Dennis Prager has just published a most interesting column. Here’s a snippet:
The Muslim world is threatened by religious fanaticism. The Western world is threatened by secular fanaticism.
Both seek to dominate society and to use state power to do so. Both seek to eliminate the Other — for Islamic fanatics, that means non-Muslim religions and secularism; for secular fanatics, it means Christianity and virtually any public invoking of God. The Islamists impose Sharia law; the American Civil Liberties Union and the left generally impose secular law. The Taliban wiped out public vestiges of Buddhism in Afghanistan; the ACLU and its allies seek to wipe out public vestiges of Christianity in America — as it did, for example, in Los Angeles County, when it successfully pressured the County Board of Supervisors to remove the tiny cross from the county seal. A city and county founded by Catholics — hence the name “The Angels” — was forced to stop commemorating its founders because they were religious.
The next thing on the agenda of the American Communist Labour Union is to force the city and county of Los Angeles to change the name.
“The next thing on the agenda of the American Communist Labour Union is to force the city and county of Los Angeles to change the name.
Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at January 31, 2012 6:07 PM”
Ken(Kulak)….I sincerely hope they suceed.And may I suggest Pelosistan as the new name??
Me thinks it is time for Christians to start hauling out and using some of the teachings and scriptures from the Old Testament,because that is sure as hell what the islamofascists and seculars are using. Read Kate’s banner if you disagree!!
(and before some leftard comments,I do not capitalize islam nor secular,as they are neither a religion,nor worthy of that)
Secular fanatics aren’t bombing, shooting, stabbing and “honour killing” their way across the world.
When the jihadis show up to suppress others views, their “legal argument” is based on threats of violence and intimidation. There are lot’s of examples happening throughout the West.
Unlike Christianity, Islam had no distinction between what is Ceasar’s and what is God’s.
It’s a major difference. Secular humanism is derived from Judeo/Christian theology and traditions.
Islamist fanatics don’t recognize the concept of individual rights and never have. It’s a difference any educated, including self-educated person can see.
Some American writers, for propaganda purposes, argue by way of invalid analogies, instead of making a clear, concise intellectual argument.
That plays well with the like minded but does nothing to educate those independent, the undecided, the merely ignorant, who respect reasonable argument.
@Justthinkin at January 31, 2012 6:23 PM
Haha that made my day, thanks.
I think you’ve broken the record for the highest amount of both ignorance and hypocrisy per word.
So clever… you almost got me, too. (Assuming it’s a troll, please be a troll)
And let’s remember, world-wide, for millennia, the VAST number of institutions for health, learning, the dispossessed (orphans, the disabled, the poor, etc.), the arts, and great works of art, that have improved and enhanced the lives of hundreds of millions of people—large numbers of them, not Christians themselves—which have been bequeathed to us by the Christian faith. (BTW, Dennis Prager is a Christian-appreciating Jew.)
Now, how many such altruistic institutions and great works of art have been instituted and maintained by atheists and Muslims at all, let alone for those other than themselves? Compared to the Christian variety, the number would be MINUSCULE.
Fie on atheist and Muslim fanatics (and even some uninformed—being charitable—non fanatics, who sometimes post here), who have not a clue about the beneficence of Christianity to hundreds of millions of people over the long run. In fact, in the West, the very existence of both rights and tolerance for both atheists and Muslims (for Christians these days, not so much) is a direct product of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which emphasizes justice and mercy.
And fie, too, on our ignorant, pygmy-brained public officials, who collude, by joining these deluded and dangerous Grinches, who wish to destroy the very foundation of the civility and rule of law that the Judeo-Christian dispensation has produced. In the West, atheist and Muslim fanatics and dim-witted public officials are a fifth column. If their destruction of the Christian ethos succeeds—it’s doing quite well, thank you—won’t they (and all the otherwise good people, who do nothing) be surprised to find evil triumph and their rights and freedoms vastly diminished, by either a tyrannical, secular state or a rigidly Muslim, Sharia one? What absolute “vipers and hypocrites” these preening idiots are!
Prager is a bright guy but I don’t buy the term radical secularist as totally valid because they seem to tolerate or stand in defense of Islam (likely due to its Satanic anti-Christianity/Judaism) as well as ascribe to watermelon theocracy as gospel. He is correct in that they are indisputably and rabidly anti-Christian.
Also, Prager goes out of his way to allege a distinction between Muslim and Islamist. While their societies may include quiet or non-practicing Muslims, Islam is Islam. Those that shun shariah are considered apostate and when push comes to shove (and it always seems to do so in the Muslim world), the vast majority submit (the essential meaning of Islam).
just throw out the word “GAY”, and there will be christians who will make the case for eliminating any and all christian symbolism from gov’t use. The gov’t is financed and reprsent ALL democgraphics and there from should be void all all religious symbolism and influence. I’m not against christianity, I’m against religion of any sort, including extreme atheism/secularism, practice on your own time and on your own dime!!!
How can you trust any organization that has promoted lying?
The question to ask a Muslim is – how will I know when you are lying to me, a Christian?
I’ve never disagreed with Prager before but I think he’s off base on this one. I’m an athiest with little time for athiest fanatics (the kind who protest against Christmas trees), but can’t see how a “secular fanatic” can be in the same sentence as a islamist fanatic. That’s a stretch to say the least.
Islamic fanatics…………makes one envision frothing mad men. There are no Islamic fanatics. These are serious people following their gods dictate. Nothing they gave done have been outside of or against Islam. Pretending they are aberrant and not the norm is a Bush legacy.
The leftards are simply incomplete humans lacking the ability to rationalize and judge with fairness. Most often an innocent fault of being young and without life experience. The hardcore Peter Pans never grow up.
gave=have done has
To the raving Islamists we are merely infidels inhabiting Dar al-Harb and deserve to be sent to hell.
To the raving atheist secular humanist, they don’t believe in hell and quite frankly my Dear, don’t give a good god damn.
These two fanatic phenomena are merely opposite poles on the continuum of belief and disbelief.
First Amendment – Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In short, the Islamists and atheist secularist can be as disagreeable as they like, from the American Constitution point of view, they just can’t shoot you because you hold a different opinion.
Concisely you aren’t allowed to go all totalitarian or “Shafia” on those who don’t share your Islamism or secularism.
Thus if one identifies as a Jew, Christian or Catholic it is incumbent on the American citizen not to be a ‘faith wall flower’ but rather exercise it more robustly.
And if you’re a regular ideologically lazy atheist you stay home on Saturday or Sunday morning and worship your pillow because none of this is much to get execised about.
Mark 5:39-43
And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40 AND THEY LAUGHED AT HIM. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”42 And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
You know I am sick of seeing these people constantly attacking Christians I truly wish every single TRUE Christian would just stop give up and give in but stop , stop donating ,time talents and treasures to this ungreatful selfish self centered immoral planet let them freeze, dehydrate,starve,rot,find another place to sleep,or get help …..I just wish Christians would show this world just who is really in control…lol… But fortunately for the above stated the Christians show it everyday by doing good works and by doing gods work..lol. I just wish Christians were not so dog gone nice…lol. Me being a Christian sometimes I wish they were all like me ..but even I know this is wrong and so I don’t really mean what I say I am just mad and frustrated at the evil and sin that is in the world.
I suggest that it is the Left/collectivists and the Islamists who are allies in this war against western liberal democracies. The common bond they share is a hatred and rejection of the concept of individual rights and freedoms along with freedom of speech, freedom of association and private property rights. Both are forms of fascism and totalitarianism.
Radical secularists: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Marx, Pol Pot, Kim, Freud, etc, etc. These were not good people, nor are their followers.
Hans: “Concisely you aren’t allowed to go all totalitarian or “Shafia” on those who don’t share your Islamism or secularism.”
As an atheist, I firmly agree.
“Thus if one identifies as a Jew, Christian or Catholic it is incumbent on the American citizen not to be a ‘faith wall flower’ but rather exercise it more robustly.”
Really? How is this in agreement with your first sentence? It would appear that this one is stating that Christians should go “all totalitarian or Shafia on them”. Please define the difference between this and “robust”.
Certainly there seems to be a whole truckload of posters on this board who want to do precisely that.
Don’t be so quick to tar all secularist supporters with the same broad brush, some of the steps away from our common Christian heritage have been painful and a long time coming, but few would argue that the modern view of women as equals, compared to the biblical presentation as a lesser being in the eyes of both God and the law is not a step forward. The same could be said for other changes.
You could fit more than 2 peas in that pod, as fanatics of all strips have their own axes to grind, and each type, given the chance, would waste no time in breaking out whatever tool of indoctrination they preferred, be it the sword, or thumbscrew, or the rack, or the re-education/retraining camp.
Vocal special interest groups, representing a small percentage of the population, with the assistance of compliant media and government avowals of multiculturalism, tolerance, acceptance and integration are how we got to where we are today.
All of if supported by science and the current intelligentsia of course, and you were a stupid rube if you could not see the splendor evident in the shining utopia that would follow……
Sad days ahead, I’m afraid.
NME666 at 7:19 PM writes, “I’m not against christianity, I’m against religion of any sort . . .”, not realizing the inanity of such a statement.
E.g., This person actually believes that his/her life would be equally felicitous and free in a secular Communist, or Sharia law Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist state as it is in a country whose traditions of rule of law are derived from Judeo-Christianity? And, Christianity is not a religion?
In my earlier post, I wrote, “Fie on atheist and Muslim fanatics (and even some uninformed—being charitable—non fanatics, who sometimes post here), who have not a clue about the beneficence of Christianity to hundreds of millions of people over the long run”, for people just like NME666.
As C.S. Lewis’s professor said, “What do they teach these them at these schools? Why don’t they teach logic?” (If you can, NME666, please at least think about it.)
@ cgh:
given the USA was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, doesn’t mean it has to take a back seat at of the ideological bus or be removed from the ideological ‘shelf space’ which some would obviously like to do.
cf 1st Amendment: or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF
“In God We Trust” etc…..
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Posted by: Andrew at January 31, 2012 6:49 PM
Hah…got one secular fascist…tell me Andrew.How would your gay friends survive in Islam/Iran/Iraq/etc.??? Speak up queer boy…or STFU.
Well, mitchel44, even though I agree with some of what you say, I’m having some trouble not being “so quick to tar all secularist supporters with the same broad brush” because, re Judeo-Christianity, you don’t really seem to know what you’re talking about, something I predicted would happen in this thread.
mitchel44 writes, “. . . but few would argue that the modern view of women as equals, compared to the biblical presentation [sic] as a lesser being [sic] in the eyes of both God and the law [sic] is not a step forward. . .” mitchel, just where do you think the idea of the equality of women comes from? If not the Bible, please clarify, with examples.
Once again, as C.S. Lewis’s professor said, “What do they teach these them at these schools? Why don’t they teach logic?” How about just some plain FACTS?
Hans, Paul, Alain, and scott, I appreciate your input.
@Hans, please read all of Justnotthinkin’s posts and then we can talk. This fascist loon is doing far more than just “not taking a back seat”.
Justnotthinkin, you don’t really believe in freedom of conscience, do you? The question is, do you believe in freedom for anything other than yourself?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress ie the federal government is bound by the 1st Amendment. Several states had state religions at the time and didn’t give them up until later. The only separation of church and state in the US at the state level comes from convoluted thinking by activist judges starting in 1925.
this just in
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/occupiers-dump-condoms-on-catholic-school-girls.html
a world gone mad
@ cgh:
I speak for myself and let others speak for themselves; which I believe is what freedom of expression is all about.
If “Justthinkin” is living up to the moniker, such ‘thoughts’ can fall or stand on their own merits…but appeals to ‘STFU’ are likely to be viewed as ad hominem, attacking the person, rather than making a persuasive case.
If the topic is ‘fanaticism’ of the Islamist or secularist kind, the reasonable person doesn’t try to PERSUADE fanatics rather one DEFENDS ONESELF from them.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
‘Secular fanatics aren’t bombing, shooting, stabbing and “honour killing”” – ah, what about communists and Nazis?
The recent and important book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind” spends its last two chapters on the modern world,
and discusses at some length the attraction of communism and Naziism for Salafists; essentially arising from the arbitrariness and complete lack of humanity in all three.
The left & Islam gets alone so well because both are control freaks. At least they will till they turn on each other. From fanatic anti-smoking laws to food fetishes. Where people can’t even eat the foods they want to bring them to school or sporting events. The Neo-Pagan left is destroying individual liberty. To be replaced by Nanny state insanity. This is why 6 year olds get charged with sexual assault. Ten year olds go to jail for pointing toy guns.
Yet its fine to suck a baby being borne brains out.
Force travelers to be groped. Steal personnel property or force people to buy government mandated junk.
Humanism is its own religion.
People should not be free from Religion, but free to practice what they will. If they don’t believe in anything fine. Soon they will do away with that as the Soviets did. That worked out well didn’t it?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authour of Infidel and Nomad, who defends Western Civilization better than most anyone, is a former Muslim and now an atheist.
She thinks that many Muslim immigrants might well convert to mainstream Christianity(not the anti-science type) and better integrate into Western society. if they were given the opportunity.
So far, apart from a famous Coptic Priest with a TV show, and an Orthodox priest in Moscow, who was assassinated for doing so.
I’ve not heard of any religious leaders out offering even to introduce Muslims to Christianity.
I don’t think there are that many now who have what St. Patrick, Fr. Brebeuf and others did back in the earlier times.
the American Civil Liberties Union and the left generally impose secular law
Uh no secular law is imposed by the US CONSTITUTION will expressly forbids mixing of government and religion. The ACLU is to be applauded for cleansing any and all religious symbolism out of government office.
NME666
Than why do you folks never go after Islam? Why not protest forced halal foods in school? The foot baths?
Honor killings? Mosquaterias in schools?
Praying in the streets.? The hi-jab?
No you go after only Jews or Christians, that have allowed you your freedom. Going after Islam may cause your life span to be shorter. Your all cowards in my book.
Secular protest goes one way only. Disparaging Christian beliefs that ended slavery, but never Muslim beliefs that carries it out proudly even to this day.
Revnant Dream Be nice. We like live and let live. Not do what I say or I will kill you.
Prager’s piece (at least the part quoted here) is very weak and counterproductive.
Somehow he implies that islamists and atheists are equally threatening to Western civilization, which is utter balony.
What’s wrong with “imposing secular law”? In the west we have had secular law imposed on us for centuries. Is Prager suggesting to impose Jewish or Christian law? (Which, in the US, of course would be against the constitution, and against all principles of western civilization.)
Comparing the Taliban with ACLU.. what a moron.
I’ve lost all respect I once had for Prager.
NME666 >
The stuff it down your throat “bible thumping” Atheists are just as nauseating as any other religious fanatics out there – “You will believe in our ideology of nothing, because we know the universal truth and most importantly we know what’s best for you”.
Same crap different pile.
Johan: Just because they’re more polite (at times) and their methods don’t include terrorism, doesn’t mean that the ACLU is any less un-democratic, totalitarian, and dangerous.
The Islamicist world view is at least rational whereas the atheist/secularist worldview is irrational. That being said, islam’s rationality is contained within an anti-God theism, and is at its heart an anti-life death-cult.
I disagree with Prager as what he describes as “secular fanatics” are statists or atheist fanatics. As a former atheist turned agnostic, I find that atheism, in many of it’s most radical forms is indistinguishable from religious fanaticism. There is no way to prove the existence of a God or to disprove it and thus any logical individual would opt for agnosticism if they don’t have the need to believe in a superior being.
There appears to be a hardwired religion center in the human brain which is likely located in the temporal lobes. William James noted many pharmacologic means of inciting religious experiences over a century ago and one can elicit religious experience in individuals through application of high intensity magnetic fields to the temporal lobes. Perhaps the “religion center” of the brain was selected for through evolution as it made it easier for groups of humans to coexist together. Decades ago a number of friends of mine “found religion” through LSD and joined various cults severing all ties with their families and friends.
Islamofascism is the hijacking of the brains religious centers to produce a regressive death cult. One has to be careful not to throw all adherents of islam into the same group as Sufism is a peaceable religion with some profound insights into the human condition, as are the Bahai or Ismaili muslims. What needs to be extirpated is the wahabist strain of radical islam. Christianity has also had its death cults which have fortunately died out (the Manicheans).
What has struck me in conversations with devotees of fundamentalism islam is their surrender of their whole self to external control. They want to be controlled and freed from the need to think for themselves. Having always been an outsider and freethinker, I find this state of mind incomprehensible. They are essentially meatware robots who do the bidding of psychotic “religious leaders”.
The radical secularists seem to be unable to determine whether something is intrinsically good or evil. Christianity and Judaism, despite their history of religious excesses, are fundamentally life-affirming. Radical islam is regressive and life-destroying and thus needs to be extirpated. Radical secularists are incapable of making value judgements. The same people that are ready to eradicate any trace of Christianity in the public school system are ready to embrace the de-facto conversion of public schools into temporary mosques. It’s curious how the extremist atheists don’t go after islamofascism nearly as much as they do against Christianity — perhaps that’s their cowardice showing through.
scott and Loki, well said.
I suggest that the ACLU would like to see statues of Marx and Lenin in every public square and portraits in every classroom.
Well, since you asked for examples, how about:
1 Corinthians, 11:3, Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife,
1 Corinthians, 11:7-9, “For a man…is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”
1 Corinthians, 14:34-35, “…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Ephesians, 5:22-24, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
1 Timothy, 2:11-15, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent…”
Titus, 2:4, “…train the younger women…to be subject to their husbands.”
1 Peter, 3:7, “the weaker vessel”
Of course, the real proof is when each sect allowed women to be ordained and preach openly. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have never allowed women to be ordained. I think the Quakers have always believed in equality, but the Anglican Church only started in the 1960s and some conservative Christian sects, like the Southern Baptists, are still against it to this day.
All reading from the same book.
Littlebones at 7:25 PM
“I’ve never disagreed with Prager before but I think he’s off base on this one. I’m an athiest with little time for athiest fanatics (the kind who protest against Christmas trees), but can’t see how a “secular fanatic” can be in the same sentence as a islamist fanatic. That’s a stretch to say the least.”
Not that much of a stretch….check out the pic…..that’s a OWS “rage boy”….
http://globetribune.info/2012/01/31/occupy-providence-protesters-dump-condoms-oncatholic-schoolgirls/
mitchel44, you’re doing what is called “proof texting”. It’s a narrow way of using scripture to prove a point—minus context. Yes, the NT does say the things you present. Has the meaning of those texts evolved over the past 2000 years? And has the opposite, the political feminist idea of women trying to be the same as men—as if we could be—worked out at all well for anyone? Compared to most other religions, Christianity has treated women well: the first person to see the risen Lord was Mary Magdalene. God chose a woman to be the Mother of his Son. (“Hail Mary, full of grace. . .”) The Lord had compassion on the woman taken in adultery: he saved her from death by stoning—then told her to “go and sin no more”. Countless women are highly honoured in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. Certainly, Christian woman were treated with far more respect 2000 years ago than they were in such religions as Islam—which still treats women as chattel. Christianity altogether repudiated that idea. Galatians 3: 27-28: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ./ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That was a revolutionary idea two millennia ago, and it continued to evolve over the centuries. It was via Christianity that Magna Carta (1215) came into being and that, eventually, women had the vote. In the Middle Ages, many women (including abbesses) were powerful landowners and wielded serious political power. It was via Christianity that slavery was finally abolished.
Re men and women: I believe that hierarchies are natural—fie on the Marxist fiction of total equality. Look where that’s got us: undisciplined, barbaric, entitled children who never grow up—Obama, the Vancouver and G20 rioters, the OWS movement, etc. Most Christian women I know, including me, are strong and know their own minds. We see our husbands—yes, we actually marry the men who are to be the fathers of our children—as our partners. But we don’t see husbands/wives or mothers/fathers as the same and interchangeable: that we have different roles in the life of our families is the way it is. And we don’t always agree with out husbands either! But, as we respect that God is the head of all of us, we understand that we are subject—all of us—to the laws of truth and charity. Sometimes that means submitting our own wills and ideas to the Good—and husbands are to do that too. One of their roles is to protect their families. Of course, women join them in that role. But look what’s happened when the whole idea of a man sacrificing his desires to protect and care for his wife—what wife?—and children—what children?—has been altogether undermined: the idea of hierarchy, in which the concept of responsibility is embedded, has been pretty well obliterated by the idea of radical equality. Be careful what one wishes for!
In a nutshell: (Judeo) Christianity has, in its totality, done far more good than not. The secular, progressive, anti-Christian propaganda, peddled, big time, in our educational institutions, the MSM, and many other places is a BIG LIE. Repeat it unthinkingly, often enough and the gullible—who grow in vast numbers in our dumbed-down culture—fall for it. Kyrie eleison.
(P.S. mitchel44 writes, “Of course, the real proof [of equality] is when each sect allowed women to be ordained and preach openly. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have never allowed women to be ordained. I think the Quakers have always believed in equality, but the Anglican Church only started in the 1960s . . .” Really? As an insider, I challenge such a naïve view. How about this? As the Anglican Church has become more “feminized” and narrow minded about anyone who’s not a progressive, it’s dying. Its numbers are falling drastically.
Again, mitchel44, we’re talking roles here. Men and women do not have to have the identical role to be equal in worth. I’m a wife and mother. There are overlaps of roles, for sure, but I’m neither a husband nor father—and can’t be, no matter what the radical “equalizers” say. Ironically, these people are among the most intolerant, bigoted, mean-spirited folks I know. As the progressives and political feminists of both sexes took over the Anglican Church, starting in about the 60s, that institution became more and more intolerant of diversity: “It’s our Brave New, Scripture-Tradition-and-Reason-be-Damned Church or you’re not worthy.” I actually left the Anglican Church because, as a traditionalist Christian, I was quite definitely no longer welcome. Some equality and inclusiveness, eh!)
You asked for examples of scripture to support what I said, claiming that my ignorance would reveal me for a fool.
When provided with the examples, you tell me that I’m being narrow in my view, despite the same narrow view of those Christians using the same passages to support their misogyny, which you attempt to right off as “role play” based on cultural norms.
My assertion is that the value of women to society was not recognized in a timely manner, within some branches of the church, or under the law and that a portion of the blame must be ascribed to the Christian beliefs of the inferior nature of women, which delayed that recognition until the influence of secular forces.
You have shown me nothing to change that view.
Men and women will never be the same, but that has nothing to do with your rights when standing in front of judge, which is what we are talking about.
It’s curious how the extremist atheists don’t go after islamofascism nearly as much as they do against Christianity — perhaps that’s their cowardice showing through.
There are some hypocrites in the batch, but the fact is that in NA one is much more likely to be disturbed by Christian mores intruding on one’s life, such having to read the pledge of allegiance in US public schools, than to have Islamic mores pushed on oneself by the government.
mitchel44, I appreciate your civil tone. We will have to agree to disagree. My point earlier in this thread was the anti-Christian bias I predicted would show up—and it did. Here’s what I wrote: “Fie on atheist and Muslim fanatics (and even some uninformed—being charitable—non fanatics, who sometimes post here), who have not a clue about the beneficence of Christianity to hundreds of millions of people over the long run. In fact, in the West, the very existence of both rights and tolerance for both atheists and Muslims [and women] (for Christians these days, not so much) is a direct product of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which emphasizes justice and mercy.”
I still believe that your anti-Christian, pro-feminist bias—you’re surrounded by such propaganda all over the place—is misinformed. Yes, the bible passages you quote, from 2-4 thousand years ago, are accurate—for that time. But, as a result of the honour women were shown in the Jewish and Christian faiths—the idea, especially in the New Testament, of their equal worth in the eyes of God—the equality of women evolved and is, as I said, “a direct product of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which emphasizes justice and mercy.” That may seem ironic to you, but it happens to be true.
Then women’s equality went into “ludicrous speed” (which you appear to support) and ended up way beyond equality; instead, it became a bludgeon with which to beat up both men, and women, who are comfortable being women, see men as partners, not as rivals, and who don’t support abortion as a perfectly acceptable means to “women’s liberation”, etc. BTW, almost every female Anglican priest I know and know of—and that’s a lot—accept abortion (I wonder what they’re thinking when they say the words of the prayer for Anglicans to “respect the dignity of every human being”) and are definitely—and some defiantly—radical feminist in their outlook. (There are some notable exceptions, who are given a very hard time.) The radical feminist presence (female and male) in the Anglican Church has changed that denomination’s ethos altogether: the Anglican Church is now the NDP at prayer. My discussion of roles is perfectly legitimate: in order for “equality” to be realised, feminists think that women need to do exactly what males do. This is a mistaken idea (you seem to share) that has caused untold harm.
LAS, your anti-Christian bias is showing too: who built both the USA and Canada to be the thriving, free societies they are? Hmmm . . . if you know anything about our history, it happened to be Christians, not Muslims. The First Amendment of the American Constitution “prohibits the federal government from making a law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’”. This was to protect religion from the power of the government, not the other way round. So, the First Amendment has been turned on its head and is regularly misused in the USA. In Canada, did you know that there is no separation of church and state? Re your mistaken idea that “one is much more likely to be disturbed by Christian mores [which, horrors!, happen to protect the integrity of human beings] intruding on one’s life, such [as] having to read the pledge of allegiance in US public schools [a right protected by the First Amendment], than to have Islamic mores pushed on oneself by the government.” Is that so? How about the “Little Mosques in the Cafeteria” in our public schools, not to mention “Little Mosque on the Prairies” on CBC, paid for by the taxpayer, along with all the other pro-Muslim propaganda of the CBC, that we pay for?
Anti-Christian bias seems to incubate the strangest ideas! And that includes that the seeming supporters of “equality” don’t give a toss about the anti-Christian bigotry on display all over the place. Ironic, I’d say.
Oh please. The USA Founders were not very religious-at least one of them was a theist. That Christianity and good government exist together is because the good government is secular government and it keeps out the influence of religion. The separation of Church and State is to protect both. Also, having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is not free speech it’s the opposite.
LAS: I’ll not spend any more of my time speaking sense to invincible ignorance. Read Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (1835). A few snippets:
“. . . 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. . . .
“Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. . . .
“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren, traditionary faith which seems to vegetate rather than to live in the soul. . . .
“On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. . .”
Oh please, indeed.
An oft-neglected problem with secularism is its assumption that it is somehow the “default” position and therefore neutral religiously. It sees all religious positions as optional, unnatural, unnecessary, and therefore in the way of civil discourse and reasoned argument. Thus religious viewpoints must, a priori, be excluded from the Public Square. This is a dangerous position that fails to admit that secularism also answers so-called religious questions with answers that are no less religious than an answer that is traditionally labelled “religious.” The danger comes from the fact that secularism always assumes a privileged position of autonomous judgement over against all others; hence “tolerance” becomes the secular tolerating the religious while failing to see that it is itself, religious.
No thinking religious person is satisfied with tolerance, but seeks rather religious freedom. Tolerance is extended from a superior (the secular) to the inferior (the religious). Thus what is tolerated is always fluid and subject to the fiat of the zeitgeist, dictator, or proletariat. The current demand that separate schools in Ontario in Ontario deny their religion in deference to inclusion is one of a number of examples. Secularism, always expansionist, sees tax dollars as a secular possession, education as a secular domain, children as wards of a secular state. Religion’s role and sphere must always reduce under tolerance; only freedom protects it.
Scott, well said.