Londres flambe, Londres flambe,
Quelle affaire, quelle affaire,
Au feu ! Au feu !
Pas d’eau, rien à faire.
French children’s song
First, there were the riots in France. Then the riots spread to other countries, Spain, Greece, and now the Britain. As I sit and watch the various news reports I am amazed to see to what degree they are all missing the point and misreading the nature of what is going on.
As some of you might now, when I was still living in Europe I was a military analyst doing strategic intelligence analysis for a European country. Among other things, I had access to a lot of the brainstorming about potential social unrest which might happen not only in my country, but also in the rest of Europe (we were primarily interested in that because of potential refugee movements). I can tell you that all of what is going on today has long been foreseen by the security services. The problem, the dilemma, really, is that there is nothing which they could really do about it. Let me explain.
There are several, distinct, factors which are acting together in a positive feedback loop help to create this “perfect storm” of social unrest. And even though the media did correctly identify many of them, it failed to understand their nature. Let’s take them one by one.
Immigration:
Yes, absolutely, beyond any shade of a doubt, immigration plays a role in these riots. But its not a simple, straightforward “there are too many immigrants” kind of thing. First, there are many different types of immigrations, not just one immigration. It is one thing to have a large percentage of Italian or Portuguese immigrants in your neighborhood, and a totally different one when the immigrant are Albanians or Pakistani. I will not go into a long discussion of why Albanian immigrants are so different from, say, Moroccans or Senegalese immigrants, suffice to say here that anybody who has had any experience in the security forces will tell you, off the record, of course, that the worst immigrants to deal with are first generation Albanians (2nd generation are just fine) and second generation Algerians (1st generation are just fine). Weird, but true, and largely off-topic for this article.
Second, it is important to stress here that even in the worst types of immigrants, its only a rather small minority, say 10%, which causes all the troubles. The vast majority only want a peaceful and decent life. The problem here is simple: how do you deal with the former without alienating the latter (nevermind grievously violating the civil and human right!)
Third, some immigrants have kept close ties to their country of origin and in some cases that can make them ideal agents for all sorts of illegal activities (funding through narcotics trade is a big favorite here). In the past, Kurdish immigrants used to be deeply infiltrated by the PKK, more recently we saw the Albanian immigrants providing a powerful lobby and source of support for the KLA.
The main problem with immigrants is that there is no government branch which can adequately deal with them. Think about it. Security services cannot simply single out or target a group solely based upon its ethnicity or religion. Not only would that be wrong, it would also be illegal, and eventually counter-productive. Keep in mind that many, if not most, immigrants are have a legal status, and often even citizenship. They are entitled to being protected by the security services, not harassed or otherwise singled out. Besides, most security services are too small, and they are really trained to deal with gangsters, terrorists and spies, not 10-20% of any one country’s population. The police is no better. First, let’s be frank here, they are rarely the smartest folks around, and they have to deal mostly with much more mundane issues such as common crime or traffic. In these times of economic crisis, the cops are also pretty much maxed out – they don’t have the resources to allocate to such a big and complex phenomenon as immigration-linked problems. The military? Sure, its big, but it simply does not have the mandate to deal with internal threats, in particular not threat coming from its own legal residents and citizens.
So while the cops and even the military can make all sorts of shows of force, they are really useless. And they know that. Let me just give you one example.
Say that in our country Albanian immigrants control 90% of the hard drugs market. They have no problems shooting cops or any competitors. They make huge money and the put at risk entire neighborhoods. What do you do about it?
You can’t just arrest all Albanians. You need to find the bad ones. How? Well, monitor them, infiltrate them, at arrest all the bad guys in one big operation. Sounds good, no? Except. Except that what judge is going to allow you to tap somebody’s phone just because he is an Albanian and owns a bar? And where are you going to find enough language specialists capable of translating and transcribing Albanian? And how do you propose to infiltrate Albanian gangs when their social structure is quasi tribal and everybody knows everybody?
As for the European xenophobes daydreaming about some “Christian West” and about how they would “expel all these foreigners”, they are simply out of touch with reality. Their theories are utter nonsense. These folks make good speeches about how they would solve the problem if they were in power, without even realizing that the state simply does not have a tool which could be used to implement their empty promises. Finally, the xenophobes will not be voted into power simply most Europeans are educated enough to realize that immigration is simply a function of disparity and that if the West exploits and and terrorizes the rest of the planet, immigrants will always try to flee to a safer, better place.
The economic crisis:
Of course it plays are role here. Somebody with a psychologically and financially rewarding job is highly unlikely to spend his free time going on a rampage or looting. I am not saying that poverty is the cause of these riots, there are few really poor and destitute people in Europe and they don’t riot at all. It’s the pointlessness of being unemployed or having a disgusting job which makes people angry enough to go out and fight the visible instruments of the “order”: the cops. So these riots are not hunger riots, they are hate riots, and that is very different.
The so-called “victory” of the West in the Cold War has resulted in a wave of unrestrained turbo-capitalism run amok and we now see the inevitable conclusion of the previously exported exploitation (in the form of imperialism – thanks Lenin, you were right here!) coming back home and doing what Marx had long predicted: a nasty class war.
As an aside, allow me this little digression here. I was one in the hall of a UN conference where the representatives of the West were congratulating each other on “winning the Cold War”. And then, the Representative of Pakistan took the floor and with his unique Paki accent said: “has anybody here ever considered that the West did not win the Cold War, but that the internal contradictions of Communism did catch up with the Communist system before the internal contradictions of Capitalism will catch up with Capitalist nations?“. His statement was greeted in total silence, and then rapidly forgotten, of course. But he was right, this is exactly what we are seeing today. Class warfare not so much between the haves and have-nots, as between the rulers and their alienated subjects.
Political factors:
Let’s put it bluntly. Europe is a US colony. Just as in the Middle-East or Latin America, the US Empire relies on a class of collaborators which is rewards with wealth and power for its subservience to the US Empire. Everybody knows that Europeans did not want to go to war in Iraq of Afghanistan. Everybody knows that Europeans did not want to start a war in Libya. Heck, most Europeans did not even want the kind of EU which the elites did impose upon them. The vast majority of Europeans are opposed to the IMF/WB “austerity measures” and the vast majority of Europeans know that the international bankers have screwed one European country after another. Everybody also knows that there is no real “Left” in Europe (Tony Blair or Cohn-Bendit are not more leftists than a tiger is a vegetarian) and that the only non-co-opted political parties don’ stand a chance in any real election. And here is where the immigration factor also comes into place.
Most immigrants know all to well what role the West has played into turning their countries of origin into such a hell-hole that they had to emigrate to the very same West not because they love or admire it, but in spite of the fact that they hate it.
Another digression, if I may. I often hear Americans saying that “if our society is so bad why do people from all over the world emigrate to the USA”. Guys, let me break you the bad news: these immigrants *hate* you and *hate* your society. And this is why they are so willing to rob you, whether at gunpoint or otherwise: they are robbing the robber. I personally live in Florida and I am fluent in Spanish and I can assure you that most Hispanics *despise* the Anglos and will say so quite openly to any Spanish speaker. I have heard that many times. First, I approach some Hispanic and ask him – in English – for something and he basically tells me to get lost. I switch into Spanish. The guy immediately makes a 180 and not only helps me, but goes out of his way to accommodate me. Once I was even told that “we need to help each other against these assholes” (meaning the Anglos). Its exactly the same in Europe, I have seen that many times there too. And, please, don’t simply get offended at that – if you are European or Anglo-American – but understand this is only a case of karma, of chicken coming to roost, of “he who sows the winds, reaps the tempest” as the French expression goes.
So the combination of thoroughly alienated European youths with angry and resentful immigrants makes for an explosive mix. I would even say that many European youths who oppose the imperialist and capitalist systems identify themselves far more with the brown-skinned immigrants and their hatred of the “system” than with their parents, teachers or politicians.
Of course, not all immigrants hate their host-country. But enough do. That is the point.
Secularism/atheism/agnosticism:
Now a lot of you will get really mad at mine. Fine. I will tell you what I know and what I think, and you can shoot or dismiss the messenger. I don’t care, really.
The sentence “If God does not exist, everything is permitted” (often attributed to Dostoevsky) might anger secularists/atheists/agnostics (further called “SAAs”) but, guys, its indisputable. The very concepts of “right” and “wrong” have absolutely no basis in logic, even if most SAAs don’t realize it, or choose not to act on it. But that is more of a philosophical point and, thus, off-topic again. More relevant to my topic is this: religious communities are never involved in the type of riots and civil disturbances we see in Europe. I lived right next to a mosque and I can tell you that when most “proper and law abiding citizens” were informed that a large mosque would be built in our neighborhood they were horrified. They thought that this would result in an influx of rapists, muggers or even terrorists. Within one year of the opening of the mosque the “proper and law abiding citizens” realized that the kind of immigrants who show up for prayers at the mosque were far more “proper and law abiding” then the locals! This is also why a vice-cop once told me in Toulon “we never have any problems with first-generation Algerian emigrants, they are all Muslims and have a traditional education; it’s the second generation Algerians (who often become SAAs) which are the cause of all our problems“.
And no, I am not dismissing religious riots in India or Egypt, and no, I am not saying that Muslims or Christians are “better” than SAAs. In fact I will even admit that a ‘negative’ religion like the atheistic Communism or the pagan National-Socialism can yield an ethos, if not quite a real morality. But Europe is a post-Christian society in which the very concepts or right and wrong have been ridiculed beyond any hope of redemption and in which the majority of the ignorant, alienated and angered youth believes in absolutely nothing.
Consider this: there is an entire generation (several, I would argue) that has been raised in a society in which lies and hypocrisy are the norm, in which violence, in particular, but not only, against dark-skinned people is an integral part of the social order, in which the rich get richer, the poor poorer and in which democracy is an empty word meaning little more than submission to authority. How could anybody seriously expect that kind of generation not to explode, sooner or later?
Not only do most European youth believe that Christianity, Islam and all other religions are a lie, they also believe that Socialism, Communism, Democracy or free-market Capitalism and globalization are also lies. And, frankly, they are right: the kinds if Christianity, Islam, Communism, Democracy, free-market Capitalism or globalization which they have been exposed to are, really, all lies.
And this is why to simply call them “thugs” and “criminals” not false, but also not quite correct. Yes, their actions are criminal, and their excuses about “racism” and “poverty” are just that – excuses, cop-outs. But on a deeper level, what these riots show are the signs of the agony of a system built on one and only “value”: greed. Because this is what capitalism, the putative victor of the Cold War, truly is. It is an ideology whose fundamental dogma is that the ideal society is the product of the sums of everybody’s greeds. As a direct by-product of this is the truism that “growth is always and by definition, good” (the mere fact that infinite grow in a finite environment is exactly the reason why tumors kill their hosts is simply not considered).
So this is what, I believe, these riots are really about: a comprehensive failure of the Capitalist system. An economic failure of course, but also a political and moral failure. Capitalism is a fundamentally anti-human system which cannot be sustained without killing its host. The riots in Europe are only one – amongst many other – symptom of the fact.
The Saker
Saker, I couldn’t agree more with you. And to illustrate the hypocrisy of the West, I’ve read that David Cameron is considering restricting the “social networks” because the rioters are using them:
http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/reino-unido-poder%C3%A1-restringir-redes-sociais-durante-protestos.html
(in Portuguese).
Now that is something interesting: Twitter and Facebook were recently praised for their role in the “democratic protests” in Iran, Lybia, Egypt, Syria. But when the same happens in the West, the situation changes… Putin is completely right when he says (now less often then when he was president) about Western double standarts.
spot on.
i point the finger at thatcher, who eagerly destroyed britain’s social fabric. remember her notorious “there is no such thing as society” quote? well, she succeeded in spades and the current political toads heading up all 3 UK political parties are her offspring. the prospects for britain now are very dim. how sad. i remember the wonderful britain of 1973-75 when i studied at cambridge. i can’t go back after thatcher.
here’s my treatment of thatcher from my book p105:
…With his domestic supply-side economics and rejection of the social role of government, Reagan emulated Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain (1979–90), who dismantled much of the post-war welfare state. This quasi-socialism was the price the British ruling class had paid for its enforced alliance with communism against the German enemy, and for the need to rebuild its economy after the war, which required a pact between labor and industry mediated by the state. Thatcher was following the philosophy of neoliberalism, where in theory the state should be radically reduced in power, allowing the market to regulate all of economic life, transforming society into a market-based collection of individuals (who now include corporations)… this required the state once again to enforce compliance with the market, just as it had in the 18th–19th cc, only this time to dismantle social welfare provisions built up during the twentieth century. The pretense is of a return to a previous order when the state was weaker, but the reality is the emergence of a Hobbesian state, as powerful as ever, and using force to maintain order in the absence of the cohesive role of social welfare.17
17 endnote: The result was far from what Thatcher expected. Her ideal was a return to
Victorian liberal values but instead of the Victorian virtues of stability and thrift, the result was a largely proletarian society, characterized by shiftlessness (“flexible labor market”), low inflation and high personal debt, where the state now promotes only the interests of the corporate individuals, and suppresses truly “liberal” social forces defending people, like unions. It is better called market totalitarianism. Her insistence that “there is no such thing as society” culminating in the notorious poll tax tore asunder the social fabric. “As Marx perceived, the actual effect of the unfettered market is to overturn established social relationships and forms of ethical life—including those of bourgeois societies.” Gray, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, 19
I admit: the UK riots have made me gloat. Surely I am not the only one.
This is after all the country that has been the unrivaled champion when it comes to mutilating and corrupting other societies, abasing them, creating strife in their midst, goading them into madness — and all the while posing as the benevolent voice of reason. Yes I gloat. As for the godlessness of it all: everything has always been allowed, long before God “died”, allowed precisely in the name of “God”. Tuez les tous, Dieux reconnaitra les siens! Hence Robespierre: “Les curés sont à la morale ce que les charlatans sont à la medicine”.
go to truthout. new 9/11 discoveries.
Now that is a very good quote, Guthman – it comes from the very same man who, in name of progress, reason and freedom, was the modern founder of Terror as a political regime.
Very true about first and subsequent generation immigrants. You can see this most clearly with Iranian immigrants who were mainly professional or bazarri, their off springs now are very rebellious, anti social and with huge negative attitude towards Islam and the IRI
@Carlo: it comes from the very same man who, in name of progress, reason and freedom, was the modern founder of Terror
Now let’s not let such trivia stand in the way of some good old fashioned anti-clericalism :-)
I find what you’ve just said distressing to say the least Guthman. I am British and am grief striken to the very heart’s core for the fine civilised country that Mrs Thatcher, Milton Friedman and Freidrich Von Hayek did so much to destroy.
But I take your point. The nexus between the City of London and the British Crown Dependent terrorities has played a vital role in allowing the world’s plutocratic scum not only to evade their taxes but also to fund off balance sheet every fascist and terrorist scum the whole world over.
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted”
Everything is permitted whether God exists or not. It’s not like He’s intervening to stop it.
A more realistic statement would be that everything is justifiable in the name of God. There is no crime or abomination that hasn’t been justified in the Bible or in the real world by God’s self-appointed representatives.
“Good men do good things, bad men do evil things. But only religion can make good men do evil things.” Don’t know who said, but it’s gospel truth.
It is a tired and mendacious canard of the faithful that no one can have morality without their particular brand of religion, the rest all being false and destructive.
I would like to know, once and for all, what this one true faith is. No crap about the “Christianity of the apostles” or vague nonsense like that. Give me the name of the sect, and explain to me how this sect is in any more moral than the rest. Name a “true” Christian for me.
I’ve always imagined the kind of Christians who assume atheists have no morals are the kind of people who would be unable to restrain themselves from committing every crime in the book were it not for the threat of eternal punishment.
Because they lack the genuine and authentic morality of the atheist, whose morality is grounded in compassion and respect for his fellow humans rather than fear of divine retribution, they imagine no one else could be moral without a punishing tyrant leaning over their shoulder and judging their every thought and deed.
Somehow, the rest of us manage to control our impulses just fine without Jesus Christ the Cop. It would be nice if you Christians could get off your high horses and acknowledge the obvious some time and stop blaming us for every bad thing that happens in society.
@Sean: Everything is permitted whether God exists or not. It’s not like He’s intervening to stop it.
That is a kindergarten-level representation of God: somebody who either prevents bad stuff or retaliates for bad deeds. The former sees God as a cop on the beat, and the latter as a judge handing out sentences. This kind of anthropomorphic nonsense is only an expression of your very limited understanding of what religions actually teach, I am sorry to say.
A more realistic statement would be that everything is justifiable in the name of God.
That is quite true. Of course, anything can be justifiable in the name of anything, so this is hardly a useful insight.
There is no crime or abomination that hasn’t been justified in the Bible or in the real world by God’s self-appointed representatives.
Again, you are confusing God, religion, religious texts, religious leaders and religious people. Conflating it all into one “bad thing” is not very helpful towards making a case for any idea.
“Good men do good things, bad men do evil things. But only religion can make good men do evil things.” Don’t know who said, but it’s gospel truth.
As any sweeping and non-substantiated statement, it makes for a good slogan and empty argument.
It is a tired and mendacious canard of the faithful that no one can have morality without their particular brand of religion, the rest all being false and destructive.
And which religion says that (outside kindergartens, of course)? Please give a specific example?
I’ve always imagined the kind of Christians who assume atheists have no morals are the kind of people who would be unable to restrain themselves from committing every crime in the book were it not for the threat of eternal punishment.
May I suggest you stop “imagining” and start *investigating*?
I would like to know, once and for all, what this one true faith is
Excellent! The first step for that is to inform yourself about the basics of the religions you want to compare and contrast. See what they say to *adults*. Don’t just stop at the slogans that some religious dimwits and Bible-thumpers spew out on dedicated TV channels, but actually take a look not only at the fundamental texts, but also at their interpretation by authoritative commentators who actually know what they are talking about (-: and I don’t mean Bertrand Russel or Richard Dawkins :-)
Or, as they say on computer forums, RTFM before posting :-)
Cheers!
In fact, regarding religion and morality, I both agree with Saker and Sean. First, morality needs no religious foundation: it is pretty obvious that I shall not make things to other people that I don’t want them to make to me. There are many ways to fundament morality just in rational terms. I consider Utilitarianism, specially its contemparary versions like that from Peter Singer, a very successful rational ethical system.
But, as Dostoyevski and Saker say, true religion is needed. No matter how rationally convinced we are about the truth of the Golden Rule, we are always tempted and dragged by many of innate tendencies toward satisfaction of our passions and desires that contradict it: the luxurious can’t refrain from seducing and abandoning women, the ambitious can’t help but seek dominating and having power over others, the greedy needs to have lots of money no matter how, and so on. Then begins this strange and typically human characteristic of trying to find “rational”, “moral” justifications for those acts, so that it seems that these actions not only don’t violate the Golden Rule, but rather affirm it.
A truly and fully religious person is someone who has a direct experience of the ultimate and eternal basis of all existence, call it whatever you want: God, Allah, Sunyata, Brahman. Christianity is a true religion, but not the only one. And a person who has this experience is the only one who is able to resist all these temptations, because this person was able to transcend its personal, egoistical self, and live directly the all-embracing reality that is, after all, Love and Compassion. This is vastly more powerful than rational or moral arguments, and impossible to twist.
Though only very few people achieve this kind of experience, their influence is nonetheless big and powerful, and usually have a strong effect over those who didn’t have it, and are indispensable for the moral health of entire societies. That is why one great Christian saint, Serafim Sarovski, said “Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved.”. But unfortunately, in modern Western society, their number has greatly dwindled.
Of course, I think it is pretty obvious that many people who claim to be Christian or religious are not in the sense exposed here: not only they didn’t have any direct experience of God, but are completely shut to it.
@Sean: actually, remembered that CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”, while imperfect, is still a useful short and well written text about what “Christianity 101”. I highly recommend you read it, it is short, well written. You can read it here:
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt
For all its limitations, and there are quite a few, it will at least give you a basis from which to evaluate some, but not all, of the basic tenets of Christianity.
HTH,
The Saker
That is a kindergarten-level representation of God: somebody who either prevents bad stuff or retaliates for bad deeds.
This is a kindergarten-level denial of the obvious. Even the great church fathers you extol struggled for centuries with the “problem of evil,” or the question of why a supposedly benevolent God would allow humans to suffer evil. I’m hardly the first person to notice.
The symbol of your religion is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan with long hair and a beard born of a virgin and nailed to a cross. Don’t accuse me of anthropomorphisizing God.
What the Bible says about rewards and punishments is clear enough. Need a list?
Of course, anything can be justifiable in the name of anything, so this is hardly a useful insight.
I think you’d have a tough time organizing mass murder on behalf of Barney the Dinosaur, or Monday Night Football.
Again, you are confusing God, religion, religious texts, religious leaders and religious people.
Even a kindergartener can discern the correlation between religion, religious texts, religious leaders and religious people. Only Christians confuse any of this with God.
And which religion says that (outside kindergartens, of course)? Please give a specific example?
It’s called Christianity. Christians say this all the time. You’ve all but said it yourself up above.
Psalm 14: 1
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”
Saker:
“I am not saying that Muslims or Christians are “better” than SAAs. In fact I will even admit that a ‘negative’ religion like the atheistic Communism or the pagan National-Socialism can yield an ethos, if not quite a real morality. But Europe is a post-Christian society in which the very concepts or right and wrong have been ridiculed beyond any hope of redemption…”
First, you make the usual false equivalence between secularists and communism and Nazism, grudgingly admitting we can have an “ethos” but not true morality. It certainly looks like you are saying Christian belief is necessary for a society to discern right from wrong, which of course is hogwash. I take it the ability to discern right from wrong was more pronounced in the Dark Ages, when Europe’s Christian status was less in doubt.
May I suggest you stop “imagining” and start *investigating*?
Might I suggest you do the same? You might begin by investigating the process by which non-religious people who have never been exposed to your particular faith come to form moral ideas, and how there is no absolute consensus among anyone, not even the ultra-religious, on what constitutes “right and wrong.”
Excellent! The first step for that is to inform yourself about the basics of the religions you want to compare and contrast.
I find it interesting that Christians always make this assumption: that if you reject religion, you have never been exposed to or examined religious ideas and philosophy. It is not only arrogant, but reveals a stunning ignorance of the agonizing and protracted struggle through which most atheists come to reject the faith they were indoctrinated in as children. Every believer struggles with faith. Even the saints struggled with their faith. But Christians imagine atheists all just woke up one morning, read something by Dawkins, and concluded that God is dead.
I guarantee you that the average atheist has spent more time examining his own beliefs and comparing religions than most Christians you know. What is more, they have exmained various faiths with a critical eye, and not with the agenda of reinforcing their prejudices. None of us start out with the goal of disproving God, but of understanding the nature of reality.
I suggest you that you stop reading Christian apologists and their endless strawman, ad-hominem arguments about secularists and start critically examining what secualrists themselves say. I have never read any of Dawkins’ books and I doubt you have either, but that doesn’t stop you from making the assumption that he is the source of my non-belief, even though atheism predates Dawkins by millenia.
But this wasn’t my question. My question was very simple: name the religious sect that represents true Christianity. Since you claim there is such a thing as “bad” Christianity than either you believe that all Christianity is bad or that some Christianity is good. So name the good. Point me where I need to go. This isn’t a trick question. Should be easy for any man who isn’t ashamed of his faith or trying to be disingenuous to answer.
@Sean: actually, remembered that CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”, while imperfect, is still a useful short and well written text about what “Christianity 101”
I have read “Mere Christianity.” Every Christian apologist recommends this book and I am surprised at just how weak and facile most of the arguments he makes are. They may seem very compelling to someone who already accepts as a given that the Christian God exists, but for those who do not, it comes across as “mere assertion.”
Here’s an exercise: substitute the word “Quetzalcoatl” everywhere Lewis uses “God” and “Quatzalcoatism” where he mentions Christianity. It’s doubtful you will find his arguments convincing for the existence of Quetzalcoatl, because you don’t believe he exists. But if his arguments are compelling for the existence of the Christian God, they should be equally compelling for any other god. Otherwise, his logic is flawed. But if they are equally compelling, how does this prove the existence of God?
Lewis assumes as a given premise that God exists, and bases his arguments accordingly. The non-beleiever is no more likely to accept this premise than you are the existence of Quetzalcoatl.
But even if we assume the existence of God for the sake of debate, his arguments are still pretty weak and easily rebutted. His arguments for a concrete, objective morality that can only come from God ignore just how complex and difficult many moral dilemmas really are, and demonstrate an infantile understanding of human nature and human interaction.
@Sean: as I said, begin with CS Lewis and when you are done and you want an intelligent discussion, I will gladly have one. But at this stage, you need to RTFM fist.
Since you claim there is such a thing as “bad” Christianity than either you believe that all Christianity is bad or that some Christianity is good. So name the good. Point me where I need to go
Sure. The “good” Christianity is the one “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the (Church) Fathers”. Today it is quasi extinct, but it still exist in some, but not all, “Old Calendar” or “Traditional” Orthodox Churches (forget about the “mainstream” or “official” ones). The bulk of the so-called Christianity has, sadly, very little in common with the faith which “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers” (FYI – that is a quote of Saint Athanasius). A halfway decent introduction to Orthodoxy in general can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/. Any halfway decent introduction to Traditional Orthodoxy requieres the reading of at least some of the basic Church Fathers – Saint John Chrysostomos, Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Teologian, etc. It’s kind of labor-intensive, in particular in a society saturated by pseudo-Christianity (I don’t believe that, say, Saint Photius the Great would say that his faith has much in common with Pat Robertson, Pope Benedict or Martin Luther King :-)
I don’t expect you to do much with this answer of mine, but since you did ask, I am glad to, as you say, point you in the right directon.
But you also want to look at Islam, in particular Shia Islam, I would say, and Hinduism, in particular Vedanta. There is so much really good stuff there, and comparing and contrasting these faiths is most interesting. And since none of them have a God-cop, a God-judge, or even some crude idea about how “we are the best and everybody else is evil” you might enjoy it.
Cheers!
The Saker
@Sean: oh, and Sean, just to make things clear here. There is no such thing as “Western Christianity”. Used to be, until maybe the 10th-11th century, then it all went down the tubes. Just praying to a “Jesus”, making the sign of the cross, and killing lots of “heretics” in ad majorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God) just does not suffice to be “Christian” in the objective sense of the word (as in: in agreement with that “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers”). That little sentence is the criterion of Christianity. Take away from it, or add to it, or modify it, and it ain’t “Christian” in the objective sense of the word.
All this makes it REALLY hard to explain to folks in the West that what they think of as “Christianity” is a rather modern invention dating from the past millenium only, whereas the real thing is roughly a millenium older. Both believers and unbelivers in the West toss around words like “Christianity”, “The Church” or, a favorite of mine, the “Judeo-Christian tradition” while being utterly unaware that all this nonsense has nothing in common except VERY superficial features with, yes, you guessed it, the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers” :-)
Since I have a strong feeling that your “questions” are not a result of any real desire to investigate, but rather to find some angle to argue and prove that “all Christian sects suck” I don’t have much hope that you will actually take the time to investigante any of that, but, as you said, I feel that I did owe you some “pointers”.
HTH and cheers!
The Saker
Quite an interesting discussion. As a buddhist, I’d like to offer an alternative view to those already posted. First of all, from the perspective of the buddhadharma, the argument between theism and atheism is a red herring, somewhat similar to the one about the sound of a tree falling if no one hears it. Yes indeed, if one has a certain set of unverifiable assumptions, no if one has a different set of equally arbitrary preconceptions.
It is important to distinguish between religion (generally referring to one theistic belief system or another) and the various wisdom or spiritual traditions.
Although spirituality can be mined from within any given religious tradition – after all, that’s what gave them potency to begin with – religions quickly degenerate into self-perpetuating systems primarily concerned with their own continuity and well-being.
The essence of spirituality is the inseparability of wisdom and compassion. The practice of any spiritual tradition is to perfect this potentiality within oneself. The opposite of spirituality is blind faith. The test for having accomplished the spiritual journey is the extent to which one does unto others as one would have them do unto oneself.
Anyone can do this, be they nominally Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist or whatever, but it takes openness, discipline, patience, energy, awareness and insight. These are the components of the training process necessary to transcend self-deception and become fully awake. The key is to avoid the trap of dualism, which requires dropping the false distinction between self and other.
Children do it naturally, as “wisdom is born within”, but then fall victim to varieties of cultural indoctrination that set them firmly on the road to confusion.
There will be no meaningful, lasting revolution in this world until a critical mass of people become spiritually aware. The possibility actually manifested in the 60’s (albeit in a decidedly adolescent fashion) and it will come again, although I wouldn’t hold my breath. It’s really only a matter of (not)growing up.
I wrote a reply on your suggestion I read “mere Christianity” but if appears not to have gone through. Suffice it to say I have read the book and find its arguments unconvincing, as its logic requires that you accept the existence of God as a given premise, thus it tends to employ circular reasoning. People who don’t accept that premise will find the arguments weak and easily rebutted. Since we’re making recommendations here, i suggest you read anything by Robert Green Ingersoll if you want to understand the logic of secular rejection of Christian claims. Particularly his article on the Bible.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html
As to why I asked you what the “one true faith” is, the reason is that this is not the first time I have had this conversation with Christian apologists with hostile attitudes towards secularism. I have in fact, had this debate dozens of times, and every single time, I have gotten answers that are identical to yours. The only thing that changes is the name of the one true faith. Some people, at least on the ‘net, refuse to answer the question as they suspect, like you do, that I am setting them up for an attack on Christianity. What I am setting them up for, is a revelation that irregardless of the sect, the answer is always the same.
I find that fascinating, really. The other guy’s Christianity is always bad, no one can understand the Bible but the learned church fathers, you need to read “Mere Christianity” and my church is real because it traces its origins straight to the apostles. You take it a step further and dismiss the whole of Western Christianity altogether.
This attitude has of course led to centuries of bloodshed among the sects, fighting over who gets to be the authentic representatives of the Prince of Peace.
Contrast this with the Quakers, who I greatly admire, For the most part, they reject the inerrency of the Bible, the authority of “church fathers” and holy doctrines in favor of a inspiration by God through direct transmission of the Holy spirit to the congregation. They don’t attack other religions as wrong, don’t accuse secularists of being immoral, are renowned pacifists and generally emphasize service to the community. No Quaker has ever claimed to know the truth to me, to belong to the one true faith, or criticize me for my lack of faith.
Which sect should I regard as the “good” Christianity, the sect that respects me, or the ones that insult my intelligence, lie about my (non) beliefs, accuse me of being immoral or the cause of immorality in society or which arrogantly assert the primacy of their sect over all others?
I thank God, no irony intended, that some sects of Christianity have evolved out of the Dark Ages.
Thanks for the info on the Orthodox church. Could you possibly point me to something on the web, as I don’t have the time for a thorough examination of the Orthodox church but would like to at least get the basics from your point of view.
@Sean,Saker
Ultimately, ethics depends not so much on belief in God — despite Kant — and definitely not utilitarianism, but upon teleology. The moral relativism and emotivism of the West comes from the collapse in a commitment to objective teleology as held by Greek philosophy, Abrahamic tradition, Chinese and Indian thought, etc. Once there is no objective purpose to human existence aside from the consensus of a society based in large part on who can speak the loudest — think of the Citizens’s United decision at the Supreme Court [right wing agenda] or the wholesale indoctrination of America into acceptance of the abortion/homosexuality agenda by the media [left wing] — then scientific ethics becomes simply an impossible pursuit.
The first nine chapters of After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre establishes this point cogently and conclusively. I can hardly recommend anything better for a philosophical understanding of this matter.
Modern Western civilization is essentially non-ethical or we can even say post-ethical. Note that I did not say that all Western people are (sc. normatively) un-ethical. However, a consistent system of ethics requires an objective telos to human existence, be it naturalistic (Aristotle, Taoism, etc), idealistic (Plato, Hegel etc), theistic (Abrahamic traditions etc), even secular (Communism etc). Without an objective benchmark of telos the logic of society inexorably leads to pure emotivism and Might makes Right (hence we see a “democratic” society projecting the worst evils of imperialism). That is, the meanings of the words ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’ are ultimately functions of popular/elite opinion, where the ones who can manufacture consent through the levers of socio-economic-politico-media power determine the ethical values of society.
I’m fasting these days and have no time for details or debate. But I challenge all to read MacIntyre’s extraordinary tour-de-force on this matter in the first nine chapters of After Virtue.
Peace
PS
In his own insanity, the gist of the above is one point that Nietzsche understood all too well …
Peace
@Sean: You take it a step further and dismiss the whole of Western Christianity altogether.
This is why this discussion in futile. I say that Christianity is something objective and that objectively the West as been gradually but inexorably distancing itself from Christianity since at least 1000 years, and you say that dismiss the whole Western Christianity.
This is futile.
I have had this conversation with Christian apologists
You never met a Christian apologist :-)
no one can understand the Bible but the learned church fathers
Not quite. But only the corpus of what is the consensus of the teachings of the Church Fathers can be accurately described as the “Christian understanding of the Bible”
Contrast this with the Quakers, who I greatly admire, For the most part, they reject the inerrency of the Bible, the authority of “church fathers” and holy doctrines in favor of a inspiration by God
LOL! The Quakers are great folks indeed, but they don’t even ask themselves of who put the Bible together (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/whichcamefirst.aspx) nor do they realize that the Western Bibles are based mostly on the so-called Masoretic translation which is nothing but a Jewish forgery originally dating from the 2nd century. Sean, they are good people, but in terms of knowing what Christianity is, they are c*l*u*e*l*e*s*s.
Don’t you get it. Your entire life, the folks you met, the books you read, none of that has done anything at all to actually introduce you to the religion which actually is Christianity. What you were exposed to was, of course, Christianity in name, in self-reference, but if tomorrow morning I decide to declare myself a Zoroastrian or a Taoist that does not make me one.
The irony is that Sean, you have created yourself a Christianity which you do indeed know, but which somebody living at the time of the Apostles or the 7 Ecumenical Councils would never recognize as the same faith as his.
That is what is so frustrating with Westerners. They are absolutely convinced that they know something, be it good or bad, about Christianity when in reality they don’t even know the very basic beliefs of that religion. And that, sadly, makes any dialog between Christians and Westerners rather pointless, at least until the Westerners realize that they need to learn it all from the very fist and basic things. But as long as they hold on to what they think they have learned, they remain utterly clueless.
This is why on this blog you will see me mention religion and Christianity here and there, but I would bet you that I mention Islam more often (btw, since “the Christians you know pretty much hate every other sect or religion, I would have to hate Islam too, at least by your experience of how “Christians” think and act).
Let me end by saying this: it is “much” easier to discuss Christianity with somebody from, for example, Asia then with the confused, hostile and clueless folks in the West – whether they see themselves as “Christians” or as enlightened agnostics who dislike Christianity or, as they often say, “organized religion”.
@Sean:
this I don’t have the time for a thorough examination of the Orthodox church but would like to at least get the basics from your point of view.
yields that
The symbol of your religion is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan with long hair and a beard born of a virgin and nailed to a cross.
What you what is a McReligion, with golden arches, a cheap price, and a drive-through :-)
Try the UUUs or the Scientologists. Something American, for sure.
Or this:
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
Cheers!
@Ishamid: what real τέλος can here be which would not be θεός or at least willed by Him? Marx’s communism, Hitler’s 1000 Year Reich, Fukuyama’s “End of History” are all rather crude attempts to define a τέλος without θεός – and look how all of them have miserably failed!
How can there be a “reason for which” without or outside God?
You write about Once there is no objective purpose to human existence aside from the consensus of a society based in large part on who can speak the loudest but that is exactly the logical, natural and necessary condition of a God-less mind and society.
In contrast, postulate a Brahman, and you get an Ishwara and Atman gets a τέλος – I am being a little tongue in cheek here, but that is just a way of pointing out that I don’t believe that Greek philosophy, Abrahamic tradition, Chinese and Indian thought could have defined an telos outside an idea of a God.
@Roger: welcome back, my friend, long time no see!!! Where have you been?
The essence of spirituality is the inseparability of wisdom and compassion (…) Anyone can do this, be they nominally Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist or whatever
Is that so? To use a point made my Ishamid, what is the telos, or reason for which, everybody or, for that matter, anybody, should accept even the need for spirituality of any kid? Once there is no objective purpose to human existence there cannot be any objective purpose to spirituality or anything else either. And since I do not believe that there can be a teleology without God, there can be no spirituality, or even a logical definition of “bad” and “good” for those who deny the existence of a God.
Am I missing something or does this make sense?
Good to “see” you again!
Cheers!
@TheSaker
Once there is no objective purpose to human existence there cannot be any objective purpose to spirituality or anything else either
From the Buddhist point of view this realization is exactly what forces human to search for a Truth and Reality amidst this pointless life (of course if the person gives himself a chance) .
As a side note I respectably disagree with Roger that children all naturally express wisdom and compassion by themselves (chidren can be very cruel and direct in expressing greed if nobody prevents them from doing so). Wisdom comes from reflective abilities, and compassion comes from wisdom. These qualities are well grounded only in spiritually matured person not in infants.
@Saker:
==========
what real τέλος can here be which would not be θεός or at least willed by Him?
==========
You’re preaching to the choir, brother. Once one accepts telos, the next level of the argument is that telos inexorably leads to a notion of Supremacy, be it God, Tao etc. … Hitler, Fukiyama etc are arguably actually in the post-ethical Nietzschean mode (Super-Man, American Exceptionalism and other crap). Communism tries and fails, but it does have an objective theoretical ethics that (sc. unbeknownst to its proponents for the most part) traces its roots to Hermetic Dialectics (decisive influence on Hegel) which, of course, is theistic!
But this consistent theoretical ethics fails in practice, which is distinct from the issue of being an objective ethics.
Ok, I have to stop now :-)
Peace
For whom the bells toll
It is simply not possible to oversees the vineyard thinking like that.
What’s happening in Europe? Wrong question. What’s happening in the world, my friend. That is the question.
Thinking in terms of “immigrants”, “europe”, “1rst”, “2nd”, “3rd” generations… [some of whom have even the citizenship… ha ha.] All of these are simply dead-ends. Not applicable anymore. They belong to what has bring us to this dead-lock in the first place. It is the scale of the transformation what it’s being missing here. That it is not a “simple” crisis (even though we’re only in the beginnings of the economic-political tsunami), but a Paradigm Shift. There is, in the Western World, a monstrueux décalage between the social reality [social reality that it is, actually, a new world reality] and the political-economic-social structure, absolutely unable to comprehend it. (Something similar happened at the turn of the twentieth century: the colonialist-imperial-absolutist european powers were unable to understand and –more important– to flow with the new paradigm shift. As a consequence, they committed a double suicide –WW I & II– that transformed the once “mighty cats” in servile and obedient mouses.) That is the tragedy of Europe: the inconsistency between its proclamations and its practices, between its words and its acts. (To present itself as the center of “humanity” –human rights, social protection, culture, bla bla bla: only a disguise for greed and corruption– and to act as a colonialist and racist power, now completely at the service of the american decline.) It is the HUMANNESS –this force compare to which the atomic energy is nothing– that accumulates like a magma in the depths of society and one fine day… yes, climbs and explodes, destroying and erasing but, above all, telling, telling, telling.
You would not like to play with this energy. Humans deserve their lot. They deserve, in the first place, to be treated like humans and not like animals, subhumans or derated citizens. It is urgent to go from the hypocritical and unhuman practice of segregation (called euphemistically “multiculturalism”) to the “new” concept of “diverse population”. Because that’s what we humans really are: a diverse population. The entire earth is a plateau for this uncorrectable vagabond (the Man) to wander in. (When they will understand?). Look at what’s happening in the Horn of Africa. Is there not sufficient and more that sufficient to feed and cure and protect this hundreds of thousands of humans? There is indeed. But in the western world they throw away hundreds of tons of food and of all kind of first need products everyday (not to mention the atrocious activities of the western companies in what they call unhumanly the “third world”). Don’t you hear a disturbing sound of bells tolling? More than ever, all is related. And that relation is the message. This world to come (this world that it is al-ready here, or simply: the one, the only world) is one in which that rooted and unhuman paradigm will not rule anymore, not matter how many time and how many lives it will take.
So for Europe (and for the Western World) the choice in the medium-long run is fairly simply: to change completely or to disappear. This time there will be no yankee godfather and no marshall plan.
(Cf. in “The magic mountain” the question raised by Naphta –in a talk with Settembrini– almost in a rhetorical way).
I don’t think one can have a serious dicussion about these issues without acknowleding that our governments are essentially ruled by Zionist extremists. Canada,Britain,France,Germany – all striving “AT ANY COST”(STEPHEN HARPER, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER) to ‘protect’ Israel from having to become a democratic state. And of course from the hordes of insane vile ‘Islamists’ who threaten to overun our ‘just’ and ‘moral’ society.
There is no answer to these problems without acknowledging who really has the power in the West – and the role of Zionism in these wars which have sent millions into poverty. Or the Zionist led financial meltdown – years in the making and as obvious as hell.
But we’re not allowed to talk about that. If that doesn’t say it all, nothing does..
stevieb
This is why this discussion in futile. I say that Christianity is something objective and that objectively the West as been gradually but inexorably distancing itself from Christianity since at least 1000 years, and you say that dismiss the whole Western Christianity.
You stated that there is no such thing as “Western Christianity.” That constitutes dismissing the whole of Western Christianity. You further elaborate on this extremist view with the bold assertion from ignorance that I have never encountered actual Christianity in my entire life. That the version I encountered is a fraud I manufactured for myself. You make distinction between “Christians” and “Westerners” clearly indicating your belief that the former category doesn’t include the latter.
I find is sad that in the modern age, there are people still so thoroughly conditioned by religious indoctrination to embrace such extreme sectarianism. This kind of nonsense is a big part of what drives us non-believers away from the church. You tell me I don’t know the real version of Christianity. I am thankful for that, because the version you are espousing seems more backward, intolerant and hostile than even the “fake” version we find here in the West.
You should thank God for us secularists. Under the influence of secular morality, only the most fanatical Christians entertain such extremist sectarian views which were the cause of so much bloodshed and strife in the past. Without secular morality to challenge these religious absurdities you’d be eating each other alive, just as you have for the whole of Christianity’s history.
You’re right no discussion is possible, Saker, because you keep making wild assertions based on no evidence or logic and then promptly contradicting yourself, or denying you made the assertions. Your Christian improv performance has been entertaining, to be sure, with all the evils of Christianity cleverly tossed into one basket through the finesse of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and all the good contained in a mysterious, unnamed sect with a mysterious doctrine and practices that changes like a chameleon as the debate progresses.
Sean, they are good people, but in terms of knowing what Christianity is, they are c*l*u*e*l*e*s*s.
Jesus said “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
Quakers, are tolerant, peaceful, non-sectarian and enlightened. “Real” Christians are sectarian, intolerant, hostile to secularists and other denominations and oblivious to easily observed realities, such as that non-Christians can discern right from wrong, and good from bad, and attain meaning in life without God-belief. Jesus made clear which fruit I should pick.
It’s ironic that us atheists have more respect for God than most Christians. We do him justice by refusing to a believe in a God who would be so petty as to concern himself in the meaningless doctrinal disputes of invented religions. You Christians think if he exists, he’s shallow enough to care about this nonsense.
Don’t you get it. Your entire life, the folks you met, the books you read, none of that has done anything at all to actually introduce you to the religion which actually is Christianity. What you were exposed to was, of course, Christianity in name, in self-reference, but if tomorrow morning I decide to declare myself a Zoroastrian or a Taoist that does not make me one.
It never occurs to you that your entire life, you’ve been sold a lie.
Most sects of Christianity make precisely the same claim. That they are the only real version. You can’t all be right. Neither you nor they have ever given me a single logical reason or a shred of evidence that would induce me to believe anything you claim. After all, as you state, anyone can claim to be a Christian, to have a monopoly on the truth, or to be a 10th dan black belt in karate. But to convince someone else of this, you need proof.
You seem to think you can reach me with sophistry, ad hominems, strawmen, wild assertions about what I do or do not believe or want to believe, and flat out fabrications, such as attributing the anthropomorphisizing of God to me. Is this your morality?
What you what is a McReligion, with golden arches, a cheap price, and a drive-through :-)
You really are going to absurd lengths to make this about me. I am not the author of all those icons of the Eatern Orthodox church anthropomorphisizing God as the God-man Jesus. I am struggling to see where this non-sequitur about McJesus is coming from. Would you like salvation with your order?
To the extent that I can imagine the divine, and imagine is all I can do as I am not so arrogant as some to assert that I have a clue what the divine is, I imagine it as a force so massive and beyond the understanding of mortals that any attempt to express an understanding of it must necessarily be a lie. If this force should ever reveal the truth to me, you’ll be the first to know. Until then you’re stuck with the overactive imagination of your religious leaders.
@Sean: as I said. You got two options:
a) RTFM
b) http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
Should you pick the former, we can have an intelligent discussion. Otherwise, we better stick to other topics.
Cheers!
Resisting temptation is, I believe, a time honored virtue in most if not all religio-philosophical traditions. Therefore I will refrain from continuing on in the same vein. After all, discussions of religion tend to obfuscate rather than reveal the truth.
Instead, in honor of Albert Camus’ 100th anniversary, I’d like to offer this concise but profound statement on both time honoured philosophical and spiritual questions as they reveal themselves in current political and psycho-social events.
London Riots now in Bern, Switzerland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEHQgh135c
Roger Tucker
One Democratic State
http://onestate.info
“Time is the great physician and laughter is the best medicine.”
@Roger: LOL! This is exactly what Switzerland is like. I know – I lived most of my life there :-)
Peace,
The Saker
@Sean: this is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK_RGgEwsGY
LOL!
Cheers!
The Saker
Lol. An oldy but a goody. Got to give the evangelicals props for style, they’re great performers. An evangelical meeting is more fun than the movies.
“Do you believe in Jezussaaaah?”
This one’s for you Saker. It’s an allegory of sorts :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
European governments are run by ZOGpuppets & most immigrants do hate the people and lands amongst whom they dwell. But you get some things wrong.
The immigrasnts are not ‘robbing the robbers”; they know that the people they rob and attack aren’t profiting from the robbing of their nations. They are motivated by racial animosity. They know they are different and are outsiders who are not of the society in which they dwell.
In a sense, their plight is similar to that of Caesar, the brilliant ape in the latest rendition of planet of the apes:
…in the latest movie, when “Caesar” is magically endowed with “intelligence,” he does not don a pair of spectacles and quote Chaucer. He immediately perceives that he is not like the people around him and that society is hostile to him. Of course he could have “worked within the system” to improve his own personal situation (he gets several opportunities to “go home,” and he learns early on how to escape from his cell), but he realizes that there is no real or lasting security living among potentially hostile aliens.
For Caesar, it’s not about what his people can offer him, but rather Caesar’s realization that he can’t survive in any real sense without being among his own kind. When Caesar declares that he is “at home” in the end, he isn’t referring to any geographic location, but rather the fact that his distinct group is no longer forcefully integrated with the outside world.
Intelligence for Caesar is expressed through the classical virtues of courage, honor, pride, dignity, strength, and strategic silence. It is noteworthy that racial solidarity is considered a self-evident virtue in this film. After Caesar becomes aware of his people’s situation, their salvation becomes a categorical imperative. His intelligence could no longer be satisfied by receiving his master’s praise or sitting around solving crossword puzzles because he obviously valued honesty and knew that a return to his former life would require intellectual dishonesty. ..”link
Nationalism and ethnocentrism exert a strong pull among all peoples, this is especially true of non-whites and Jews as their traditions harken back to a more tribally oriented and less individualistic society than the ones we live in.
The obvious answer is that these immigrants cannot assimilate and do not desire to. They will either demographically displace the historic majority of the states in which they reside, or they will be repatriated.
And make no mistake, America is the citadel of Jewish power and it does call the shots in European governments. But if America collapses, American promoted internationalism, multiculturalism, and designs on world domination will collapse too. Nationalism will resurge throughout the western world and the new political order will come to resemble the sort of blood and soil nationalism that comes naturally to people.
Btw, here is BNP chairman Griffin’s respinse to the London riots.
Also, you should know that these immigrants are in the West because of the lobbying by B’nai Brith International to change the immigration laws in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the rest of the western world to change its immigration mix from 90% European immigration to 90% non-European immigration. This happened back in the late 1960’s. The influx of unassimilable immigrants is a result of Jewish domination of the media, intellectual, and political classes. Jews harbor a deep-seated hatred toward European Christian peoples and European diaspora. Jews feel safer around Muslims than they do among Europeans. That’s why they created Israel.
Well I’m a Christian atheist. I don’t believe in the existence of God or an afterlife because I see no rational evidence to support the existence of either. But I do believe in Jesus Christ. I find the message in the Gospels useful. It helps me carry my cross in life. I try to follow Christ’s example as best I can. It would be a much better world if more people did.
@Robert:Well I’m a Christian atheist.
Robert, with all due respect, there are three problems with that:
1) Christian ethics are really not different from any other religious ethics. The kind of asceticism and compassion which, say, the Jains of India live by would put to shame the vast majority of Christians.
2) As we said above, what is the point of ethics without telos?
3) Christ Himself does not allow you the option not believing in the existence of God, the afterlife or even that He is the theantropos, the God-man. As for Christ as a ethical philosopher, CS Lewis does a pretty good job addressing this theory:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus
said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a
level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the
Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a
fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His
feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to
us. He did not intend to.
While “Mere Christianity” was never intended to be a missionary leafelet “proving” the existence of God (only those who have not read it, or not understood what they were reading would say otherwise), it is a decent discussion of some of the basic beliefs of Christianity. Disagreeing with Christ is really not a logical option, IMHO.
Cheers!
Saker we are not going to agree on arguments for or against the existence of God so let’s not go there.
My personal view of Jesus’ message is this. What comes through to me most strongly is the radically different character of Jesus’ moral teaching. So different is it indeed that it borders on the incomprehensible. Other moralists put forward rules of behaviour, other revolutionists in morals try to overthrow whatever are the existing rules and establish different ones in their stead: but Jesus is saying that rules, any rules, are not what morality is about. God, he says is not in the business of awarding prizes to people who live in accordance with moral rules. You will not win any special favours from him by being virtuous, but are only too likely to find – to your great chagrin no doubt as well as your incomprehension – that he loves sinners just as much as he loves you. If this infringes for sense of justice you have not understood the situation. It is no use being good in the hope of getting a reward from God, this is pure self seeking and therefore a self contradictory conception of morally admirable behaviour. Only if you are good when it is not rewarded is your behaviour morally admirable. But then there is indeed no reward, so the goodness has to be its own justification, regardless of consequences. God’s loving you has nothing to do with your deserving it. He loves everybody, indlcuding the most undeserving, indeed he loves them as much as he loves you. Just as he loves the undeserving so you also should love those who are undeserving of your love, including those who deserve it least, namely your enemies. Love is what matters above everything else. It is the ultimate reality, the true nature of existence, God. Perfect love is unconditional, and to unconditional love, deserving has ceased to matter or even have have any significance. It is not that Jesus is against our living in accordance with rules. On the contrary, he recognises that rules are necessary wherever human beings live together, and he believes that they should be obeyed, but he sees them as arbitrary, superficial things that should be made subservient to human needs, not human needs made subservient to them. If we had enough love and conern for one another there would be no need for rules. We need them only because we are selfish. They are not in themselves good.
Provided a church is based on Christian values of humanity and compassion for one another it is as Christian in the true sense as any other. Being dogmatic about which kind of church is closest to God and scoring ideological points over it is, as Sean pointed out, crass. It is certainly the opposite of Christianity.
Furthermore, and I hate to say this Saker, quite frankly the kind of things you have been saying about Catholicism are nothing short of shameful for a man of your education and intelligence. My oldest friend from school is a Catholic. You have been coming out with the same kind of bigotry as the Islamophobic Jack.
Of course what the Fourth Crusade did to Byzantium was one of the great tragedies of history. But it was done by wicked politicians from Venice falsely claiming to act in the name of God just as the neocons do now. It is no excuse for anti Catholic bigotry from Orthodox Christians in the twenty first century.
Now I’m going to dig the garden or something.
Wow, this comment thread really needs a laugh track for full effect. It is Pythonesque.
@Saker we are not going to agree on arguments for or against the existence of God so let’s not go there.
Alas, that very question you want to avoid determines the answer to all the other ones. By avoiding you you basically make it into a “free for all” in which any opinion is as good as any other.
Being dogmatic about which kind of church is closest to God and scoring ideological points over it is, as Sean pointed out, crass. It is certainly the opposite of Christianity.
That, of course, begs the question of why for one millennium Christians not only felt the need to proclaim dogmas, but even to suffer martyrdom for them. One can, of course, choose to dismiss it all as fanaticisms and brainwashing, but only if one has not read what these people wrote.
the kind of things you have been saying about Catholicism are nothing short of shameful for a man of your education and intelligence
Really? To point out that during the past 1000 years the so-called “Christian West” has been gradually but inexorably moving away from what constituted Christianity for the first 1000 years of Christianity is shameful? I don’t think so. In particular when to substantiate your point you write:
My oldest friend from school is a Catholic
So?! My oldest friend from school is *also* a Catholic! Had he been Communist would that make an objective analysis of the evolution of Communism in history shameful? What kind of argument is that?!
As for my opinion of the Papacy it is mine to hold and express. You are welcome to disagree, of course, but not to censor it.
Bottom line: both you and Sean are adamantly refusing to admit a simple, basic fact: Christianity is not whatever you, I or anybody else thinks it is or wants it to be (to either support or dismiss). There is a religion out there which (here we go again!) “the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers”. There is a finite and knowable body of teachings – called ‘dogma – which this religion includes and others which it does not. So, to speak of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is part of the Christian dogmatic theology. To speak of the Immaculate Conception is not. To say that the Church includes 4 ‘ranks’ (laymen, deacon, priest, bishop) is Christian. To add a 5th one (Pope) is not. To speak of the primacy of the first amongst equals in Christian. To declare that the Pope is infallible “when he speaks ex-cathedra, on questions of faith or morality and in the name of the Church” is not. I could go on for hours. This has nothing to do with the Fourth Crusade or any other abomination committed by the Papacy. It has to do with the dogmas of the Papacy vs those of the Christian tradition.
But folks in the West absolutely *HATE* it when they are told that they don’t know even the basic things about a tradition which has all but disappeared in their part of the world (and the rest of the planet, I would add). Somehow you guys always think that this religion is yours to own, be it to vilify it or to uphold it. You can even convince each other of that, but you will never convince somebody who has actually been raised in it.
…continued:
You accuse me of “anti Catholic bigotry”?
I accuse you, and so many of your fellow Westerners, of complete indifference, of disregard, even of hostility to the very concept of “Truth”.
Western Europe fancies itself the heir of the Greek civilization. What a joke! Western Europe is the heir of the Frank Empire, that pseudo-civilization of the Dark Ages whose greatest ruler (Charlemagne) could not even sign his own name! What characterized this civilization then, and what still characterizes it today, is a complete indifference for the truth, combined with an amazing, I would say unique, propensity to violence. That, and a mind-boggling arrogance when considering far more ancient and refined civilizations.
On this thread we had posts a Roman Catholic (but from Latin America – very different ethos!), a Muslim, at least two Buddhists and none of them felt the need to censor me like you and Sean. But the two of you are both roaring in self-righteous indignation when I tell you that what is usually referred to as “Christianity” in the West has only very superficial similarities to what Christianity used to mean for 1000 years and still continues to mean for a few folks here and there.
You act just like Jewish Rabbis when they are told that rabbinical “Judaism” is not the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the faith of Maimonides, Luria and Karo.
Yeah, that hurts, don’t it?
Tough.
Saker
You’re right. What I said was both arrogant and patronising. It reflected nothing more than my own prejudices.
I sincerely apologise.
Robert: may God forgive us all, and I hope that you can forgive me any offense my irate reply to you has caused.
Comrades
We are all soldiers in Professor Juliana’s New Model Army
Each and every one of us, great and small, has his or her own part to play
They also serve who only stand and wait
And I am in love with Hannah Sell of the Socialist Party though I have never to my knowlege yet met her once in my life.
………………………….
The Definition of Love
by Andrew Marvell
My love is of a birth as rare
As tis for object strange and high
It was begotten by Despair
Upon Impossibility
Magnanimous Despair alone
Could show me so divine a thing
Where feeble Hope could ne’er have flown
But vainly flapped its tinsel wing
And yet I quickly might arrive
Where my extended soul is fixed
But Fate does iron wedges drive
And always crowds itself betwixt
For Fate with jealous eye does see
Two perfect loves nor lets them close
Their union would her ruin be
And her tyrannic power depose
And therefore her decrees of steel
Us as the distant poles have placed
(Though Loves whole word on us doth wheel)
Not by themselves to be embraced
Unless the giddy heaven fall
And earth some new convulsion tear
And us to join the world should all
Be cramped into a Planispere
As lines (so loves) oblique may well
Themselves in every angle greet
But ours so truly parallel
Though infinite can never meet
Therefore the love which us doth bind
But Fate so enviously debars
Is the conjunction of the mind
And opposition of the stars
The Comrades in Dublin have confirmed that,in keeping with the noble European revolutionary traditon the two great Committees have been re-established.
The Committee of General Security. Predominantly male
The Committee of Public Safety
Predominantly female
Our values are compassion and above all courage. Only those who have demonstrated a track record of total integrity over the years plus the courage to stand up to authoritarian bullies of whatever kind will be invited to join.
Mr. scott’s engine room
the white room
The Jacobite boys
who guard the room of requirement
of the invisible commitee
of general security
The engine room
Hermione’s green room
the room of requirement
in the republic of Pemberly
The Girondist women
of the Committe of public safety
@Saker;
I think you need to close off this unprofitable conversation. Some people argue because that is how they seek the truth (i.e., if I can’t refute you, then you must be right!).
Others argue for the sake of ego-gratification, or simply because they are sociopathic trolls who get their jollies upsetting people and starting flame wars. I think your two interlocutors fit the latter category more than the former.
So – stop feeding the trolls! It only makes them more aggressive.
@Michael: I think you need to close off this unprofitable conversation
Doing that would be inconsistent with my values one of which includes a total rejection of any form of censorship. I want people to know that they can post here without having to fear that I would use my “admin” powers to shut them down when they antagonize me or write something which offends me. I rather reply to them angrily (and regret it later) then shut them out. Frankly, I am a die-hard liberterian and I totally oppose taking away anybody’s freedom of speech, no matter what the pretext. As for error – and I strongly believe there really and objectively is such thing – must be engaged and the truth – which I also strongly believe there is, albeit only ONE – cannot be upheld by silencing falsehood.
Others argue for the sake of ego-gratification, or simply because they are sociopathic trolls who get their jollies upsetting people and starting flame wars. I think your two interlocutors fit the latter category more than the former.
I am not so sure at all. Besides, it is not for me to judge them, I can only reply to what they post. But in a broader sense, people in the West were raised in such a toxic mix of religious hypocrisy (and outright nefariousness) that it is no surprizing at all that they would angrily “push back” in disgust over what they correctly perceive as the “toxicity” of so many religious groups. As for the fact that they judge the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers” by what they see of contemporary “Christianity” it is more a manifestation of their ignorance than any malice. Top it all off with a profound inability to even *imagine* that there could be one, real, objective Truth, external to them and independent of their perception thereof, and you get the sad state of the modern “spiritual” discourse. This is really worth of tears, not of condemnation.
However, somebody who hates lies is already very close to loving the truth, is that no so?
I much prefer that kind of people to the lukewarm folks who simply don’t give a damn about any of it :-)
Cheers!
Saker I really do apologise. For someone to presume to lecture someone from what is without question the most venerable and ancient tradition of Christianity bar none and the one that produced Tolstoy on Christian ethics while appearing to be a dogmatic atheist was an extraodinary thing to do. As for calling you a bigot I cannot believe how I could have said anything so monstrous. I’ve been on this site long enough to know you are the very opposite of that. I don’t pretend to understand what was going on in my confused mind when I said that. You were quite right to say what you did. My ears were burning when I read your response and so they should have.
It was absolutely disgraceful and really the only thing I can say in mitigation is this. I suffer from bipolar disorder and am engaged in a very serious conflict in a part of the world that has vital strategic significance. I have an overactive imagination and am suffering from combat stress.
I do assure you that I would never deliberately disrespect the wonderful Orthodox religion. I’ve read John Julius Norwich’s account of Byzantium, was in Russia on a school trip in 1991 and the way Russia was treated by the West in the Nineties was so appalling that I see it as my life’s mission to reverse the tragic events of the year 1993.
I have also been struggling all my life to reconcile my Protestant Christian faith with the evidence of science.
I quite understand after my stupidity if you never take anything I say after this seriously again. But I can assure you I am passionately committed to overthrowing the present regime in London and the Committee of Public Safety is real. We have our people inside the Square Mile and we are also penetrating the British offshore tax havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere.
I see myself as one of God’s madmen labouring in the Lord’s vinyard ever since I was a little child trying to fight all the evil in the world.
Once again abject and true remorse.
@Robert:
Saker I really do apologize. For someone to presume to lecture someone from what is without question the most venerable and ancient tradition of Christianity bar none
Be assured that I am a rather sinful representative of this ancient tradition and that none of its qualities are somehow transposed to me. In fact, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not some elite club of saints. If anything, it is my frustrated reply to you which reflects poorly on my ability profit from the medicine provided to me by this hospital.
one that produced Tolstoy
But for the record, one which also declared him anathema. Very correctly so, I would add, even though those who confuse the original meaning anathema (handing over to the mercy of God) with the excommunication as practiced in the West will, no doubt, gleefully point out how obscurantist and intolerant a religion which could excommunicate a genius like Tolstoy must be…
My ears were burning when I read your response and so they should have.
Well, my response what one in which I ended up blaming you for the failings of an entire civilization. And since we all are individuals first and foremost, that was unfair on my part.
I suffer from bipolar disorder and am engaged in a very serious conflict in a part of the world that has vital strategic significance. I have an overactive imagination and am suffering from combat stress.
My own “credentials” also include PTSD and GAD. Such is the world we live in.
I do assure you that I would never deliberately disrespect the wonderful Orthodox religion
Here, to my great regret, I have to honestly tell you that most “Orthodoxy” in our times is mostly centered on ritual and tradition with a small “t” and that much of its “salt lost its taste”. There are still islands of true, ancient, Patristic Orthodoxy scattered around the world, but most of it has become indistinguishable from the “post-Christian Christianity” of the West. I would never speak a word in defense of what some call “World Orthodoxy” (meaning wordily Orthodoxy) or “Official Orthodoxy”. I have nothing good to say about all the fat and spiritually lukewarm bishops which proudly sit in their clerical vestments while degrading, debasing and perverting everything which Christ, the Apostles and the Fathers stood for, believed in, and died for. I speak only in defense of a “true Christianity” which existed a long time ago, and which still exists in some spots on earth, but which has turned into a very small, almost tiny, island in an ocean of empty ritualism and religious indifference. Yes, the religion which which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers is beautiful, lofty, honorable, salvific and, most importantly, *TRUE* – but it has almost disappeared from our planet.
… continued below
…continued:
I have also been struggling all my life to reconcile my Protestant Christian faith with the evidence of science.
Really? I personally do not see only harmony between Christianity and the evidence of science. Many Church Fathers were very learned scientists, and my own spiritual Father has a PhD from Princeton. It bad Christianity and bad science which contradict each other, but the deeper you study Christianity and science, the more they tend to actually complement each other, IMHO.
I quite understand after my stupidity if you never take anything I say after this seriously again.
First, you did not say anything “stupid”. Unfair, perhaps, but that just makes you human. And its not like I never said anything unfair or stupid myself! So welcome to confused state of the Fallen Human Being :-)
I see myself as one of God’s madmen laboring in the Lord’s vineyard ever since I was a little child trying to fight all the evil in the world.
I have somehow come to the conclusion that my own struggle against the evils of this world will center around two battles: fighting evil inside myself and speaking the truth as best I can define it, no matter what the consequences.
I think that we are on the same side, don’t you?
Kind regards and take good care of yourself.
The Saker
I don’t see where anybody “censored” you. I can’t speak for others, but I responded because your comments comparing secularists to Nazis and communists and declaring us to be incapable of a genuine morality were deeply offensive, militant and demonstrably wrong, as any involvement with actual secularists who live meaningful, moral lives would quickly demonstrate.
As for your sectarian remarks, C.S Lewis seems to understand full well the impact of comments like these—aside from their calloused role in internicine Christian conflicts— is to drive people away from the church. To make a very long story short, sectarianism is what made me first question the church, and with it my faith.
“….the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts….And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt
Aside from C.S. Lewis advocating that potential converts be deceived as to the real nature of the religion they are joining, it is nevertheless a true statement.
There is a religion out there which (here we go again!) “the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers”.
A claim made by many sects, and proven by none. You fail to accept that your claims are no more substantive than any others without evidence.
Yeah, that hurts, don’t it?
Tough.
You go ahead and revel in whatever pain you imagine you are causing people, Saker. I made my attempt at a reasoned discourse, and chose my words carefully to avoid giving offense to those whose religion I disagree with. Unlike yourself, I don’t claim to know the truth. No discourse is possible with someone who is convinced he knows the truth. We would do a better job of convincing each other to vote for Obama.
Here’s Lewis again:
“But when we are comparing Christians in general with non-Christians in general, we are usually not thinking about real people whom we know at all, but only about two vague ideas which we have got from novels and newspapers. If you want to compare the bad Christian and the good Atheist, you must think about two real specimens whom you have actually met. Unless we come down to brass tacks in that way, we shall only be wasting time.
(2) Suppose we have come down to brass tacks and are now talking not about an imaginary Christian and an imaginary non-Christian, but about two real people in our own neighbourhood. Even then we must be careful to ask the right question. If Christianity is true then it ought to follow (a) That any Christian will be nicer than the same person would be if he were not a Christian. (b) That any man who becomes a Christian will be nicer than he was before. Just in the same way, if the advertisements of White-smile’s toothpaste are true it ought to follow (a) That anyone who uses it will have better teeth than the same person would have if he did not use it. (b) That if anyone begins to use it his teeth will improve.”
…or as Jesus said, “ye shall know them by their fruits.”
@Sean:If Christianity is true then it ought to follow (a) That any Christian will be nicer than the same person would be if he were not a Christian (b) That any man who becomes a Christian will be nicer than he was before.
The above in just one example of the kind of nonsense a total lack of understanding of what Christianity actually is or teaches, combined with a equally total lack of logical thinking.
First, I was under the impression that you were deliberately twisting almost every word I wrote, but I am starting to believe that you are every bit as clueless as your comments suggest.
You go ahead and revel in whatever pain you imagine you are causing people, Saker.
Oh man, now I am a sadist, to top it all off… For somebody who has been visiting my blog for quite a while already, that is a rather dumb comment to make.
But then, you are the one comparing religion and toothpaste ads :-)
I don’t claim to know the truth.
Of course you do, at least be honest about it! If you cannot show some brains, at least show some balls here ;-)
No discourse is possible with someone who is convinced he knows the truth.
Funny that you would say that. I am of the exact opposite opinion :-)
But then, I don’t expect you to understand that either.
——-
Pilate asked “What is the truth?” even though he was one of the very few people in the history of mankind who actually got to stand before, and even engage in a conversation with, the Truth *Incarnate*.
How ironic and how lame that he could not imagine the truth even while standing right before It.
I always thought that this is not even caused by a lack of faith, but primarily by a lack of imagination, of internal visual horizon.
Pilate is the “Patron Saint” of all agnostics, of all those who cannot concieve of the truth.
I really feel sorry for them.
Good nite!
Thanks Saker.
As regards the British situation if any of the good guys finds evidence of terrorist or fascist activity being financed in any jurisdiction that the London regime is responsible for I suggest they inform the Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man.
You have helped the scales fall from my eyes on another vital matter Saker. I have been forced to actually confront the real evidence of 9/11 rather than indulge in a knee jerk reaction describing all the truthers as “kooks” and you’re absolutely right. Any objective look at the evidence and you can only draw one conclusion. 9/11 without question WAS an inside job.
Come May Day next year, May Day of the Year Twelve the New Model Army is going to make a statement that these callous cruel quasi fascist market fundamentalist scum will never forget.
@Robert: actually confront the real evidence of 9/11 rather than indulge in a knee jerk reaction
Yes, in particular since, and that must be put in capital letters:
=>THERE IS NOT OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FOR 9/11<==
and
=>THE US GOVERNMENT HAS BY IMPLICATION ADMITTED THAT WTC7 WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION<=
For those who missed it, check out this:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-am-i-not-hearing-endless-rumble-of.html
Where I explain what the two conclusions above are based on, and why nobody seems to notice.
This said, there are some real kooks in the 9/11 Truth movement, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. They keep everybody else on edge and for us to carefully think through our theories even if that means “thinking the unthinkable”.
Cheers!
The above in just one example of the kind of nonsense a total lack of understanding of what Christianity actually is or teaches, combined with a equally total lack of logical thinking.
That was a direct quote from C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity,” the book you told me to read to gain an understanding of what Christianity is. Anyone who reads the book will quickly realize that his version of Christianity is vastly more tolerant and liberal than the norm, and he is adamantly non-sectarian.
Ironic, that the man you direct me to for understanding of Christianity has an interpretation of Christianity you regard as false.
First, I was under the impression that you were deliberately twisting almost every word I wrote, but I am starting to believe that you are every bit as clueless as your comments suggest.
I am well past the point of thinking that you are unable to hold a debate with someone you disagree with without resorting to cheap insults and ad hominems. At no point have I accused you of being ignorant or uninformed, told you to RTFM, or attacked your character. If I have twisted any of your words then I would appreciate you giving me an example of that, followed with an explanation of what you actually believe for clarification. I can’t argue with a chimera or a chameleon, and you keep making statements and then contradicting yourself when called on them.
Oh man, now I am a sadist, to top it all off… For somebody who has been visiting my blog for quite a while already, that is a rather dumb comment to make.
I don’t think you’re a sadist, but anyone who has read this blog for a while knows you do tend to direct a disproportionate amount of rage and animosity at those who disagree with you.
But then, you are the one comparing religion and toothpaste ads :-)
No, that is C.S. Lewis comparing religion to toothpaste ads. He’s right. If Christian claims to a superior morality are true, then on the whole we should see that Christians behave better and have a higher moral standard than non-believers do. Numerous studies have shown the opposite to be true.
“I don’t claim to know the truth.”
Of course you do, at least be honest about it! If you cannot show some brains, at least show some balls here ;-)
There you go telling me what I believe again. Why don’t you just write my replies for me? I make no claims to knowing the truth whatsoever. Indeed, I make the opposite claim: I do not know the truth. I have no clue what the truth is.
While I do not know the truth, I am capable of rejecting what appear to be untruths to me, and this is a process I have engaged in my entire life, though I only discovered there is a term for this process recently.
In “apothatic,” or negative, theology, which is an accepted practice of many religions including the Eastern Orthodox faith, one arrives at the truth not through a positive examination of what one believes to be the truth, but through a series of rejecting all things that appear to be false or untrue. The highest example of this would be Buddhism, which regards a rejection of all claims to the truth as the first step to discovering the truth, which can only be experienced, and not learned from doctrines, dogmas or assertions of faith. Though often tied to mysticism, it can be an intellectual process as well.
C.S. Lewis regards it as a higher form of knowing than the mindless embrace of doctrines and the words of priests.
Pilate asked “What is the truth?” even though he was one of the very few people in the history of mankind who actually got to stand before, and even engage in a conversation with, the Truth *Incarnate*.
Prove it.
@Sean: I really don’t know how or, more relevantly, WHY you would put so much energy into *not* understanding what you read (be it Lewis, or what I wrote). Whatever the case may be, I am wasting my time here and I probably should have heeded Michael’s advice. I will do so now.
Cheers!
You attack C.S. Lewis’ comments mistakenly believing them to be mine, then accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting what he wrote. Wow. Just…wow.
I get it now…the only proper interpretation of anything is yours. Everything else is deliberate obfuscation.
It is a fundamental principle of intellectual honesty that if you think someone is misinterpreting your views, you should clarify your position, particularly when the person asks you to do so repeatedly.
But you have shown no interest in doing this despite my requests, preferring to level empty accusations instead.
But you’re right, you should heed Michael’s advice and not engage in any debates with people who disagree with you.
Until you are willing to accord them the basic respect of an assumption of sincerity–something few Christians are ever willing to do for an atheist, in my experience–then you are wasting your time…and theirs.
@Sean: you win! you win! You have exposed the bigot in me! I surrender, dude, I do. I really really do! You have me beat, exposed, and shamed :-)
Cheers!
“Third, some immigrants have kept close ties to their country of origin and in some cases that can make them ideal agents for all sorts of illegal activities (funding through narcotics trade is a big favorite here). In the past, Kurdish immigrants used to be deeply infiltrated by the PKK, more recently we saw the Albanian immigrants providing a powerful lobby and source of support for the KLA.”
Hmmm Saker… Now, how can Kurds be “infiltrated” by the PKK? I don’t get it. ;-)
Zerkes
@Zerkes: well, let’s see. Kurds are an ethnicity, the PKK is a political movement. The latter being a subset of the former, it can increase its appeal/power/influence by recruiting in the former. And let’s be honest here, as any insurgency, the PKK did not look favorably upon those Kurds who, for whatever reason, did not want to assist it or who opposed it. Pressure, including violent pressure, was applied, or threatened, when needed, is that not true?
And if not tell me that Kurd=PKK or Kurd<=>PKK and that one is the other, I will point you to the simultaneous attack on Turkish representations across Europe (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/kurds-attack-turkish-targets-across-europe-munich-hostages-freed-after-14-hours–swiss-threaten-to-expel-ambassador-in-berne-after-extremist-shot-1493606.html)? That was the action of an extremely well-organized political movement which caught all European security services totally off-guard, not hte action of of all the Kurds in Europe, not all Kurds supported it, or assisted it.
I know, a insurgency needs to be like “fish in the water of the people”, but in practice all insurgencies, guerilla groups, political movements, etc. are very carefully – and COVERTLY – infiltrating the diasporas which are most likely to be receptive to such efforts.
Are you suggesting that the PKK is different and that it did *not* infiltrate Kurdish communities in Europe?
@Saker “Are you suggesting that the PKK is different and that it did *not* infiltrate Kurdish communities in Europe?”
Yes, you are correct. I am saying PKK is supported by Kurdish people and as such I wouldn’t call it infiltration. Infiltration is done without a groups will.
While you are right that PKK has used violence in the past against some Kurdish people opposing it, it has largely stopped such actions. I won’t even go into what other states and their services do (including Iranian assassinations) to people who oppose them.
The link you sent me is from 90ies. I suggest you read some of the writings of Desmond Fernandes. I will try to dig one or two our and get them to you.
Greetings
Zerkes
Saker, you’ve got mail.
Z