Posts
The Commentary assistant online editor, who does duty as Medaura on Little Green Footballs, was welcoming America's "Godless Future" in March 2008:
The inane treatment of Judeo-Christianity as a proxy for Western Civilization should be first to go. Tying the moral foundations of the American Nation with cultural archetypes of prehistoric Biblical Jews, or with those of devout Europeans emulating them is beyond preposterous. The dogmatic authoritarianism inherent in Judeo-Christianity and its ubiquitous tradition of framing Man as a wretched sinful creature fallen from grace since birth, are antithetical to a societal infrastructure built around individual freedom and dignity.
Judeo-Christianity provides no coherent moral justification for why humankind deserves freedom. . . .
The reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence by the Deist Thomas Jefferson was appropriate in so far as it further legitimized the proverbial self-evident truths through divine pedigree. . . . The loose mention of a non-denominational Creator served as a rhetorical shield to the indisputability of natural rights, through appealing to Colonialists' lowest common philosophical denominator. But nothing in the founding documents insinuates individual rights to be derivatives of religious dogma. . . .
Judeo-Christian values are neither sufficient nor even necessary components of Americanism. Conservatives with a mental blind spot to this reality often try to justify the institutionalization of Judeo-Christianity by deeming it to be the only absolute ideological shelter for freedom. Plato alone has spoken with more clarity and conviction about absolute transcendental values such as Justice and Goodness, than there can be found throughout the entire Bible. . . .
I cannot think of a more dangerous proposition for the future of American institutions than the prospect that their desirability and justification depend on the dubious existence of Abraham's God. . . .
Didn’t Conservatives get the memo? Organized religion is dying at a head-spinning rate not only in this country but across the entire Western world . . .
Judeo-Christianity is going to die and unless Conservatives genuinely reform their movement to develop enticing modern ideological propositions, the Left will undoubtedly win by default and civilization will succumb to the void. . . .
You can read the whole thing and at least grant Kejda this: She is pro-capitalism, suggesting the posssibility of a dogmatic Randian worldview. Fans of Whittaker Chambers will recall his reply to that.
Cynthia Yockey asks: "Is Kejda Gjermani working as a concern troll to support Islamic jihad?"
"Vlaams Belang is not only the most stalwart, resolutely anti-jihad party in Europe that I know of, but also--and, not at all incidentally--the most pro-Israel party in Europe that I know of. . . . Indeed, it is crucial to understand that Vlaams Belang's political opponents in Europe are the Islamo-Socialist Left, which is where vicious anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism now finds its ideological home. Vlaams Belang is fighting, virtually alone, the Islamization of Europe."
-- Diana West, Oct. 27, 2007
"The resurgence of neo-fascist activism across the Old Continent is alarming. . . . Robert Spencer, James Jatras, Julia Gorin, Andrew Bostom, Pamela Geller, Fjordman, Baron Bodissey, and Dymphna are more than welcome to coalesce toward this violent brown where their ideological affinities truly lie, so long as everyone else at last knows where they stand."
-- Kejda Gjermani, Nov. 7, 2008
RECENTLY in the LGF WAR:
- LGF and the Culture of Death
- How about a delicious cup of . . .?
- Who is Kejda Gjermani? Is she actually LGF's 'Medaura'? And if so . . .?
- As predicted, LGF attacks Malkin
- 'He's like a troll with his own website'
- Gates of Vienna to the Cowardly Liar Charles Johnson: Vindication at Last!
- In the famous words of Ernie Anastos . . .
- LGF bans Shug and Baldilocks
- The latest from Lydia
- Remember when LGF's gutless God-hater Charles Johnson hated Bush, too?
"Judeo-Christian values are neither sufficient nor even necessary components of Americanism."
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love being lectured on Americanism by an Albanian?
"at least grant Kejda this: She is pro-capitalism, suggesting the posssibility of a dogmatic Randian worldview."
Rand was no capitalist, not if Adam Smith and Hayek were ones. And I suspect that Kejda's capitalism is strangely similar to communism.
She is twenty three. She knows a lot! She knows to call you a racist scumbag and anyone who associates with you (like me) racist scumbags.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that she's Albanian Muslim does not inherently prevent her from recognizing truth (at least not in all cases). What exactly in this article is measurably untrue, as opposed to simply screamingly offensive to Christian "conservatives"?
ReplyDeleteThe oddity of of depending on a bloodthirsty desert tribe's moral foundations? Yeah, I'll agree with that. The inherent contradictions between the actual text of the Bible and the principles of individual human rights? She's got a point there too. Deism as opposed to specific Biblical citations? Quite right. Conservatives with blind spots? On display. The general decrease in religion? Well, I'll not take this as the same positive sign she does - I rather think humans inherently need some sort of religious belief, and if one system loses ground another will eventually replace it - but it certainly is true that Christianity in particular has been in retreat for some time.
The reference to the Randian worldview is not in the least disqualified by references to Chambers. That man never had a coherent critique of Rand's views - such critiques can be made, but they haven't been cited here.
In short, you've posted the article and acted as though it was self-evidently nonsense, when it is no such thing.
And, no, I am not a Charles Johnson fan.
"The fact that she's Albanian Muslim does not inherently prevent her from recognizing truth"
ReplyDeleteNobody said it does. It does prevent her from being much of a expert on Americanism though.
"The inherent contradictions between the actual text of the Bible and the principles of individual human rights? She's got a point there too. Deism as opposed to specific Biblical citations? Quite right."
Quite wrong. Liberalism in the eighteenth century dervied its notions of "individual human rights" from Christianity, a fact well known to anyone familiar with the period.
"The reference to the Randian worldview is not in the least disqualified by references to Chambers. That man never had a coherent critique of Rand's views"
I disagree. His critique of Rand was absolutely damning.
"Judeo-Christianity provides no coherent moral justification for why humankind deserves freedom."
ReplyDeleteOf course it does. Not libertarian style freddom, true. But there are many more flavors of freedom than that. She argues like what she is, a college kid.
A statement of fact: modern societies valuing individual freedom and dignity arose first and exclusively in Christian cultures.
ReplyDeleteKeqe, I mean Kedja, wrote, "Christianity and its ubiquitous tradition of framing Man as a wretched sinful creature fallen from grace since birth, are antithetical to a societal infrastructure built around individual freedom and dignity."
I read these kinds of statement often. They bemuse. It's the same kind of error that dogs Marxism and human-caused global warming.
Rational people observe what actually happens in the world, and then they craft theories to explain it. By contrast, confused thinkers like Keqe, um I mean Kedja, theorize and then stop or worse select only facts that support their theory.
Liberal society arose only in Christian cultures, and still only exists in Christian cultures however marginally Christian they may be. I mean, a writer would have to be quite stupid or ideologically blind to miss this fact. Yet, the error has become a commonplace on which to base all kinds of political arguments. That's insane.
Personally, I think Organized Religion is a bad joke.
ReplyDeleteI love Jesus. But I think Religion is nothing more than a horrible racket.
Just look at Sarah Plain, er, um, I mean Palin.
Stacy,
ReplyDeleteWith your permission, I'll shamelessly blog-whore my response in full over at my site.
I gotta ask... Where does Gjermani get her data?
Thanks for posting this. Cheers!
Actually she claims to be Jewish, but non observant.
ReplyDeleteI do not really care about her Randian beliefs (I like Ayn's books, but that does not mean I accept every principal of Objectivism). I have no problem with athiests and agnostics at all. I happen to share CJ's belief in evolution, the efficiency of vaccines, and even bike riding. It is all about freedom of belief (those Enlightenment principals embraced by our founding fathers--with its focus on the individual and individual rights). But I have a problem with a twenty something idiot like Kedja saying I am a racist scumbag because I disagree with her that R.S. McCain is a racist scumbag. I have a problem with idiots like Charles Johnson treating Creationists or proponents of Intelligent Design like they are the Taliban. I have a problem with the thugery of LGF. They argue like leftists because in their hearts they are leftists.
It breaks my heart they are using Victor Davis Hanson to promote their cause. But VDH suggested that perhaps Birthers should pursue Obama's school records. VDH is right, but perhaps he should direct that to CJ too. Rather (no pun intended) than Charles trying to promote all right wingers as teabaggers and birthers, perhaps he could explore issues like Obama's Chicago connections, his college records, or maybe even Bill Ayers ghost writing of Barack Obama autobiography? Think about that one for a second. If Bill Ayers did write that book, how much leverage does that give him over Barack?
“Conservatives must sever their romantic attachment to this idealized fabricated past.”
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing. The only idealized past exists in her head. I believe most people understand that they live in 2009, not 1800. Though if you talk to some liberals, you would think it was 1955. See they create a world that does not exist to fit their own ideological fantasy. Therefore, all conservatives want to turn back the clock on human progression. BS. However, conservatism does seek to get back to basics, a framework if you will, to maximize liberty. Principles are principles, no matter what the date is. They hardly change through our lifetime and can last millennia. Otherwise, what’s so bad about murder? Plato, Jesus, Moses- they’re all in the past, right? Antiquated modes of thinking from a bunch of men in robes. I hardly doubt anyone would challenge the phrase “all men are created equal”. That is a principle that has lasted centuries. There is nothing wrong with “conserving” those principles. Is there?
"Judeo-Christianity provides no coherent moral justification for why humankind deserves freedom. . . .
The reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence by the Deist Thomas Jefferson was appropriate in so far as it further legitimized the proverbial self-evident truths through divine pedigree"
Call me crazy but she just contradicted herself. If the Judeo-Christian tradition has no moral justification for freedom, then why would Jefferson pen a phrase that gave legitimacy to those truths (freedom, liberty, etc) through divine pedigree? Ie our rights come from God.
I know people see religion as this ever present authority, but javelineer has it right. And if anything, Jesus was akin to a hippy breaking the old traditions of the Jewish faith. And that whole free will thing (which crosses both Jewish and Christian texts) is the most perfect expression of freedom which many historical religions and political structures did not adhere to. Free will is the right of the individual to choose their own path in life. Your path is not tied to the fates, or any God really. God gave you the ability to choose. So when Moses talked to the burning bush, or when Jesus walked on water- you are not forced to believe it. You are not forced to follow God, you have to come to God of your own free will. The Judeo Christian tradition is the ultimate expression of freedom, when you get down to the core of it.
Now, history has shown us that men are incapable of terrible things in the name of God. But, given that I, and most, understand that human beings are utterly imperfect creatures, this is not surprising. I enjoy the fact that many people like Kejda are willing to denounce and entire religion, and people, based on the faults of historic creatures. DO you believe that men are flawed? Another way to express that flaw, is to say that they “fell from Grace”. If God is the ultimate expression of Good, why is it wrong to try and climb back up there? That fall is not antithetical to freedom. You have the freedom to make that climb, or stay where you are.
***MORE***
“and offers absolute monarchy as the sacrosanct form of government prescribed by God.” I think she ought to read some Thomas Paine. There’s an interesting story about Jewish political structure that she ought to read. See, I thought the idea of representative government came from Roman and Jewish traditions of filtering a society into manageable units each with its own designated representative.
ReplyDelete“Free enterprise is not the coincidental result of collective utility maximization by enlightened social engineers. It is rather the inescapable byproduct of the enshrinement of individual rights,”
No it is not. If that was the case, then slavery and human trafficking should all be OK. Afterall, there’s a market. It’s free enterprise, especially if you do not consider the person, “a person”. Since men are flawed, men can devise systems such as these, and call it “free enterprise”. The Romans and the Greeks used slaves. And yet there is something deep down inside of us that says- slavery is not acceptable. Given all that, tell me where does that something deep down come from? This notion of individual rights and equality was not fully realized before America. The de facto preference of humanity is servitude. You can see it now with people deferring their own intelligence for the intelligence of “experts”. Most of history deals with kings and such. In that system, they were willing to acknowledge that someone else was better than them, there was no equality. “Individual rights”, historically, did not exist in practice in the known world.
Again, where does that something deep down come from?
“The loose mention of a non-denominational Creator served as a rhetorical shield to the indisputability of natural rights, through appealing to Colonialists’ lowest common philosophical denominator. But nothing in the founding documents insinuates individual rights to be derivatives of religious dogma.”
Lowest common philosophical denominator? Now we get to the nub of it. Kedja hates religion and believes that those who do subscribe to it are not on the same level as someone of her caliber. Or better yet, Kedja hates Christians and believes that those who do subscribe to it are not on the same level as someone of her caliber. (You’re highlights betray you.) Hey, how’s that “all men are created equal” thing working out for ya?
And Kedja proves my point. The de facto position of humanity is servitude. There are those who believe they are better than you. And you, as the lowest common denominator, cannot make accurate decisions, especially about this whole “God” thing. Therefore, just let Kedja make the decisions for you- you lowest common denominator. And no one said rights came from dogma. Dogma is a creation of man. Rights came from God, and that pisses you off doesn’t it?
I just don’t understand atheists and God haters. If you guys believe in a live and live philosophy, then leave us the heck alone. The part that upsets you is that soo many people hold social conservative views. Why can’t you accept that? I think your belief is nonsense, like you think my belief is nonsense and yet I want you to live your life. Jefferson was right, what you believe does not bother me. But, what I believe bothers you- A LOT! And it really bothers you that many people believe it with me.
I got the memo and I became a confessional, Presbyterian. I don't like hymns, stain
ReplyDeleteglass windows, Pope Benedict, and bath tubs and American flags in the sanctuary. I also believe that religeon and politics don't mix, but for some strange reason the people that complain the loudest are the least religeous.
The problem with most Atheists (or the evangelical type)is that they treat all faiths as an unified movement, focusing on hot button issues such as Creationism, gay marriage, and abortion. There are many who call themselves Christians, Jews, and other faiths can comfortably disagree on all of those issues. This might not be the case in other places in the world, but this is the ideal represented in the U.S.
The Consitution may not be founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, but the influence is there. One could argue that the separation of powers of the judiciary, executive, and legislature is based on the notion that man by nature is born flawed and must be constrained. Would it be progress to reverse this philosophy? Our current state of affairs would indicate not.
I would have to agree that confessional Christianity as found in mainline churches is in decline. However, in their place are mega-church, non-denomiational Rick Warren style gatherings, so I think it's a hard case to make that religeon is in decline the U.S. It may not be the most organized religeon, but I'll take it over organized atheism (Communisim, Fascism, Maoism, etc.
-TW
Yockey seems closest to the truth with the insight that the girl is a stalking horse for Mohammedan Hegemony.
ReplyDeleteIf she really is Jewish, then that stalking horse could be a red-herring for the stalking horse of Jewish Hegemony. But that's too complex. Plus, except for Frankfort School devotees and their predecessors, Jews as a whole are disinclined towards hegemonistic nonsense since the late 1st Century, although "Our Crowd" sometimes makes a show of it. The Christ came, after all, and is! Fact.
Albania was a communist country with both Mohammedan (idolatrous) and Muslim (religious) elements. The girl's diction and zeal remind me of a Communist Mohammedan amalgam, making Yockey's reading of her spot on in my estimate. The girl is really heavy on the self-righteousness and self-omnipotence with plenty also of self-omniscience. All Communist and Mohammedan traits.
Wouldn't Luther or Benedict XVI or Loyola or Francis or Tillich or Schleiermacher or Teilhard or Sathya Sai Baba or Kant or Origen or Augustine or Jerome or Smith or Washington or Lincoln or Lee or even Ritschl for that matter have fun with this girl! And others too.
The value of such statements as she has made is that they reveal the morphology of the enemies of civilization .. and their hysteria. That is an intel boon of the first magnitude.
The irony faced by Mohammedan Hegemony, for example -- but really for any evil intent, including the Soviet, the Netroots/ACORN -- is that to be successful it has to make itself visible, to put its head up, but when it does that, its head is a target and sooner or later gets shot off. Ask AQI and Sadr.
The fundamental misunderstanding of the girl's schematic is its assumption that institutions inspired originally by religion are religion and remain so. That, of course, is not the case. Institutions inspired by religion only more or less are religion and can never be said to represent religion, much less permanently.
Eventually all institutions originally inspired by religion directly represent ir-religion. Institutions inspired by religion decay and die and are reformed or perish. US Congress, Executive, Judiciary and electoral system? Also every church that was ever founded and every one that ever will be.
Religion, like God, has no representatives or institutions, much less permanent ones. Religion represents itself and is self-authenticating or not. Religion transcends institutions and all conditions of life and history.
The Church is the Spiritual Community. The Church, the Spiritual Community, is religion and God, both. The churches -- institutions, organizations -- only more or less represent the Church and every one of them finally misrepresents the Church before it is justifiably reformed or obliterated to make way for new forms, new institutions which for a time better represent the Church and religion than did their predecessor institutions.
No institution ever has been or ever will be the Church. The Church transcends all the conditions intrinsic to finitude. To say that institutional religion is dying is to say that cultural forms die and are replaced in an endless procession. This is a news flash? This about religion?
Religion inspires institutions and also inspires the demise of institutions, all of which come and go while religion, like God, abides in strength. Institutions inspired by religion come and go ceaselessly and always will. There are several reasons for this phenomenon, all of them salutary. TBC ...
Part II:
ReplyDeleteSome institutions, rather than going, are successfully reformed, even over long periods of time. But these are very few.
This it means, among many things, that to say the institutional church or organized religion is dying and going away is saying no more than "life goes on in an endless variety of fresh and novel forms, always unpredictable, always relevant to a particular set of historical circumstances and goals and always to be supplanted by new forms relevant to new circumstances and adjustments towards old goals." Life and history are in fact teleological forwardly and upwardly towards transcendence.
When someone tells me institutional religion is dying, I am happy. The news is music to my ears. It means religion is on the rise and ir-religion the decline. A demise of "institutional religion" signals a rise of religion, a quickening of the Spiritual Community's impact within the conditions of history, and a reformation of society on its only legitimate basis: religious renewal and its resulting human values.
The dying and death of "religious institutions" is the best possible news in the world. It means humanity is being grasped and shaken by religion, which is the Grace of God.
Finitude is finitude, never stopping, always changing, always more or less successfully both making and responding to conditions it has already made and responded to. Only the stupid say they want change. Change is our nature. The questions are, what kind of change, to what end, whose change is it and does someone want to force it on us or do we want it on our own?
The essence of life is ambiguity, death and creation -- or as we say in Christian Theology, The Holy Spirit, The Christ and The Father, respectively. (Trinitarian theology, both Christian and Hindu, is not a theory or an abstraction, it is a vivid and profoundly accurate description of the phenomenology of life.)
There is no such thing as "organized religion" or "institutional religion." Both phrases are contradictions in terms. So far from "organized religion" being dead or dying, it was never born, it has never existed, and it never will. Organized religion, like the existence of God, is a non-starter other than as a figment of an anti-religious mind. It has no correlate in fact.
The girl wants to whale on organized/institutional religion, so what? Be my guest. Xerxes got in a high heat to whip the sea. The sea wasn't his problem. His own impotence was.
This girl isn't bad-mouthing religion or God or civilization inspired by Christianity, such as we enjoy here so far and such as Mohammedans and Communists want to rip and burn. She is screaming at her own finitude and all that it entails.
Furthermore, she is putting her head up.
And finally, Yockey has her number, I am sure.
"Actually she claims to be Jewish, but non observant."
ReplyDeleteShe does work for Commentary. I'd be surprised if they hired a Muslim.
I have no problem with her Zionist beliefs. I do have a problem with the attitude on the part of the Commentary-style Jews that nationalism and ethnocentrism are wonderful things if done by Jews, and pure evil if done by non-Jews.
I actually prefer the consistently left-wing Jews who don't even like Israel. At least they are consistent and logical in their beliefs, nutty as those beliefs may be. But being constantly denonuced as a "Nazi" or "white supremacist" by Zionsists really gets under my skin. I'm not remotely as biased towards my fellow ethnics as they are towards their fellow Jews.
Heh. Graham knows of what he speaks. Thanks man!
ReplyDelete"grant Kejda this: She is pro-capitalism, suggesting the posssibility of a dogmatic Randian worldview. Fans of Whittaker Chambers will recall his reply to that."
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight. Mad King Charles smears you as a white supremecist, so you approvingly invoke one of the most infamous examples of a man with no real coherent intellectual arguments to bear smearing the work of a radical free-marketeer, as an actual NAZI (!!). Not only that, but one who would EAGERLY toss people into gas chambers.
This was a smear and distortion of a work the likes of which can scarcely be imagined, and you're quoting it approvingly. McCain you've certainly got a lot awful of nerve.
'Mad King Charles' has clearly gone off the deep end and this would be defender of his is so incoherent and unreadable it's almost hilarious he'd link to her screed. But for you, McCain, in the midst of dealing with your own Whittaker Chambers if you will, to act like "...TO A GAS CHAMBER GO!" was the last word in Randian thought...
You make me sick, sir.