Tuesday, March 07, 2006


I read some interesting commentary on a speech by Dutch Christian Democrat Minister of Development Co-operation Agnes van Ardenne-Van der Hoeven. The commentary was by Paul Belien from Brussels Journal. Agnes van Ardenne argues that there is a upsurge of militant secularism which is in fact hostile to all religion. She wonders whether a new attack along the lines of 11 September 2001 will cause those forces hostile to religion to be increasingly violent and secular fundamentalist in their opposition to religion.

As a Development Co-operation Minister Agnes realises that in many parts of the world the state is failing and religious organisations are picking up the pieces.

"In Sub-Saharan Africa, faith-based organisations provide more than 50% of all health and education services, including care for the victims of HIV/AIDS. Where the state fails, religious organisations pick up the pieces. Clearly, these organisations are capable of mobilising society in a way that the state is not. We should not forget that in our own country many schools and hospitals were originally founded by religious organisations and in many cases are still being run by them."

She then continues to argue that most wars in Africa are religious and tribal wars and internal wars within states. But somehow this is okay and positive and Western Dvelopment Aid should be given to reliable religious organisations where possible. There are positive AND negative aspects to religion and secularists should not overlook the positive aspects. To this she connects the importance of religion for all the Muslims who are living in The Netherlands. One Imam in Amsterdam even signed a convenant with the municipality to combat terrorism and to co-operate with the Dutch security forces. 1 whole Imam! She then calls for understanding and immersion in foreign culture and religion. Secularists have to take religion seriously in order to deal with the third World and with the growing colonies of the Third World in the Western World.

My commentary:
Agnes van Aardenne denies that the West has a conflict with Islam, a religion. She then combines her denial with opening up another rift, the rift between the religious (Muslims and Christians) one one side and the secularists on the other side. The conflict is to be resolved by the secularists who have to immerse themselves in the world view of religious people. She offers no concessions from the side of the Christians or the Muslims.

The good thing of her piece is the understanding that the secularists are "fundamentalist secularist". They want to fill the public domain with their values and see no role for non-secular values. The State is also their Church.

The Muslims also turn down the separation of religion and the state. Their laws have to be directly taken from their Holy Writ.

In the Middle is Christianity that holds up the twin banners of faith in God and Obedience to the Emperor. Both the Temple and the Stronghold have to be defended and both are blessed by God.

Separation of Church and State is a Christian value. The Christian Religion is not to be misused for political gain. However, religion is older than the secular State. Religion gives life to the State, just as Religion is born from the Old Testament Tribalism. And without Religion the State will whither and die and secularism will die with it. Similarly universal Religion should not become so universalist that it denies the importance of the Tribe or Nation.

What we are seeing these days is that universalist secularism is mindlessy attacking Religion ("Bigotry, repressive") and Tribalism and Nationalism ("Racism, bigotry"). Secularism want the most beautiful things for us human beings. But it hates human beings as they really are. We humans ARE bigots, racists, tribalists and sexists. We are limited. Our design is fixed in immutable biology. And if society is not run in accordance with our human limitations it will crash and fall. The end of secularism. The twelve secularists of the secularist manifesto: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq are almost all from the Third World and 8 are lapsed Muslims. They have fled to the West and now they want to seize the power centres of Europe and use the power of Europe to disarm and subjugate Islam.

They are right that if Islam is not stopped, the separation between State and Religion will end and thus Secularism will end. That will end their freedom.

Agnes van Aardenne is right that radical Secularism is an attack on religion, also on Christianity. And that in many parts of the world religion is a source of order in chaos, the only source of order apart from family and Tribe, because the state is failing.

The West must defend itself from religion, but also co-opt and respect religion in order to further order and to facilitate the build-up of a social fabric in the Thirld World and at home. If the West fails to do that the state and secularism will go under while Religion and Tribe will survive.

Personally I think that the situation cannot be salvaged anymore. Multi-culturalism and Mass-immigration have so far damaged the fabric of Western societies that they cannot survive in the present form.

The new order is already gathering steam. Ever wondered were all those red state Bush voter come from?

"Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father."
(The Return of Patriarchy, Philip Longman)

Mark Steyn wrote: "It is the demography, stupid". But the Muzzies are not the only relatively fast growing demographic group.

And another thing. One thing that has notoriously bedevilled the Middle East after the rise of Islam, is its internal disorder and infighting. After all any one can become a imam. Any imam can make fatwa's. Any imam can call for a Jihad. A divided house will surely fall.


Rik said...

"We humans ARE bigots, racists, tribalists and sexists. We are limited. Our design is fixed in immutable biology. And if society is not run in accordance with our human limitations it will crash and fall."

Ah, and you want to combat Denial & Defeatism! No, our design is not fixed. Our biology is anything but immutable. "if society isn't run... etc." Really? Who should run it? Your argument would apparently rather have unaccountable neo-aristocrats, after th Enlightenment and all that.
I vehemently disagree with you. I think we would do much better if we started an Enlightenment 3.0, that overcomes the present fear of risk and the creeping statism. We - Western Europe - have started democracy, which is slowly but surely conquering the planet and now we're backing off ourselves. Away with it!

Charles Martel said...

rik -> i think he's just ranting against the political correctness of the past 30 odd years - political correctness which has lead directly to the "fear of risk" and "creeping statism" that you mention.

for example, here is a web page from the London Police where you can report "thoughtcrime".

now, i am against racism - i hate it.
but note how we now, in 2006, the London Police have extended this to stuff like:

"Faith Related Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the faith of the victim or so perceived by the victim or any other person."

so there you have it. if i state openly , in a public place, that i think that Islam is an evil religion - the police will arrest me.

this is whats known as feature-creep - it started off with anti-racism thought crime.

and now, little by little its been extended.

even though i disagree with Snouck , like you do, i can understand where he is coming from.

Pim's Ghost said...

I agree with you on this one, Snouck. And Steyn's article was brilliant, if not a bit depressing considering his usual tone. Yet the simple facts regarding the Islamic mindset and its vast differences from those in the West MUST BE taken into account if we are to understand what we face. To not study the Arab mindset (which is by the imperialist nature of Islam the ISLAMIC mindset) and to continue to judge them by our own Western norms is both invalid and actually quite bigoted even.

I have written extensively on this subject as well as the "New Mindset" that has become apparent in the younger generations of the West on my own site, and I must say that our ideology is sound yet without leadership in most areas. As an American, I can tell you that most of Bush's voters (and I did finally vote for him the 2nd election) were simply picking the lesser of 2 evils. Most of us felt rather hopeless, but the protest vote against Kerry (and the Democratic Party in general) was perhaps the strongest factor.