Barrel Strength

The current concern among those of us who prefer liberal-democratic civilization  is Islam, naturally. For those who may still be under the illusion that Islam is just another religion, equally as infantile and ridiculous as Christianity, and equally deserving of our disapproval, might want to start reading about Islam and its relation to the rest of the world. You can start anywhere. Here is a list of books I have read in the past few years on the subject. Some are polemical, some scholarly.  And if you don’t like these, keep reading:  there are dozens more.

What it is:

• Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, by Tarek Fatah
• The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, by Samuel P. Huntingdon
• The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, by Karen Armstrong
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer
• Why I am not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq
• The Closing of the Muslim Mind, by Robert Reilly

What it is doing:

• America Alone:The End of the World as We Know It, by Mark Steyn
• Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West, by Christopher Caldwell
• Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, by Bat Ye’or
• The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, By Andrew C. McCarthy

History:

• Empires of the Sea: The final battle for the Mediterranean 1521-1580, by Roger Crowley

If someone accuses you of being “Islamophobic”, think of it as being accused of “Naziphobic”  or “Communiphobic” in the 1930s. National Socialism, International Socialism and Islam are not the same things, but they share a common hatred of liberal democratic civilization. That includes you, my leftie-progressive friends, as well as my liberal and conservative ones.

The recent Blair-Hitchens debate on the role of religion in the world gives us good cause to reflect upon the decrepit standard of what passes for transcendent thought in our society.

This video is only a slight parody of that:

Oprah Invites Hundreds Of Lucky Fans To Be Buried With Her In Massive Tomb

Welcome to our weekly donnybrook, in which most Barrelstrengthians take vigorous exception to some moderate, well reasoned view of Oban.  Today’s rumble is on Islam/Palestine/Israel. Rebel Yell started it with a piece in the Jerusalem Post praising Harper at Obama’s expense.

Prime Minister Harper may not get many kudos from our drivelling liberal press,
but his positions are certainly not viewed the same way where it matters in the
world….. (cites Jerusalem Post on Harper versus Obama).

Then Arran Gold chimes in

“I voted for Obama and all I got was a crotch-cupping”.

Oban tries to be reasonable, as is his wont:

My observation is that for a Canadian PM full throated support for Israel is cheap – it starts to shake Jewish support from the Liberal Party, appeals to religous fundamentalists, and is largely a reflection of domestic political interests and calculations.
 
The US has different interests.  An Israeli-Palestinian peace would relieve a major irritant in its relations with the Muslim world, much of Europe and Africa.  No US President has viewed Israeli settlements with any enthusiasm, and all have seen colonisation of the West Bank as a serious impediment to finding a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflicts.  Papa Bush, Baby Bush and Clinton all have opposed extension of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and been extremely sensitive to development in Jerusalem.  That is because an Arab-Israeli peace is in the interests of the United States.  The Obama government senses an opportunity for a settlement and wants Israel to back off of provocative development schemes while the parties negotiate.  That seems reasonable to me.  If the area in which development is presently restrained emerges as part of Israel after a peace accord, then settlement can go ahead.

If not, then the development shouldn’t take place – at least for some  reasonable period to permit negotiations to proceed.   

 
It seems to me that the differing Canadian and US positions are ones of nuance.  Canada has no role in overseeing the settlement process.  It has neither the power, credibility or interest to sponsor or guarantee the end result.  For the US, it has huge interests in the outcome of the process, will likely be its primary guarantor as well as a beneficiary
of peace.  If it were Canada that were to sponsor the peace talks, you can bet without a shadow of doubt that it would be very sensitive to Israeli settlements outside the boundaries of 1967 Israel, as it would be of Arab terrorism, militias in Lebanon, etc. etc.
 

At this point, everyone piles on Oban. Arran Gold chides Oban in these  terms:

Oban, your view of this is very western, very white, very christian and totally leftist.

I once met a captain in the Canadian military who had just returned from a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.  I talked to him about his mission and he shared some insights.  He said that they said to him “Why are you guys getting involved in this?  This fight is centuries old”.  Essentially both sides were waiting for them to leave so that they could at it again.  Similarly, there is no reason to believe that a “peace” agreement will be the end of it as far as muslims are concerned.  It sure isn’t likey to “relieve a major irritant … with the Muslim world”

I get my oar in as follows:

I agree with Arran Gold’s remarks (on Brother Oban), save with regard to “leftist”. I
think many sensible people share Oban’s views. I no longer consider them realistic.

The point I have reached in re the Israeli thing is that it would make little difference to Arab opinion if Israel subjected the Palestinians to a march past under a triumphal arch and then slaughtered every male older than 12, and filmed it, as regards how the Muslims look at israel.

This reflects my increased understanding of Islam, which sees the Jews as a hideous uncleanness that must be extirpated from the face of the earth, and in which Islam is either or any of the following:

a) a totalitarian political ideology (sharia)
b) a psychosis (Arab male dominated family structure, and incessant violence within the family, and a defence against shame)
c) an ideological justification of slavery, both of chattel slavery (Christians in the past, and possibly the future) and sexual slavery (of women).

I have, as it were,”jumped the shark”. But I invite all who think this view to be extreme to read the texts and see the propaganda of Islam itself, and see how they actually treat each other. Then you decide.

Rebel Yell cannot resist  rejoinder.

Folks:

“Relieving an irritant” is a major red-herring in the political discourse.  It
stems from a misunderstanding of the Israeli-Islamic stand-off.  

Islam will never be satisfied until Israel is eliminated and the Jews destroyed.
 ”Occupation” to the Muslims means the very existence of Israel itself.  It was
not “cheap” at all for PM Harper to make that stand–”cheap” would have been
kow-towing to the Islamic bloc in the UN–something the Liberals would do only
too willingly under the slippery guidance of Iggy.  

“The Obama government senses an opportunity for a settlement”.. No it doesn’t.
 It senses a further opportunity to ingratiate itself before Muslim despots and
drag America’s reputation through the mud again.  America has done great works
for freedom, not the least of which is standing up for the small guy threatened
by an army of ignorant thugs, a.k.a. in this case, the Islamic world.  The Arabs
would not have lost the West Bank had they not on several occasions tried to
destroy Israel, so tough luck on losing the property.  Despite that, on several
occasions, Israel has made offers of returning upwards of 95% of the lands, only
to be rebuffed again by the Arabs.  

The different positions of the Obama regime and the Canadian government are
considerably more than “nuance”, a flaccid word for a flabby position on a
crucial topic.  PM Harper was quite right and deserves extra kudos for taking
such a spirited stand.  On the other hand, Hussein took the opportunity of
bashing Israel again in Indonesia, his homeland, a land which doesn’t even allow
Israeli citizens to visit, and which treated his own wife with contempt and with
no objection from him.  If Hussein’s understanding of the Islamic world really
is reflected in the appallingly inaccurate speech he gave at Cairo university,
then Israel would do well to avoid all his suggestions as much as possible.

When Islamic countries allow Christians and Jews and Hindus etc. to live as
citizens with equal rights, then there might be a possibility of a settlement.
 I don’t see it happening any time soon.  And until that time, Israel should
stay alert and not be sucked in to devious arrangements with any state.  The
Muslim nations have to show that they can live up to an agreement, ANY
AGREEMENT, and stick to it.  We all know what their record is on that one.

And when Iran gets the Bomb, all the “nuance-ing” in the world is not going to
produce any settlement.  And the Appeaser-in-Chief will have some ’splainin to
do.

Caol Illa responds to Oban:

While I respect your opinion I think your analysis of the situation is at least 20 years out of date.

Regarding the political situation in Canada it is a fact that for the last 60 years, at least,the Liberal Party sought the support of the Jewish community and received it. As a result the Liberals won a number of ridings they would not otherwise have held. The Liberals rewarded the loyalty of the Jewish community so long as there was not a better deal elsewhere. Then the demographics changed, Muslims became more numerous than Jews and the Liberals abandoned Israel in favour of the Palestiians. The Conservatives have not won a seat in which the Jewish community was a significant factor until 2008, when they won the riding of Thornhill. Ridings like York Centre, Eglington-Lawrence and Mount Royal remain Liberal. Even in the Mulroney sweep of 1984 all these ridings voted Liberal. Even though the Liberals have abandoned the Jews, the Jews, especially the secular Jews have not abandoned the Liberals. Therefore, I think you are wrong to suggest that our PM is supporting Israel for narrow partisan purposes.

As for there being any hope for a “peacful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflicts” I would say that whereas that might once have been possible, those days are long past and I think your opinion may be based more on wishful thinking than an analysis of what is happening on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank.  Not only did the former Palestinian leadership torpedo the Oslo Accord, more important the new elected government of Gaza, Hamas, have repeatedly stated they are not interested in a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian conflict. Hamas’ chief supporter, Iran claims it wants to annihilate Israel. That replaces the former PLO policy regarding Israel of “driving them into the sea”.  I cannot find the seeds of a peaceful solution in those policies. Just to be clear about its intentions Hamas continues to fire rockets into random targets in Israel even when it knows Israel is bound to retaliate. Not the actions of those desiring peace.

I am glad Stephen Harper has stood up to the illiterate, hate fueled thugs who rule the Arab world. With Obama’s abandonment of Israel somebody needs to stand up and say we will not sit idly by while the only  pluralistic liberal democracy in the Middle East is bullied by it’s much larger neighbours.  At this point it is diplomatic support and not military action that Israel needs.  If Obama is too foolhardy to do it I am glad we have a Stephen Harper around to do so. I wish the world had a few more leaders with the strength of character to stand up for what is right instead of what is politically expedient.

Oban is still talking to us.

We are deluged with insanities; indeed it can be argued we are drowning in them. They are  vast, powerful, and comprehensive. They derive from the inability to face facts, and to face facts, we would have to give up the precious ruling insanity (RI) of Western society since World War 2. First the symptoms, then the cause.

Here are three of the manifestations currently at work:

1. Airport searches, of an increasingly intrusive nature,  are predicated on a terrorist threat the source and nature of which -Islam – is not faced, discussed,or allowed to be spoken about in public discourse.

2. Canada is letting in 250,000 immigrants a year for the purpose of keeping our population from shrinking and maintaining the tax base to save our pensions, yet each succeeding generation of immigrants is less well-intergrated and less well-paid than its predecessor. Each immigrant subsequently brings in a host of relatives, whose presence largely or wholly negates the economic value of the productive immigrant Canada originally allowed in. Immigrants are increasingly deriving from societies whose goals, mores and political cultures are antithetical to our own. (see point one above)

3. We are raising electricity prices to favour renewable energy, and shutting down efficient fossil-fuel generating plants,wrecking the landscape with enormous bird-killing windmills, on the basis of a (man-caused) global warming hypothesis whose foundations have been shown to be fraudulent.

Perhaps you have your own set of insanities. Why, for instance, were the police required to suspend the rule of law in Caledon, Ontario to allow rebel Indians to run amok terrorizing the white citizens of Caledon in the enforcement of Indian land-claims?

I will tell you. They are related phenomena. The doctrine of racial, social, religious equality has been pushed to the point where different racial, social, religious or other group outcomes has been ruled presumptively illegal and immoral. This, I submit, is the ruling insanity of Western society. It seems that only the collision with something as huge, implacable, intolerant, and intrusive as Islam will force us to wake up from this delusion. If only we wake up in time.

Mark Steyn is fearless, and he says what increasing numbers of people are beginning to realize, if they dare.

“It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threatens it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ “bad cop”. Ooh, no, you can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us “Islam is a religion of peace” then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people. “

The elites are wondering why the natives are getting restless, and voting for anti-immigrant parties. Illegal immigration is one thing, forced Islamization is another. Britons recognize that 300,000 Poles in their country doing work will not upset basic social arrangments of being British. But Muslims are making demands which change the nature of society fundamentally, and are enforcing it with violence. Or, as Steyn points out, they get our own authorities to enforce shari’a for them.

 In today’s National Post, Christopher Hitchens (”More Subtle than the N-Word”, page A15) remarks:

A huge number of liberals have already decided that in some way Muslims constitute a race of their own, or at any rate that criticism of their religion can be construed as “racist”. (The fact that the Koran contains many racist observations about the Jews will mean that this card can and will be used to turn an almost infinite number of tricks. Still, I predict that liberals will regret handing Muslims such a handy alibi for any criticism of their faith.”

Christopher Hitchens’ criticism of liberals here is so mild, conditional and tentative that one must wonder whether he is in his right mind. “Liberals” – in the sense of those who endlessly search for white racism, rather than those who support a free and open society - are so massively in cahoots with Islamic opponents of a constitutional liberty that they may be considered objectively in league with one another. One is the plague, the other is the immune system suppression agent.

It started with Roger Scruton, naturally. A review of his book, “The Uses of Pessimism”, by Ed West in the Telegraph got me going, Oban responded, and Rebel Yell got into it.

Here is a quote from Scruton’s book:

“As Scruton notes: “Since the 1960s western countries have adopted policies in the matter of immigration that no person schooled in the elementary truths of pessimism would have endorsed. Anybody who has studied the fate of empires, and the difficulties of establishing territorial jurisdiction over communities that differ in religion, language and marital customs, knows that the task is all but impossible, and threatens constantly to break down in fragmentation, tribalism or civil war.”

Ed West continued in his Telegraph review:

Like Communism, mass immigration was based on a denial of human nature, and an inability to distinguish between what might work in individual human relationships and in society as a whole. Just because people of different groups are capable of getting on perfectly well as individuals, becoming friends and falling in love, it does not mean that a multicultural society (and one as diverse as ours will be multicultural as well as multiracial, whatever the Government does) can become a racism-free paradise; anymore than the willingness of people to give money to perfect strangers means Communism can work.

There were other comparisons with Communism: thought crimes were created, and eventually passed into law; dissidents were made public enemies (it was Scruton who published Ray Honeyford’s article about multiculturalism in Bradford, for which the headmaster was victimised and vilified); history was rewritten to educate the next generation in the new realities of their multicultural history; and children were indoctrinated “to embed a culture of equality in our schools and communities“. Even the language was changed, so that holders of non-revolutionary opinions could not express their opinions without becoming outcasts.

Contrary to what was said after Communism fell, we did not reach the end of history, merely a new chapter in the endless story of human stupidity.

This set me going on a rant of agreement and Oban responded:

This sent Rebel Yell into orbit:

To which Oban replied:

-Oban

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

I am not making this up, and when you read the article, it gets worse. The complainant was not actually in the professor’s class.

Apparently everything is a code word for the oversensitive. And code words are forbidden. But what is code for what? Even to ask the question is insensitive.

Please sue the university for big bucks, Kenneth Howell.

The paralyzing influence of the Leftist mind set is discussed in today’s article in the National Post by Shelby Steele. 

One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today, we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today, the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past–racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.

This philosophy is not for me, not for us at Barrelstrength, but you can smell the prevailing wind, can’t you? And what a fine ally this miasma of leftism has in militant know-nothing Islam! As AIDS is to HIV, so is the spreading blight of Islam to the immuno-depressant effect of political correctness. We are the best (civilization and culture) and they can go fuck off.  Say it repeatedly. You will feel better and you will be right.

I find myself in total agreement with the decision of  Judge Gerard Dugre in the case of  Loyola High School in Montreal versus the Quebec government, which appears to be engaging in a clear-cut attack on the right of Catholics to be Catholics, and in so doing, for parents to educate their children with any religious conception of existence whatever. However ironic it is to find Jesuits on the side of religious freedom, nonetheless the clear and present danger comes from the overmighty and pretentious State, not the Roman branch of the Christian church.

Reading the case judgment is a revelation of the intolerance of the new secular humanist establishment. In the words of the expert witness for Loyola High School, Douglas Farrow:

« … first, that the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program represents a significant transfer of power from civil society to the state; second, that its ambitious goals belie any claim to neutrality; third, that the ERC program is intended to provide formation (i.e., to cultivate a world view and a way of thinking and acting consistent with that world view) and not merely information, and that the formation it hopes to provide is at points incompatible with a Catholic formation; fourth, that the imposition of this curriculum (with its mandatory pedagogy) on Catholic schools constitutes, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, a breach of fundamental rights as well as a defeat for certain of the program’s own objectives in recognizing diversity. »

The case concerned whether Loyola could teach its students about other cultures and religions from a Roman Catholic point of view. Specifically, the objection of Loyola to the government’s approach was based on the idea that the government was calling for the acceptance of all practices without any reference to the underlying beliefs that gave them meaning. Loyola wrote:

“Nous avons conçu un programme qui affirme la valeur des religions du monde et qui enseigne leurs coutumes et croyances d’une manière bien plus approfondie que le nouveau programme d’éthique et de culture religieuse.  Notre programme examine non seulement les coutumes externes des autres religions mais aussi leurs croyances fondamentales.  En effet, nous sommes convaincus qu’une simple explication de pratiques externes accomplira bien peu en termes de promouvoir la tolérance et l’acceptation des autres sans une compréhension plus complète des autres fois, comme il est proposé dans notre programme

“We have developed a program which affirms the value of the world’s religions and which teaches  about their customs and beliefs from a much deeper viewpoint than the new program of ethics and religious culture. Our program examines not only the external customs  of other religions but also their fundamental beliefs. In effect, we are convinced that a simple explanation of external practices will accomplish much less in terms of promoting tolerance and the acceptance of others without a more complete understanding  of other religions, as it is proposed in our program.

The government of Quebec wrote to the high school saying that:

“Les deux grandes finalités du programme Éthique et culture religieuse sont la reconnaissance de l’autre et la poursuite du bien commun.  L’approche et la conception du bien commun développées dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse et celles proposées par Loyola High School sont très différentes.  L’approche préconisée dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse est culturelle et non fondée sur la foi.  Or, suivant le sommaire du programme proposé par Loyola High School et soumis au Ministère pour évaluation, il appert que le programme de Loyola High School est fondé sur la foi catholique et a pour principale finalité la transmission des croyances et convictions catholiques.  Il englobe une conception de l’autre, mais toujours par rapport à la perspective chrétienne catholique.

“The two great goals of the ethics and religious culture program are the recognition of the other and the pursuit of the common good. The approach and conception of the common good  developed in the ethics and religious culture program  and the one proposed by Loyola are very different. The approach extolled in the ethics and religious culture program is cultural and is not founded on faith. Now, according to the summary of the program proposed by Loyola High School and submitted to the Minister for evaluation, it appears that the program of Loyola High school is founded on the Catholic faith and has for its principal goal the transmission of Catholic beliefs and convictions. It encompasses a conception of the other, always in relation to the Christian Catholic perspective.

and further:

“…il appert que, contrairement au programme Éthique et culture religieuse, le programme de Loyola High School n’amène pas l’élève à réfléchir sur le bien commun, ni sur des questions d’éthique, mais l’amène plutôt à adopter la perspective jésuite du service chrétien.

“It appears that, contrary to the ethics and religious culture program, the program of Loyola High school does not lead the student to reflect on the common good, nor on questions of ethics, but leads him rather to adopt a Jesuit perspective on Christian service.

The Quebec government’s guidelines for teaching the Ethics and religious culture program were another triumph of compulsory ethical relativism.

« De plus, elle [la formation] ne propose pas à l’élève un univers particulier de croyances et de repères moraux. »

Dans ce contexte, il lui [l’enseignant] faut comprendre l’importance de conserver une distance critique à l’égard de sa propre vision du monde, notamment de ses convictions, de ses valeurs et de ses croyances.

Posture professionnelle

Pour favoriser chez les élèves une réflexion sur des questions éthiques ou une compréhension du phénomène religieux, l’enseignant fait preuve d’un jugement professionnel empreint d’objectivité et d’impartialité.  Ainsi, pour ne pas influencer les élèves dans l’élaboration de leur point de vue, il s’abstient de donner le sien. »

Moreover, the course does not propose to the student a particular universe of beliefs and moral benchmarks.

In this context, the student must understand the importance of keeping a critical distance in regard to his own view of the world, notably his convictions, his values and his beliefs.

Professional approach

To encourage a reflection by the students on questions of ethics or an understanding of the religious phenomenon, the teacher demonstrates a professional judgment characterized by objectivity and impartiality. Moreover, so as not to influence his students in the development of their point of view, he abstains from giving his own.

 I would characterize this approach by saying that Quebec allows teachers to expose students to religion as long as it is done in such a way that they deal with the outer behaviour and not the beliefs which inform them, and requires the student to refrain from any kind of critical judgment of others’ beliefs, convictions, and world views, ultimately with the effect of rendering him incapable of moral judgment – including judgment of his own beliefs, convictions and world view. Belief is all absurd, religious and ethical questions become a “whatever”, a zone from which critical thinking is excluded.

Hence the welcome decion of Judge Dugre  when he said:

“…l’obligation imposée à Loyola d’enseigner la matière ÉCR de façon laïque revêt un caractère totalitaire qui équivaut, essentiellement, à l’ordre donné à Galilée par l’Inquisition de renier la cosmologie de Copernic.”

“…The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ECR course in a secular fashion reveals a totalitarian character which is equivalent essentially, to the order given to Galileo by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican cosmology.”

Marci McDonald’s dimwitted expose of the vast conservative and Christian plot to change Canada is a classic example of a very narrow mind encountering people who do not agree with her, and recoiling in shock . Glendronach nailed it a few days ago. Marci McDonald manifests the curious and increasing phenomenon of the left bigot; the side that used to believe in the inexorable triumph of their brand of rationalism is frightened that the tide has turned.

“Who are these revolting people, anyway?”, she seems to ask. The same people who voted for Reagan, honey.

 In an interview in the Toronto Star, she says:

“That showed the canniness of Harper’s strategy,’’ explains McDonald. “Most people saw it as, ‘Oh yes the neocons don’t like government-funded social policies.’ What they didn’t realize was that he was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools. It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.”

“This was not a polemic I wrote; I do not reveal that Stephen Harper has a secret altar in his basement. But I did try to connect the dots because everybody was telling me this isn’t happening here, not in nice, tolerant, moderate Canada,” says McDonald.

For a conservative (or sensible moderate, for that matter), it would appear normal that governments have a highly restricted role in child-rearing, that mothers as much as possible be enabled to stay home to raise children, having regard to women’s free choice and economic opportunities, and that the family, not the state, have the preponderant if not exclusive voice in religious education. This has been the way societies of all religions have modelled themselves, since time out of mind.  The late 19th and 20th century  fixation on the state as the levelling, progressive, and liberating vehicle for social progress is the exception in millennia of human history.

The challenge to all those folks down in Toronto’s Beaches area is that they have inherited a civilization whose tolerance in based in the evolution of Christian thought, and who believe that Christianity is per se the enemy of that nice, decent moderate Canada in which they live.  As far as I can see, their anti-Christianity  is to the polity as carpenter ants are to a house. They seem to believe that belief in our creaturehood by a higher power, who is also the author of this universe, is something that should not be allowed to inform politics, but their “nice”, secular, “moderate” beliefs are to be the exclusive legitimate basis of both  political participation and set of goals which politics seek to achieve.

As Charles Lewis observed in the National Post, if McDonald wished to find intolerance in Canada, she need only look at her face in the mirror.

This morning I believe I have found a worthy successor to Linda McQuaig’s mantle as Canada’s weedy and not very bright leftist. Marci McDonald, who has just scribbled the tome The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, regaled listeners with a conspiracy theory marked by the same depth of research as those who are convinced the moon landings were faked by NASA.

Am I exaggerating? Consider these cubic zirconia-like gems of wisdom:

How was Stephen Harper transformed into a millenialist Protestant fundamentalist? Preston Manning encouraged him to read C.S. Lewis and Malcolm Muggeridge.

• Obviously reading the contemplations of Anglo Catholics is the gateway drug to eschatological fanaticism. And Khalil Gibran’s “The Prophet” will set you on the path to jihadism.

Christian activists look to the growth of the Fraser Institute as a model for research and advocacy. But the media no longer calls the Fraser Institute “extreme right-wing”.  So Christian activists are working under stealth.

• Because it is inconceivable that the Fraser Institute could have somehow developed a reputation for policy analysis over the course of years. And only Marci McDonald has remained immune to Michael Fraser’s use of The Voice as taught to him by the Bene Gesserit Order.

The naming of Canada can be attributed to fundamentalist biblical prophecy.

• The Dominion of Canada and the motto “A mari usque ad mare? The work of notorious end-of-days advocate Sir Samuel Leonard Tiley. Or maybe not quite .

Clearly “The Current” is degenerating into the “Coast to Coast AM” for the brie and chardonnay set.

UPDATE

The audio is now available.

AND MORE

If McDonald can’t convince a jazz-loving cosmopolitan journo like Paul Wells, then there is a small ray of hope for the chattering classes.

In the past week the British papers I have perused have reported:

• A town councillor gets a visit from two policemen for putting a sign in his window in red and blue letters, on a white background, saying: “Get the lot out”. The police suggested that a red, white and blue sign had “racist” connotations. “They said the Union Jack-coloured lettering on a white background could be considered ‘racist’.”
  He was told there had been a single complaint and he was ordered to remove it or change it otherwise he would end up in court.”

“And the furious pensioner , chairman of his local history society and a former Samaritan , slammed police for wasting their time.

“He said : ‘Three years ago vandals put a brick through my window and when I called the police all they offered me was a crime reference number.

No police visit was required for a physical crime, but the possibility of thought crime deserved their special attention.

• A black Christian evangelical counsellor was fired from his job, without recourse, for failing to provide sexual advice to a gay couple on how to improve their love-life, on the grounds that his christian faith required such conduct it. Regardless of his interpretation of Christianity, he failed in his lawsuit because religious belief was not a suitable ground of refusal. The same appeal court judge (Lord Laws)  who ruled this way had also ruled in a previous case that a man fired for excessive adherence to global warming doctrines was entitled to a religious defence.

“Lord Justice Laws condemned any attempt to protect believers who take a stand on matters of conscience under the law as “irrational” and “capricious”.

“In comments likely to set the church on a collision course with the courts, he claimed that doing so could set Britain on the road to a “theocracy”, or religious rule.

“While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture”.

“The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified,” he said.

“It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

He added: “If they did … our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

But Darren Sherborne, a partner at the law form Rickerbys, said that Lord Justice Laws’s judgment “wrong” open to challenge at the Supreme Court because it placed sexual practices over religious beliefs.

“For him to say a subjective idea isn’t capable of protection completely undermines the 2006 Equality Act which was intended to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their beliefs,” he said.

“The law has developed to the point where even a belief in the environment is held to be protected.

“There is scope for a challenge to the Supreme Court and I would expect it to be.

“If he doesn’t (challenge it), in my opinion this is one more straw in the camel’s back which is heading for the encouragement … of more extreme religious beliefs.

• A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.

“Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

“The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.”

• Atheists seek to ban Christian prayer before town council meetings on the grounds that it offends the human rights of non-believers.
• A Muslim defaces a war memorial with a slogan saying “Islam shall prevail over all” , among others, but his prosecution fails to prosecute this as a “religious” or “racially motivated” act.

“A file was sent to lawyers at the Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS in London to see if there was a racially or religiously motivated connotation.

“However when Shah appeared before magistrates this week, prosecutor Andrew Bodger said: ‘It was decided there was not enough evidence to prove this, and they decided it was politically motivated.’

“Defending, Mumtaz Chaudry said Shah did not hold extremist views. ‘This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family’s beliefs or his cultural beliefs,’ he said. ‘He is just an ordinary guy. ”

“Khadim Thathall, a former president of a mosque in the town, said: ‘This young man has clearly been radicalised by groups which are looking to cause trouble and it’s a pity that the court hasn’t been able to deal with him more strictly.’

(Good for you, Khadim Thathall!  You are cleaer on the concept than the Director of Public Prosecutions.)

 

• The strange thing is, David Cameron has resolutely refused to take up any of  these issuea in the British general election. Thinking minds ask: why not?

I am bored stiff with Canadian politics and I suspect you are too. Indeed I am bored with US politics. The global warming scare is fizzling out. The outcomes on several fronts are predictable and they work,  in general, towards conservative aims and outcomes. The only uncertain issue, in the grand strategic sense, is whether we will be forcibly Islamized in 25 years, or not.

Glorious Leader Harper moves the jello which makes up this country to the right, and any change he can make below the level of public discussion he makes, and any change requiring public discussion he does not make. Thus immigration and refugee policy can get fixed by administrative action, but the Human Rights Commissions march onward until they meet their deserved fate: ignominy and dismantlement. But not now.

Obama continues to screw up at his own pace, stiffing his allies and appeasing our enemies.  He will be punished at the mid-terms in spectacular fashion, and the issue is whether he will be considered worse than Jimmy Carter, or slightly better. I already have several bets out that he is a one-term President and I see no sign that my money is at risk.

Free-speech issues, which are really substitutes for the Islamic issue, are now being engaged, and they will play out over years. Sensible people  are not always winning them, but we are engaging a larger segment of society in the necessary discussions of race, class, religion, intelligence distribution, and why they cannot be discussed in frank terms.   The free-speech issues are important because they mark the boundaries that leftists want to put on freedom of discussion in the West, which is to say: they want to end it entirely for everyone, possibly including themselves. And, just as they did in the days of Communism, there is always a large contingent of leftists who hate liberal constitutional democracy and their own culture more than they fear the outside threat.

Only in the case of Islam, the threat is now inside the house, because of senseless immigration policies.

The Muslim issue is the new Communism. The same issues ae being asked. What is communism?Are there  really such people as communists? What do they intend towards us? Have they infiltrated our governments?

Islam is resuming  a thousand three hundred year long battle with everyone else, after a pause when their political arrangements (the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary pirates) were crushed.

The same sorts of naivety, enthusiasm, folly, intimidation, appeasement, infiltration and refusal to discuss the matter are occurring in relation to Islam as occurred in relation Communism.

The collapse of Christianity is leaving a vast spiritual vacuum in the West, and the Muslims are merely filling it.

Thus it was with great pleasure I turned this past Easter weekend from secular concerns to Jesus’ really bad day upon the cross, and to a brilliant, deeply learned, and well thought out book by the San Francisco philosopher and historian of religion, Jacob Needleman, whose What is God? counts among the 30 most important books I have read.

I thought it would be one of those duty-books that I occasionally read because, like broccoli, they are good for me, though dry and distasteful. Nothing of the sort. It caught me from the opening pages of childhood recollection, and continued straight through to the end, opening larger and deeper vistas. (His description of his boundless loathing, as a young Jewish man, for Saint Augustine aroused in me nothing but sympathy, and outright laughter, as he burns every page of The City of God one evening in outrage).

Needleman’s book leads through a painless and engaged  discussion of western philosophy and religious thinking to spiritual pratices and thence to an exposition of the thought of George Gurdjieff and his followers.

I have bought two copies of “What is God?” to lend to my children and friends, and I have just ordered a dozen books on Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, John Sinclair (Lord Pentland), Jeanne de Salzman and the other disciples.

Jacob Needleman’s “What is God?” is a tonic for your soul. You have one, you know, and it needs exercise and refreshment. It is a good guide to begin thinking about the question because, as he says, the answer to “who is God?” is entirely bound up with the question “who are you?”. And I am  more concerned with those two questions than I am with any other at this time.

_______________________

An engaging on-line resource of writing by Gurdjieff’s disciples can be found at http://books.google.ca/books?id=oyZ14dBwIZMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gurdjieff&source=bl&ots=D0EsZqpKq6&sig=NqoXKG0W5l_DWFI-vw4gCghG7HE&hl=en&ei=ZlG_S42JFMH78Aai0az8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=17&ved=0CDUQ6AEwEA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This morning’s article in the National Post trumpets Capitalism made us Kinder, study says.

Obviously it is not capitalism, which is a late development of the post-1400s in Europe, but the universal human tendency to trade, which has softened barbaric manners.

“The finding, reported in the journal Science, suggests people trust and play fair with strangers because markets and religion — not some deep psychological instinct inherited from our dim tribal past — have helped shape our neural circuitry over the eons.”

“The hunter-gatherer and tribal societies studied are known for sharing among family and close acquaintances. But the researchers found fair play in monetary transactions with strangers was almost an alien concept. People in the simpler societies treated strangers less fairly, and were less likely to punish people who kept most of the money for themselves.

“Social scientists — and economists in particular — have long been baffled with the way people in large societies are so trusting and fair in dealings with strangers. Many academics have argued it is a throwback to a time when humans were hunter-gatherers.

“Mr. Henrich and his colleagues say their findings indicate playing fair with strangers is a behaviour that was favoured as the size of societies and populations grew.

“The emergence and growth of markets allowed for the exchange of goods, skills and knowledge and enabled large complex societies to emerge and function, Mr. Henrich says, noting that humans in large societies are not nearly as selfish as some would suggest.

“There are all these aspects to our lives that just seem to work, because we are not actually baboons,” Mr. Henrich says in an interview.

This is what we would have expected. Read the rest…

Whingeing Seventies rock star Sir Elton John announces to the world that Jesus Christ was a “super-intelligent gay man“.

And the increasingly awful Church of England does little to refute this fabulous theologian:

A spokesman for the Church of England said: “Sir Elton’s reflection that Jesus calls us all to love and forgive is one shared by all Christians.”

“But insights into aspects of the historic person of Jesus are perhaps best left to the academics,” he added.

Fittingly, at one point in the interview with that bastion of religious reflection, Parade Magazine, Sir Elton claims that “fame attracts lunatics”.

No argument here.