What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Winner Should Be Christian Civilization

I know, I know - Christian civilization is dead and buried, the corpse having passed through the stages of putrefaction and decay, and now all that remains of the remains is a pile of dry, old bones. Humour me. At a minimum, we could refrain from urinating on the grave.

All of which is a way of stating that, while there must be an hypothetical societal structure lying behind this lamentation, which appears to suggest that a) Public citations of biblical teaching on homosexuality, and b) Public rumination upon the incompatibility of Islamic and Western cultures, are offensive, and derogate from the dignity of homosexuals and Mahometans, and that perpetrators should be liable to torts - I have yet to discern it. Whatever it might be, it appears to overlap functionally with the managerial lifestyle/multicultural leftism that is the public religion of the West, though its first principles must diverge from that leftism.

We may dwell in a post-Christian epoch, and labour under wholly post-Christian cultures, governments, and societal structures, but I perceive no necessity of cooperating with them.

Comments (19)

The couple of commentators from Vox Nova, you persistly bring to our attention, seem hell-bent in reconciling Catholicism with modernity, so the former won't unduly impose itself on the latter. A restoration of Christendom would only inhibit the enjoyment of innocous past-times like this one;

"She's big-busted, petite, very friendly and she runs on batteries." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368282,00.html

a) Public citations of biblical teaching on homosexuality, and b) Public rumination upon the incompatibility of Islamic and Western cultures, are offensive, and derogate from the dignity of homosexuals and Mahometans

In regards to (a), citations are one thing and harming public order is another thing. There was a cartoon not too long ago showing a kid taking notes from a Bible and the kid saying, "Mom can't criticize me for saying 'damn' now: it's in the Bible." There is a minimal level of courtesy necessary for co-existance and truth can scandalize. Consider St. Paul's admonishment against eating the meat offered to idols if it were to cause others to sin.

In regards to (b), there are responsible and irresponsible ways of going about this. Christian civilization doesn't necessarily win when Muslim culture declines. There have been many irresponsible implications made about Muslims over 9/11 and other terrorist events. This is not to say that all claims or even a majority of claims against Islam are irresponsible.

Yeah, and it _obviously_ harms public order to go around in public saying that homosexuality is objectively disordered and that our young children should not be taught in school that it is normal.

I had planned a lengthier and more substantial response, but for the nonce I'm hewing to Lydia's approach: if any discourse surrounding the topics of sodomy and Islam are detrimental to public order, it would be those promoting these things, and those who oppose them should be subject to nothing, neither torts nor criminal sanctions nor fines, for saying that they are bad. It is true enough that the truth can be expressed inappropriately, but that is not a matter for state involvement or recourse to the law; moreover, it is precisely the truth of the matter that the HR tribunals, objectively speaking, seek to repress.

Courtesy is a good thing, but I don't think that "there is a minimal level of courtesy necessary for co-existence" - nor do I think courtesy should be imposed by the government.

One must often balance courtesy with charity - and the writings of St. Paul are a prime example.

Actually, on second thought - forget courtesy. It's only a means of defending charity from those who would violate it entirely. "Love, and then do what you will."

"Perhaps we could attempt to live in communion without necessarily living homogenously."

Great Hallmark sentiment. Unfortunately, the vapid
feel-goodness of it all is underwritten by "a pretty low view of the First Amendment." In other words, criminal or civil penalties for those Christian recalcitrants, like this guy, who place discipleship over dollars.

Perhaps let me see if we can come to a point of agreement and work from there. I would say that Fred Phelps and his group are owed no forum and should be arrested when they picket soldiers funerals, etc.

I agree. Phelps is an execrable pustule on the backside of American Christianity. But he should be arrested, not for saying what he says about homosexuality, which he says in a most unedifying, uncharitable manner, but for disrupting solemn undertakings.

The tendency of these tribunals is not to punish street corner preachers who happen to be obnoxious simply, but to stigmatize Christian beliefs.

And also, not all street corner preachers are created equal, and being in some sense a street-corner preacher does not automatically give one an essential resemblance to Fred Phelps nor involve disrupting public solemnities. I think it's important that we not get the idea that any kind of public activity that looks somewhat strange or that we ourselves wouldn't engage in (like, for example, passing out religious literature on street corners) is automatically a legitimate subject for state suppression. I have a post related to that subject here:


Since I don't get to say it often, I'll start with Lydia: I largely agree. In so much as people argue that their action is reasonable, I'm less prone to argue. Where I am prone to argue is when the argument is that we need to tolerate assinine behavior in service of free speech. I believe a community should be able to proscribe behaviors it finds offensive.

What has largely prevented that action is a liberal interpretaiton fo the first amendment. That these tribunals act imprudently or wrongly should be addressed via that political process I believe. To be honest, there have been very few sympathetic defendants that I've seen. There are even some who have been acquitted, and I generally don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks filing complaints. I think many of them are looking to be offended. Many of these tribunals lend themselves to abuse because they attempt to hit objective criteria (like particular words) rather than making a more subjective judgement (was the accused looking for a fight or was a fight brought to him?).

The Canadian "human rights" tribunals are not being "abused." Their entire raison d'etre is to punish speech critical of particular groups and behaviors, to demand apologies, to fine such speech, to impose absolute public acquiescence on these matters. Here is just one of the latest examples:


That does appear to be the case. Looking at the Alberta HRC's annual report availabe here, we see:

Complaints based on sexual orientation were 2% of all complaints.
Complaints based on religion were were 4% of complaints.
Fewer than 1% of all complaints were based on publications.

If their raison d'etre is to punish critical speech, they don't appear to be focusing on it very well.

As to the case you cite, the actual parts of his letter found objectionable were the following:
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.

With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the “moral majority.” “Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage you have caused.

Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

[The masses] Failure to stand against the horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo and bisexuality”

Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexually positive?

As to the CCC, they went nolo contendre. That is hardly a foundation to argue persecution. Entire case file is here: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf

As I noted in my orginal piece, I am not a fan of the perpetually offended like Lund. This was a highly contested case unlike many of the others. I don't feel a particular duty to defend various HRT's decisions. The idea that it is difficult to speak substantively on homosexuality and other issues due to these commissions is what I am attempting to address.


My reply is in the WWWtW queue.

I'll be perfectly blunt: in a just and reasonable world, there would be no human rights tribunals, because no nation, state, or locality would feel itself obliged to tolerate those radically incompatible with its culture, affording the managerial state the opportunity to micromanage community relations in the name of liberte, egalite, fraternite!, evacuating the historic substance of Western civilization in the process. Protections for various forms and modes of speech would be tiered, and no one would ever be arraigned before such a kangaroo court for stating that homosexuality is an abomination, nor for critiquing the Mahometan religion. Not only should these tribunals not exist, no one criticizing the shibboleths of the multicultural and progressive left should be subject to any form of liability in consequence of said critiques.

For my part, while I would not express myself precisely as these defendants did, I do not fathom the entire "not being a fan of the perpetually aggrieved" thing. There's something untoward about noting the tendency of legal devolution and its probable consequences, and objecting to it? It's unseemly to complain about one's own slow-motion cultural dispossession? This is as incomprehensible to me as the British ethos of keeping the stiff upper lip in the face of their own dispossession; they sharpen their tongues, but only privately, and do nothing. Are we, like the Goths in the opening sequence of Gladiator, supposed to know when we're conquered, and just accept the yoke?

The perpetually aggrieved was a reference the the complainant in the action Mr. Lund, not a reference to respondents in HRC actions.

All apologies then, for the mistake.

How is it not a foundation for persecution, unless the object is to utilize whiners like Lund to bludgeon other Christians into silence, in which case, persecution will be unnecessary, inasmuch as Christians will simply fall silent?

Are we, like the Goths in the opening sequence of Gladiator, supposed to know when we're conquered, and just accept the yoke?

Ironically, if you think about what was precisely uttered here, this was not really about whether the Goths were supposed to know if they've been conquered; on the contrary, it was a reference to Rome -- i.e., if whether Rome herself would know (a foreshadowing of the Fall of the Roman Empire).

De Civitate Dei by Augustine would be a good read on the matter.

Yet, how appropriate this is in this context given that this can be aptly applied to what is an already decaying (if not already dead) Christendom!

Any tool can be misused. If a hammer is used to bludgeon someone, we don't condemn the hammer. In the particular case Lydia pointed to, it was the absence of a call to political action and the fact it was secular action as opposed to being expression of religious teaching that had a negative impact. That, and a homosexual subsequently being beaten, although the causal relationship in mind seems nonexistent between the two. If all you mean is that government institutions tend to cause a society to become normative I wouldn't dispute that. I would not dispute that it is possible for norming to suppress Christian witness as well. However we would be dependent upon similar norming acts to suppress that which we don't desire. I believe it would be better to engage those who would seek to supress Christians in reasons than to protest that liberty is an uncompromisable good that must be preserved at all costs.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.