Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ is Going to Go!
My husband, my youngest daughter, and I had lunch with an old friend yesterday. He and I were known to have heated arguments back when we were more politically in-sync, which, I daresay, we both enjoyed immensely. While he still adheres to atheistic liberalism, I’ve converted both religiously and politically. Paradoxically, our conversations seem to be more measured and substantive, although I still win 99 percent of the disputes – just ask me.
In the course of our conversation, he cracked a joke about selecting swimwear and potentially looking good in a burkini. This led to a discussion of France’s somewhat feeble attempts to push back against the assertion of Muslim culture by banning the veil and, now, the controversial initiative to ban the burkini. Our friend asserted there are only two realistic approaches to take on the cultural tensions extant when Muslims move into western societies: 1) Try to retain the western values of pluralism and religious tolerance in an open society while “leaving the door open for compromises,” or 2) Expel the alien ideological element and combat it wherever it is found. I demurred.
There is a third option, which is the course we’re currently pursuing: the West can simply lie down and die.
Something I said really touched a nerve, because our friend became very animated and heatedly asked me, “You really believe, in a hundred years, the West will be overrun?” He was absolutely confident that what we’re witnessing in the way of cultural jihad (from Islamic supremacists on one side and leftists on the other) is not a trend and I’m dead wrong to believe Western Civilization is vulnerable.
That was before I informed him about Sharia courts given the authority to settle civil disputes in Great Britain and many municipalities in Canada (because the Jews and the Catholics already had them, so Muslims must have them too!), and the abrogation of the Anglo common-law tradition. Neither was he aware of the video taken (by a very brave youngster, I assume) in the madrassa in Great Britain where high school students recite the punishments for homosexuality (throw them off a high place, and then stone them) and apostasy (kill them). H/t: @pseudodionysius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEm4xuBhqg
Still, he insisted, I’m wrong to think the West is dying. Unfortunately, our time together was short and I had to leave, but I parted with this thought: In order to sustain a culture, the people must understand and love their heritage (Westerners are either ignorant or ashamed), must live by its values (we’re increasingly secular and relativistic), and even be willing to die for its principles. Most westerners are too soft to assert the superiority of our culture, with the exception being Christians and conservatives. <mic drop>
Now, how is any of this relevant to the 2016 Election (because every worthwhile discussion must be related to Trump vs Clinton)? The real contest is between Christianity and its two mortal enemies: Islam and leftism. They know it and most Christians (who are not also leftists) know it. NeverTrumpers? Not so much.
Why do I assert this? After mentally replaying my conversation with our friend and trying to discover the pattern that would explain the NeverTrump position, I noticed that the NeverTrumpers align almost identically with secular “conservatives” who are soft on social/cultural issues like abortion and SSM. On these subjects, they largely agree with the anti-Christian Left.
I don’t mean to suggest NeverTrumpers are themselves anti-Christian, only that their unfamiliarity with the Christian religious tradition may amke them unaware of the danger of their alliance with the Left to Christianity and, therefore, Western Civilization.
Published in GeneralLet nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
— St. Teresa of Avila
What EB said. Exactly. Western Rite Orthodox Christian here. :)
My line when pressed–from the Left or from the pro-Trump voters I know–has remained the same: I won’t vote for Baal to stop Molech, anymore than I’ll vote for Molech to stop Baal. I know, I know–hyperbole. What can I say? Apparently I enjoy watching people turn various shades of red in their righteous indignation. ;)
In my experience, it is Christians *less* familiar with the Western, Christian humanist tradition who seem to find Trump palatable. Again, this is just my personal experience.
Awesome!
Ooh my goshness! Somebody finally gets me.
It is true that Trump got lots of primary votes from self-identified but unobservant Evangelicals.
Without reading the ensuing conversation I will just say that I find this extraordinarily disappointing. I literally got lightheaded reading this. Up is down and left is right and nobody is making any sense anymore. I’m so close to ticking that thermometer down a peg.
The Trump movement represents a movement toward a “who controls government” battle. The left has been doing this for a long time. The right is fed up and responding. The response is clear and understandable to me. Better we are in charge than them. I get it.
But that is not conservative. It is not in keeping with the American idea. It is not in keeping with the traditions that led to the American idea. A nation of laws and not of men is becoming a nation of men. If you support that change then fine but don’t deny it’s a change.
Another data point against the “NeverTrumpers don’t understand Christianity’s in danger”: in the primary, one of the best predictors of a Republican primary voter not voting for Trump was weekly church attendance. One of the states where Trump did worst (14% of the vote) was Utah, which is also one of the traditionally “red” states that’s polling purple this cycle.
Given the demographics such as those @lazymillennial cites, that seems the more plausible of the two to me.
That said, I don’t put a lot of stock in either: there are devout people on both sides of this matter as well as seculars; enough of each on both sides that I don’t think either theory has much to offer.
There are legitimate reasons for a Christian to prefer Trump. While his understanding of Christianity is terribly lacking, he is not hostile to it the way Clinton is. We’ve seen hints of what the democrats will attempt to do to churches so far. If they get a stronger hold on power I expect a bigger push to punish non-conformists.
Which might explain why there are devout people on both sides of the matter.
Had WC merely made the case “there are legitimate reasons for a Christian to prefer Trump”, that would be one thing, as saying it’s legitimate to prefer X doesn’t by itself imply it’s illegitimate to not-prefer X. Asserting “On these [social/cultural] subjects, they [Trump opposers] largely agree with the anti-Christian Left” is another matter.
Agreed. Anyone that doesn’t recognize that Trump, while not a Christian, is more sympathetic to the vision of America formed by the Judeo-Christian ethos than Hillary is, is being willfully blind. She will continue to use Public Accommodation as a legal weapon against Christianity and Trump will not. What could be clearer?
@Layla —–I’m not familiar with a Christian humanist. What is that?
Erasmus, Thomas More, others.
I guess you didn’t notice my earlier comment. The more recent comment was only directed at the suggestion that ignorance of Christian tradition is more likely basis for voting for Trump.
Yes, while waiting for an answer I went and looked at your link. There was also this:
———————————————————————————————-
Since the advent of postmodernism, some radical ‘progressive’ Christians [4] have tended to see the Christ of faith as irreconcilable with the Jesus of history, regarding the latter as a mere mortal and a distinctly fallible one at that. One such writer, Arthur G Broadhurst, argues for a religionless non-theistic form of Christianity: The Christian Humanist: Religion, Politics, and Ethics for the 21st Century, which some Christians see as a logical impossibility. [See also Arthur G Broadhurst, The Possibility of Christian Humanism, Lulu Press, 2013.] As progressives, they generally take a deconstructionist view that dogmatic theology is suspect and spiritual truth is mainly a personalized and subjective pursuit. They tend to align with liberal secular humanism and one of their outspoken advocates is retired Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong.
——————————————————————————————————-
This is the more current version, apparently.
No, I did. In the primaries, it did seem as if less-observant (and possibly more religiously ignorant) Christians were more likely to vote Trump. It really does seem there’s something about Trump that positively appeals to less-observant Christians. That doesn’t mean, however, that observant Christians can’t prefer Trump in the general election – of course they can!
Christendom is both a faith and a tribe. The argument “He doesn’t understand our faith, but he’ll defend our tribe” isn’t lost on me – that is, I understand it, even if I am personally skeptical of it.
Well, which do you think @layla meant?
I think she might be confused.
Until you said hyperbole, I believed you.
The portion I selected was near the bottom of the link. Here’s the first Sentence:
“Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism.”
Looking at other online links, the current definition of Christian Humanist seems to align pretty closely with Progressivism.
OK, well, if we reason through this, @layla is Western-Rite Orthodox. That means she places great emphasis on the Patristic Fathers, and very likely little-to-no emphasis on those Christians who align with liberal secular humanists – favoring Patristics over secularism is just how the Orthodox roll. Therefore, the top of the article, stating
might be a better guide to what @layla meant.
Do you know who Gregory of Nyssa was? The first man in the ancient world on record utterly rejecting slavery. Maybe there was someone before him whose records were lost, but he’s the first one we know of. That’s pretty cool.
At what point when the character of the people and the principles by which they live change do you say “this is something new?” This is no longer Western Civilization?
What we have known to this point has been grounded in Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian ideas and principles. The rule of law has been profoundly eroded — we’re about to elect a woman whose felonious activity would have assured anyone not named “Clinton” a long prison stay.
We’re delegitimizing the “one-flesh” understanding of marriage — literally. I agree with Dennis Prager that priests and ministers will be legally sanctioned for not performing SS weddings. I think the first thing to go will be tax exempt status of churches. But it won’t end there. It never does.
I also agree with Eric Metaxas that virtue (reinforced by observant religious) is a precondition of self-government. There are still a lot of really great people in this country, but a visit to the local DMV or the state “public service” offices will disabuse anyone here of the notion that we’ve retained high standards of appearance and behavior.
There will still be western nations in a hundred years. But, unless there’s a cultural revival, I don’t think they’ll be recognizable.
Wish I could argue with this statement.
Yeah, we haven’t quite hammered this out yet. ;-)
I’m not saying you’re voting for Hillary. I’m saying people who normally vote for the Republican candidate and refuse to vote for Trump are helping her get elected. I do not understand the logic that says otherwise. Can you explain it?
They compromised their principles???
/sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Yeah, I found enthusiastic support from Christians during the primary hard to believe. Totally different situation then. The public endorsements from well known Christians haven’t been from anyone that I would consider a good teacher – I’m not claiming I’m familiar with all of them.
However, I do know some serious and knowledgable believers who were enthusiastic supporters even during the primaries.
That tribal appeal is certainly part of it. There’s some rationalizing away faults, too.
Seriously, @tommeyer, I think we can agree that we assess the risks of these two candidates differently. It was easier for all of us to hold our noses and vote for the Republican in the past, even if we had serious policy differences. But, this year, NeverTrumpers are more comfortable with a Clinton win than Trump voters are. I think that’s the bottom line.
In a relative sense, yes. If they were much more comfortable with a Trump win than a Clinton, they would vote Trump. That they aren’t means they see the comfort-distance as smaller than that. I found labor and delivery without anesthetic relatively comfortable, too – and it wasn’t because it was at all comfortable! :-)
Hillary is a grave threat. Her defenders in Leftist mass media make much of her “devout” Methodist religion, but she clearly belongs to the Left fringe of the United Methodist Church; you know, the ones who are syncretist, universalist, and beyond unorthodox, straying through heterodox and occasionally dipping into rank heresy.
Hillary Clinton’s “Christianity” is only slightly closer to Christianity than Barack Obama’s “Christianity.” (He is famous for not knowing what was taught at Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberationist United Church of Christ.)
They are both hostile to Christians who actually think Jesus rose from the grave and who wish to live out a Biblical morality.
Hillary will lead Team Obama as they crush individual liberties and continue to break apart the old institutions of western civilization. The institution that will be first in their crosshairs is Christian colleges and schools. They will use the weaponized IRS and DOJ to target Christian schools who do not bend the knee to Progressivism and universalism.
Trump may not be any closer than Hillary to real Grace and Mercy, considering his famously unrepentant position. However, he is not in league with the movement Progressives who want to break down western civilization, beginning with the churches that have not yet been co-opted.
@larry3435, again, we assess the risks differently. The cultural shift could be described as the same as how one goes bankrupt: gradually then suddenly. The Left (and Islamic supremacists) has been at this for a long time, but the last eight years we’ve seen rapid changes.
I do not deny what you’ve claimed as your reasons for opposing Trump. I take them on good faith. You believe he’s ignorant, vulgar, a risk to the nation economically, to the world on foreign affairs, etc, etc.
I can accept most of that (although I think the nuke concern is a little nutty) and reply Hillary isn’t ignorant, she’s dangerously calculating. As unlikable as she is, she has the Clinton knack for exhausting her opponents by repeating the lies until they give up. She’ll hurt the nation economically by doubling down on the Obama agenda. She’ll weaponize the IRS and other agencies and (hopefully metaphorically) commit mass slaughter on conservative and Christian outlets. Prager thinks she’ll impose some version of the “Fairness” Doctrine and destroy talk radio. I agree. She’ll swing the Court for 30years.
If Hillary is “devout” about anything other than power and loot, then I’m the Lutheran Dalai By-Gum Lama.