Free Speech Under Threat
Below is an excellent piece on free speech and its well meant, yet ignorant enemies.
It's not the state's role to decide which ideas are right or wrong
Michael Johnston
Dominion Post
Following the Christchurch massacre, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced a review of our hate speech laws. Little wants the review to focus on "whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech".
He seems to want a bob each way on this question. On the one hand, he has defended free speech – the right, within very broad limits, to say whatever we wish – as being a fundamental principle of free society. On the other, he has claimed "current law specific to hate speech offences [is] very narrow". In particular, he has asked whether it is right "that we have sanctions against incitement of disharmony on racial grounds but not, for example, on grounds of religious faith".
Justice Minister Andrew Little says he wants to focus on "whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech". But Michael Johnston argues it is not a question of balance - free speech must be protected.
Showing posts with label Tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tolerance. Show all posts
Saturday, 15 June 2019
Friday, 27 July 2018
Another Attempt To Suppress Speech
Threats To Free Speech Appear To Abound
Liam Hehir
Stuff
The width and breadth of appreciation for free speech seems to be trending downwards of late.
For many, the open market of ideas is a smaller concept than it used to be. Some wish to fall back to a narrower, more legalistic definition of what free speech is. Others feel a more visceral urge to drive repellent views from the public square.
Not long ago, an activist telephoned me about a column I had written poking fun at the Government for relying on so many "working groups". It started with a demand to know why I had been allowed to publish it. The shrieking quickly progressed to obscenity and then to talk of unmentionable, violent things happening to myself and my wife. When I hung up, the activist continued trying to contacting me to resume the tirade.
I told the police about it. After a while, they sent me a letter saying they were on it. I've not heard anything since. As far as I know, nothing much has happened or will happen.
It was not a pleasant experience. But people like that do not present a serious challenge to freedom of speech. Their psychopathy prevents them from having any real impact on public affairs.
However, there are more sober sceptics of broad freedom of speech protections out there. They are often at the commanding heights of the academy, media and culture. They are serious and deserve to be taken seriously.
And their critiques are having their effect.
Liam Hehir
Stuff
The width and breadth of appreciation for free speech seems to be trending downwards of late.
For many, the open market of ideas is a smaller concept than it used to be. Some wish to fall back to a narrower, more legalistic definition of what free speech is. Others feel a more visceral urge to drive repellent views from the public square.
Not long ago, an activist telephoned me about a column I had written poking fun at the Government for relying on so many "working groups". It started with a demand to know why I had been allowed to publish it. The shrieking quickly progressed to obscenity and then to talk of unmentionable, violent things happening to myself and my wife. When I hung up, the activist continued trying to contacting me to resume the tirade.
I told the police about it. After a while, they sent me a letter saying they were on it. I've not heard anything since. As far as I know, nothing much has happened or will happen.
It was not a pleasant experience. But people like that do not present a serious challenge to freedom of speech. Their psychopathy prevents them from having any real impact on public affairs.
However, there are more sober sceptics of broad freedom of speech protections out there. They are often at the commanding heights of the academy, media and culture. They are serious and deserve to be taken seriously.
And their critiques are having their effect.
Tuesday, 24 July 2018
Demands For "Tolerance" Link Us to Caesar's Empire
A Sober Warning from the Earliest Christians
Tim Challies
July 16, 2018
When I was a kid, my family once watched a movie that included vivid scenes of persecution against the earliest Christians. I remember lying awake at night, terrified by these images of Christians burning in the streets and being fed to the lions. I couldn’t help but imagine myself in the place of those beleaguered believers. At the time, I assumed they were being persecuted simply for being Christians, but as I’ve studied early church history, I’ve come to realize it’s not quite so simple. And as simplicity gives way to reality, I see there are some important lessons we can learn today through that early church persecution.
The earliest Christians lived within the Roman Empire, and, despite what you may have heard, Rome was surprisingly tolerant of other faiths. As they conquered the surrounding nations, they would rarely demand full loyalty to the traditional Roman religion or gods. They would allow people to continue to worship their own gods in pretty much their own way. But still the Christians were persecuted. Why?
The great challenge of the Roman Empire was binding together many cultures, faiths, and nations under a common banner. As their armies conquered lands stretching from Germany to Northern Africa, from Spain to Syria, this challenge became increasingly difficult. What could serve as a kind of bond to hold it all together? The obvious answer was the Emperor. He could stand in as the living embodiment of the empire so that loyalty to the Emperor would be synonymous with loyalty to Rome.
Tim Challies
July 16, 2018
When I was a kid, my family once watched a movie that included vivid scenes of persecution against the earliest Christians. I remember lying awake at night, terrified by these images of Christians burning in the streets and being fed to the lions. I couldn’t help but imagine myself in the place of those beleaguered believers. At the time, I assumed they were being persecuted simply for being Christians, but as I’ve studied early church history, I’ve come to realize it’s not quite so simple. And as simplicity gives way to reality, I see there are some important lessons we can learn today through that early church persecution.
The earliest Christians lived within the Roman Empire, and, despite what you may have heard, Rome was surprisingly tolerant of other faiths. As they conquered the surrounding nations, they would rarely demand full loyalty to the traditional Roman religion or gods. They would allow people to continue to worship their own gods in pretty much their own way. But still the Christians were persecuted. Why?
The great challenge of the Roman Empire was binding together many cultures, faiths, and nations under a common banner. As their armies conquered lands stretching from Germany to Northern Africa, from Spain to Syria, this challenge became increasingly difficult. What could serve as a kind of bond to hold it all together? The obvious answer was the Emperor. He could stand in as the living embodiment of the empire so that loyalty to the Emperor would be synonymous with loyalty to Rome.
Saturday, 26 November 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
Totalitolerance and the Tactics of Trigglypuff
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
INTRODUCTION
If you assume that secular society is an actual possibility, which is a big suppose, one of the first things you have to do is ignore the outliers. In other words, diversity is great, and will continue to be great, just so long as nobody leans too far to the right or left in our wobbly societal canoe. In other words, secular diversity works great so long as we manage to keep the diversity to a minimum.
This is just another way of saying that any culture, in order to be a functional culture at all, has to operate around shared values. If the values are not shared, if people cannot quietly assume them in their disputes with members of a rival party within that culture, with the rival party assuming the same values, then we do not have a culture at all. What we have is a cultural civil war.
And that is what we currently have.
THE SET UP
In order to work out the ramifications of this, let me point to a current manifestation of what is being touted as simple liberal hypocrisy. But it is not so much hypocrisy—although there is a hypocritical element—as it is an example of the limitations of stage four secularism. The current secular ruling elites are incapable of handling the hardline outliers, and their canoe is going over.
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
INTRODUCTION
If you assume that secular society is an actual possibility, which is a big suppose, one of the first things you have to do is ignore the outliers. In other words, diversity is great, and will continue to be great, just so long as nobody leans too far to the right or left in our wobbly societal canoe. In other words, secular diversity works great so long as we manage to keep the diversity to a minimum.
This is just another way of saying that any culture, in order to be a functional culture at all, has to operate around shared values. If the values are not shared, if people cannot quietly assume them in their disputes with members of a rival party within that culture, with the rival party assuming the same values, then we do not have a culture at all. What we have is a cultural civil war.
And that is what we currently have.
THE SET UP
In order to work out the ramifications of this, let me point to a current manifestation of what is being touted as simple liberal hypocrisy. But it is not so much hypocrisy—although there is a hypocritical element—as it is an example of the limitations of stage four secularism. The current secular ruling elites are incapable of handling the hardline outliers, and their canoe is going over.
Thursday, 23 June 2016
The Little Red Hen and Her "Helpers"
Some Speech Is More Free Than Others
Liberal democratic values apparently have limits. Only so far, and no further.
An interesting debate has broken out over free speech and diversity and tolerance in New Zealand. As in so many countries, the provocation is the vexed issues surrounding refugees. The rub: should we allow people to migrate into our country who hold views "we" find intolerant, and therefore intolerable?
The NZ Herald has devoted an editorial to the question which reeks of self-righteous smuggery. It suggests that New Zealand's liberal tolerance of ideas reflecting our view of freedom, liberty, and equality do not need promoting to potential refugees, nor do we need be concerned about inculcating these values into hearts and minds of refugees. Why,
Liberal democratic values apparently have limits. Only so far, and no further.
An interesting debate has broken out over free speech and diversity and tolerance in New Zealand. As in so many countries, the provocation is the vexed issues surrounding refugees. The rub: should we allow people to migrate into our country who hold views "we" find intolerant, and therefore intolerable?
The NZ Herald has devoted an editorial to the question which reeks of self-righteous smuggery. It suggests that New Zealand's liberal tolerance of ideas reflecting our view of freedom, liberty, and equality do not need promoting to potential refugees, nor do we need be concerned about inculcating these values into hearts and minds of refugees. Why,
those values do not need promoting. Refugees are well aware of them; those values are the reason they want to come here.Puleeze. Has not the editorial writer heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Human Needs? To suggest that refugees are fleeing to our country because of our superior values rather than because they face starvation and death is smuggery beyond compare.
Friday, 15 April 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
Twice as Much Water!
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
It used to be that discrimination was a good word. A man with discriminating taste was a man with aesthetic standards that he understood and applied in wisdom. Now discrimination is an all-purpose term of condemnation designed to shut you up, Christian.
Of course, discrimination is one of those words that carry the inescapable concept around with it. It is not whether you have a standard of discrimination, it is which standard of discrimination you will have. Not whether, but which.
For example, Mississippi recently passed a law prohibiting, get this, discrimination by the government against sincerely held religious beliefs. Residents of that state will still have the freedom to follow their own conscience when their conscience requires them to decline to do crazy stuff. This outbreak of common sense was too much for the governor of New York, and so Andrew Cuomo banned all “non-essential travel to Mississippi” for state employees. Take that, Hattiesburg.
But the point here is that absolutely everyone involved is discriminating. Mississippi formally allowed her citizens to discriminate against abnormal people, and New York is mandating discrimination against normal people.
Ah, there it is — the intolerable word.
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
It used to be that discrimination was a good word. A man with discriminating taste was a man with aesthetic standards that he understood and applied in wisdom. Now discrimination is an all-purpose term of condemnation designed to shut you up, Christian.
Of course, discrimination is one of those words that carry the inescapable concept around with it. It is not whether you have a standard of discrimination, it is which standard of discrimination you will have. Not whether, but which.
For example, Mississippi recently passed a law prohibiting, get this, discrimination by the government against sincerely held religious beliefs. Residents of that state will still have the freedom to follow their own conscience when their conscience requires them to decline to do crazy stuff. This outbreak of common sense was too much for the governor of New York, and so Andrew Cuomo banned all “non-essential travel to Mississippi” for state employees. Take that, Hattiesburg.
But the point here is that absolutely everyone involved is discriminating. Mississippi formally allowed her citizens to discriminate against abnormal people, and New York is mandating discrimination against normal people.
Ah, there it is — the intolerable word.
Thursday, 10 March 2016
Private Christianity Alone is Tolerable
Foxy Secularism
Secularism thinks of itself as uber tolerant. It's version of tolerance is so advanced and righteous, secularism insists upon and demands compliance with its dogma at every point. It is profoundly intolerant in the matter.
The urbane secularist will tell you that he smiles upon all religions. Why would one get upset at the equivalent of a childish nursery rhymes? Does the secularist get all wound up about Jemima Puddleduck? Does the secularist get agitated over the Christian? Never. Provided, of course, that Christianity is restricted and restrained to the private square. It has no place in the public square. The secularist's perversion of tolerance demands an exclusive hold over the public square. As soon as the Christian offers a scintilla of Christian reasoning or argumentation in the public square for a Christian position or belief, off to the gas chambers with him. The public square is for secularism only and the secularist is the sole licensed operator therein.
Now even Jemima Puddleduck, that most gullible of ducks, knows that the sly secularist fox has endless conniptions and consternations when defining what is public and what it private.
Monday, 29 February 2016
Snowflakes
You Can't Handle the Truth
An old adage has it that when you can't win the argument you speak up and shout. Volume--to weak minds--speaks volumes, pun intended. Shouting down your opponent(s) is just another way of silencing opposition. Might as well exile them, or throw them into klink, or rip out their tongues--or whatever.
The silencing of opponents is a strong indication that the case has folded. It lacks substance, credibility, and force. It is not understood. It is inchoate. It lacks compelling argument. And so forth. This is the conclusion we believe we are increasingly entitled to draw throughout the West as Christians and Conservatives are shut down and shut out.
The great tolerance buzzsaw has screamed once again.
An old adage has it that when you can't win the argument you speak up and shout. Volume--to weak minds--speaks volumes, pun intended. Shouting down your opponent(s) is just another way of silencing opposition. Might as well exile them, or throw them into klink, or rip out their tongues--or whatever.
The silencing of opponents is a strong indication that the case has folded. It lacks substance, credibility, and force. It is not understood. It is inchoate. It lacks compelling argument. And so forth. This is the conclusion we believe we are increasingly entitled to draw throughout the West as Christians and Conservatives are shut down and shut out.
The great tolerance buzzsaw has screamed once again.
Tuesday, 10 November 2015
Tolerance Has Its Limits
Some Murders are More Acceptable Than Others
Sweden has been called the most peaceful country in Europe. It has been a nation which celebrates tolerance, albeit in a secular humanist form. Anything and everything goes, as long as one does not disturb the peace. Humanitarianism--which is much celebrated in a self-satisfied manner--proclaims that nothing human is foreign or intrinsically bad. The adage, "I am the master of all things, and nothing human is foreign to me" is the credo of its humanitarian society. Sweden has sought to live out these beliefs consistently in its civil and national government.
One has always suspected that the official blurb did not reflect reality. Recently, the suspicion has hardened into evidential certainty. Sweden is under attack from external, yet imported, forces. It is crumbling from within because effete smugness and self-satisfaction does not cope well with violent external threats. For the Swedes, the reason violence is rising lies with the failure of Swedish society.
Migrant, imported violence is on the rise. The Swedes feel guilty about it. Sweden is to blame. Smugness has morphed into guilt. At the same time, violence against migrants is also rising. Once again, Sweden is racked with guilt. This from Oliver Lane, writing for Breitbart London:
Sweden has been called the most peaceful country in Europe. It has been a nation which celebrates tolerance, albeit in a secular humanist form. Anything and everything goes, as long as one does not disturb the peace. Humanitarianism--which is much celebrated in a self-satisfied manner--proclaims that nothing human is foreign or intrinsically bad. The adage, "I am the master of all things, and nothing human is foreign to me" is the credo of its humanitarian society. Sweden has sought to live out these beliefs consistently in its civil and national government.
One has always suspected that the official blurb did not reflect reality. Recently, the suspicion has hardened into evidential certainty. Sweden is under attack from external, yet imported, forces. It is crumbling from within because effete smugness and self-satisfaction does not cope well with violent external threats. For the Swedes, the reason violence is rising lies with the failure of Swedish society.
Migrant, imported violence is on the rise. The Swedes feel guilty about it. Sweden is to blame. Smugness has morphed into guilt. At the same time, violence against migrants is also rising. Once again, Sweden is racked with guilt. This from Oliver Lane, writing for Breitbart London:
Thursday, 20 August 2015
John Rys-Davies On Song
‘We Have Lost Our Moral Compass’
‘Lord of the Rings’ Actor Blasts Political Correctness
BreitbartLondon
Lord of the Rings actor John Rhys-Davies decried Islamic terrorism and political correctness in an interview with podcast king Adam Carolla Monday night.
The actor, who played the dwarf Gimli in the three Rings movies, joined Carolla on the latest episode of his podcast to blast Western politicians for failing to say or do anything to combat the rising tide of Islamic terrorism and the political correctness that enables it.“There is an extraordinary silence in the West,” Rhys-Davies told Carolla. “Basically, Christianity in the Middle East and in Africa is being wiped out – I mean not just ideologically but physically, and people are being enslaved and killed because they are Christians. And your country and my country (Wales) are doing nothing about it.”
Tuesday, 14 July 2015
The Scottish Ostrich, Part I
Traitors to the Cause in the Highlands
The West is confronted with Islam--on home soil, moreover. The Chattering Classes and the Commentariat are frenetically attempting to win this culture war by insisting upon Western "values". They act like generals berating the troops: "Hold the line, boys. Steady! Steady!" They want the West to remain true to liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is only as the West practises these cultural values towards Islamic people that they, grateful subjects, will come to see the West as culturally superior. It is only by enjoying Western liberty, equality and fraternity practised towards them that Islamic believers will see the light and move away from their historically primitive, violent religion into Westernised modern Islam, a new reformed religion (as argue for by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) bearing the aura of Western glory.
In this great cultural cold-war, the Chattering Classes believe that the real enemies in their midst are those in the West who speak critically of Islam. Even Hirsi Ali is regarded as an enemy of the West because of her strident criticism of Islam. By so speaking they are traitorously spiking the great guns by which Islam will be won over to Western cultural and "religious" values. The critics, by their criticism, actually blaspheme and undermine liberty, equality, and fraternity. They are the West's Fifth Column. The Western critics of Islam are more like medieval Crusaders than truly tolerant sons of the post-modern West. Thus runs today's received wisdom amongst the Chattering Classes.
Overstatement? Nah. Let us give a typical example--one amongst many.
The West is confronted with Islam--on home soil, moreover. The Chattering Classes and the Commentariat are frenetically attempting to win this culture war by insisting upon Western "values". They act like generals berating the troops: "Hold the line, boys. Steady! Steady!" They want the West to remain true to liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is only as the West practises these cultural values towards Islamic people that they, grateful subjects, will come to see the West as culturally superior. It is only by enjoying Western liberty, equality and fraternity practised towards them that Islamic believers will see the light and move away from their historically primitive, violent religion into Westernised modern Islam, a new reformed religion (as argue for by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) bearing the aura of Western glory.
In this great cultural cold-war, the Chattering Classes believe that the real enemies in their midst are those in the West who speak critically of Islam. Even Hirsi Ali is regarded as an enemy of the West because of her strident criticism of Islam. By so speaking they are traitorously spiking the great guns by which Islam will be won over to Western cultural and "religious" values. The critics, by their criticism, actually blaspheme and undermine liberty, equality, and fraternity. They are the West's Fifth Column. The Western critics of Islam are more like medieval Crusaders than truly tolerant sons of the post-modern West. Thus runs today's received wisdom amongst the Chattering Classes.
Overstatement? Nah. Let us give a typical example--one amongst many.
Wednesday, 14 January 2015
Children in an Adult's World
Western Cultural Imperialism At Its Most Dangerous
The debate about liberty, free-speech and the stance of Islam rolls on. The West's position is, shall we say, conflicted. The Western Commentariat has been playing a divide-and-rule strategy. It presupposes that Islam is a broad-church religion, with a wide range of variants, denominations, sects and opinions about Islam.
Simply put, the Commentariat assumes that Islam is just like modern Judaism and modern Christianity--both alike are festooned with multi-form denominations, traditions, beliefs, and expressions--yet these days they all tend to get along in an irenical co-existence. In Christianity, for example, one has every kind of manifestation imaginable, from those that deny the existence of Jesus Christ right through to those who worship Him as Lord of heaven and earth. But in both Judaism and Christianity alike there are, from time-to-time, extremist elements that have no legitimate claim to their respective religions. Some Jews have become militant zionists who murder innocent Palestinians. Some Christians have engaged in a fratricidal war in Northern Ireland in recent history. These extremist elements do not represent either Judaism or Christianity respectively. Or so the narrative rolls.
The debate about liberty, free-speech and the stance of Islam rolls on. The West's position is, shall we say, conflicted. The Western Commentariat has been playing a divide-and-rule strategy. It presupposes that Islam is a broad-church religion, with a wide range of variants, denominations, sects and opinions about Islam.
Simply put, the Commentariat assumes that Islam is just like modern Judaism and modern Christianity--both alike are festooned with multi-form denominations, traditions, beliefs, and expressions--yet these days they all tend to get along in an irenical co-existence. In Christianity, for example, one has every kind of manifestation imaginable, from those that deny the existence of Jesus Christ right through to those who worship Him as Lord of heaven and earth. But in both Judaism and Christianity alike there are, from time-to-time, extremist elements that have no legitimate claim to their respective religions. Some Jews have become militant zionists who murder innocent Palestinians. Some Christians have engaged in a fratricidal war in Northern Ireland in recent history. These extremist elements do not represent either Judaism or Christianity respectively. Or so the narrative rolls.
Friday, 23 May 2014
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
The Gaylag Archipelago
Blog and MablogDouglas Wilson
So a
marginal football player got drafted into the NFL, kissed his boyfriend
smack on the lips, and then another football player tweeted something
that expressed the sentiment ick gross, and so the second player was hustled into sensitivity training. Got that?
How will they stop the heckling? Vee haff vays. Notice that I did that obliquely because I didn’t want to violate Godwin’s Law — the first person in a debate to invoke Nazi parallels loses. This is because it is a well known principle of political science that political coercion and tyranny was only possible in the 1940s. All claims about oppressive coercion in our day are therefore bogus by definition, and one begins to suspect that the person who won’t stop expressing his views when the establishment wishes for him to express theirs is cruising for a sensitivity seminar. I also brought up Godwin’s Law because Nazi analogies are not the only negative examples that we should take into account.
Look. If you use language in ways they disapprove of, they will show the world what thorough-going malice looks like. That is why I make a point of doing it. They will send you off to the Gaylag Archipelago — there’s an example of what I do — where they will upbraid you for your intolerance until you come to realize that love is the answer. Love is all you need. Love is the best. Love is what Big Br . . . love is a good thing. Who could be against love except for the haters?
Monday, 3 March 2014
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
Put an Egg In Their Shoe
In just a moment I would like to interact with a post by Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt, which you can read here if you haven’t already. In one sense, I wish they hadn’t written that thing together, because I have some respect for Kirsten Powers. She has done some very fine against-the-tide work on things like international persecution of Christians, and on the Gosnell horrors.
I don’t know as much about Merritt, but what I have seen seems to indicate someone who is being wafted along by the breezes emanating from the Zeitgeist Wind Farm, which is a bad metaphor because that’s not how wind farms work. To change metaphors, it is as though they happened to be at the same place on the road because she was walking into a great city while he was walking out of it. Anyhow, however they came to say it, what they said needs a response.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
What Would the Martyrs Be Thinking?
A Full Centimetre Longer Than High Street Minis
The by-line in an article published in the Daily Telegraph informs us that the new Archbishop of Canterbury is warning that 'the Church of England . . . had to face up to a “revolution” in attitudes to homosexuality.' So far, so good.
That a "revolution" in attitudes to homosexuality is taking place in the West, including Britain, is undeniable, although arguably the word "revolution" is misleading. Change, or more accurately, devolution is certainly occurring. But it is consistent change. It is expected change. The West has no moral absolutes, no ethical fundamentals. It gave that away a long time ago, when it rebelled against the God of the heavens and the earth. Instead the creed, "Man is the measure of all things, and nothing human is foreign or immoral to me" has become the UK's established religion. Homosexuality is a human activity, non? Therefore, there can be nothing foreign nor immoral about it. Consequently, in the West homosexuality must inevitably come to be recognised as a human right, an activity protected by law. The duty and function of the law then becomes to condemn and punish any who disagree because they refuse to accept and submit to the (now) established humanist religion.
How is the Church of England to face up to such a "revolution" is the key question?
The by-line in an article published in the Daily Telegraph informs us that the new Archbishop of Canterbury is warning that 'the Church of England . . . had to face up to a “revolution” in attitudes to homosexuality.' So far, so good.
That a "revolution" in attitudes to homosexuality is taking place in the West, including Britain, is undeniable, although arguably the word "revolution" is misleading. Change, or more accurately, devolution is certainly occurring. But it is consistent change. It is expected change. The West has no moral absolutes, no ethical fundamentals. It gave that away a long time ago, when it rebelled against the God of the heavens and the earth. Instead the creed, "Man is the measure of all things, and nothing human is foreign or immoral to me" has become the UK's established religion. Homosexuality is a human activity, non? Therefore, there can be nothing foreign nor immoral about it. Consequently, in the West homosexuality must inevitably come to be recognised as a human right, an activity protected by law. The duty and function of the law then becomes to condemn and punish any who disagree because they refuse to accept and submit to the (now) established humanist religion.
How is the Church of England to face up to such a "revolution" is the key question?
Monday, 24 September 2012
Normophobia
Carl Trueman Finds the World to be Upside Down
Every now and then I find myself reminded of just how much the world has changed. One such moment came for me on Saturday. I was up in Boston to preach for my friend and fellow member of a certain parachurch blacklist, Mike Abendroth. On Saturday afternoon, he offered to take me to Northampton, location of the early ministry of Jonathan Edwards. As I always try to travel light, I ditched my jacket but had no choice but to wear my chinos and a button down shirt for the trip. In short, I had the humiliation, as an OPC man, of walking around Northampton looking like some newly-minted associate pastor at your typical PCA church.
We went to Starbucks. There I saw a lady who was, as we would say back in Blighty, clearly a 'bloke' dressed as a 'bird.' Now I have seen transgendered people before.
Pleased to meet you. Hope you guessed my name.
Posted by
Every now and then I find myself reminded of just how much the world has changed. One such moment came for me on Saturday. I was up in Boston to preach for my friend and fellow member of a certain parachurch blacklist, Mike Abendroth. On Saturday afternoon, he offered to take me to Northampton, location of the early ministry of Jonathan Edwards. As I always try to travel light, I ditched my jacket but had no choice but to wear my chinos and a button down shirt for the trip. In short, I had the humiliation, as an OPC man, of walking around Northampton looking like some newly-minted associate pastor at your typical PCA church.
We went to Starbucks. There I saw a lady who was, as we would say back in Blighty, clearly a 'bloke' dressed as a 'bird.' Now I have seen transgendered people before.
Saturday, 5 May 2012
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
A Whipped Up Tolerance Mob
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
We live in a highly politicized (and therefore dishonest) culture, and this means that before you decide whether you are for or against any proposed measure, law, or pr campaign, you have to look past the language. "Hate crimes" is code. "Anti-bullying" is code. Invariably it turns out to be code for some aspect of the radical egalitarian agenda for human sexuality.
Things are so bad that the Left has lost almost all sense of irony or self-awareness.
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
We live in a highly politicized (and therefore dishonest) culture, and this means that before you decide whether you are for or against any proposed measure, law, or pr campaign, you have to look past the language. "Hate crimes" is code. "Anti-bullying" is code. Invariably it turns out to be code for some aspect of the radical egalitarian agenda for human sexuality.
Things are so bad that the Left has lost almost all sense of irony or self-awareness.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Completely Unexpected
We Did Not See This Coming
Sectarian violence has broken out in Iraq before the dust had settled from the departure of the US army. Shi'ite, versus Sunni, versus Kurds, with a dash of Iran, and possibly Al Qaeda. Sixty people dead from terrorist bombs.
The reverberations will continue for a while. It shows into high relief, yet again, that governing elites and the Commentariat of the West neither understand religion nor see its vital significance in human action. One reason for this is the West's self delusion that it has risen above, evolved beyond religion. Its demeanour is to look down from a lofty height, dismissing all religions as something mature people grow out of when they start thinking for themselves. The West sees itself as a-religious.
Sectarian violence has broken out in Iraq before the dust had settled from the departure of the US army. Shi'ite, versus Sunni, versus Kurds, with a dash of Iran, and possibly Al Qaeda. Sixty people dead from terrorist bombs.
The reverberations will continue for a while. It shows into high relief, yet again, that governing elites and the Commentariat of the West neither understand religion nor see its vital significance in human action. One reason for this is the West's self delusion that it has risen above, evolved beyond religion. Its demeanour is to look down from a lofty height, dismissing all religions as something mature people grow out of when they start thinking for themselves. The West sees itself as a-religious.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Welcome to Your Future
Secular Multi-Culturalism Will Always Drive Christianity Underground
Multi-culturalism sounds like a neat idea. Reasonable people appreciate its implicit tolerance, acceptance, welcoming facade. Respecting, celebrating, and appreciating differences seems like a refined human attitude. And this is great--up to a point.
But if we live in a fallen world, where evil is intrinsic to life itself, indiscriminate multi-culturalism would rapidly becomes an oppressive disaster. We do, and it is. It destroys society itself--for there is nothing around which society can cohere. In the end the only force which can keep society from disintegrating when multi-culturalism is the regnant value is the oppression of the state.
Christians live under the rule of zero-tolerance of evil--within one's own heart and life first and foremost, but also in one's family and community and society. But Christians also live under the rule of the utter impotence of laws and regulation to remove evil. Therefore, Christianity alone holds a zero tolerance towards evil, on the one hand, and a belief in a very limited state and coercive power, on the other. Rules and regulations do not the righteous make. Christ alone can deliver mankind from evil, for He alone died for sin and to sin and rose again to newness of life totally lived for God (Romans 6: 1--11). When individuals and families are baptized into Christ, they are baptized into His death to sin and His life to God. For Christians rules and regulations are always servants of Christ and not His master.
Christians therefore live under the obligation of maximal lawkeeping (we speak of the law of Christ), but Christians also recognize the inability of non-Christians to reverence, let alone keep, Christ's law. This means that Christians, on one level, tolerate an awful lot of evil in society, whilst at the same time they earnestly direct the attention to society-at-large to Christ alone as the One who can deliver from sin's corruption and grasp.
Secular multi-culturalism, however, does not recognize evil within cultures. Therefore it sets itself up to tolerate every culture and defend its equal place and expression in society. Every culture has equal bragging rights. Every culture is to be affirmed. The one thing that will absolutely not be tolerated is any form of discrimination or criticism of a culture or cultural practice. So, Islam practises polygamy and the forced marriage of children. The multi-culturalist says, "That's cute". Islam practises honour killings. Multi-culturalism says, "How interesting". The West kills off its unborn children. The multi-culturalism intones, "I believe in a woman's right to choose".
The Christian, however, not only must discriminate between evil and righteous cultural practises whether in Timbuktoo or Topeko, but is obligated to mould the culture of his own life around the commands of Christ. And this affects everything. Everything. Even down to how he eats and drinks (I Corinthians 10:31). It affects how he lives and with whom he will live. It affects how he worships and with whom he will worship.
Multi-culturalism, however, insists that you will either accept and tolerate all, or you will be punished. This is to say that multi-culturalism will tolerate only a certain kind of Christian religion--one that would dethrone the Christ and replace multi-culturalism as His overlord. This situation is a ground-hog day repetition of Roman multi-culturalism. Everything was tolerated so long as Caesar was recognized as the over-lord.
Here is a classic example of secular humanism's multi-culturalism at work. It illustrates how it will always turn upon and oppress the Christian faith and Christians. The next step will be active persecution, if it is allowed to continue.
Multi-culturalism sounds like a neat idea. Reasonable people appreciate its implicit tolerance, acceptance, welcoming facade. Respecting, celebrating, and appreciating differences seems like a refined human attitude. And this is great--up to a point.
But if we live in a fallen world, where evil is intrinsic to life itself, indiscriminate multi-culturalism would rapidly becomes an oppressive disaster. We do, and it is. It destroys society itself--for there is nothing around which society can cohere. In the end the only force which can keep society from disintegrating when multi-culturalism is the regnant value is the oppression of the state.
Christians live under the rule of zero-tolerance of evil--within one's own heart and life first and foremost, but also in one's family and community and society. But Christians also live under the rule of the utter impotence of laws and regulation to remove evil. Therefore, Christianity alone holds a zero tolerance towards evil, on the one hand, and a belief in a very limited state and coercive power, on the other. Rules and regulations do not the righteous make. Christ alone can deliver mankind from evil, for He alone died for sin and to sin and rose again to newness of life totally lived for God (Romans 6: 1--11). When individuals and families are baptized into Christ, they are baptized into His death to sin and His life to God. For Christians rules and regulations are always servants of Christ and not His master.
Christians therefore live under the obligation of maximal lawkeeping (we speak of the law of Christ), but Christians also recognize the inability of non-Christians to reverence, let alone keep, Christ's law. This means that Christians, on one level, tolerate an awful lot of evil in society, whilst at the same time they earnestly direct the attention to society-at-large to Christ alone as the One who can deliver from sin's corruption and grasp.
Secular multi-culturalism, however, does not recognize evil within cultures. Therefore it sets itself up to tolerate every culture and defend its equal place and expression in society. Every culture has equal bragging rights. Every culture is to be affirmed. The one thing that will absolutely not be tolerated is any form of discrimination or criticism of a culture or cultural practice. So, Islam practises polygamy and the forced marriage of children. The multi-culturalist says, "That's cute". Islam practises honour killings. Multi-culturalism says, "How interesting". The West kills off its unborn children. The multi-culturalism intones, "I believe in a woman's right to choose".
The Christian, however, not only must discriminate between evil and righteous cultural practises whether in Timbuktoo or Topeko, but is obligated to mould the culture of his own life around the commands of Christ. And this affects everything. Everything. Even down to how he eats and drinks (I Corinthians 10:31). It affects how he lives and with whom he will live. It affects how he worships and with whom he will worship.
Multi-culturalism, however, insists that you will either accept and tolerate all, or you will be punished. This is to say that multi-culturalism will tolerate only a certain kind of Christian religion--one that would dethrone the Christ and replace multi-culturalism as His overlord. This situation is a ground-hog day repetition of Roman multi-culturalism. Everything was tolerated so long as Caesar was recognized as the over-lord.
Here is a classic example of secular humanism's multi-culturalism at work. It illustrates how it will always turn upon and oppress the Christian faith and Christians. The next step will be active persecution, if it is allowed to continue.
Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian RoommateHat Tip: Andrei at NZ Conservative
Published October 22, 2010
A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
"It's a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that." Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”
Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. "It's really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen," he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.
But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as "outrageous. Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said. "Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."
Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization. The ad included the words, "Christian roommate wanted," along with the woman's contact information. Had the ad not included the word "Christian," Haynes said, it would not have been illegal. "If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?" Haynes asked.
Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he's sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless. "The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion," he said. "And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint."
But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter. "We want to make sure it doesn't happen again," she said.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Dancing ACLU Lawyers
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
One of the problems with using Constantine as a marker is that there is a tendency to anachronism, attributing to him any subsequent malfeasance on the part of Christians in power. But the Constantinian settlement was, by and large, a tolerant one. Lactantius, the early church father who tutored Constantine's children, was an apologist for this kind of toleration, which, in his day, was a toleration of pagans.
But there is a distinction between toleration of the views held by others, and toleration as an absolute desideratum. The former is crucial to every form of civilized society, Constantine let pagans continue to be pagans, and to think like pagans, and he let them continue to serve in the army (for example), but at the same time, Constantine ended the pagan sacrifices -- a momentous step, and foundational to all religious liberty.
This distinction is necessary because at a certain level, the whole society has to decide whether to go this way or that way. For example, democracy does not mean that everybody votes for president, and the winner gets to be president 57% of the time, while the loser only gets to be president on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. It is not like a custody battle. The public sacrifices for the whole society either have to be performed or not. The public square cannot be a pantheon -- for if it is, then the state is god, and that is idolatry. Calling it "secularism" doesn't fix it.
There must be a God over all. That God may tell us not to hassle the people who don't believe in Him, and that is precisely what the triune God does tell us. In this mere Christendom I am talking about (you know, the idyllic one, down the road), Muslims could come from other lands and live peaceably, they could buy and sell, write letters to the editor, own property, have that property protected by the cops, and worship Allah in their hearts and homes. What they could not do is argue that minnarets have the same rights of public expression that church bells do. The public space would belong to Jesus.
Our secular gods promised to do exactly this kind of thing, saying that if we kept this public space "neutral" (as they defined neutral), then all would be allowed to do our own thing on our own time. But this secularism is teetering, and is clearly displaying its hostility to the Christian faith. What I am saying here is that a Christian settlement would do a better job of protecting the true rights of Muslims and secularists, than secularists do in protecting the rights of Christians.
The argument goes this way. If I wanted Muslims to have the right to refuse baptism (which I would certainly want), then I would have to argue that case in the name of Jesus, and from the Bible. Obviously, I think that it can be done. But if I wanted to argue from the premises of secularism that all of us are anything more than meat, bones, and protoplasm, where do I go to make the argument? The implications of a godless universe have worked their way into the structure of our laws, and it is not too long afterwards that the darkness falls. And it won't be the kind of night that you can dance away.
When tolerance becomes a universal virtue, suspended upon its own air hook and nothing else, then you come to think you can't say no to virtually anything -- including those things which will issue a fatwa against your silly views of tolerance. The universally tolerant do say no to one thing, however, and that is to any idea of Christendom. If you mention sharia law, they will talk about the rich cultural diversity that is found in certain parts of Ohio. But if you mention biblical theonomy, as being perhaps more attractive in other parts of Ohio, you will find these folks with heads between their knees, breathing into paper bags, in preparation for writing a hysterial letter to the editor. This is because universal toleration is suicidal. In Proverbs, Wisdom says that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:36), and they really do.
Our fin de siecle secularism is fully prepared to embrace that which will destroy it pronto, and to shun as a menace that faith which actually invented true toleration.
But I propose a contest. Let's build an altar of stones, an altar of absolute toleration. Let's have ACLU lawyers dance around it until noon, cutting themselves with knives, and hitting themselves on the head with briefcases. Let us build another altar, and ask Elijah to stretch out his hands toward Heaven, and call upon Yahweh. The God that answers with a truly free and tolerant society . . . He is God. Let us serve Him.
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
One of the problems with using Constantine as a marker is that there is a tendency to anachronism, attributing to him any subsequent malfeasance on the part of Christians in power. But the Constantinian settlement was, by and large, a tolerant one. Lactantius, the early church father who tutored Constantine's children, was an apologist for this kind of toleration, which, in his day, was a toleration of pagans.
But there is a distinction between toleration of the views held by others, and toleration as an absolute desideratum. The former is crucial to every form of civilized society, Constantine let pagans continue to be pagans, and to think like pagans, and he let them continue to serve in the army (for example), but at the same time, Constantine ended the pagan sacrifices -- a momentous step, and foundational to all religious liberty.
This distinction is necessary because at a certain level, the whole society has to decide whether to go this way or that way. For example, democracy does not mean that everybody votes for president, and the winner gets to be president 57% of the time, while the loser only gets to be president on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. It is not like a custody battle. The public sacrifices for the whole society either have to be performed or not. The public square cannot be a pantheon -- for if it is, then the state is god, and that is idolatry. Calling it "secularism" doesn't fix it.
There must be a God over all. That God may tell us not to hassle the people who don't believe in Him, and that is precisely what the triune God does tell us. In this mere Christendom I am talking about (you know, the idyllic one, down the road), Muslims could come from other lands and live peaceably, they could buy and sell, write letters to the editor, own property, have that property protected by the cops, and worship Allah in their hearts and homes. What they could not do is argue that minnarets have the same rights of public expression that church bells do. The public space would belong to Jesus.
Our secular gods promised to do exactly this kind of thing, saying that if we kept this public space "neutral" (as they defined neutral), then all would be allowed to do our own thing on our own time. But this secularism is teetering, and is clearly displaying its hostility to the Christian faith. What I am saying here is that a Christian settlement would do a better job of protecting the true rights of Muslims and secularists, than secularists do in protecting the rights of Christians.
The argument goes this way. If I wanted Muslims to have the right to refuse baptism (which I would certainly want), then I would have to argue that case in the name of Jesus, and from the Bible. Obviously, I think that it can be done. But if I wanted to argue from the premises of secularism that all of us are anything more than meat, bones, and protoplasm, where do I go to make the argument? The implications of a godless universe have worked their way into the structure of our laws, and it is not too long afterwards that the darkness falls. And it won't be the kind of night that you can dance away.
When tolerance becomes a universal virtue, suspended upon its own air hook and nothing else, then you come to think you can't say no to virtually anything -- including those things which will issue a fatwa against your silly views of tolerance. The universally tolerant do say no to one thing, however, and that is to any idea of Christendom. If you mention sharia law, they will talk about the rich cultural diversity that is found in certain parts of Ohio. But if you mention biblical theonomy, as being perhaps more attractive in other parts of Ohio, you will find these folks with heads between their knees, breathing into paper bags, in preparation for writing a hysterial letter to the editor. This is because universal toleration is suicidal. In Proverbs, Wisdom says that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:36), and they really do.
Our fin de siecle secularism is fully prepared to embrace that which will destroy it pronto, and to shun as a menace that faith which actually invented true toleration.
But I propose a contest. Let's build an altar of stones, an altar of absolute toleration. Let's have ACLU lawyers dance around it until noon, cutting themselves with knives, and hitting themselves on the head with briefcases. Let us build another altar, and ask Elijah to stretch out his hands toward Heaven, and call upon Yahweh. The God that answers with a truly free and tolerant society . . . He is God. Let us serve Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)