Peter,

How bland, how dull, how robotic would the world be if it were as "nice" as you would like to see it?

What a liberal cliche... "Imagine no religion..." Liberals like to pretend that people are as shallow as their thinking.

Just be nice. Kindergarten politics.

The smug superiority you preachers of secularism delude yourself into believing is as old as the Moonies accosting people in airports or the Saturday visits from that other group. If you are so morally superior why do you feel the need to proclaim it so loudly? I like living in a world with different religions. I just wish the religious bigots stay at home, especially in their own countries, and not bother me. That includes your type of religion.

If only we could get rid of religions, that ridiculous believe in bizarre complicated things we’ve never seen and have never had any evidence of, then the world would be such a nicer place to live in. Why can’t people see the contradictions, yes even the monstrous unfairness, of all those "revelations" and canonic truths? The cruelty in the scripts, the blatant racism, the huge amount of scientific evidence against what is written, it's all so obvious. Why can’t people just become responsible for their own values, principles and acts without the need of some alien super-creature as justification?

@ Bruyns

.....

6) Finally, how often do I have to repeat that the current situation in Europe is the result of naive-left immigration policies and non-implementation of 'own laws' by European 'elites' in the recent past.  It certainly is not due to "some oil sjeiks from Arabia".  Who has made such a claim?  So, why set up such a ridiculous 'strawman' again?  If you cannot read, or will not read what is in front of you, then there is no hope for you. 

@ Bruyns

.....

4) Your claim that jewish and christian culture "oppose each other in every way" is laughable on its face.  It suffices to look at the list of 'serious' nobel price winners, i.e. in physics, biology and chemistry. And who else in the world today shares genuine 'democracy' but jews and christians?   In fact, among the latter, many signs increasingly point to a possible loss of 'democracy' (again!) among the 'post-christians', particularly in Europe.

5) You have distorted views of what "multi-culturalism" is. The problem resides NOT in the fact that different cultures, or better sub-cultures, may exist together in one democratic 'polity'.  The potential problem resides in the possibility of the lack of minimum cultural adherence to common values among the different sub-groups.  Jews have never presented a serious problem for western countries, during the post-enlightenment era of 'democratising' polities.  Precisely because of the commonality of basic judeo-christian values.  Indeed, despite their small number, jews have reached very high levels of political and judicial responsibility in some western countries like France and the USA for instance.  In Britain they have had jewish prime-ministers!  And jews have had no problem of identifying 'patriotically' to western democracies. Perhaps a visit to the American cemeteries in Normandy (with their rows of crosses and stars of David) is in order.   You confuse opposition to 'dangerous forms of nationalism' with "spreading the idea of multi-culturalism".  Jews are not the only 'groups' who try to maintain certain 'own' traditions within a common democratic polity. 

....

@ Bruyns

1) Good for you that you think that you do not "hate" people.  However, denying the reality of the judeo-christian tradition, and blaming the miniscule proportion of the European population that is jewish for the multi-cul illusions of leftist European 'elites' in recent decades, are clear indications of an outward-repressed hate.  I know, from a cultural perspective, that 'not-hating' anyone has been politically-correct for some time now in Europe.  Hence, you paying lip-service to it. 

2) I also observe that you "pray" for those poor-misguided jews.  Have you noticed here that our muslim hate-speech guy ('Nansi') is also "praying" for them, and for you and me as well?    Imagine Allah/God receiving such contradictory prayers from Nansi and you.  Thank God, I am not in his/her place, for I would get really mad receiving prayers from such narrow-minded sectarian truth-monopolisers.

3) It is almost unbelievable how SELECTIVE and selfserving you can be in your selections from the history of western civilisation.  Yes, the Romans did destroy the temple in Jerusalem, but ended up adopting the religion of a 'jewish sect', christianity.  And when Rome was destroyed by 'barbarians', with a very different 'tradition', what happened to the west?  It is remarkable that you deny the enormous contributions of jews to western civilisation - Spinoza and Grotius for instance (just to limit ourselves to the Dutch 'corner' of the west -  and that you use the shortcomings of pre-enligthenment Europe as an 'argument' to deny the judeo-christian tradition!  How else could one interpret your reference to "emancipation of the jews in the 19th century"?

........

@ Kapitein Andre

....

4)  Perhaps the most pernicious among your blatantly anti-semitic comments is the claim that  "human rights" apply differently to "gentiles".  That is in the same 'league' as Amsterdamsky confusing 'liberty' with "teenage sex, abortion etc....".  I guess the devil is again in the details.  What do you mean by "human rights"?  Does that mean genuine freedom-of-speech and habeas corpus, or do you confuse that with a polity controlling its own immigration policy..... I hope that you can also make a disctinction between war time and peace time, when it comes to practical governmental rules and regulations, because we have to live in the real world not in some fantasy world (the latter perhaps created by the 'Pax Americana' wich enabled two generations of Europeans to breed simplistic illusions, including of multi-culturalism).  In short, your charge of "applying human rights differently" can be applied to any 'group' or 'country', including the self-professed "cosmopolitans", and particularly when the concept of "human rights" gets stretched beyond empirical observations into ideological pet-peeves.

5)  That intellectual 'jews' have often warned against the dangers of excessive or simplistic 'nationalism' is a fact, and easily understandable on historical grounds.  But, they never had any monopoly among westerners in terms of promoting perverse selfhatred for their own civilisation.  And, if the essence of western civilisation is respect for the individual and his/her rights, versus group-think, then 'jews' have  played a most admirable role in preserving western civilisation.  In short, your musings on "multiculturalism" miss the core point at stake, which is individual freedom.   

@ Kapitein Andre

1) On the contrary, what "non-westerners" (i.e.others) believe or do not believe is of great importance.  Demarcations, distinctions, definitions, etc...all involve delineations from what is different or "other". 

2) Christianity is a direct 'offshoot' from judaism.  It started as a religious 'sect' within judaism which was brought later to 'Europeans' mainly by 'Greeks' (and by others).   In western history, jews have always been in the forefront and in disproportionate numbers with regard to promotion of the "scientific method", certainly when compared with others in the  'west'.   As to "Arab intellectual foundations", it would indeed be ridiculous to call them "Judeo-Christian-Islamic". I do not see much evidence of any respect for "the scientific method" in the contemporary Arab world, whatever the reasons for that might be, and the intensification of ideological intolerance of the ruling naive-left orthodoxy in Europe today is also counter to the "scientific method".  

3)  After many centuries of diaspora and human history, the typical secular and/or liberal 'jew' in the west today is as much or as little "a Levantine" as you and I are (perhaps not in Antwerp, but certainly in the anglo-sphere).  Also, the fact that judaism has never displayed the missionary zeal of christianity and islam, does not make judaism an "ethno-centric" religion. I will take the freedom-of-speech in the one jewish state ANYTIME above the purported "cosmopolitan" intolerance of the group-conformity among our muslim 'brothers' and of a certain kind of 'post-christians'.

.....    

While your reply was directed towards Bruyns, I would like to comment on it.

Firstly, what non-Westerners (incl. your "intolerant Arabs") believe or do not believe about the West is of no concern. Nor do these opinions have any bearing on the intellectual foundations of the West, which, for the purposes of this discussion consists of Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Secondly, Western intellectual foundations are: (a) the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition (incl. the scientific method, etc.), and (b) Christianity. Why do I exclude Judaism? Because Christianity includes elements of Judaism, particularly by having the Old Testament in the Bible. Similarly, Judaism has borrowed from other philosophies and religions e.g. Zoroastarianism. Should we call Arab intellectual foundations Judeo-Christian-Islamic?

Thirdly, Jews are not European; rather they are Europeanized Levantines, just as the Palestinians are Arabized Levantines. Judaism also encompasses far more than merely those ideas also found in Christianity. Whereas Christianity has a universal cosmopolitanism, Judaism remains an ethno-centric religion; those human rights found within it apply differently to Gentiles.

Lastly, I do not "blame" Jews for multiculturalism, I have merely noted that they have played a disproportionately large role per capita in advocating it. This contradicts arguments that multiculturalists are either opposed to their own ethno-nationality (which Jews are not for they have Israel) or bleeding-heart Christians.

@ Bruyns

Perhaps the reason why there hasn't been a reaction yet to your denial of "judeo-christian culture" is because it was such an outrageous statement that most readers felt it would be best left alone.  But, you have managed to 'top' yourself with an even more outrageous statement (more on that in a minute).

Your denial of a judeo-christian 'tradition' is remarkable indeed.  Perhaps the 'Old Testament' hasn't received much attention anymore in recent decades in European education, because the educators were too busy making fun of the 'New Testament'?  I am not a 'kultuurfilosoof', but your claim is absolutely ridiculous.  When  the intolerant Arabs (including some on this website)  complain of Israel being a "foreign element", let me assure you that they don't mean some chinese, or melanesian, or amero-indian, or whatever "element", but they do mean a western (yes European) element.  The judeo-christian tradition is the cultural bedrock of western civilisation, viewed from a world perspective.

The jews tend to be a 'democratic-minded' people, in the sense of stressing individual rights and tolerating a wide variety of opinions within their group.  So, yes, they have their share of nutty professors with marxist and multiculturalist illusions in western academia.  But, after the European holocaust in the 20th century, the jews have represented an EXTREMELY TINY percentage of the population in Western Europe.  It is thus extremely ridiculous that you would put the blame on jews for "the current mass immigration and the lack of resistance against that".

Apparently, jew-hatred is still alive and well among the 'natives' in Europe.  Combined with the jew-hatred of the 'newcomers' to Europe in recent decades, it would seem that not much has changed from a century ago.

Again, I want to re-iterate that ethnic nationality is different from nationality (i.e. non-White Britons are British nationals but not English).

I agree that from a collective and general viewpoint, Islam is aggressive and cannot co-exist with the West, regardless of immigration.

And for the record, while I would like to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict treated like the other ethno-cultural conflicts without the heavy support for Israel, I do not want to see Israel or its Jewish majority lose their right to self-determination. I am a proponent of the two-state solution, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon, however, I agree that the Jews require their own nation-state.

As far as European ethno-national groups are concerned, I am opposed to anyone or group that is passively or actively eroding their self-determination. I believe that the Russians should de-colonize the Baltics, that Flanders receive statehood, that the Basques receive statehood, as well as the Transnistrians. The UK should be a Swiss-style federation with guaranteed powers given to the Welsh, Northern Irish, and Scotch to maintain their socio-cultural integrity.

I am not blaming Jews for multiculturalism or political correctness: there are those (incl. Jews) who stand to benefit from these movements and policies, and there are those who support them because of genuine (albeit misguided) conviction. However, under the banner of combating anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and Fascism, Jews in the West have played a proportionately significant role in the erosion and deconstruction of ethnic nationalism. Had the Gypsies existed in larger numbers than Jewry in the West, they would have acted similarly to secure their minority communities.

Additionally, I have never seen or heard of Jews standing up for ethnic nationalism anywhere except Israel, for the simple fact that they are not considered ethnic Frenchman or Germans - regardless of whether or not the "outsider" status was imposed from within or without.

While there are certainly more of the "misguided" group than Jews eroding Western nations, theoretically, anyone who is an ethnic Frenchman or German (regardless of political stance) can change their viewpoint of ethnic nationalism in a way that French or German Jews (or any non-French or non-German) cannot. Jus sanguinis ensures that the ties remain...

I realize that when it comes to what Israeli Jews and the Jewish diaspora believe about and/or want for the State of Israel, it becomes a complicated and controversial issue. I am merely simplifying for the sake of space...

On the whole, Judaism today is in limbo today, incorporating religious, ethno-racial, national, civil, and cultural loyalties.

However, the general trends have indicated discrimination against Arab Muslims and Arab Jews, and non-European Jews. I have a Yemenite Jew as a friend and he is ostracized by much of the Jewish community which tends to be Ashkenazi of East-Central European descent.

While there are many competing factions in Israel's socio-political life, the concept of Jews as an ethnic group (i.e. racial/genetic) did not disappear in 1945, even it it exists in combination with religious and national identities.

Furthermore, there are a great deal of Jews in the diaspora who are more "hardline" than their Israeli brethren.

Let me also remind you that Islam’s ambition for world domination didn’t magically appear in the last decade, nor it did after the birth of the Jewish state. Muslims feel they have unfinished business with the crusaders’ descendants. The reason why they take their chance nowadays is because they have the OIL that Europe and America so desperately need. That boosts their confidence into thinking that they can, after all command the West into doing what they want. When they bomb the West ‘over Israel’, it’s just another tactic for them to enforce submission in the West. Israel has little or nothing to do with this whole matter, it is just used as a tool for their own benefit and their PRIMARY AGENDA. They view Israel’s presence as a great challenge: if they can overcome Israel’s presence in the Middle East and turn the West against Israel, that would mean they can do other things, like TAKE OVER EUROPE. They’ve already succeeded in doing this so far, which is to turn Europe against Israel. I’ve heard them declare the following concept many times, “Today we take Israel, tomorrow we’ll take the West”.

The problem is that the West had overdosed on Multiculturalism, it simply didn’t handle it properly and now we see the results. Blaming the Jews / Israel is an old, tiresome and lazy thinking in which the root of the matter is to dump the entire blame on someone else. It would be stupid and quite distracting from the real Muslim danger, to solely blame the Jews for the current Muslim problem. Instead, the West needs to smarten up, and orchestrate a cohesive retaliation against Islam. Once that is cleared up, we can all sort out our differences.

“At best they are allies of convenience in the war on terror, and even then Israel benefits with arms and funds while the West gets bombed for supporting it.”

You cannot lump all of them into that category. There are many Jews that are first and foremost loyal to the countries in which they live in from the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, examples: France’s Alain Finkelkraut who advocates for France’s national sovereignty, and Henryk Broder of Germany. On the other hand you have people like Noam Chomsky who’s fiercely anti-American, anti-Israeli, and probably wouldn’t mind living under Sharia law one day. The liberal, “Politically Correct” Leftists who led the “Peace Now” movement in the 1990s are the quivalent to the West’s self procalimed Liberal 'left'. We should learn from what happened in Israel at that time. They meant good for themselves and the Palestinians when their naïve intentions led them to give as much land for peace to people who wanted to see them dead. Those good intentions were understood (or misunderstood) as a sign of weakness on the Muslim Palestinian side, more Israeli blood-shed resulted precisely during the so called Peace Process.

You've been smoking too much hash again. The Pope banned opera briefly in the 18th century for immorality. What has that to do with the Dark Ages and Luther?

The Dark Ages was a result of the sack of Rome in 410 A.D. Luther didn't promulgate his heresy till the 16th century, well after the Renaissance.

A little addled, are we?

Think about it. In Western educational institutions Jewish academics are teaching Neo-Marxist perspectives on the nation-state and society in general, with the obvious "anti-racist" (anti-White/European) component included. However, when it comes to Israel, it seems that: (a) ethnic cleansing, (b) apartheid, (c) ghettoes, (d) military occupation, (e) concentration (or refugee) camps, and (f) ethno-religious purity is good. For Europe and North America - bad. 

If non-White immigrants are good for the Western economies (except the East Asians of course) why aren't they good for Israel to? I'd like to see the Palestinians become full citizens of the "Jewish State." Grant them amnesty the way America does the Mexican illegals...

Excuse me if I do not consider these people an ally in solving the dual challenges of immigration and Islam. At best they are allies of convenience in the war on terror, and even then Israel benefits with arms and funds while the West gets bombed for supporting it.

Multiculturalism and political correctness is a double standard, which means it does not come from the heart. Nor is it misguided.

In fact many of the oikophobes (proponents of multiculturalism and political correctness) are Jewish or of Jewish descent.

Since when have Jews supported ethnic nationalism in Europe? Since when have they supported the Anglo-European character of North America and Australasia?

There is a school of thought that believes the Jews advocated "rainbow" or "world-in-one-country" societies in the West to combat European and White nationalism; similarly those Jews in Eastern Europe advocated Communism for the same reason. In a country full of different minorities, the Jews were safe; in a country of only Europeans and Jews, there could be pogroms. Unfortunately, if this is true, their plan backfired and both Europeans and Jews are paying dearly i.e. the immigrants are Muslim and far nastier than any Holocaust-denier.

"but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture"

The Dark Ages?  The pope banning opera during the peak of Mozarts short career?  If not for Martin Luther we would still be living in a medieval theocracy I am sure.

The main stream media and left is doing the best to whitewash Islam whereever we can.

Why not simply listen to what  reknown islamic authorities have to say, like the Mufti of Australia (the greatest islamic authority there). Best place is a mosque, where the taqqiya (the muslim commandment: thou shalt lie to infidels to serve islam) isn't respected.

That good man
claims for Christians there's  only hell and raping a woman not dressed in the hijab comes down to a cat eating unattended meat..

Here's the speech:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23107_Religion_of_Misogyny#comments

What will our left and mainstream media do about such unpleasent things that tarnish the self-proclaimed religion of peace?
1. they will outcry - that publishing and distributing the good imam's view will only raise islamophobia...

So - what's bad about islamophobia? - if Muslims think like the imam it's the only sound reaction they deserve. And politicians shouldn't reward them with additional social security paychecks but better with one way tickets back home.

I think Europeans have received learned conditioning to the religion of their past, which was primarily Catholic. I doubt that many have experienced negative aspects personally but have had it pounded into them by unrelenting media and educators that the experience was a bad one. There were some real problems, too, in many areas of the churches which would make reasonable people wonder whether the officials were representing God or representative of Satan. I doubt that the many churches that remain at the city centers could have existed for so long if the entire history had been so negative for your ancestors.

There are many versions of Christianity, but all find that acceptance of Christ is implicit. I know of no version which require a person to be Christian. It is a personal step that each individual takes for himself of his own free will. Many of the misguided practitioners lose sight of this fact. No one can be a Christian because of a requirement of another. It is implicit in the contract between God and man that the person must make the decision to accept Christ in order to become a Christian. God does not order it but entreats man to accept. I am not a theologist by any means, but that is my understanding.

I wish that Europe would recognize that religion was important to them, but the pervasiveness of leftist views will likely keep it secular. Europe would be stronger with a christian faith, but it can't be manufactured so secularism will remain the dominant religion for so long as the left can maintain their illusionary hold on the people. Many of the so called leaders of Christianity have given their allegiance to leftism and secularism over Christianity, which gives rise to the same problems Europe experienced with them in the past.

There are two ideologies that might allow for a defense of the west - Christianity and Nationalism.  Christianity descends, via Catholicism, from the Romans;  Nationalism from the tribal loyalties of the invaders that devastated the Romans.  Both are suppressed under the liberal political  hegemony, Nationalism by the invocation of the evils of Nazism/Fascism (even though the resistance to those was also Nationalist), and Christianity by ridicule of the idea, from primary school upwards,  that "Big Beardy" created the universe (although Christian ideas are of course way more sophisticated than this - read Aquinas or Augustine for God's sakes).

We need to awaken both of these ideologies.  We also need to find a good balance between the two. 

Christianity alone is not good enough - too many Christians support the international liberal hegemony, as it looks very similar to the old Catholic idea of binding together the nations of Christendom under a single moral authority.  Maybe, these Christians think, with minor adjustments it can be made to work.

The other problem with Christianity is that most public intellectuals still balk at actually believing in it - our Fjordman above; Theodore Dalrymple; Orianna Fallaci - all of them declare themselves atheists while touting Christianity.  These is no way that this kind of thinking is going to build a realistic resistance - functioning ideologies absolutely require that the elites believe the same as the masses, albeit with more sophistication and detail - the Catholics knew this, and the Communists  attempted to copy it (see Gramsci, amongst others).

Nationalism has its own problems.  I think it has to form the core of the resistance, but should be tempered with Christianity to stop it from going too far.

The different versions of Christianity described by McMad and Saharian are visible, but they are not the type of Christianity I am advocating.  I am talking about true belief; not just some adoption of a morality code.

Of course, believing the Bible as I do, I might resign myself to winning the few souls I can to Christ and leaving Europe to its own devices.  Considering the prophesies of Revelation and the high possibility we are close to the days described there, expecting Europe to come around in time to save itself is Saharian's "Pipe Dream".

In some ways, the Revelation prophesies make more sense the more Muslim Europe becomes...

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

Some Christians are the worst kind of submissive dhimmis imaginable. Go to your local library an take a look at the Christian magazines in print today. There are magazines for Christian Marxists, Christian Feminists, Christian Gays and so forth. When they are writing something about islam then it is with the most submissive tone imaginable. A few weeks ago i happened to leaf through such a magazine and noticed a story for children. In short, it went something like this: "John and his best friend Achmed went to the local mosque where they had a long conversation with the friendly imam and John learned that Christianity and islam have a lot in common!"
Basically, these "Christian" magazines are saying that islam is just as good a way to God as Christianity is.

We dont need all europeans to convert to Christianity, we need patriotism. Patriotism was considered one of the greatest virtues until leftist propaganda, spewed out by the powers to be in Europe, turned it into a sin akin to fashism.
Patriotism makes people stand up and fight for their People and their Country, not some promise of afterlife.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill -

Fjordman,

I agree that Christianity was a key ingredient of Western Civilization...and am happy that you defend it as such.

But Europe is really up against the wall now. It's in a civilizational conflict which might bring about it's permanent collapse. Wishing for a 'little more of that religion' that we used to know - so long as it stays in a nice little box - is such a watered down call that it can have little effect.

Europe doesn't need religion or even Christianity. It needs believers in Christ. People who are guided by Jesus in their everyday decisions. People who know what is good and what deserves protection.

And yes, people that are willing to fight and die. I think you may misunderstand Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies. These are personal commandments, but do not necessarily apply to us as nations. I don't think Jesus meant that our communities should just lie down and surrender to any dark force that threatens us.

He says that we will in fact have enemies and that we should pray that they come to know Him.

It grieves me to hear how impotent the churches of Europe are. They appear from afar to be nothing but leftist political groups with only a thin veneer of (fake?) Christianity.

Fjordman, you have an important voice. People listen to you. How great would it be if you could - in this crisis - lead people to Christ? How great would it be if you yourself came to know Him.

It's a radical move, I know! Moreso in Europe than in the States. But Europe needs more than a little healthy radicalism. Put on your tie-die shirt, brother and join us!

I agree with you, Fjordman. Muslims all over repeat openly again an again their gender-/minority-/religion-/ discriminating views and are by no part held accountable for that. 

What about beheadings of innocents in the name of Allah - nothing Muslims have  to be ashamed of or be held accountable for - violence per definition can't originate from Muslims, so let's ignore it (or better - punish the victims for provocating peaceful Muslims to commit such acts - if they still got their head on their shoulders....). That's where the dumbest village imam and Europe's smartest leftist fully agree. (competely other story if a Christian soldier holds up a long time dead's skull.. like it happened in Germany - that's when the left gets really mad)

What about women in hijab - just a sign of the great self esteem and pride of Muslim women, as more and more leftist feminists try to justify. Even if those who should know it better - like the imams - tell a complete different
story..

Here's a nice link (unfortunatley only in German) to the view of Australia's mufti on women who don't wear the hijab - he simply compares the act of raping them with a cat eating unattended meat.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,444869,00.html

But hey, let's ignore this one as well. Supposedly even the imams don't fully understand the peaceful nature of islam and how well it treats women and gays and Jews and so on and on. But luckily our left and the EU knows better than even the imams..Islam means peace. Name those, who don't follow the muslim rites and be sure islam will spread it's love and peace on  them.