossible: What’s Wrong With Islam and What’s Wrong With the West?” According to Ali Sina, the West is now a moral relativistic society, where the vacuum created by religion is sorely felt. But at the same time, Sina questions whether a return to religion is the way to go. In an email to me, Sina writes the following: “But is religion the answer? How can we go back to religions when we know they are based on lies? I think our challenge is to find a way to salvage morality and family values without the burden of religion. Maybe I am asking too much. But there must be a way. There must be more choices than either believing in lies or becoming immoral. There must be a middle ground. This point is fundamental to the survival of the western civilization. We must find an answer to it.”This is where Sina and I part ways. As this is probably one of the most important issues of our age, it could make for an interesting discussion. Can you have morality without religion? I’m not so sure, which is why I will recommend a strengthening of the traditional Judeo-Christian religion of the West. When I first thought of writing my book, I imagined myself concluding it with some short recommendations for how Westerners should deal with Islam and Muslim immigration. The more I have looked into the matter, the more I have discovered that the really interesting issue is not what's wrong with Islam, but what's wrong with the West, which is why I will devote up to one third of the book to answering this question.Europe has been threatened by Islam several times before, but has managed to withstand it. Why not now? If we want to mount a defense of Western civilization, then we first need to define exactly what Western civilization is. I have found that the West at the beginning of the 21st century is mired in an internal cultural battle, an ideological civil war over the purpose of the West that is sometimes so severe that combined with Muslim immigration it could even trigger physical civil wars in several Western nations in the near future. One of the contenders is what I will label the ideology of Egalitarianism, of which Multiculturalism is the most prominent component. If you analyze the ideology of Egalitarianism, is has Marxist roots in ideas about forced equality. Basically, it says that all cultures are more or less equal, and that there is nothing particular about Western civilization that makes it worth preserving. It may even be worse than all other cultures. To display attachment to your own culture is considered racism and frowned upon. As is to be expected with its Marxist roots, it has its stronghold of support in the political Left. However, what makes Egalitarianism and Multiculturalism particularly dangerous is that its support transcends that of the traditional Left and has penetrated deep into the traditional Right, too. As long as large parts of our elites adhere to the notion that all cultures are equal, it will be impossible to mount any defense of the West. Which means that Multiculturalism and Egalitarianism need to be discredited if Europe is to have any chance of surviving.In defining what Western civilization means, we will sooner or later face the question of how closely it is tied to Christianity. I would define myself as a Christian Atheist, the way Oriana Fallaci does. I am not personally religious, but I have gradually grown more positive towards Christianity, especially after I started studying Islam. I now think that defining Western civilization without its Judeo-Christian religious component simply doesn't make sense from a historical or philosophical point of view. I thus disagree with people such as atheist Richard Dawkins, in viewing religion as all bad. We also have to ask what will replace the traditional religions if we remove them. I have been puzzled by the seemingly cozy relationship between European Socialists, who in theory should be anti-religious, and Muslims. I have found that this can be explained if you postulate that the difference between religious and political ideologies is not always clear-cut, but should be more accurately described as a gliding scale. The defining difference is not the belief in God, but the belief in the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the collective group. As Ibn Warraq puts it: The fight is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between those who value freedom and those who do not.Socialists frequently mock Christians for basing their worldview in belief in something that cannot be proven and has never been seen. But since Marxism cannot be proven and no successful Marxist society has ever been seen, don't Socialists also base their worldview on belief in something that cannot be proven and has never been seen? And don't they follow their ideology with religious fervour and denounce their critics as evil? German sociologist Max Weber has stated that the modern, capitalist economy in Europe was based upon the Protestant work ethic. If capitalism is based upon Christianity, doesn't it become logical for anti-capitalists to undermine capitalism by attacking its religious base? Is Socialism a religion disguised as a political ideology, and is Islam a political ideology disguised as a religion?Maybe we should abandon the common distinction between religious and non-religious ideologies. I will postulate that it is sometimes more useful to think of them as religions with God and religions without God, Marxism being a religion without God. Philosopher Eric Hoffer has written a book called “The True Believer, ” where he tracks mass movements throughout history. He includes some critical words about Christianity, but perhaps the most striking feature of his book is that he shows how religious and seemingly non-religious movement share many traits, and may sometimes be interchangeable: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.” I have myself heard Leftist Multiculturalists describe themselves as “the forces of Light,” “the forces of Darkness” being all those evil racists who oppose Muslim immigration. This is in fact a deeply religious world view, which could have been shared by members of the Spanish Inquisition. “We are the forces of Good. Those who disagree with us are not just wrong, but Evil, and we have a perfect moral right, even duty, to suppress their views by any means necessary.”This line of thought seems to be shared by many Leftists, which is why they feel perfectly justified in stifling the freedom of speech of their opponents, even by violent means. A Marxist is a person who doesn’t believe in God, but still thinks he is God’s representative on earth. As Eric Hoffer says: “Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.” Perhaps what we are seeing in Europe is a coalition between two religions, Socialism and Islam, united not in the belief in the same God but in hatred towards the same Devil: The capitalist and Judeo-Christian West. The attacks Western Leftists mount on Christianity have little to do with “tolerance” and a lot more to do with discrediting a troublesome rival creed that stubbornly keeps blocking the road to Utopia.One of the reasons why so many intellectuals in the West accept the idea that Islam has been “misunderstood” is because this is the same excuse they use for their own favorite: Marxism. Famed historian Eric Hobsbawm has for instance argued that Marx was misunderstood, and that the Communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union wasn’t “real Marxism.” It certainly was real for the tens of millions of people whose lives it destroyed. If an ideology results in devastating failures everywhere it is tried out then there is not something wrong with the interpretation, there is something with the ideology itself. What good is a “guide” that leads people to shipwreck every single time?Although weekly magazine “The Economist” can be plain awful when dealing with issues related to Islam or Muslim immigration, they can still be sensible on other subjects. In an article called “Marx after communism,” they demonstrate how Leftism is in fact a new religion:It is striking that today's militant critics of globalisation proceed in much the same way (as Marx himself). They present no worked-out alternative to the present economic order. Instead, they invoke a Utopia free of (…) social injustice, harking back to a pre-industrial golden age that did not actually exist. Never is this alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination. And anti-globalists have inherited more from Marx besides this. Note the self-righteous anger, the violent rhetoric, the willing resort to actual violence (in response to the “violence” of the other side), the demonisation of big business, the division of the world into exploiters and victims, the contempt for piecemeal reform, the zeal for activism, the impatience with democracy, the disdain for liberal “rights” and “freedoms”, the suspicion of compromise. (…) Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on. Claire Berlinski, author of the book "Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too" also notes how many Europeans, when asked, will declare themselves more alarmed by American imperialism than by Islamic radicalism. According to her, Europeans have in recent memory suffered two great losses, that of their religious faith and that of its replacements—ideologies involving the idea of human perfectibility, leaving Europeans paralyzed by shame and self-doubt. They have retreated into a kind of cocoon of technological and physical comfort. Americans are much more hopeful for the future than Europeans, partly because they are more religious in a conventional sense. But Americans also have an idea of what it is to be American. “America’s sense of itself doesn’t include the memories of the Somme and Passchendaele; it doesn’t include the memories of Auschwitz and Dachau. It is still possible for Americans to revere their own nation without irony, to revisit its past without despair.” Berlinski connects the death of Christianity in Europe with Europe’s anti-Americanism, which can reach such passionate heights that it strays from anything that can be remotely described as rational and approaches the status of quasi-religion:What I’ve noticed is a quasi-religious and messianic character to this anti-Americanism, particularly in the way it seems inevitably to be linked to anti-modernism and anti-Semitism. It is this mystical element of the anti-American movement that is both most interesting and alarming. Anti-Americanism, particularly as it is expressed in Europe, seems to me more than an expression of simple inanity, nostalgic yearning for greatness past, or an external projection of failed social programs. The critical question, I think, is what kind of spiritual void, what kind of existential emptiness, does anti-Americanism serve to fill? Ali Sina is not a stupid man. He sees this, too. In order to subdue people and impose on them your Marxist ethos, Sina says, you have to rob them from their own identity, their own culture, heritage, mores, government and religion. Once you rob them from their identity and selfhood, you can shape them in any way you like. “The society can live without religion but it can't live without morality. We must not throw the baby with the bathwater. Judeo-Christianity has done a lot of harm, but it has done also a lot of good. It has given birth to the greatest civilization that mankind has ever known. Let us not be biased. This democracy that has brought to the world this much progress in the last couple of centuries, could not have been born in any other culture.” Later, however, Ali Sina says that: “I admit that Judeo-Christianity has outlived its utility.” Then he goes on to criticize ALL ideologies, not just religious ones: “Ideology is evil. It robs one from rational thinking and once one loses that ability, he become like an animal. To the degree that you subscribe to an ideology, any ideology, you become dehumanized. Man is noble because he is capable of independent thought. You lose that through beliefs and ideologies.”Sina’s motto is “Don’t be a follower, be your own Prophet.” But is this feasible? I would argue that most human beings are neither willing nor able to come up with their own set of moral values, and even if this was possible, I’m not sure whether it would always be desirable. Don’t we then wander into the territory of moral relativism, Multiculturalism and “to every man his own truth,” precisely what Ali Sina himself warns against?As somebody once put it: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” The retreat of the traditional, Judeo-Christian religion in Europe during the 20th century left the door open to a new set of “religions without God” that in many ways proved at least as harmful as the “intolerance” they were supposed to replace. Marxism killed more than 100 million people during a few generations. The negative argument against removing the Judeo-Christian religious base of the West could thus be that whatever flaws might exist in the old system, what will replace it could well turn out to be worse. There are also more positive arguments in support of it, which I will discuss in the second part of this essay.


You can find part 2 here.

A new disturbing essay from Fjordman!

Fjordman has written another disturbing essay, about our present, and possible future Europe. It is time for europeans to rediscover and embrace our Judeo/Christian heritage. Christianculture recommend Fjordmans new essay published at "Dhimmi Watch". You can find it her.

Read the latest essay from Fjordman!

Christianculture recommend Fjordmans latest essay, published at "Gates of Vienna". You can read it her

Stadig flere kristne blir forfulgt.

En artikkel i Korsets Seier basert på en tysk undersøkelse viser at stadig flere kristne blir forfulgt på grunn av sin tro. I følge den tyske undersøkelsen blir minst 55 000 kristne årlig drept på grunn av sin tro, hvilket er både oppsiktsvekkende og urovekkende. Professor Thomas Schirrmacher, som leder en avdeling i den Evangeliske allianse i Tyskland, sier at tre av fire religiøse forfølgelser, eller religiøst motiverte drap blir begått mot kristne. Kristne er dermed de religiøse som opplever mest forfølgelse. Igjen viser det seg at det særlig er i muslimske land de kristne har dårlige kår. Indonesia og Pakistan blir spesielt nevnt, men også India hvor det er en stor majoritet av hinduer.

Les hele artikkelen i Korsets Seier.