We’re Doing It Wrong!

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan weighs in with a lucid argument for the absolute separation of religion and state.

We’re doing it wrong!
by H. Numan

Folks, we’re doing it wrong. Barking upon the wrong tree. That sort of thing. We are already in the midst of a war without realizing it, and defend ourselves with the wrong strategy at that. It’s all about freedom FROM religion. Not freedom OF religion (to do whatever they want).

I’m not religious in any way. Yes, I do believe. I believe I’ll have another cup of coffee. With regard to religion, the Baron and I are diametrically opposite. However, that doesn’t prevent us being friends and have lively debates. I respect him, and he respects me. We normally do not touch this touchy subject. But I have some strong thoughts that I would like to share with you all. Please bear with me, and read it to the end. I’m not ranting against your religion. Unless you’re mohammedan*.

America is a bit of an exception in the western world. Today it’s the most religious western nation with the exception of Vatican City. This wasn’t always the case. Around 1900 America was a shining beacon of religious freedom, years ahead of Europe. Robert Ingersoll was one of the most avowed atheists of his day, and highly respected. His speeches are preserved and well worth reading. I’ve read them all. Your faith (or lack of it) shouldn’t matter. I rarely read something over a century old that looks like it was written today: it’s that good.

Back then atheism was the biggest single religious grouping in the US. Stating openly you’re an atheist didn’t ruin your chances to get elected. Not so for undesired denominations, though. A politicians who said he was Roman Catholic effectively said he didn’t want to run for office. Kennedy made Roman Catholicism acceptable and respectable. After him, during the ’70s, conservative Christians put aside their differences and formed one front. They became a really strong very conservative force within the Republican Party. That’s when they got strong enough to force, for example, the State of Kansas to include religious doctrine in schoolbooks.

So let’s begin by looking what religion actually is. That’s not easy, because we don’t have a real definition of it. Is Mormonism a religion? Currently, it is. Jehovah’s Witnesses? Fringe. Some consider them a religion, others do not. For the sake of argument, they are, but barely. Scientology? Not quite yet, but working hard on it. Expect when Tom Cruise runs for president it might just have reached that divine status. Judaism, Christianity (all +33.000 variations of it) and mohammedanism* are religions, of course. So are Shintoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Jedism or Pastafarians are not a religion. Give me a good reason why they are not but Mormonism is.

But … what about the Thuggees?

Aren’t they a religion, too? The fact that they practice human sacrifice shouldn’t really bother us that much. Mohammedanism does that too, though in a different manner. Try to leave that religion, or say to a mohammedan mohammed was a child molester and see what happens next. Or try to burn a koran. Not in front of a mosque, of course. That would be “inciting hatred”. But in the privacy of your own backyard. Just let them know you’re doing it on YouTube. Or don’t burn a koran, but pretend you just did. Watch their response. Preferably from a distance, that’s much safer!

That is where we go wrong: not all religions are the same. Not all religions are peaceful, though they practically all claim that. Despite massive proof of the contrary. Thuggee is not a peaceful religion, but you can rest assured that they would claim they are. Supposing they were to rear their ugly heads again.

Mohammedanism is not a peaceful religion, and never was. It was mainly spread by the sword, and doesn’t mince words about it. Yes, if there was a way of peacefully converting the heathens, they did. But that’s more an exception then the rule. We all know that, and you can read all about it on GoV.

It doesn’t matter if most adherents are peaceful. Most Roman Catholics or Protestants are very peaceful. It’s the official doctrine that matters. It doesn’t matter if your priest or minister turns a blind eye if you use condoms. It matters that your bishop and higher up in the church condemn it, and actively campaign against it. It doesn’t matter that Volkswagen users want a green car. What matters is that the top of the VW concern willfully broke the law. Exactly the same applies to religion.

Some political parties and non-religious ideologies come very close in being a religion. It’s quite understandable one has to follow the party line. But when debate becomes impossible because dogma forbids it, you’re entering the world of religion. For example global warming. Does it happen? Yes. Is man the cause of it? We do not know. Can we change it? If man is the cause if it, possibly. But if mother nature does it all by herself, we cannot. In that case the enormous amounts of money (your money, not theirs!) Global Warming adherents happily want to spend on it are wasted. Go to a scientific debate about that topic and try to debate against the official dogma, and you’ll most likely be ostracized. That’s painfully close to religion.

My suggestion is strict separation between church and state. Really strict. Believe whatever you want. Practice it within your church community as you want. But NOT outside. The state is to represent all the people, not just those who believe. Usually believe something that the government of the day happens to believe in. President G. W. Bush said he didn’t consider atheists even to be American citizens. That’s wrong. Very wrong. Lots of Christians loved it, though. But what if for example president Obama would say the same, but adds that Christians are atheists too? They are, with respect to mohammedanism.

Or what if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders get elected and they start to promote their doctrines? (global warming, multicult, feminism, etc.) What if they would say they consider a man who doesn’t accept higher wages for women a US citizen?

Religion and politics have a gray area where the two meet. And in that vague area mohammedanism operates. Sometimes they are a religion, when it suits them. Sometimes they are not, when it suites them.

An example from Dutch history: De Schoolstrijd — the school-struggle

Getting the state to pay for (your religious) education had been a hot item since we became a kingdom. Until 1920, if you wanted your kids to go to a Roman Catholic or Calvinist school, you paid for it yourself. The state paid only for non religious education. Something both denominations found horrible. Up to 1900 Roman Catholics and Protestant denominations fought each other tooth and nail. But they discovered that working together to get free education would probably work. And it did. Yes, they hated each other. Yes, they fought tooth and nail. But with regard to education they agreed that the state should pay for all forms of education, regardless of the religion or lack of it. In 1920, they got it.

They still have it, to this very day. And guess what … mohammedans demand and get exactly the same privileges. And rightly so! One simply cannot say: we pay for Roman Catholic and Protestant schools, but if you want a Buddhist or Mohammedan school, you pay for it yourself. All religions are equal in our country. So mohammedan schools can demand and claim exactly the same privileges. Which they more than happily do.

Strict separation between church and state is the ONLY solution to our current crisis. Really strict separation. It shouldn’t be possible to demand fish-less meals on Fridays or halal meals in public places just because your religion requires it. Bring your own sandwiches! Or simply select something that is acceptable. Public cafeterias normally have ample choice. Plenty of public hospitals and other buildings now have ‘silence centers’ which is a politically correct disguise for mosques. Separation of church and state should explicitly forbid this.

Yes, it would mean that established religions have to give up some of their privileges. Which they absolutely refuse. There are plenty of protestant ministers in Holland who have no problem at all that their ‘school with the bible’ is surround by four madrassas. As long as they get their school funded by the state. If that means those four madrassas gets state support as well, so be it. Their pupils are bullied, harassed or even raped by pupils of the madrassa? Oh dear, how sad. Never mind! (As long as we get the money, that is.)

We have a Supreme Court verdict, the ‘arrest Goeree’ (Dutch only) that actually provides the legal jurisprudence for it. The Goerees were a very strict Calvinist couple of preachers, and they spoke strongly against Jews and homosexuality. So strong that they were sued for anti-Semitism and slander. The court initially ruled that freedom of religion applied, as the Goerees claimed they only preached what the bible said. In appeal, this was rejected. The Supreme Court said in 1985 that it doesn’t matter what your religious book says about something. You are responsible for your own actions and words. What a religious book says cannot be used to justify yourself.

With this piece of jurisprudence the PVV can simply get almost their complete agenda fulfilled. Scarves/burkas in public? Impossible. Common law forbids it, as it is unsafe. Unsafe to drive vehicles, for example and covering your face in public is illegal anyway. Bank robbers would love that privilege. No need to demand a head rag tax infuriating 60% of the country and embarrassing the remainder. A mohammedan school doesn’t produce up to standards? We shut it down, just as the ministry would shut down any other non-performing school.

You burn a koran in your own backyard? That’s up to you. Mohammedans file a complaint about it? As long as you do it in your backyard, it isn’t their problem. You file a complaint for (‘minder, minder, minder’; the current Wilders trial) racial discrimination? Rejected. A religion is not a race.

Mohammedans preach hatred against infidels/enemies, and claim the koran or the prophet demands it? That’s not legal, so go to jail (where special halal meals are not served, no mohammedan chaplain is employed and no time off for prayers is allowed) and serve your time.

You want a mohammedan-only burial ground or build a gigantic mosque? Perfect! As long as you have the money to pay for it, that is. And where does that money come from? If a small poor Catholic community suddenly wants to build a enormous cathedral in Peanutville, Alabama, we’d ask exactly the same.

Oh, you want to preach in a language the security services of our country don’t understand? Because it’s the only language your deity understands? Not really a supreme being, what? You can only preach in any language our security services can understand. Provide a nice private translation after service to your deity. I’m sure he (or she) will understand. Or don’t preach at all. Just say the required prayers in your deity’s preferred language, as long as those prayers are within the law.

You want to get married by your religious pastor only (legal in the US; illegal in Europe)? That has severe consequences. The law will not see you as married. No special benefits for you. Also (in Europe) you will have to explain yourself in court for that. You ignore this law (as currently happens in Europe)? That means we do not enforce it strongly enough.

As you can see, nothing of the above is discriminatory at all. No abolition of Christmas, Easter or any other religious festival. Simply said, they have the privilege of being first. Most people today don’t really celebrate Christmas as a religious festival per se, just as a nice holiday. There is no ‘war on Christmas’ as some religious groups claim. In that case they should openly demand compulsory church service, forbid advertising, shopping and above all set limits to what can be served at a Christmas dinner.

Sadly, we are rapidly moving in a very different direction. Because of ignorance (most people have absolutely no idea why separation between church and state is so important) and greed (as long as my church gets free money, I don’t care). Yes, I do see problems, but that’s mainly related to not willing to give up a privileged position. Sorry folks. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. If your religion is that important to you, pay for it. I pay for what I find important myself, too.

The current trend it to place freedom of religion above freedom of speech. That is very wrong, very dangerous and a slippery slope towards defeat. With freedom of speech in hand, we will disarm our pork-hating f(r)iends almost completely.

— H. Numan

*   You probably noticed I never mention Islam wherever possible, and always use the word mohammedanism instead. I despise this religion. I will not acknowledge them for what they prefer to be named. As long as mohammedanism is a correct word for Islam I will use that. There isn’t much mohammedans hate more than being called for what they truly are: worshipers of the (demi)god mohammed. Without a capital letter — they certainly don’t deserve that much respect.

67 thoughts on “We’re Doing It Wrong!

  1. “That is where we go wrong: not all religions are the same.” Who is ‘we’? Do you mean stupid politicians who can’t tell race from religion? I think most counter-jihadists understand that secularism is important and that human rights must overrule religion.

    • Respecting other peoples freedom FROM religion is fine, except a religion that does not allow the same respect in return.

      We should be able to ban groups of people with noticeably nasty beliefs – society is not a [waste matter] sandwich which all must partake of, we have a RIGHT to set standards of what is acceptable. I mean ban anyone who practices that evil cult from even visiting here, not just ban ceremonies.

      Enforcement would be difficult, but we don’t have to be 100% effective – just determined to make nasty people go elsewhere, or modify their behaviors so they are not horrible to have around.
      If limits are not set, there will always be scum that will find advantage (or pleasure) by abusing others.

      I beleive that it is immoral to treat people any bit better than they treat others – endless evil prospers in our current world because we are too tolerant, and too “civilised” (neutered by govt). Evil [epithets] should be treated badly by everyone around them, and harassed out of town – anything less and we are just pussies hoping the alligator eats us last.

  2. The thing is, you’re actually describing the situation in the U.S. fairly well, minus the coercion.

    U.S. prisons will serve you religiously-appropriate food.

    AFAIK most/all U.S. states will license just about anyone purporting to be a religious representative to perform marriages. There are places that have made this available to anyone at all. It’s essentially the same thing.

    There’s really no reason not to do this: it’s a minor hassle to the state, is available to all, and avoids a LOT of private irritation.

    The U.S., despite being one of the western countries with the largest percentage of religious people, is *NOT* an oppressive place to the non-religious. There may be social groupings that are, but as a whole, it’s not.

    Many religious people, such as Baptists and Mormons, even have a religious belief in the separation of church and state.

    I never cease to find it amazing how, in this fight for Western Civilisation, words of more than 200 years ago are most relevant:

    “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 the time since those words were added to the U.S. constitution, NO OTHER COUNTRY has continuously and uninterruptedly been a democracy.

  3. Thank you H. Numan for a practical, plain solution for the absurd situation we have. Real religions and almost real ones will have no trouble adapting and we can do without the ones unable to adapt.

  4. Yes but. Oh mercy.

    Are those state funded Dutch religious and nonreligious schools unusual in Europe?

    In the U.S. our charter schools began as a solution for below par public schools in academic achievement. I have heard that very often, mohammedans open charter schools for their own reasons. These could be madrassas. I do not know specific figures on the cost to the taxpayer for this.

    France has a very secular reputation but I have heard little more about it. If France does indeed have a high degree of freedom from religion, how is that working out? Are they as secular as they think?

    It is not helpful that the followers of Mohommed are very likely to hate all non-moslems, of whatever religion or non-religious view.

    Oh mercy indeed.

    • In England, state-funded ‘faith schools’ are all the rage. Christian denominations control two-thirds or more of the schools in many areas, especially rural areas. So when Mahometans demand their own state-funded faith schools there are no grounds to refuse them.

  5. A very good argument.

    Thuggee was suppressed by the British – pity they didn’t suppress mohammedanism too. Thugs worship the goddess Khali, a Hindu deity dedicated to destruction, so doesn’t that make Thuggee an offshoot of Hinduism?

    Finally, some years ago on the now defunct Up Pompeii website, certain regular contributors used to refer to the so-called prophet as Mahound, a highly derogatory term by all accounts which upset practitioners very much. Maybe we should all adopt this mode of address.

  6. First. Separation between church and state is absolutely necessary.

    “So mohammedan schools can demand and claim exactly the same privileges. Which they more than happily do.” Islam (I prefer to use that word because it also describes a political ideology) has no business being in The Netherlands or Europe until they reform their religion. Klaar, punt, uit. It has caused a lot of political correctness, it has caused police visits to the doorsteps of people making comment on blogs or Twitter expressing an opinion on immigration policies.

    “Strict separation between church and state is the ONLY solution to our current crisis.” Which crisis is Mr. Numan speaking of? The manufactured financial/austerity one or the one where The Netherlands is under orders by the Brussels EU to keep accepting “asylum” seekers (many of them Muslims) into a country with one of the highest density populations in Europe?

    And speaking of privileges… I’ve heard the royals receive an annual 30 million euro payout (uitkering) and don’t have to pay taxes. Now THAT is privilege.

    “What a religious book says cannot be used to justify yourself.” Yet the EU and its puppet states can create any new laws it likes to justify its existence and control over the population.

  7. Seems reasonable, but after tax free status is revoked there will be a half million unemployed preachers.

  8. This is inappropriate discrimination in the full sense of being illegal–unless the author can implement the proposed prohibition of, … of what exactly? This is only an idea until it can be codified. The Establishment Clause, we obviously conclude, is not sufficient. What will be the new Constitutional Amendment?

  9. atheism is just another religion trying to impose their dogmas over the whole of the people. No need to remind the author of this article about the communists atheist paradises and their gulags and genocides of non believers in their atheist dogmatic scientific utopia (I mean, religious peoples, and, of course, also many atheists).
    For the European Union, which is, by the way, fundamentally based against any traditions based on Europe (which origins, of Europe, are not judeochristians but indogermanics, notwithstanding that this european pre-christians tribes would at first sight execute those trying to create any kind of civil liberal reign dispising their customs) will side whith whichever dominant group(here, in the future, the muslims)precisely due to the fact that the EU and its intelectual-police has no-thing with which counteract the new “weltanchauung” (sharia and so on).
    So, in order to guarantee the freedom of state from any theocracy, it is good for you the dutch to turn your old and beautiful churches into , say, whatever new modern fancy (civic center, discoteke, new sexuality research foundation or whatever). All this is very beautiful, don´t mix religion with free government. But the truth is, once you have reached that point of freedom (no christians, no believers, no dogmatics, etc. ) you have just cleaned the path for the other ones. You don´t like a fair and peaceful breed of, say, non-atheists, christians, you expell them from the public forum, and you´ll get a non-peacefull breed of another kind of non-atheists. This second breed don´t give a damn f*** about separation of the church from the state or the opposite. They just impose their theocracy by use of the violence. You will see.
    GatesOfVienna is for the survival of Europe, not for facilitating the path to the invaders.

  10. The flaw in this article is illustrated by the recent survey of 13-year-olds in an (unnamed) school in Italy. When asked what they would do if ISIS conquered their country, 90 per cent responded that they would convert to Islam to save their lives.

    Imagine there’s no heaven (it’s easy if you try), no hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today. Imagine there’s no countries (it isn’t hard to do), nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.

    Now imagine that you’re facing an irresistible force of armed men who imagine that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. They imagine that Allah has commanded them to wage war against all infidels until they submit, and that any mujahid who is slain in battle is sure to go to Paradise.

    There you stand with John Lennon. There they stand with their religion. Who do you think will prevail?

    • I’m sure James Taylor and Taylor Swift singing “Imagine” with a gaggle of Millennials holding candles & flowers around them will present a fierce opposition to the Hordes of Muhammad…

  11. Religion cannot be separated from politics. If enough people have some a belief, religious or not, it will have an influence in public policy. Religion is a loosely defined concept and the term could be applied to any number of a set of beliefs, including belief in the scientific method. Atheism could be defined as the null religion.

    The most destructive religion to Europeans is Christianity, not Islam! Why? Because Christianity teaches Europeans that they should self destruct. Islam is just a code word for a group of genetically similar people who are low IQ and have a proclivity to violence.

    • You describe adherence to the scientific method as a religion and posit that Christianity is more destructive than Islam. I’m hearing voices, it’s Bugs Bunny saying “What a maroon”.

      • I find the concept of a “null religion” totally valid.

        It perfectly describes the atheist attempts to wipe all religion off the face of the planet. It is antagonistic, has a central belief system, and is dogma, which it justifies by its demand for scientific proof of all phenomena regardless if it can offer an valid alternative or not.

        Please tell me what reason do atheists have for removing a monolith inscribed with the ten commandments from the front of a courthouse? It is a historical reference to the source of much of our existing law, it is totally passive (you can read or ignore it by choice), and is a monument to common values of many citizens. What exactly does this do that so offends atheists, that it’s mere existence is so offensive that it must be removed?

        What we are now seeing is even references to Christianity must cease to exist. No mention of Easter, Christmas, etc., nor any religious symbols of such dates may exist. If that is not a war on Christianity, then please tell me what it is, because I am totally confused to were exactly you are going with this. Do you want to deny the existence of the source of our culture? To what end?

        Create a vacuum and something will replace it. Is that not science? Personal philosophical reasons for our existence and significance cannot be explained or interpreted by the scientific method. The necessity of a “cultural glue” (that is the definition of religion) to form a better society cannot be so easily discarded. Be careful what you choose to defend and attack my friend, the resultant society may be much worse than that which you seek to currently destroy.

        The narcissistic amorality of the “feels good, do it” generation will prove itself to be a cultural failure, in comparison to the structural form of that which it replaced, because it stands for exactly nothing, a cultural null. The existence of the null state leaves a void to be filled by those that only seek personal, not societal gain. Such a society will have a short, painful existence.

        Things exit for a reason, although that reason may not be perfectly clear. It is only on failure that we can look back historically and see the error in our methods and ideals.

        • I’m glad your post gives me the chance to talk about atheism.

          Atheism is not a dogma or doctrine. Strictly speaking, atheism is “a” or “without” and “theism” or the connection with god. Thus, an atheist is a person with no connection with god.

          That in itself is not a doctrine. It is a belief, or rather , lack of belief.

          Now, you have doctrinaire atheists. Madlayne Murray O’Hara was the most famous American Atheist. She had a magazine called “The American Atheist”. One time, I read an article in which she criticized the USSR (still in existence at the time) for allowing the presence of churches. So, Hara was more oppressive than the Soviets.

          There are atheists who have their own dogma, such as communists. They can suppress other beliefs, such as Christianity, but their dogma is not derived from atheism.

          There are atheists today who bring lawsuits against displays on public lands of religious symbols. I cringe when they are reported as “atheists”, because I am an atheist and they don’t represent me. I would be happy to sign onto a class action preventing these people from acting in the name of “atheism”, rather than their own inability to tolerate the presence of a belief they don’t share.

          I totally agree with the author, Numan, that religion should be totally separate from the state. The most important consequence of that is that the state will not make any special accommodations for religious practices. If you go to prison, you eat what’s there and take a break when they tell you to. I realize that other religions, such as Judaism, have dietary requirements that are often accommodated in public facilities. As Numan points out, once you concede that, you end up supporting practices you vehemently oppose, such as the barbaric practice of halal slaughter.

          I would think that the last thing any self-respecting religion would want is an intimate involvement with the state, where they argue on which of their beliefs and practices are acceptable to the state paymasters.

          I personally have no objection to the mayor of a city or village allocating space for a Christian (but not Muslim) display. This is part of our cultural heritage, and is certainly not the passage of a law affecting the establishment of a religion. If anyone argues that Christianity requires a public display of the cross to exist, or that the public display of a cross will somehow cause cancer in an atheist, they are deluded. The public display of a religious symbol involving Christianity (or Judaism, to an extent) is part of the culture, and ought to be allowed, although it makes atheists like myself grind our teeth.

          The continuation of our culture and heritage is the best protection that Christians, Jews, and atheists have, not to mention the non-aggressive Eastern religions which are perfectly capable of maintaining themselves. But none ought to have the right to put religious law against public law, and there should be no legal accommodation for the practice of any religion which goes against any existing law.

          • A thoughtful comment; thank you.

            Growing up as a Roman Catholic we had several “dietary laws”, the most well-known being the abstinence from meat on Fridays and on certain days during Lent. We also had a modified form of fasting during Advent (the month prior to Christmas) and Lent (the six weeks between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. Those rules about food only applied to healthy, non-pregnant adults, but not to the elderly, nor minors (a ‘minor’ in this case being someone under eighteen). The chronically ill were exempt as was anyone who was temporarily sick.

            [The fasting and abstinence were meant to bring to consciousness our patterns of eating and to practice self-discipline. One was allowed a full meal once a day and two smaller meals that weren’t to amount to a full meal when they were combined. It wasn’t hard, just tedious. As Lent moved into its fifth week (out of six) my mother would complain she was going to turn into a chicken any day. To which I replied, “good, we could use the eggs”. Being more of a cook at twelve than she *ever* was interested in becoming, I got to experiment on her. It was indeed a symbiotic relationship: I liked learning to cook a wider variety of foods than just “Irish cuisine” and she got to eat my experiments.]

            It wasn’t considered a big fat sin if you failed to keep to the rules. But you learned your weak points – e.g., an inordinate attachment to food, and that in itself was helpful if not always welcome.

            This is the sticky point, when you say, But none ought to have the right to put religious law against public law, and there should be no legal accommodation for the practice of any religion which goes against any existing law, I am reminded of that order of nuns, the Poor Clares I think it was, who were legally required to expend money for birth control insurance coverage under ObamaCare. It was an expense they didn’t need and didn’t want and found morally wrong, but they weren’t permitted to exclude themselves from paying for it anyway. One doesn’t have to agree with their beliefs to know that such a requirement is wrong. Such a law makes The Law look like an ass, and has the unfortunate longer term consequence of contaminating our respect for Law itself.

            As the Baron said in another context, “justice must be seen to be done”. In the case of the Poor Clares’ request to be excused from buying birth control and abortion insurance, Justice was made the fool.

            There is no reason that people of good will with a variety of beliefs and opinions, cannot exist side-by-side in the public square. That’s becoming harder to do all the time as the laws are distorted for political reasons.

          • Also totally agree with you. A morality enforced from a top down perspective such as islam is not morality at all, but merely another form of totalitarianism. True morality must be imposed from within.

  12. You are absolutely correct! I have always thought adherence to religious superstition is anyone’s right, providing it does NOT breach any laws. No “Special” laws should be created to allow the superstitious to choose to ignore whatsoever they wish, and the rational should not be obliged to pander to the deluded.
    Religious schools? Yes, but not funded from the public purse and should teach to standards required of all schools. Special attire? Yes provide it does not breach any health and safety laws. In the UK, Sikhs do not have to wear a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle. Ludicrous. Eat what you want? Yes provided it is slaughtered according to national laws, and it is labelled so those of us who wish to know what we are eating, may decline it. I wont eat from anywhere that serves halal, it goes against my personal, well thought out principles ( not those forced down my throat by a preacher, pardon the pun) to eat animals slaughtered in a brutal manner. When are the rational going to wake up, and say “Enough!”

    • Religious superstition may be fact in the minds of its adherents. Oerception is everything.

      If European countries flood themselves with low IQ and violent Muslim immigrants then those countries are going to look like the countries from which the immigrants came. They do not care what you think is rational or how you think the way things ought to be; they will shove it down your throat.

      • I don’t think that they have low IQs.

        Indeed, I think that that’s a part of the problem: destructive culture COMBINED with (relatively) high IQs compared to other destructive cultures…

        • Lots of them are low IQ. How much this is has to do with the practice of first cousin marriage, generation after generation, I do not know.

          • It all has to do with consanguinity. IQ in Islam still follows a normal distribution, it’s just that the middle is shifted left. I’ve read that the average IQ in some OIC nations is down around 80. That’s about what we call developmentally disabled.

    • To Elli,

      I completely agree with you. Kosher slaughter is a bit more humane than halal, but still requires the animal to be conscious. I, like you, think that laws requiring the humane treatment of animals should not have any exceptions made for religious practices.

      There are other aspects of kosher slaughter, such as religious supervision and the appropriate prayers. If I had my way, those eating kosher foods would have to be satisfied with this.

      • Again, I agree. Those kosher laws make sense in Israel, but not in a pluralistic society. We have become more aware of the need to treat all creatures with dignity and it behooves us to do so…though before I became allergic to lobster, I told myself being boiled alive wasn’t “all that bad”. I’ve often wondered how the first lobster/crab eaters found out that they couldn’t be killed first. But then I’ve also wondered about the adventurous souls who cracked open oysters and let the slimy things (yum!) slide down their throats. It’s not anything I’d ever have tried without the knowledge of others before me…maybe it was from observing what birds did?

  13. I just thought of something. People are the molecules of which a society is made. Nitrogen does not behave as oxygen even if they have some similarities.

  14. A distinction between religion and faith should be made. The former is external and is a process whereby the adherent hopes to prove himself or herself to their deity and being sufficiently worthy of the deity’s fellowship and approbation. The latter is internal and the result of an acceptance of the Truth as revealed by the Word. The outward life of the person reflects the inward reality of being a Temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, I want freedom from religion and all its legalistic demands that I live and act as the Pharisees who would judge me demand. I would rather live my life out before my Lord and Savior and have Him guide me, and even reprimand me as necessary.

  15. I find this article quite interesting. Yet not in the way one would suppose. All this writer is proposing is the typical “relativism” of the mainstream narrative. “Can’t we just all get along and just hug each other.” (This I might add, was just proposed by that religious warrior, Kasich.) As he proceeds with his arguments, he undergirds the reality of human existence; i.e. that every human being will find something in this life to worship including agnostics and atheists. I am always reminded of the story of the Pacific island where some navy planes during the second WW were ditched and the pilots rescued. The natives had never seen these things before and from their standpoint these beings materialized from the sky. The island was visited after the war, and found the natives had enshrined the aircraft and they represented altars of worship.

    To his point about Islam. He seems to not understand that Islam is a totalitarian ideology posing as a religion. Another mistake is to assume the multitudinous sects in present day Christianity show the fallacy of that belief. True Gospel belief has all but been destroyed across all of western civilization. The Church hierarchy began tearing it apart a long time ago. Another significant error is to catalogue True Christianity as a religion. It represents absolute truth of this reality!

    • The author does not seem to get it that one of the reasons why the West came up with ideas like rights and limited government was Christianity.

      The “atheists” (actually, idolators of everything from historical necessity to “Mother Nature” to Self) and relativists wanted the influence of Christianity diluted as much as possible, and decided that lots of poor, proletarian Muslims open to the socialist message would be useful allies. They swooned over a two-bit hustler like Malcolm X, spoke glowingly of the “dignity” that Islam gives the poor and downtrodden, waxed romantic over the Algerian rebels (who, if you may have noticed, cleansed Algeria of a Jewish presence that predated the Arab one by centuries). They forgot the Basmachi movement in Central Asia, since it conflicted with their narrative of the noble savage and of a heroically anti-colonialist Soviet Big Proletarian Brother, and proceeded to import the hordes. Now they sit around bewildered at what just kicked them in their rears.

      The Tom Paine wannabes of today are the selfsame people who will scream bloody murder about voluntary Christian prayers by students in public schools, but don’t even wake up to the Islamic threat when they’ve been [ravaged] by a Muslim gang (as in the case of that foolish and perverse Norwegian politician who feels guilty because his assailant was deported). They’re the murderers of our civilization, folks, and the sooner we stop heeding them the better.

      Sure, I’m glad for a guy like Geert Wilders who “gets it” about Islam. But I think a lot of his moral underpinning comes from his Catholic upbringing and that of people who vote for him comes from their Calvinist upbringing. Unfortunately, though, people like Wilders leave us with little save the older pseudo-humanist (pseudo- in that it is anti-Christian) ethical instability and studied ignorance of history.

      Maybe we Christians went wrong not in insisting on the truth of what we believe, but when we stopping flogging Quakers out of town at the cart’s tail.

  16. (Maybe in a perfected age, maybe not) Christianity & Judaism (w/Confucianism) meet each other – and the world – upon the ground (under the jurisdiction) of the Natural Law. Which is not, even by the author’s definition, a religion.

    (The relation between Judaism & Christianity is a bit other, since there was a parting of the ways – at the juncture of Second Temple Judaism – without a complete severing.)

    Think the debate hinges on the difference – even with the inevitable overlapping – between *separation of church (synagogue, mosque, temple) and state” and “religion and culture”.

    The West, that is civilization (even Dutch civilization) is the by(end)product of the (at times awkward)marriage of the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin ones. The culture issued from that mating is our patrimony, and our future (if we still wish to have one). Civilization began when Abraham left Ur (his father’s land), when Aristotle stood on the Athenian portico and said *no* to his master Plato, and when Cesare Augustus (Octavian) looked upon the world and gave iot peace. History hence is the rejection of acceptance of this grounding/founding trinity.

    As David Goldman/Spengler tirelessly reminds us, China and Orthodox Judaism may be the West’s only (last?) acknowledges – and thus its saving. The two parcels of the “Land of War” which Islam will never take. Where limp-wrist Dutch & American cultures stand on this battle front O, frankly, do not know, but *free speech* as the absolutist standnard cannot be the only sword in the arsenal – that would raise the eyebrows of Abraham, Aristotle, and Cesar Augustus (Octavian).

    Find it difficult knowing our *religion* us utterly squeezed from that – even as I (mostly) agree with the author’s concern about church/state separation.


    1. The suggestion that America was, at one point, primarily atheistic (if I’ve read that correctly) needs chapter and verse. True, the period leading up to the Civil War was greatly taken up with sects, “messianic” troubadours and spiritualist movements (this was the period of the nativity of Mormanism, for instance). But this apparent waning of *mainline* religions does not add by to an atheistic majority.

    2. Absolutely true, Islam is a snake biting its own tail: a politics and a religion, a religion and a politics. It is – as we have known for 1400 years, plus – an historical accretion that must be defeated. To do so a muscular Christianity & Judaism is required, for Islam – bottom line – is a Christian (and to a degree a Jewish) heresy. It is not properly understood (or defeated) without factoring that in. In the end, Christianity must be a mother who slays her bastard offspring. Difficult to unfold, but Islam – in the end – will accept the thrust the parental sword but never that of absolutist atheism; for atheism, as with Satanism (of which I know too much), can never truly weld, let alone anvil, one.

    • Very well said Steve. Atheism in my opinion is as destructive to the world as Democrats thinking they can lead is destructive to the union of the united states. If you really want the earth freed from the tyranny of Islam
      then let us Christians go at them no holds barred. Lead or follow but if you’re just going to stand there get the hell out of the way.

  17. Mike, very well said.

    The only thing I would add is that mohammadism is not compatible with democracy, as we know it in the United States of America. That is just my humble opinion and I think the biggest danger is importing too many of them. As long as they are a minority they will behave, other than the random beheadings they seem so fond of doing. But if too many come in, they may have the power in numbers to start “transforming” us and then things will get really ugly. And we’ll have a big fight on our hands.

  18. This article gives a blueprint for the complete and total defeat of the Jihadist movement. Studied ignorance of Christ and the determination that such a man shall not rule over us is one reason why the West is now being pried open to Islam–a civilization and a religion that has produced nothing but slums surrounded by deserts. Those Italian school kids mentioned elsewhere who said they’d readily convert to Islam to save themselves are the end result of the deification of Cosmos, Historical Necessity, the Will, and all those other little idols that go under the name of “atheism”.

    Mr. Numan represents the kind of pseudo-sophistication which is killing our civilization.

    • Agreed. People vainly imagine a Republic will be saved apart from Christianity, when the entire Civilization from which she sprang grew up on that fertile soil of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian ideas. There is no West without Christ anymore than there is a West without Moses or Plato.

      Christopher Dawson’s fantastic historical works on this front leaves no other conclusion: No Christ, No Europe, No West, No America. Atheists can only happily exist in a culturally Christian environment. It may not be perfect, but it’s infinitely better than the alternative.

      Cultural Iconoclasm is what created the vacuum in Europe today that is resulting in its obliteration.

    • There is a difference between ignorance of Christ (or any religion), and being indoctrinated with belief before one is mature enough to form a judgement- it may be impossible to prevent this in the home, but it is absolutely not the business of the state.

      I’m reading Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”; in his future society, schools teach History and Moral Philosophy. This sounds just right.

      • I outgrew Heinlein to find Christ. Heinlein, after reading a bit of Nietzsche, thought he was rediscovering classical virtue. I am not sure there ever was such a thing (read Romans 1).

    • I don’t think you’re taking into account the saying of Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

      The 1st amendment to the bill of rights “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” was not contradictory to Christian teaching, as I understand it, but rather followed it rather closely.

      Do you want religion to be a personal matter, or do you wish it to be state-sponsored, state-enforced and state-controlled? To me, the last thing any self-respecting religion even vaguely close to Christianity would want, is state officials poking their noses into sacred teachings. This is what would happen were religious institutions to jettison their obligation to convince individuals, and instead depend on state enforcement of religious practices, dogma, and orthodoxy.

      Now, this emphatically does not apply to preventing Muslims from entering the United States. There is an argument to the contrary, but non-citizens do not have the right to Constitutional protection. Or, it is easy enough to give a question: do you support a government which is determined by elections and representation? Do you support the freedom of individuals to leave their religion?

      No Muslim can truthfully answer in the affirmative, since the canonical Islam is just the opposite. Adherence to a doctrine diametrically opposed to the principles of self-government is a sufficient reason for refusal of admission.

      I think a secular government, like a religious government, can overstep itself and create oppressive rules: like forcing Catholic institutions to fund abortion insurance, or Christian businesses to cater to gay celebrations. But, when such oppression happens, can we support the right of individuals to “follow their consciences” and ignore the law? I think that route is very dangerous, and leads directly to conceding the right of Muslims to follow their barbaric practices of female mutilation, honor killing and all the rest of Muslim atrocities we know so well.

      I have to conclude that an individual does not have the right to intercede the law for the sake of religious principle. I observe that had we maintained the homogeneous society we had before the immigration act of 1965, the question of religious exemptions might be settled sensibly on an individual basis by the legislators. But, that’s water under the bridge, and we are now faced with a divided and heterogeneous society where large segments of the population share almost no values.

      Note that I am not opposing a society with a religious or Christian identity, but the government enforcement of such an identity. Allowing the display of a cross on public land, by an official such as mayor, does not constitute the establishment of religion.

  19. Where this necessity for co-existence with hostile and irreconcilable lifestyles emerged from? Deport them all and save the phosphorous in your brains for real intellectual stuff.

  20. I don’t agree with the author’s pretense that religion is the problem, and in fact I would suggest that the author look at how much of what we see in law and social constructs in the west comes from our Judeo-Christian foundations. That is why we do not see much disagreement with practitioners of the above religions with our common law because they share a common source (with a few notable exceptions pushed on us by liberal multiculturalists). With islam we now have a totally different source for common law, one that is incompatible with our beliefs. I see the main function of western religion as building public trust in society, giving it’s practitioners a moral compass, and a reason d’ etre. Unlike John Lennon, I for one do not wish to imagine a society without religion, where the narcissistic nature of atheism rules. What you end up with is a de-evolution of society where there is no moral compass for it’s members, where everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what is not. This is what we see in so many of today’s urban centers where murder and drug dealing is only bad if you get caught. Religion does not necessarily make moral people, but it at least provides a framework where self justification of immoral behavior is not possible. You don’t have to believe in invisible sky fairies to make religion work for you, just make an acknowledgement that you exist to serve something greater than yourself. It gives your life purpose, meaning, and makes dealing with adversity easier. I cannot find fault with the seven virtues, nor find anything to admire in the seven deadly sins. I find all of the ten commandments admirable in my I interpretation of them. The author on the other hand is more than willing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Where exactly does that leave us, and what is his proof that the resulting society will be anything better than a Christian one? I don’t want to live in a theocracy any more than the author, but the cultural vacuum of humanist Europe has left it open to islam. The cultural nihilism of the left cannot possibly address this problem because it does not see itself as morally superior to islam. This is not a problem with Christianity, but with humanist thought.

    • “where the narcissistic nature of atheism rules…”

      Why is atheism narcissistic? An atheist, to be an atheist, simply does not believe in god. There is no doctrine specifically associated with atheism, although there are doctrines that are atheist. Specifically, generally, if you are a Marxist, you are an atheist, but…
      If you are an atheist, you are not necessarily a Marxist.

      Add to that the liberation Theologians, who have their Marxist cake and eat it too.

      My impression is that a Christian society must be founded on the freedom of conscience. Am I wrong? That includes the freedom to be atheist, although it does not include the freedom to be safe from discomfort. In other words, an atheist does not have legal recourse if made uncomfortable by the public display of religious symbols. That’s just tough for the atheist.

      But, pursuing the freedom of conscience emphatically does not mean the admission of people whose philosophy and theology is diametrically opposed to Western culture. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and of government also (read the Federalist papers), and not one additional Muslim should be admitted to the United States.

      • Atheism is “narcissistic”? Really? Any rational adult in a Western democracy is supposed to have the liberty to choose his beliefs, including the negation of religious faith as part of his choices. Many of America’s leaders have been agnostics who must pretend to a belief for the sake of public appearance. It’s a farce.

        One’s spiritual beliefs ought to be private. Even public prayer ought to be limited to specific spaces = for example, a huddle by a team on a basketball court before a game is trivializing faith. IMHO.

        I didn’t see the comment or I’d have said something.

  21. One thing I do agree with the author on is the concept that we do not accept all religions as being permissible and compatible with western thought and law. Witness what happened to David Koresh or the fundamental LDS sects if you actually believe we tolerate all religions. Why should islam be treated any different? The obvious answer lies in the number of practitioners as to whether something is permissible or not, and if we allow it in our midst. I find this hardly a valid means of religious determination.

  22. I disagree. Religion is here to stay whether you like it or not. In fact, a great many of our Western Civilization institutions were built with the help of The Church. It is our heritage.

    More importantly, nature abhors a vacuum. I believe that one of the reasons we are in this Islamic mess is due to our collective turning away from The Church over the past 40 years. Is it any coincidence that the European nations that are putting up the greatest resistance to the invaders also have a strong religious ethic?

    You may wish to have freedom from religion but today that is akin to putting your hands over your ears and refusing to partake in an argument you don’t like. It is unsustainable, and what’s more the evidence is right before your eyes.

  23. The view that all religions are bad and that we should remove them from the public area resembles the relativism that permeates our civilization today. When one relativizes something, say culture, ethnicity, gender, for example, one insists that none is better than the other, that they are all equally good. In the argument against religion, and Christianity in particular, the relativist asserts that they are all equally bad.

    Intertwined with the relativism, often we hear that it is best to adhere to the idea of separation of church and state. It is an ideal, if maintained, or so it goes, will prevent the church from using the power of government to do bad things or things that may be harmful or disagreeable to others. The problem does not lie with the church’s part of the symbiosis. The problem occurs in the other part of that relationship. It is the government. When any entity joins with the state, we get abuse of power. The problem with these relationships is that government has too much power. When government has a lot of power, there will be groups wanting to latch on because they accrue power to themselves from the government. If we have a minimal state that has a lot of impediments in its path to gain and dispense power, there will be no need to worry about separation of church and state, or gender equality and state, or racial equality and the state, for instance.

  24. There’s no way to have no religion. It’s impossible.

    Mark H says that it’s not the business of the state to indoctrinate people with religion, yet the state already teaches the religions of neo-Marxism and feminism.

    Tell me how you get freedom from religions like neo-Marxism and feminism and maybe I’ll buy into this whole “freedom from religion” thing.

    • That’s because the State is, in many current situations, not objective (if such a concept exists). Whether this is better or worse than the similarly biased teaching of major religions is something we may disagree about.

      • It sounds like you’re pointing out the futility of this. So it will always be a battle over which de facto “religious” philosophy is being taught in state schools, not a battle of whether to teach one. One way other the other stuff will start sneaking in anyway.

        • And should be resisted. Check out the UK’s National Secular Society, with particular reference to the bigotry and (assumed) supremacism of Scottish Protestants in setting schools’ agendas.

  25. “America is a bit of an exception in the western world. Today it’s the most religious western nation with the exception of Vatican City.”

    That depends on how you measure “religious”. I suspect that many modern Western people don’t live their lives day to day as though they were “religious”; but when a Pew poll-taker thrusts a figurative microphone under their mouths, zeroes in on them with a telephone survey, or probes them with a clipboard, and their back is figuratively against the wall, they will answer “Yes” to a slew of questions (“Do you believe in God?” / “Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?” / “Do you believe that prayer has effect?” / “Do you attend church on a regular basis?” (“Yes” (thinking: 3 times a year on Easter, Christmas and the odd wedding is “regular” enough…))… etc.).

    The parents of one of my best friends were fine, upstanding Americans from Montana (lived in Idaho, then Washington state), Lutherans who attended church more than 3 times a year (but not necessarily every Sunday). If a poll-taker asked them questions such as the above, they would feel it necessary to say “Yes” — for what would it mean to say “No”, for Heaven’s sake…? But according to my friend, they hardly ever talked about religion or Christianity or the Gospel or Jesus or God — and amusingly enough, though he’s now a functional atheist, he went through a phase in his senior year of high school as a born-again Christian, and he recounts how frustrated he was that his parents never wanted to talk about the Gospel!!! The mother would rather talk about cooking and what the neighbors were doing; the father was an avid bicyclist and loved to talk about exceedingly secular pop culture stuff. I visited their home a few times; no religious paraphernalia anywhere, no religious art, not even a family Bible.

    I wager that millions of Americans and Westerners fit into this mold, whereby a survey would detect their ostensible “religiosity” while leaving wholly undetected how profoundly secularized they are, reflecting a vast sea change, an evolution into a new cultural species throughout the West, out of Christendom into this “post-Christian” Age…

  26. What you’re proposing here is a state-enforced religion of secularism. Surely you realise that?

    • Secularity (a better word than secularism) is not a belief but an arena, like democracy. Democracy and the constitutional safeguards it requires do cramp the style of dominionists, whether Christian or Mahometan, just as they cramp the style of communists and fascists.

      Surely you realise that?

      • Exactly what the 1st amendment, ( 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.) says you cannot do, for your ARENA is your religion. My free speech is secured to defy your
        push to quell my right to tell you that your non religion is a religion.

        This Constitution sits upon the foundation of the Declaration which stated to the WORLD that all men get their rights from their creator (God), that is the glue of the Constitution as well as society itself, for no man has the right to own another or rule another without consent.
        An arena without God allowed in the discussion will be a prison
        for the Christian. Then again maybe it’s an attempt to keep Christian reason from showing it’s dominion of the debate.

      • Secularity is an arena rather than a faith only if you play by its rules which make relativism an absolute. Communism and Fascism got their openings from “Science routing obscurantism” of which early 20th century writers crowed–then Secularity showed its utter moral irresponsibility by declaring that Europe suddenly turned pious again in time to hold the Shoah.

        Now it dares to say that Christianity has disarmed us for the conflict with “Islamic fundamentalism”. My guess is that the Secularist wants the Christian fundamentalist family to sacrifice its sons in a typically Secularist no-win war with Islam.

        I am old enough to remember the Iranian Revolution, the invention of the “Islamic fundamentalism” meme which smacked of the idolators of science and the state insinuating that a secret tunnel linked the Christian colleges of America to the madrassas of Qom, Iran, and that somewhere beneath Darkest Africa the faculties and favored students met every year to dine on live-stewed liberated lesbians while the shade of Meir Kahane intoned a Brokhes. Yes, the Secularist mind is just as capable of coming up with idiotically paranoid insinuations as the worst pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic of the Joseph McCarthy type.

        Guess what, Secularist?

        [insults and invective redacted]

        No, being allowed to walk at the end of your secularist leash is not freedom; just as being made to pay jizya and acquiesce in my son’s being taken for devsirme or my granddaughter abducted for the Pasha’s harem isn’t freedom.


        • To be truthful, Kepha, I don’t understand your point.

          Are you saying that the government should enforce religious, specifically Christian, belief and practice?

          Perhaps you’re objecting to the non-religious (secularist) nature of government which, to your view, will use believing Christians as cannon fodder?

          To the claim that society is not sufficiently religious, I point to the example of Pope Francis, the Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the Reform Jewish sect, all of whom support almost unlimited immigration of Muslims.

    • Yes exactly. And then there’s the question of what counts as secularism. For example, can I teach anything I want as “secularism” as long as there’s nothing about deities or anything supernatural involved? Can I make up any philosophy I want and that’s “secularism” because “it’s a philosophy not a religion”?

      Perhaps someone could even take Christianity, strip out everything about God, Jesus, miracles, anything else easily identifiable, call the result “a philosophy” and then teach that as secularism. I mean maybe the Ten Commandments could become the Six Philosophical Statements or something. (Not that I’m advocating this, it’s just an example.)

      Or maybe take sharia manual umdat as siddiq, strip out all references to Allah, Mohammad, etc, and teach that as secularism.

  27. The author’s view is very shortsighted. Forgive me, but what is causing all this uproar itself is not a privilege of religions; thing they had one day, then have lost long ago. The only places where the “church” still sucks part of the state are the places where the monarchical model has taken root more deeply, such as Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Still, this is not the cause of the problems with Islam, taking into account the facts that the cultural deterioration is also a factor in the rise not only of Islam but of socialism, which is the pillar of Islam support.

    The author completely ignores this aspect. The separation of church and state is good for growing many services out there, but the State magnify a single faith. However, in Marxism does not work like this: they will put what more benefits from them, that is, Islam is as an ally for their goals, even if there is a clear separation of church and state, it does not work with Islamic schools. Take for example the Netherlands, where the Christian church does not exist in public life, and it’s a joke! Dutch Christianity is a demonic satire than is Christianity, and the country is considered the most liberal and secular of all, yet the government promotes Islam and appeases Muslims.

    So I think the author’s arguments to more rigorous separation of church and state is [material that I deprecate]. If you want to win Islam must win the first Socialism, because even if separate state church, the cultural destruction through Marxism is what caused this infection politically correct. The author gives numerous samples that do not know this aspect.
    Today Christianity is practically criminalized in public life, and it was the only way in which Europe could confront both Socialism, as Islam, used as a spearhead in the imagination of progressive politicians.

    Finally, the author does not provide a workable solution. His solution besides not solve the problem would make it even worse for not recognizing the main dissemination channel and promotion of Islam.

  28. The author wants to fight fire with kerosene. Secularism large dosages was what amounted Marxist parties. Honestly the author has no idea what to do. Terrible! Who wants to fight Islam and Socialism with secularism can only be mad.

  29. The author is [less than optimal in my opinion]. In his last speech he said: “The trend now is for freedom of religion above the freedom of expression, and this is very dangerous and wrong.”. So the freedom to live their faith in public life is wrong and dangerous? The author pathetically gives the protection of freedom of expression – that if he does not know – also rests on freedom of religion; or the author does not know what to believe in something and profess to believe in public consigns freedom of expression? The author gives freedom of expression to the state. Sincerely! If this is the brainchild of Dutch Pegida and it is spread, so now I know why the Netherlands is a decadent country morally.

    Unfortunate! Incongruities from start to finish.

  30. I will to reread this later and see where my brain goes with it but I glanced it and I agree. I was a born again Christian for years and went to Calvary Chapel in Spokane for a long time. Born againism could never fully answer all my questions and if I asked I was often treated like who am I to question God????? I slowly turned agnostic/ universalist or in short I don’t give a rip about organized religion but I hold onto the liberty to believe in a not to believe in whatever you want as long as it does not hurt others, children or animals. Our constitution gives us this promise to believe or not to believe.

    • You’ve delineated the problem of the born-again version of Christianity quite well. Had there been someone in that organization with enough training in theology and catechesis, then your questions could have been met with a reasonable response. The ‘enthusiams’ (see the etymology for that word, here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=enthusiasm) of a born-again experience are necessary for an experience of metanoia, but it is not sufficient at all for the questions which surely arise.

      A good place to start, one that many have used, is C.S. Lewis. Here’s his still best-seller:

      Mere Christianity

      This one is most entertaining, also a best-seller. They both have been “bests” for decades, and for good reason.

      The Screwtape Letters

      Here’s his wiki…I’d forgotten he started out Irish. Should’ve known, given his gift for writing.


      In that wiki he talks about his “Irish Life” and the culture shock of encountering the English (he was Anglo-Irish) on their home turf:

      Lewis experienced a certain cultural shock on first arriving in England: “No Englishman will be able to understand my first impressions of England”, Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy. “The strange English accents with which I was surrounded seemed like the voices of demons. But what was worst was the English landscape … I have made up the quarrel since; but at that moment I conceived a hatred for England which took many years to heal.”[8]

      From boyhood, Lewis immersed himself in Norse and Greek mythology, and later in Irish mythology and literature. He also expressed an interest in the Irish language,[9][10] though there is not much evidence that he laboured to learn it. He developed a particular fondness for W. B. Yeats, in part because of Yeats’s use of Ireland’s Celtic heritage in poetry. In a letter to a friend, Lewis wrote, “I have here discovered an author exactly after my own heart, whom I am sure you would delight in, W. B. Yeats. He writes plays and poems of rare spirit and beauty about our old Irish mythology”.[11]

      In 1921, Lewis met Yeats twice, since Yeats had moved to Oxford.[12] Lewis was surprised to find his English peers indifferent to Yeats and the Celtic Revival movement, and wrote: “I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish.”[13][14][15] Early in his career, Lewis considered sending his work to the major Dublin publishers, writing: “If I do ever send my stuff to a publisher, I think I shall try Maunsel, those Dublin people, and so tack myself definitely onto the Irish school.”[11] After his conversion to Christianity, his interests gravitated towards Christian theology and away from pagan Celtic mysticism.[16]

      Lewis occasionally expressed a somewhat tongue-in-cheek chauvinism toward the English. Describing an encounter with a fellow Irishman, he wrote: “Like all Irish people who meet in England, we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dullness of the Anglo-Saxon race. After all, there is no doubt, ami, that the Irish are the only people: with all their faults, I would not gladly live or die among another folk”.[17] Throughout his life, he sought out the company of other Irish people living in England[18] and visited Northern Ireland regularly, even spending his honeymoon there in 1958 at the Old Inn, Crawfordsburn.[19] He called this “my Irish life”.[20]

      The wiki seems fair, which is often not true of wikipedia’d Christians. But C.S. Lewis has so far surpassed the rest of us (his books entered the public domain in 2014 and publishers have been bizzy, bizzy – if you have Kindle you may be able to read his books for free now) that the wikipedia editors gave him his due – he was indeed a man of rare integrity and grace.

      C.S. Lewis is the epitome of the modern Christian. While he’s required reading for any Christian, atheists, too, would be well-advised to read him since he’ll adequately prepare them to make an intellectually honest contra case.

      • He was also a friend and colleague of Tolkien’s, which may account for the similarities in their novels’ mythical inspirations. Don’t think either of them met Wagner, though.

  31. This is nothing more than the typical “atheist’s” equivocal view of the solution. As long as the tip of the sword is on “religion”, not “Islam”, we are going to lose.

Comments are closed.