I don’t think I’ve ever before seen a jump straight from stage 1 to stage 5 of Edward Feser’s evolution of liberalism. (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/evolution-of-liberalism-and.html) Last time I checked, wasn’t everybody still saying it’s conservative scare-mongering to suggest such a thing might ever happen?
The really depressing thing, of course, will be when the jails fail to fill up with priests.
In fairness, it does permit “priests” to refuse to perform such a ceremony (for now) though it requires that bishops “arrange a replacement,” i.e., act in at least a materially complicit fashion in support of the simulation of a sacrament. What happens, I wonder, if a bishop refuses? Or disciplines a priest for participating?
But there is no “replacement” for a priest except another priest, unless all one wants is the building.
It is my understanding that in Lutheranism holy matrimony is considered a non-sacramental rite. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will be impossible or even too difficult to find someone willing to officiate. The advocates of redefining marriage want the prestige of the church, the building, and the hierarchy if they can get it. And they will not hesitate to use the power of the state to get it.
What is curious about this two-year-old story is that it does not mention that this law pertains only to Denmark’s state Lutheran church. Other churches are, I gather, still permitted to refuse same-sex marriages altogether. Not, mind you, that I don’t think that further encroachments will come, but it seems to me significant anyway that this is an act upon a church that is in fact the official church of the state, not upon other churches.
That is significant. However, it is still outrageous. Indeed, I think it more outrageous. In my opinion, it is one thing to make no pretense of being Christian and then persecute Christians for their faith. It is evil, but it is at least honest in its outright evil. However, what the Danes did with this law is invoke the name of Christ to blaspheme Christ’s religion while still claiming to be officially Christian the whole time. It is hypocrisy and blasphemy in its most naked and wicked form.
Luther and Calvin look up from hell in horror at what they had wrought. Satan below them cackles gleefully, Jesus above them looks on with great disappointment, and God outside perceives all.
Yes. This is a two-year old story. Yes, this applies only to the Danish State Church, which happens to be Lutheran at least in name. Luther might have some words about this that wouldn’t be fit to print in the church bulletin. When you take the king’s penny, you play the king’s tune. It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state. In America, where church and state are separated, not even the very liberal legislatures and nominally Catholic and pro-“gay marriage” governors of the State of California and the State of New York dare force this on the Lutherans of their states.
It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state.
The misuse of Church Establishment in some European countries is not an excuse to oppose it ideologically. Also, there are counterexamples. In England, the law that legalized same sex marriage also forbade the Church of England from recognizing them. Most likely this was due to the influence of the Crown as Defender of the Faith in the legislative process (the Crown does, occasionally, make its opinions known behind closed doors in the UK). Also, it is noteworthy that while England is more socially liberal on many issues than North America, the Church of England is more conservative than its North American counterparts.
In America, where church and state are separated, not even the very liberal legislatures and nominally Catholic and pro-”gay marriage” governors of the State of California and the State of New York dare force this on the Lutherans of their states.
Not yet, anyway. America’s next step in liberalism is usually pressed through the courts first, then the liberal legislatures back it up with even more force.
> It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state.
How so? Being established sure doesn’t seem to be hurting liberalism any.
“America’s next step in liberalism is usually pressed through the courts first, …”
Right. All that needs to happen is for the “arbiters of the Constitution” to rule that Christian churches do, in fact, take the king’s penny in the form of non-profit, tax-exempt status, and that, therefore, they will play the king’s tune with gay “marriage” just like they play the king’s tune on political speech and so forth.
It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state. In America, where church and state are separated, not even the very liberal legislatures and nominally Catholic and pro-”gay marriage” governors of the State of California and the State of New York dare force this on the Lutherans of their states.
I find this a strange argument especially coming from you. What was the American government doing when it (rightly) forced the LDS to give up polygamy nearly a century and a half ago? The US government implicitly reserves the right to interfere with the religious practices of its citizens.
The U.S. government overstepped its proper constitutional bounds in the 19th Century and may yet do so in the 21st Century. The state is always the potential enemy of the people and of the churches, which is why, so far as it may be possible, the state should be limited and constrained, and the churches be kept free from the power and corruption of the state.
I anticipate further attempts by the state to intrude upon the rights of the churches and of the people. The U.S. Supreme Court has six members who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. No other faith tradition is represented on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Governor of New York who pushed marriage redefinition through his legislature is a Catholic. The Governor of California who refused to defend Proposition 8 in court is a Catholic. (Prop 8 passed with the help of a broadly-based, multi-faith coalition led by now Archbishop Cordileone.) It is strange to blame America’s current problems on Luther or Calvin, when so many Catholic officeholders are liberals. The most reliably liberal states are Catholic, not Baptist or LDS. The American people, however, are more conservative than their liberal leaders and have the power to restrain them if they waken.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It is a fatal error to count of the power of the state to maintain a church.
Did I say Christians should count on state support? No. That doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t support them in principle. A whole host of other verses positively command the Church to be established and Christianity be the official religion of the state, such as Is. 49:23:
And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
Not to mention the Psalter on Christ, like Psalm 2, most specifically vs. 10-12:
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings:
be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,
and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
The U.S. government overstepped its proper constitutional bounds in the 19th Century and may yet do so in the 21st Century. The state is always the potential enemy of the people and of the churches, which is why, so far as it may be possible, the state should be limited and constrained, and the churches be kept free from the power and corruption of the state.
The logic and precedent applied in that case was rooted in the American founding especially in the thought of Madison and Jefferson, it only came up when the matter was finally adjudicated in the late 19th century. I don’t think much of Founders and American ideology but there was no “overstep” given the law as it already was.
Luther or Calvin, when so many Catholic officeholders are liberals. The most reliably liberal states are Catholic, not Baptist or LDS. The American people, however, are more conservative than their liberal leaders and have the power to restrain them if they waken.
Practically every majority Protestant country in the world has surrendered to social modernism. Indeed, modernism grew up in those countries. Even in Africa the one country that allows same sex marriage (South Africa) has a strong Calvinist element. On the other hand there are many countries, mostly Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic where it is not. Let’s not forget too, that the spread of SSM marriage seems to crop up where American cultural influence is strongest, and unchallenged. I also found it amusing that American Baptists and Mormons slavishly support the state of Israel – the only Middle Eastern country to allow abortion on demand and SSM. So according to Baptist minister John Hagee and his conservative Mormon side-kick Glenn Beck, God reestablished Israel there so that homosexuals could get married in the Holy Land. That’s American conservative religion for you.
As far as Catholic office holders go, all I have to say is thank goodness we have stalwart LDS conservatives to keep in check all those bad Catholics, like Senator Harry Reid, Tom Udall, Orin Hatch, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. Thank goodness for that Mormon redoubt and its inherent conservatism, in a religious tradition where prohibitions against caffeine are more absolute than baby killing.
Also how is France an example of a state run church? The French state has in the main viciously persecuted the Catholic Church in that country for the better part of two centuries (and to the applause of the American founders BTW). Even still, I was somewhat heartened by the resistance, offered, even in the streets against the passage of SSM in that country, especially given all the chest thumping on the part of Americans. Americans only take to the streets for anti-tax protests or the right to have sex with whomever whenever. What did Utah do? File a court brief?
The absurdity of being in communion with atheists (or with practicing homosexuals as it is the case now) is one of the reasons the late Kierkegaard renounced the Lutheran State Church of Denmark. The current state ideology in Scandinavia and England and its influence on the state churches prove his point that the modern state is a menace to churches over which it has power.
@ DeGaulle
I don’t think so because Muslims themselves needn’t marry in mosques. Marriage isn’t a religious ceremony in Islam the way it is in Christianity – it’s a contract, more or less. Most of the Muslims I know (here in SE Michigan, Muslims make up a large segment of the population) got married in banquet halls or community centers.
So do Hindus ( get married in banquet halls) but the location of wedding does not make it a non-religious ceremony.
The Muslim wedding ceremony explicitly invokes God,
I think she is referring to the (pseudo-)sacramental (Protestants do not acknowledge it as a sacrament, but Protestant ceremony has sacramental undertones nevertheless) nature of marriage in Christianity. Often, when Christians look at people of other religions marrying, it seems more like the oath we take when making a contract than the type of covenant we make in marriage.
So, it is pretty clear that Islamic-style persecution of Christians will begin in Western Europe shortly.
What is the response of committed neoreactionary forces in the west? Is it to aid Russia by any means necessary in expansion. I have to say it would be a fitting thing to have Russian tanks roll into Copenhagen, to crush the feminazis, sodomites, and secularists.
All of the things we predicted have come to pass, we are vindicated ideologically each week. But now note that we are the counterculturalists. We are no longer conservatives. They are the conservatives, for the culture being conserved now is the culture of death, liberalism, and sin.
It must be our goal to destroy this culture, to break it down, just as it was their goal to destroy our culture which they succeeded in doing. Because of this new dynamic, they inherit the handicaps of yesteryear that we suffered from. They’re lazy, exposed, poorly informed. Much like the Russians and the Islamic fundamentalists in Western Europe, we have a goal of taking this sick society down by any means necessary. Perhaps for a different set of ends, but the immediate goal remains the same.
Let this be called the invisible crusade, for they’ll never see it coming.
Islamic-style would actually be better. They never forbade mass and killed priests over it.
What would be serious would be Anglican-style persecution of the Catholic Church.
While I understand your outrage things are bit more complicated. Neither Russians nor Muslims will save decadent Europe from feminism or whatever. They are foreign powers. Perhaps they could impose something on us but they can hardly win our love and loyalty.
Besides, Russia is not in a position to impose anything on anybody except her closest neighbors. Russians have their own problems. Their economy and even birth rates are worse than in Europe. Their military expenditures are low in comparison with Western powers etc.
It is strange to see reactionaries putting their hopes in Russia. Russians are instinctively against Western ideas (or ideologies) but it does not make them reactionaries. Who knows what ideology they are going to adopt now. The worst thing others can do is to think they understand Russia and what is going on there.
Yeah I don’t get it either. Russian society is rotting at a faster rate than even some Western societies. Obama was actually right in noting that Putin annexing Crimea was done not out of strength but weakness. The Russians and their Middle East allies , Syria and Iran are besieged and more or less completely hemmed in by the Anglo-American powers and their proxies.
Another event I don’t celebrate is the so-called “rise of the right” in Europe. Most of these so-called rightists are not rightist, at least not in the Christian sense. Take the relatively popular Geert Wilders, who wanted to require all Muslim immigrants submit to watching videos of two homosexuals kissing and if they couldn’t tolerate it they would not be admitted entrance. Is that is what the so-called “right” is fighting for?
Russia’s birth rates have been improving as of late. They have experienced natural population growth (miniscule growth, albeit) for the first time in decades the past couple of years. Also, Russian military spending is probably under-reported in the Russian budget. As for Russia being instinctively against Western ideas, it seems to me more like they are instinctively opposed to liberalism. This isn’t to say it’s a good idea for Russia or Muslims (especially Muslims) to invade Europe so they can forcibly stamp out liberalism.
However, I do think facing a real external threat to our very existence might do some good. Liberalism has accelerated since the end of the Cold War, and it also accelerated after World War II. This is partially because we face no serious external threat to our existence, I believe. Facing a strong Islamic Caliphate or a resurgent Russian Imperialism might force the West to draw on its own Christian heritage. Of course, it could also cause us to double down on liberalism, especially if the threat comes from a resurgent Orthodox Russia.
Russian society is rotting at a faster rate than even some Western societies.
Not saying it’s a rose garden over on the Volga, but this doesn’t seem to jive with the trends in Russian society. Let’s remember that Russia is recovering from 70 years of Communism, followed by 10 years of Right-Liberalism gone wild. At bottom, they had a 1.4/mother birthrate. They are up to 1.7 at last count. Not exactly great, but a significant improvement nonetheless. I’m not sure what to think of Putin, but he seems to have conservative instincts and he might even be influenced by the White Russian Emigre philosophers. I’m personally not totally trusting anything Putin does until the Romanovs are restored, but I am not willing to totally repudiate him either.
As for the European Right, I agree in many cases. However, the National Front and UKIP don’t seem totally bad either. A bit too populist some of the time, but on the right track.
Some commentators claim that Russia’s recent birthrate uptick is mainly due to its burgeoning Caucasian Muslim population. This is probably why Putin is so very keen on opposing the spread of Wahibism in the Middle East, because he realizes given the proximity to the Caucasus such radicalism would spread into his southern oil-rich provinces. Of course it was also long standing US strategy dating to the Cold War to effectuate just this result. I think current events make sense when viewed through that lens.
From what I understand, Islam makes up between 5 and 15% of the Russian population. It’s difficult for me to believe an uptick of 20% or so in the birthrate is due entirely to that segment of the population. Also, looking at Dagestan and Chechnya, their birthrates have not significantly changed over the past decade. Not to mention their populations are small in relation to the rest of Russia. It doesn’t seem enough to drive the growth. Neither does Tatarstan.
Also, the social conservative movement in Russia has made great strides, and the country’s Orthodox heritage is promoted. Restrictions on abortion rights (still a long way to go on this front), the (in)famous homosexuality propaganda law, the cultural policies of the regime all seem to be significant improvements. Russia certainly still has a long way to go before it can be considered a story of successful social recovery, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss these laws and seemingly positive trends. Like I said, I don’t totally trust Putin, so we’ll have to see where it goes.
My point is not that either can ‘save us’. Especially not Islam, since we’ve seen how brutal it is to everyone, whether they be traditionalist or decadent, if you are not a follower of Mohammad’s cult, its death or servitude.
But Russia has many good things to admire. For instance, they recognize their demographic problem and are reversing it. As another poster noted, the Russian birthrate has gone from huge negative to small positive, and is on the upswing. It will take a lot of lobbying to outlaw abortion, but small steps have been taken. Look at the correct role of the Church being modeled there, involved actively in the political sphere in the realms where it has authority (namely moral causes like outlawing sodomite filth). They are at least aware of the dynamics of ethnicity at play in the world.
It is not perfect, but it is a standout on the continent. I know only we can save ourselves, but someone has to clear out the Orwellian liberals. My point was, perhaps either Russia or the Muslims could provide the muscle to at least weaken the western leadership enough for us to gather political strength in order to overthrow them and their ‘enlightenment’.
Depressing.. We Christians are on our way to the concentration camps
Let me remind people that Nazis too claimed to save civilization from Bolsheviks and decadents.
Nazis came to power with the help of catholic parties and the right.
And what’s the problem with that? The Nazis wouldn’t seek every possible way to humilhate and discriminate against me like the liberal marxists. Wish the 3rd Reich had won.
To wish the Third Reich had won is to descend into madness. Ask any Dane.
Seriously?
> Seriously?
Yes, seriously, recent facts which convinced me:
1> Brazilian government just established 20% quotas for blacks in civil service jobs, which are the best and highest paying ones (skin color will be the utilized to decide, not auto-declaration) -> And what? Noone cares. No Christian association gives a s*&& about it. And noone else for that matter. In the USA the same, most companies & universities “insist on a diverse workforce”, an eufemism for saying they racially discriminate against whites. If the symetric was happening everyone in the west would make it their #1 priority to destroy them like they did with South Africa.
2> Blacks hate whites and noone cares, even famous artists (and Obama’s pastor too by the way), and no, noone cares, read about it in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation also “Nation of Islam”. If a white had the symetric views, oh boy, we need to destroy him cause he is a danger for the liberal establishment =D
So what do I have to lose? The liberal west hates me, and I hope the liberal west dies.
But anyway, that the nazis come back is just a highly fantasious dream. There are other more realistic ways out for the west:
a> Join the sunii islamists
or
b> Join a Russian remnant, if such a thing will exist at all.
The hope that the west will simply wake up from it’s current death spiral and rewind back to 1950 or 1900 is a fantasy. It will not happen.
And anyway, if you think my proposed solutions are terrible, what do you propose? Could you please make a concrete proposal so that facts 1 and 2 in the beginning of my post won’t happen? If you can’t then I’m not interested in whatever you are working for.
Noted. And while we’re at it let us remind people too that the way to ensure evil will triumph is for good men to do nothing; that one means of ensuring good men do nothing is to equate their opposition to deviant sexual behaviorisms, hedonistic equalitarianism and so forth, to the rise of nazism and fascism. Reinforce these ideas for a few decades, and before you know it those who aren’t thoroughly neutered are effectively outlawed.
A lot of writings on the Right are not innocent. In particular the secular Right and HBD and the self-proclaimed race-realists are stoking fires that may have incalculable consequences.
1 The 60,000 illegal little angels came to America in the evening as Obama was sitting near the city gate. When he saw them, he got up and went to them and bowed facedown on the
ground. 2 Obama said, “Kids, please come to my detention center and spend the night. There you can wash your feet, and then tomorrow you may continue your journey.”
2 The little angels answered, “No, we will spend the night in the city’s public square.”
3 But Obama begged them to come, so they agreed and went to his detention center. Then Obama prepared a communist
transsexual Obamacare abortion ritual orgy for them. He baked bread without yeast, and they ate it with psychedelic mushrooms.
4 Before bedtime, Obama voters both young and old and from every part of America surrounded Obama’s detention center. 5 They called to Obama, “Where are the little angels who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have communist transsexual Obamacare abortion ritual sexual relations with them and then offer their unborn lumps of fetal flesh to Molech and put them all on psych meds for Satan and turn them into permanent liberal Obama voters.”
6 Obama went outside to them, closing the door behind him. 7 He said, “No, my voters! Do not do this evil thing yet. 8 Look! I have millions of conservative taxpayers who have never had Satanic ritual homosexual relations. I will give them to you, and you may do anything you want with them through Obamacare’s taxes, penalties, mandates, and death panels.
The Orthosphere 
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark….just wanted to be the first to get that quote in!
I don’t think I’ve ever before seen a jump straight from stage 1 to stage 5 of Edward Feser’s evolution of liberalism. (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/evolution-of-liberalism-and.html) Last time I checked, wasn’t everybody still saying it’s conservative scare-mongering to suggest such a thing might ever happen?
The really depressing thing, of course, will be when the jails fail to fill up with priests.
In fairness, it does permit “priests” to refuse to perform such a ceremony (for now) though it requires that bishops “arrange a replacement,” i.e., act in at least a materially complicit fashion in support of the simulation of a sacrament. What happens, I wonder, if a bishop refuses? Or disciplines a priest for participating?
But there is no “replacement” for a priest except another priest, unless all one wants is the building.
It is my understanding that in Lutheranism holy matrimony is considered a non-sacramental rite. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will be impossible or even too difficult to find someone willing to officiate. The advocates of redefining marriage want the prestige of the church, the building, and the hierarchy if they can get it. And they will not hesitate to use the power of the state to get it.
This seems incredibly anticlimactic.
What is curious about this two-year-old story is that it does not mention that this law pertains only to Denmark’s state Lutheran church. Other churches are, I gather, still permitted to refuse same-sex marriages altogether. Not, mind you, that I don’t think that further encroachments will come, but it seems to me significant anyway that this is an act upon a church that is in fact the official church of the state, not upon other churches.
That is significant. However, it is still outrageous. Indeed, I think it more outrageous. In my opinion, it is one thing to make no pretense of being Christian and then persecute Christians for their faith. It is evil, but it is at least honest in its outright evil. However, what the Danes did with this law is invoke the name of Christ to blaspheme Christ’s religion while still claiming to be officially Christian the whole time. It is hypocrisy and blasphemy in its most naked and wicked form.
Luther and Calvin look up from hell in horror at what they had wrought. Satan below them cackles gleefully, Jesus above them looks on with great disappointment, and God outside perceives all.
Yes. This is a two-year old story. Yes, this applies only to the Danish State Church, which happens to be Lutheran at least in name. Luther might have some words about this that wouldn’t be fit to print in the church bulletin. When you take the king’s penny, you play the king’s tune. It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state. In America, where church and state are separated, not even the very liberal legislatures and nominally Catholic and pro-“gay marriage” governors of the State of California and the State of New York dare force this on the Lutherans of their states.
The misuse of Church Establishment in some European countries is not an excuse to oppose it ideologically. Also, there are counterexamples. In England, the law that legalized same sex marriage also forbade the Church of England from recognizing them. Most likely this was due to the influence of the Crown as Defender of the Faith in the legislative process (the Crown does, occasionally, make its opinions known behind closed doors in the UK). Also, it is noteworthy that while England is more socially liberal on many issues than North America, the Church of England is more conservative than its North American counterparts.
Not yet, anyway. America’s next step in liberalism is usually pressed through the courts first, then the liberal legislatures back it up with even more force.
> It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state.
How so? Being established sure doesn’t seem to be hurting liberalism any.
“America’s next step in liberalism is usually pressed through the courts first, …”
Right. All that needs to happen is for the “arbiters of the Constitution” to rule that Christian churches do, in fact, take the king’s penny in the form of non-profit, tax-exempt status, and that, therefore, they will play the king’s tune with gay “marriage” just like they play the king’s tune on political speech and so forth.
It illustrates the danger of uniting church and state. In America, where church and state are separated, not even the very liberal legislatures and nominally Catholic and pro-”gay marriage” governors of the State of California and the State of New York dare force this on the Lutherans of their states.
I find this a strange argument especially coming from you. What was the American government doing when it (rightly) forced the LDS to give up polygamy nearly a century and a half ago? The US government implicitly reserves the right to interfere with the religious practices of its citizens.
I am impressed with the Baptist tradition on church and state. See http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/baptists-separation-of-church-and-state/
The U.S. government overstepped its proper constitutional bounds in the 19th Century and may yet do so in the 21st Century. The state is always the potential enemy of the people and of the churches, which is why, so far as it may be possible, the state should be limited and constrained, and the churches be kept free from the power and corruption of the state.
It is a fatal error to count on the power of the state to maintain a church. The churches of Europe, where church and state were traditionally joined, are a hollow shell of their former selves. See, for example, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27177265 and http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-france-145-no-longer-a-catholic-country-146-24892/
I anticipate further attempts by the state to intrude upon the rights of the churches and of the people. The U.S. Supreme Court has six members who are Catholic and three who are Jewish. No other faith tradition is represented on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Governor of New York who pushed marriage redefinition through his legislature is a Catholic. The Governor of California who refused to defend Proposition 8 in court is a Catholic. (Prop 8 passed with the help of a broadly-based, multi-faith coalition led by now Archbishop Cordileone.) It is strange to blame America’s current problems on Luther or Calvin, when so many Catholic officeholders are liberals. The most reliably liberal states are Catholic, not Baptist or LDS. The American people, however, are more conservative than their liberal leaders and have the power to restrain them if they waken.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Did I say Christians should count on state support? No. That doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t support them in principle. A whole host of other verses positively command the Church to be established and Christianity be the official religion of the state, such as Is. 49:23:
Not to mention the Psalter on Christ, like Psalm 2, most specifically vs. 10-12:
The U.S. government overstepped its proper constitutional bounds in the 19th Century and may yet do so in the 21st Century. The state is always the potential enemy of the people and of the churches, which is why, so far as it may be possible, the state should be limited and constrained, and the churches be kept free from the power and corruption of the state.
The logic and precedent applied in that case was rooted in the American founding especially in the thought of Madison and Jefferson, it only came up when the matter was finally adjudicated in the late 19th century. I don’t think much of Founders and American ideology but there was no “overstep” given the law as it already was.
Luther or Calvin, when so many Catholic officeholders are liberals. The most reliably liberal states are Catholic, not Baptist or LDS. The American people, however, are more conservative than their liberal leaders and have the power to restrain them if they waken.
Practically every majority Protestant country in the world has surrendered to social modernism. Indeed, modernism grew up in those countries. Even in Africa the one country that allows same sex marriage (South Africa) has a strong Calvinist element. On the other hand there are many countries, mostly Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic where it is not. Let’s not forget too, that the spread of SSM marriage seems to crop up where American cultural influence is strongest, and unchallenged. I also found it amusing that American Baptists and Mormons slavishly support the state of Israel – the only Middle Eastern country to allow abortion on demand and SSM. So according to Baptist minister John Hagee and his conservative Mormon side-kick Glenn Beck, God reestablished Israel there so that homosexuals could get married in the Holy Land. That’s American conservative religion for you.
As far as Catholic office holders go, all I have to say is thank goodness we have stalwart LDS conservatives to keep in check all those bad Catholics, like Senator Harry Reid, Tom Udall, Orin Hatch, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney. Thank goodness for that Mormon redoubt and its inherent conservatism, in a religious tradition where prohibitions against caffeine are more absolute than baby killing.
It is a fatal error to count on the power of the state to maintain a church. The churches of Europe, where church and state were traditionally joined, are a hollow shell of their former selves. See, for example, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27177265 and http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-france-145-no-longer-a-catholic-country-146-24892/
Also how is France an example of a state run church? The French state has in the main viciously persecuted the Catholic Church in that country for the better part of two centuries (and to the applause of the American founders BTW). Even still, I was somewhat heartened by the resistance, offered, even in the streets against the passage of SSM in that country, especially given all the chest thumping on the part of Americans. Americans only take to the streets for anti-tax protests or the right to have sex with whomever whenever. What did Utah do? File a court brief?
Pingback: “Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church” | Reaction Times
The absurdity of being in communion with atheists (or with practicing homosexuals as it is the case now) is one of the reasons the late Kierkegaard renounced the Lutheran State Church of Denmark. The current state ideology in Scandinavia and England and its influence on the state churches prove his point that the modern state is a menace to churches over which it has power.
If they do move on other Churches, will they move on the mosques?
@ DeGaulle
I don’t think so because Muslims themselves needn’t marry in mosques. Marriage isn’t a religious ceremony in Islam the way it is in Christianity – it’s a contract, more or less. Most of the Muslims I know (here in SE Michigan, Muslims make up a large segment of the population) got married in banquet halls or community centers.
So do Hindus ( get married in banquet halls) but the location of wedding does not make it a non-religious ceremony.
The Muslim wedding ceremony explicitly invokes God,
I think she is referring to the (pseudo-)sacramental (Protestants do not acknowledge it as a sacrament, but Protestant ceremony has sacramental undertones nevertheless) nature of marriage in Christianity. Often, when Christians look at people of other religions marrying, it seems more like the oath we take when making a contract than the type of covenant we make in marriage.
So, it is pretty clear that Islamic-style persecution of Christians will begin in Western Europe shortly.
What is the response of committed neoreactionary forces in the west? Is it to aid Russia by any means necessary in expansion. I have to say it would be a fitting thing to have Russian tanks roll into Copenhagen, to crush the feminazis, sodomites, and secularists.
All of the things we predicted have come to pass, we are vindicated ideologically each week. But now note that we are the counterculturalists. We are no longer conservatives. They are the conservatives, for the culture being conserved now is the culture of death, liberalism, and sin.
It must be our goal to destroy this culture, to break it down, just as it was their goal to destroy our culture which they succeeded in doing. Because of this new dynamic, they inherit the handicaps of yesteryear that we suffered from. They’re lazy, exposed, poorly informed. Much like the Russians and the Islamic fundamentalists in Western Europe, we have a goal of taking this sick society down by any means necessary. Perhaps for a different set of ends, but the immediate goal remains the same.
Let this be called the invisible crusade, for they’ll never see it coming.
Islamic-style would actually be better. They never forbade mass and killed priests over it.
What would be serious would be Anglican-style persecution of the Catholic Church.
While I understand your outrage things are bit more complicated. Neither Russians nor Muslims will save decadent Europe from feminism or whatever. They are foreign powers. Perhaps they could impose something on us but they can hardly win our love and loyalty.
Besides, Russia is not in a position to impose anything on anybody except her closest neighbors. Russians have their own problems. Their economy and even birth rates are worse than in Europe. Their military expenditures are low in comparison with Western powers etc.
It is strange to see reactionaries putting their hopes in Russia. Russians are instinctively against Western ideas (or ideologies) but it does not make them reactionaries. Who knows what ideology they are going to adopt now. The worst thing others can do is to think they understand Russia and what is going on there.
Yeah I don’t get it either. Russian society is rotting at a faster rate than even some Western societies. Obama was actually right in noting that Putin annexing Crimea was done not out of strength but weakness. The Russians and their Middle East allies , Syria and Iran are besieged and more or less completely hemmed in by the Anglo-American powers and their proxies.
Another event I don’t celebrate is the so-called “rise of the right” in Europe. Most of these so-called rightists are not rightist, at least not in the Christian sense. Take the relatively popular Geert Wilders, who wanted to require all Muslim immigrants submit to watching videos of two homosexuals kissing and if they couldn’t tolerate it they would not be admitted entrance. Is that is what the so-called “right” is fighting for?
Russia’s birth rates have been improving as of late. They have experienced natural population growth (miniscule growth, albeit) for the first time in decades the past couple of years. Also, Russian military spending is probably under-reported in the Russian budget. As for Russia being instinctively against Western ideas, it seems to me more like they are instinctively opposed to liberalism. This isn’t to say it’s a good idea for Russia or Muslims (especially Muslims) to invade Europe so they can forcibly stamp out liberalism.
However, I do think facing a real external threat to our very existence might do some good. Liberalism has accelerated since the end of the Cold War, and it also accelerated after World War II. This is partially because we face no serious external threat to our existence, I believe. Facing a strong Islamic Caliphate or a resurgent Russian Imperialism might force the West to draw on its own Christian heritage. Of course, it could also cause us to double down on liberalism, especially if the threat comes from a resurgent Orthodox Russia.
Not saying it’s a rose garden over on the Volga, but this doesn’t seem to jive with the trends in Russian society. Let’s remember that Russia is recovering from 70 years of Communism, followed by 10 years of Right-Liberalism gone wild. At bottom, they had a 1.4/mother birthrate. They are up to 1.7 at last count. Not exactly great, but a significant improvement nonetheless. I’m not sure what to think of Putin, but he seems to have conservative instincts and he might even be influenced by the White Russian Emigre philosophers. I’m personally not totally trusting anything Putin does until the Romanovs are restored, but I am not willing to totally repudiate him either.
As for the European Right, I agree in many cases. However, the National Front and UKIP don’t seem totally bad either. A bit too populist some of the time, but on the right track.
Some commentators claim that Russia’s recent birthrate uptick is mainly due to its burgeoning Caucasian Muslim population. This is probably why Putin is so very keen on opposing the spread of Wahibism in the Middle East, because he realizes given the proximity to the Caucasus such radicalism would spread into his southern oil-rich provinces. Of course it was also long standing US strategy dating to the Cold War to effectuate just this result. I think current events make sense when viewed through that lens.
From what I understand, Islam makes up between 5 and 15% of the Russian population. It’s difficult for me to believe an uptick of 20% or so in the birthrate is due entirely to that segment of the population. Also, looking at Dagestan and Chechnya, their birthrates have not significantly changed over the past decade. Not to mention their populations are small in relation to the rest of Russia. It doesn’t seem enough to drive the growth. Neither does Tatarstan.
Also, the social conservative movement in Russia has made great strides, and the country’s Orthodox heritage is promoted. Restrictions on abortion rights (still a long way to go on this front), the (in)famous homosexuality propaganda law, the cultural policies of the regime all seem to be significant improvements. Russia certainly still has a long way to go before it can be considered a story of successful social recovery, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss these laws and seemingly positive trends. Like I said, I don’t totally trust Putin, so we’ll have to see where it goes.
My point is not that either can ‘save us’. Especially not Islam, since we’ve seen how brutal it is to everyone, whether they be traditionalist or decadent, if you are not a follower of Mohammad’s cult, its death or servitude.
But Russia has many good things to admire. For instance, they recognize their demographic problem and are reversing it. As another poster noted, the Russian birthrate has gone from huge negative to small positive, and is on the upswing. It will take a lot of lobbying to outlaw abortion, but small steps have been taken. Look at the correct role of the Church being modeled there, involved actively in the political sphere in the realms where it has authority (namely moral causes like outlawing sodomite filth). They are at least aware of the dynamics of ethnicity at play in the world.
It is not perfect, but it is a standout on the continent. I know only we can save ourselves, but someone has to clear out the Orwellian liberals. My point was, perhaps either Russia or the Muslims could provide the muscle to at least weaken the western leadership enough for us to gather political strength in order to overthrow them and their ‘enlightenment’.
Depressing.. We Christians are on our way to the concentration camps
Let me remind people that Nazis too claimed to save civilization from Bolsheviks and decadents.
Nazis came to power with the help of catholic parties and the right.
And what’s the problem with that? The Nazis wouldn’t seek every possible way to humilhate and discriminate against me like the liberal marxists. Wish the 3rd Reich had won.
To wish the Third Reich had won is to descend into madness. Ask any Dane.
Seriously?
> Seriously?
Yes, seriously, recent facts which convinced me:
1> Brazilian government just established 20% quotas for blacks in civil service jobs, which are the best and highest paying ones (skin color will be the utilized to decide, not auto-declaration) -> And what? Noone cares. No Christian association gives a s*&& about it. And noone else for that matter. In the USA the same, most companies & universities “insist on a diverse workforce”, an eufemism for saying they racially discriminate against whites. If the symetric was happening everyone in the west would make it their #1 priority to destroy them like they did with South Africa.
2> Blacks hate whites and noone cares, even famous artists (and Obama’s pastor too by the way), and no, noone cares, read about it in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Percent_Nation also “Nation of Islam”. If a white had the symetric views, oh boy, we need to destroy him cause he is a danger for the liberal establishment =D
So what do I have to lose? The liberal west hates me, and I hope the liberal west dies.
But anyway, that the nazis come back is just a highly fantasious dream. There are other more realistic ways out for the west:
a> Join the sunii islamists
or
b> Join a Russian remnant, if such a thing will exist at all.
The hope that the west will simply wake up from it’s current death spiral and rewind back to 1950 or 1900 is a fantasy. It will not happen.
And anyway, if you think my proposed solutions are terrible, what do you propose? Could you please make a concrete proposal so that facts 1 and 2 in the beginning of my post won’t happen? If you can’t then I’m not interested in whatever you are working for.
Noted. And while we’re at it let us remind people too that the way to ensure evil will triumph is for good men to do nothing; that one means of ensuring good men do nothing is to equate their opposition to deviant sexual behaviorisms, hedonistic equalitarianism and so forth, to the rise of nazism and fascism. Reinforce these ideas for a few decades, and before you know it those who aren’t thoroughly neutered are effectively outlawed.
A lot of writings on the Right are not innocent. In particular the secular Right and HBD and the self-proclaimed race-realists are stoking fires that may have incalculable consequences.
The hatred and contempt secular Right bears for the Catholic Church in particular is astonishing. Just see, yesterday’s article at NRO by Kevin Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379954/catholics-against-capitalism-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/
Degenerates 19, New Obama Translation:
1 The 60,000 illegal little angels came to America in the evening as Obama was sitting near the city gate. When he saw them, he got up and went to them and bowed facedown on the
ground. 2 Obama said, “Kids, please come to my detention center and spend the night. There you can wash your feet, and then tomorrow you may continue your journey.”
2 The little angels answered, “No, we will spend the night in the city’s public square.”
3 But Obama begged them to come, so they agreed and went to his detention center. Then Obama prepared a communist
transsexual Obamacare abortion ritual orgy for them. He baked bread without yeast, and they ate it with psychedelic mushrooms.
4 Before bedtime, Obama voters both young and old and from every part of America surrounded Obama’s detention center. 5 They called to Obama, “Where are the little angels who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have communist transsexual Obamacare abortion ritual sexual relations with them and then offer their unborn lumps of fetal flesh to Molech and put them all on psych meds for Satan and turn them into permanent liberal Obama voters.”
6 Obama went outside to them, closing the door behind him. 7 He said, “No, my voters! Do not do this evil thing yet. 8 Look! I have millions of conservative taxpayers who have never had Satanic ritual homosexual relations. I will give them to you, and you may do anything you want with them through Obamacare’s taxes, penalties, mandates, and death panels.
oops, meant to use this link as context, not the other
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/11/HHS-Grantees-Sheltering-Illegal-Alien-Children-Must-Provide-Family-Planning-Services