Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe | The Imaginative Conservative

https://i2.wp.com/www.theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Orban-768x490.jpg

If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist, our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall…

Source: Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe – The Imaginative Conservative

Hungarian Prime Minister issues a warning… and also expresses some hope:

“Commentators claim that there are dark clouds gathering over Europe, due to immigration. There have always been dark prophecies. This is the familiar background music to European politics. What’s worrying these days is that in essence they are mathematical in nature: even though they are estimates, they are about numbers and quantifiable changes; and numbers always carry a great deal of weight…

“For instance, in Bavaria now more money is being spent on asylum, immigration and integration than on the combined state budget for the economy, the environment and health care. Visiting Vienna I heard that this year’s school enrolment data took everyone very much by surprise: the percentage of Muslim children among those starting school has soared. This is the future that over there is already the present. According to NATO reports – it seems that soldiers don’t yet allow themselves to be censored – by 2020, sixty million people will have set off for Europe. There’s also consensus that Africa will be more powerful than any previous expectations had envisaged. By 2050 its population will have doubled, to 2.5 billion. There will be ten times more young Africans than young Europeans… If this mass of several hundred million young people is allowed to travel north, then Europe will soon come under horrendous pressure.

“Furthermore, the majority of immigrants will arrive from the Islamic world. If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations – and London will not be an outlier, but a pioneer. If things continue like this, our culture, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist. Our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall, as Europe is occupied without realising it. Will this be a vindication of the views of those who think that civilisations are not killed, but commit suicide? Many believe that even if all this does take place, it will all take a long time. I think that those who believe this are mistaken. Analyses look ahead as far as 2050, and people of my age will reach their eighties at around that time. In other words, we – not to mention our children and grandchildren – may be able to see with our own eyes what direction the future of our Western world has taken.”

Anyone of European heritage who does not see this as worrisome either has their head in the sand and is practicing an advanced form of denial, or is culturally masochistic, if not suicidal. But the problem is not just from external forces; it is from internal (to Europe) forces, as well – or even more critically:

“I must also say a few words about the dispute between Western and Central Europe. It seems that the courses of development of these two parts of Europe have diverged… The great old European nations in Western Europe have become immigrant countries. Day by day their cultural foundations are being transformed, the population raised in a Christian culture is declining, and the major cities are undergoing Islamisation. And I have to say that I cannot see the political forces with the will and ability to stop these processes – let alone, horribile dictu, reverse them. In terms of my message it is now irrelevant whether this is the consequence of the weakness of liberal democracies, the repercussions of an earlier colonial and slave-trading past, or the greedy, subversive actions of a George Soros-style empire; the facts remain. Whatever the reason, Western Europe has become an immigrant zone and a world of mixed populations; and, unlike central Europe, it is heading in the direction of a completely new development future. This is bad news for us. This means that Islamic civilisation – which has always seen its mission as the conversion of Europe to what it calls the true faith – will knock on Central Europe’s door not only from the South, but also from the West.

However absurd it seems, the situation is that now the danger is threatening us from the West. This danger to us comes from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris. They want us to adopt their policies: the policies that made them immigrant countries and that opened the way for the decline of Christian culture and the expansion of Islam. They want us to also accept migrants and to also become countries with mixed populations. Earlier they said that they expect this from us because what is alien is beautiful, a mixed population is better, and because the true European does not defend such obsolete mediaeval concepts as homeland and religion. Today these voices are perhaps quieter. Now the fashionable mantra is that we must become like them because this expresses solidarity. We must clearly state that we stand in solidarity with those Western Europeans and leaders who want to save their homelands and Christian culture, and we have no solidarity with those who want to abandon those things. We shall never express solidarity with those European leaders who want to take Europe into a post-Christian and post-national era.

But the news is not all bad. There is hope:

“We must clearly and forthrightly state that we do not see the battle that we’re fighting as a hopeless one; in fact as we see it, we now stand on the brink of victory. The countries of the Visegrád Four are unwavering. The Orthodox world stands firm, and it seems that Croatia has come to its senses. Austria has now turned in the direction of patriotism and Christianity. In Bavaria a spiritual and political resistance has developed under the leadership of the CSU. Perhaps it is not too late. And we await, we keenly anticipate, the result of the Italian election, and with it the turning-point which will see the return to government of common sense, Italian national and cultural identity – and Silvio Berlusconi. Forza Italia!”

Thank God for the Visegrád nations! And others are beginning to join them. Perhaps it is not yet too late. I am awaiting anxiously the results of the Italian elections…

Advertisements

Hallelujah! Welby takes a stand against Sharia | Comment | The Times

 

JustinWelby_2361939k

By challenging the spread of Islamic law, the archbishop is finally fighting for Christian values

Source: Hallelujah! Welby takes a stand against Sharia | Comment | The Times

Melanie Philips, a blogger, editorialist, and cultural commentator based in Britain, is not herself a Christian, being of the Jewish faith; but she is more perceptive about the importance of Christianity to the survival of Western civilization than many who claim the mantle of Christ. She writes,

“Our increasingly post-Christian society makes the widespread assumption that secularism promotes freedom and equality while Christianity merely divides us. In fact, freedom and equality are Biblical precepts that bind us together. It is secularism that has divided us into groups jostling for power over each other and which has shattered our sense of a shared national project.”

Indeed. Would that more Christians, including those in high places in the Church, were to realize that as well! Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, has been one of those who has been reticent about standing up for Christianity in the fact of the dual attacks by militant Islam, on the one hand, and aggressive secularism and atheism, on the other.

But as my father used to say, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day,” and he has been reasonably outspoken on the dangers of Sharia (Islamic law). Reasonably. But as Ms Philips points out, he goes only so far, and it’s questionable whether it’s far enough:

“Archbishop Welby has spoken with some courage about resisting Sharia. He also wants Britain to ‘reimagine’ its identity on the basis of Christianity. Yet he undermines this by suggesting that different faiths must play an equivalent role. The mouse may have roared — but it remains, alas, a mouse.”

I do wonder what some of the late, great Archbishops of Canterbury – not just the great medieval and Reformation Archbishops, but even more recent holders of the office like the late sainted Michael Ramsey, and even Robert Runcie – would think about the current one! It is at least apparent that Lord Carey (immediate predecessor to Rowan Williams, himself the last Archbishop of Canterbury before Welby) is none too pleased…

Richard Dawkins: Islam Is ‘The Most Evil Religion In The World’ | Interface Institute

Source: Richard Dawkins: Islam Is ‘The Most Evil Religion In The World’ | Interface Institute

I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, by any means. But it is interesting, to say the least, that although this über-“liberal” militant atheist has been largely lionized by the Left through decades of criticizing Christianity, the “PC police” jump on him when he dares to turn his critique to Islam!

Do they really think they wouldn’t be the first against the wall, or lined up on their knees to be beheaded, if the likes of ISIS or Iran’s “Revolutionary Guard” were ever to come to power in the West?

“In a speech at the Cheltenham Science Festival in the U.K., Dawkins slammed the moral idiocy of cultural relativism, arguing against the ill-conceived notion that all religions are more or less the same.

“’It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,’ he stated.

“Refusing to submit to de facto blasphemy laws, Dawkins then dropped the bomb.

“’If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam,’ he said in no uncertain terms.”

Interesting, as a side note, that he uses the term “evil,” which is a theological term as well as a moral category (in the ancient world, from which our ideas of morality and ethics came, there was no clear-cut distinction between the two, as we sometimes like to pretend there is today).

If there were no objective moral standard, how could one speak of Islam as “evil”? It would simply be one of the best ideologies, at present, at achieving dominance – at least in certain spheres. And if there is a moral standard, where did it come from, in the absence of a Divine Lawgiver…?

Just sayin’…!

Leaked recording: Berlin police instructor calls Muslim recruits ‘enemy in our ranks’

polizei

Source: Leaked recording: Berlin police instructor calls Muslim recruits ‘enemy in our ranks’

Sadly, this does not come as a surprise!

On the tape, the unidentified police instructor complains that many officers who come from migrant backgrounds, particularly those of Turkish and Arabic origins, refuse to pay attention in the academy classrooms and many have trouble speaking or writing German, Die Welt reported…

These Muslim recruits have put the future of the Berlin police force in jeopardy according to the instructor who said the migrant police officers would be “a second-class of police that will only be corrupt”.

“These are not colleagues, that’s the enemy. This is the enemy in our ranks and I have never felt such hostility in this class,” he added.

An English friend of mine on Facebook comments, “My son attended an Uniformed Services course at College prior to joining the Paras, and he said the same thing about the Middle Eastern [students] on his course. He said 50% of the class were made up of them, they were lazy, cheeky, stupid, bereft of discipline and he thought they were there for inside information to help them fight against us.”

Unfortunately I would not be a bit surprised. I am reminded of the fact that the 9/11 terrorists here in the U.S. learned to fly the airliners they used as weapons at American flight schools. The idea of Muslims in Germany and Britain learning information, tactics, etc., from the police and military of those countries seems all too credible, to me.

Kindness, openness, and willingness to share information has been a hallmark of Western society for centuries, and especially following the end of the Second World War – and heretofore, it has been a source of strength. But in the present environment, it seems to be more a source of vulnerability.

Touché!

British Prime Minister Theresa May reacting to the recent train-bombing in London by an 18-year-old Islamic immigrant

STEP 1) Feign shock
STEP 2) Express resolve
STEP 3) Say good things about Islam
STEP 4) Pretend that taking in more Muslims “defeats terrorists” and makes us safer

Source: The Religion of Peace

London bombing shows danger of Islamification in Britain and Europe. Is the US next? | Fox News

The terrorist bombing Friday of a train on the London Underground, which injured 30 people – including one of my very close friends – was yet more evidence of a painful truth: the Islamification of the United Kingdom and Europe is well under way, changing the very character of the continent that gave birth to Western Civilization.

Source: London bombing shows danger of Islamification in Britain and Europe. Is the US next? | Fox News

This is indeed an excellent essay, and the fact that it is written by someone who was, herself, touched by the latest bombing in London – through a friend of hers, who was fortunate that when the bomb detonated in her train compartment, it did not go off properly. I strongly recommend that you “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” this essay!

But like most other writings on the subject of Islam, in her commendable zeal to protect religious liberty and avoid tarring with too broad a brush, Ms Davis misses a few important points.

She quotes the Brookings Institute definition of Islamism, which of course is quite accurate, as far as it goes. However, consider: any religion worth its salt believes that its “values should play a role in public life,” and that it “has things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people – not just themselves – should conduct themselves.” If it does not, it hardly qualifies as a religion at all: at best, it is some form of nebulous personal spirituality.

Certainly, Christianity has things to say about these issues. Buddhism (more so in the East than in the West, but in some places even here) has things to say about these issues. Hinduism and certainly Taoism have things to say about these issues. The difference lies in how those values are promoted and expressed, and what the religion in question sees as its ultimate role in society.

I don’t feel that I can speak authoritatively for the other religions mentioned, but I do believe that I can speak fairly authoritatively for Christianity, having degrees in medieval studies and theology and being an ordained Christian minister. And what I can say is that while Christianity has certainly not been immune to the temptations to power-politics and even violence that come from a too-close alliance with secular authorities, such things are foreign and even contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith itself.

The fundamental teachings of Christianity are encapsulated in Christ’s summary of the law: “Love the Lord your God… and your neighbor as yourself.” This concept is repeated and reinforced in such passages as “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” and “a new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another.” Similar teachings appear in the writings of the Apostles, Christ’s successors after His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

And his final instruction was to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptize. Not conquer. Not subjugate. Not kill. Baptize. That is a voluntary action: one must make a choice to receive the teachings, before baptism can take place (1). Nowhere is violence called for (2). Nowhere are Christians called to fight, kill, or make war against the “infidel.” Nowhere are they told to make non-Christians second-class citizens (dhimmi) who must die, convert, or admit they are inferior and pay protection money (jizya).

Beyond that, Christians are supposed to be the “leaven in the loaf” of the body politic, not its rulers and dominators. Christ was clear about this, stating “My kingdom is not of this world,” and instructing his listeners to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” His Apostles followed the same track, exhorting the early Christians to “honour the king,” and to obey the secular authorities, including the (then pagan) Roman Emperor. Christians were – and are – intended to seek to exert a positive influence on the actions of secular and political authorities by example and moral exhortation, not, as I say, domination and rulership.

So Christianity has, and God willing will continue to have, “things to say” about “how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how [people in general] should conduct themselves.” The important point is that the Christian faith itself – regardless of what deluded or over-zealous devotees may have done on their own initiative – does not teach that Christianity, or its followers, should politically dominate the world, and it does not teach violence as a way to spread its teachings. You can search the New Testament, and for that matter the Fathers of the Church (approximately corresponding to Islamic prophet Mohammed’s immediate successors), in vain for any such teachings.

And that is the point that so many otherwise intelligent and perceptive individuals – on both sides of the political aisle – consistently miss, or misunderstand: Islam is not just another religion. It does not merely believe that “its values should play a role in public life.” It does not simply have “things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people… should conduct themselves.” Would that that’s all it were! But it is not.

It is a religious / spiritual / theological justification for absolute dominance, conquest, and subjugation, in all realms: religious, political, judicial, economic, and military. One is either part of the Dar al-Islam, the Realm of Submission to Allah, or one is part of the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of Conflict, and thus subject to conquest so that submission to Allah may be enforced upon you. Those are the choices. And that is why the present contest between the West and Islam is a civilizational, existential conflict, whether one likes to think of it in those terms or not. Islam has not left us any choice in the matter.

All of that said: this is nonetheless a cogent and timely article, and an important warning for us, here in the U.S. It is well worth a read! Just don’t let yourself get caught up into too erroneous concepts, which this otherwise superb essay implicitly accepts: a) that Islam / Islamism is just a religion, and that b) no other religion has, or should have, things to say to and about the rest of (secular) society.

Personally, as The Anglophilic Anglican, I am heartsick at what is happening in Britain, and I pray it’s not too late to reverse it. But it will take some doing, and it may take sterner measures than people nowadays have the stomach for, unfortunately.

I also pray that we may resist this evil – and yes, it is an evil, both Islam and its Sharia law, and the loss of Western values, ideals, and the history and heritage of our Western civilization to Islam – here in the United States. Better not to let it gain any more of a foothold than it already has, rather than trying to get the camel back out once it’s already in the tent!


 

(1) Yes, I know there were some mass, forced baptisms in the course of the conversion of Europe. But those were the exceptions rather than the rule; they were done by secular rulers for primarily political purposes; and they were clearly contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith. Everyone has sinned and fallen short, and Christians are no exceptions.

(2) Christ’s most violent action was to make a whip of knotted cords and drive the money changers out of the Temple, turning over their tables. Not, please note, killing them! And when he exhorts his disciples that “let he who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one,” and is told they have two swords (for twelve disciples) he says, “It is enough.” When one of them actually uses his sword, cutting off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, Christ heals him. Contrast that to the actions of the Prophet of Islam and tell me there is moral equivalency between the two!

Cardinal Burke: Christians and Muslims Do Not Worship The Same God

Source: Cardinal Burke: Christians and Muslims Do Not Worship The Same God

While unfortunately the current Pope, Francis, may be off the deep end in some respects, some of his Cardinals are pretty based! Here is Cardinal Burke:

“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor,” he said.  “In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.”

Now it is true that, in the Old Testament, God is sometimes referred to as “our Governor”: for example, “O LORD our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world…” (Psalm 8, verses 1a and 9).

But that is not His primary or key identity, even in the OT – and even in Psalm 8, where God is celebrated primarily as Creator, and it is “man” (e.g., humankind), not a particular religion, which God has given “dominion of the works of thy hands” – and it is certainly not in the New Testament:

“And it’s not a law that’s founded on love,” said Burke.  “To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.” 

“And while our experience with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world,” he said.  

“Whereas, in the Christian faith we’re taught that by the development of right reason, by sound metaphysics, and then that which leads to faith and to the light and strength that’s given by faith, we make our contribution to society also in terms of its governance,” he said.

This is a fundamental contrast: when St. Peter wrote “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2:17), as is the tagline of this blog, or earlier in the same chapter, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” ( the “King” (Emperor) was a pagan Roman.

Likewise St. Paul, who wrote, in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Was writing of the secular powers – which again, in his day, meant the pagan Roman Empire. He is echoing, in that last verse, the words of Our Lord Himself, who said, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). He also stated, quite emphatically, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Thus it could be said that some essential degree of separation of Church and State is built into the very structure of Christianity. But there is no “render unto Caesar” in Islam; the Caliph is the Caesar! There is no “separation of mosque and state” in the ideology of Mohammed.

To return the words of Cardinal Burke,

“the Church makes no pretense that it’s to govern the world, [he stated]. But rather that [its role is] to inspire and assist those who govern the world to act justly and rightly toward the citizens.”

In other words, Christianity is to provide “leaven in the loaf,” offering moral guidance but not governing: Christianity is not to be a theocracy, not until the Final Coming of Our Lord. And at that point, it will not be the Church which governs, but God Himself!

While this is not the only distinction between Christianity and Islam – the latter also has no doctrine of “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39 et alii), still less “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Matthew 5:44), a point to which Cardinal Burke also alludes in his comments (“it’s not a law that’s founded on love… to say that we all believe in love is simply not correct”)  – it is nonetheless a vital distinction, and important to point out.

With such dramatic differences in understanding, both of God and of our proper relationships with God and one another – including human authorities – it is indeed difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the god Moslems worship is not the same God as the One – in Trinity of Persons and Unity of Substance, the Creator of Creation, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ – worshiped by Christians.

Or if they are attempting to worship the same God – for the Christian God is not one god among many, but the God! – then they are doing it wrongly. Dangerously wrongly, for the sake of their own souls, and the well-being of this world of ours!