Melanie Phillips is Laughable
Melanie Phillips writes that Europe needs to become re-Christianised to resist the tide of Islamic extremism:
Only a strong indigenous faith has the capacity to resist Islamisation. That is why the collapse of Christianity in Britain and Europe and its steady replacement by secularisation is so catastrophic for the defence of the west. The useful idiots who believe that only a secular society can hold off the forces of irrational belief at the heart of the Islamic jihad have got this diametrically the wrong way round. Secularisation produces cultural enfeeblement, because the pursuit of personal happiness trumps absolutely everything else. The here and now is all that matters. Dying for a cause, however noble, becomes an absolute no-no. It’s better to be dhimmi than dead – the view that has now effectively prevailed in Britain and Europe.
Leaving aside for one moment whether Europe is under threat from Islam, let’s consider Phillips’ thesis that only Christian societies have the will to fight. The most anti-Christian Western society in recent times was Nazi Germany, and although the Nazis have been accused of many things, I have never heard them being accused of ducking out of a fight! In fact, they were one of the most militaristic societies that has ever existed. Another strongly anti-Christian society was the USSR, and they too were up for a fight on many an occasion and were willing to suffer casualties in the tens of millions to fight off invaders.
In the light of these examples, Phillips’ thesis that Europe needs to be Christian to be willing to defend itself is not just wrong, it is laughable. Rather like Phillips herself. In fact I doubt if she takes her arguments seriously herself, since she finishes her article thus:
And that is why I, a British Jew, argue that it is vital that Britain and Europe re-Christianise if they are to have any chance of defending western values.
Well if she really believes that it’s “vital” that Europe “re-Christianise” or it will be overrun by Islam (something Phillips doesn’t want), then why doesn’t she accept the logic of her own argument and convert to Christianity?
(Note: Mad Mel’s article has also been commented on by Chris Dillow, David T, Ministry of Truth, Norman Geras, Shuggy and Sunny)
Oh and if Phillips really beleieves that atheists like me aren’t prepared to fight for what they believe in, I challenge her to (1) give me written permission to punch her in the face, and (2) come here and say that.
I can’t agree that the Nazis were the most “most anti-Christian Western society of recent times” – their anti-Semitism was rooted in Christianity. The current Pope is an ex-Nazi. Nuff said. A proper anti-Christian society would be close to Utopia (because one aspect of anti-Christianity will be the rejection of Platonism, specifically the Republic); truth rather than lies, individual responsibility rather than god. If the Nazis were bigots, it was the church which made them so. I’m not sure that I agree that the USSR was another anti-Christian society either; Stalin has always struck me as a secret god-botherer, just like Tony Blair.
Somehow Ms Phillips forgets the persecution of the Jews under Christian Britian – and the great thing about this country is how it lost faith in the 18th century or before. The great thing about Britain is that no one really believes in anything (apart from a few washed up Marxist relics like Terry Eagleton or dead-enders like Kim Philby or that guy on Oxford St who was against protein – and who created that?). Somehow we’ve been the most powerful nation on earth and we’re still one of the richest and free-est. Funny that.
I am an anti-Christian; I am an anti-Christ.
Facts are always so damned irritating!
For example, Germany, that is, the nation-state and its people, was extremely religious, both Catholic and Protestant. The gangsters who took over the country may not have been, though many were.
Similarly, Russia was, and still is, highly religious, so much so in WWII that Stalin had to cut a deal with the Orthodox Church, which hitherto he had been persecuting, in order to hold on and maximise the people’s patriotism which was intimately linked with their religion.
Your notion that the irreligious British of today would fight for anything other than a football team, is risible, as recent events have demonstratd.
Yes, these godless cowards of the younger generation are so unwilling to fight they do things like running into a minefield to save their comrades. Let’s not even think about the Muslims – one of them, the treacherous bastard, got himself killed defending a beleaguered outpost in Helmand just to make the terrorists look good, or something.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, frankly. Banging the drum for a pair of ill-conceived and worse-managed wars is enough, surely, without accusing the generation you sent to fight them of cowardice?
My own response was limited to what Melanie had written was that there was a problem with the idea that people convert, or should convert, for social utilitarian reasons.
Your point is fairly easy to demonstrate from further examples – there doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong correlation between the level of Christianity in a society and the willingness to fight. The Napoleonic wars obviously don’t fit this hypothesis. Wasn’t Ireland neutral during the war? They were, and still are, pretty religious compared to Britain, the country that has since 1820 been involved in more international conflicts than any other country on the face of the planet. Is Switzerland’s historic neutrality explicable as a function of (a lack of) religiosity? Surely not…
Having said all this, the avalanche of criticism she’s been recieving is making me think again. I stand by what I’ve written, and she doesn’t help her case by the way she expresses herself, but there is a problem, I think, amongst liberal secularists in the old confidence department. We agnostics and atheists really could be doing with standing up for what we don’t believe…
;-)
My own response was limited to what Melanie had written was that there was a problem with the idea that people convert, or should convert, for social utilitarian reasons.
Ooops. I meant, well you know what I meant. I was also intending to say in the original post that the utilitarian arguments for religion show how successful secular liberlism has been. Hardly anyone, for example, is prepared to argue for faith schools on the grounds on which they were originally founded; to make people more religious. Instead they are defended on the gounds of raising standards and ‘ethos’.
Same with Christianity in general. People like Melanie Phillips defend it on the grounds that it strengthens families, reduces crime, instills responsibility and and reinforces social discipline. But making this case undermines the very basis of it, which has to do with faith. No one converts in order to reinforce the family; they do this for the salvation of their souls.
This is the insurmountable problem with what Melanie has written here; she doesn’t believe the Gospel. Did Christ die for our sins? If you find this unbelievable yourself, it is utterly absurd to suggest that others should believe what you are unable to – and even more so that this should be undertaken for the sake of social necessity. In fact, if I were a Christian, I can imagine I might find this idea quite offensive.
No, Melanie Phillips is not laughable. She’s astute. Phil Hunt is laughable. For someone of a Jewish ilk to write what she did shows perspicacity.
Improve your signal to noise ratio, please Mr Higham.
Show your working.
The main problem I have with this twaddle is that I object to the irrational belief at the heart of all religions. I don’t much care about the details. Christianity or Islam, it’s all the same to me.
I think someone’s made up a word for people who advocate, promote, and prostrate themselves before a religion they don’t believe in.
Melanie Phillips is a Dhimmi.
Dave Weeden, he’s so clever, he’s read Plato. He still doesn’t understand why this comment –
“A proper anti-Christian society would be close to Utopia” –
is rather stupid…shame really.
I hardly think that Pope Benedict can be characterised as an ex-Nazi. It’s not as if you got a lot of choice as to whether you joined the Hitler Jugend (or the Wehrmacht) or not. The young Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII) was drafted into the Italian army for the first world war. I’ve yet to hear him described as an ex-anti-clerical just because that was the official position of the Italian government at the time.
The young Ratzinger apparently deserted his unit and scuttled back to Bavaria at the first opportunity. Sensible chap. Quite what this tells us about the comparative bellicosity of Christians I am not sure.
The problem with Mel’s thesis, incidentally, is that when she is talking about Actually Existing Christians (or at least the C of E) she either accuses them of a ‘cultural cringe’ towards the beige hordes or virulent anti-semitism when they consider divestment from Israel. What she appears to want is not the re-Christianisation of Britain – a nation of Rowan Williamses is not going to take the robust approach towards the Muzzies that she favours – but the rise of a kind of Christian nationalism which is short on going to church and trying to lead a better life and strong on getting at religious minorities as unBritish. This strikes me as being objectionable coming from anyone and foolish coming from someone who happens to me a member of a religious minority.