Pages: 1 2
It turned out, we were wrong. Those of us who were grateful at having escaped the cultural ghettos and “suffocating” creeds of our forebears projected our own attitudes onto the aliens in our midst–and too many of us are unwilling to admit our mistake. We pretended to ourselves that showing Muslim immigrants sensitivity training films about gay couples, or trying to otherwise integrate them into secular modernity, will dissolve their orthodoxy, depress their fertility, and dissipate their fidelity–turning the angry, resentful, power-hungry Muslims who throng Europe’s banlieues into soccer-playing, pot-smoking, heteroflexible liberals. It turns out that cultures are a little more resilient than that.
At the very heart of the problem in Europe is the absence of any countervailing force to Islam, such as Christian Europe used to provide. Men like Christopher Hitchens, or the late Pym Fortyn, may do yeoman’s work resisting Islamic expansionism in the short run; but these are not the kind of people who will save the continent, if indeed it is to be saved. That must come from an equally vital force, with the same competitive advantages as the enemies of the West.
Likewise in America, it will not be the New Atheists, driving their 1.2 children to Rudolf Steiner schools in their Priuses, who provide the manpower and muscle to keep America un-Islamic. It will be the large, homeschooling families who read the Bible aloud instead of watching television; who march on Washington every January 22 to protest Roe v. Wade; who sacrifice vacation travel, disposable income, and leisure time in favor of reproducing themselves. Secularism, for most people, creates a spiritual and psychological vacuum–which is typically filled by some form of utopian liberalism, of a multicultural, socialist or feminist variety. The percentage of secularists willing to face the ugly truth about Islam will always be relatively low; too many of them are still engaged in fighting the last war, against the Christianity or orthodox Judaism of their parents. People who think that Eisenhower’s America was an intolerable Christian theocracy aren’t ready for the real struggles we face in the next 50 years against global jihad. And if they persist in asserting that the tolerant Christianity which dominated America for 200 years is in principle no better than Islam, the Christians who should be their allies will stand aside–convinced that the Turkish-style secularism favored by these anti-religious crusaders is in principle not much better than sharia.
To be clear: Neither I nor any significant Christian group in America favors legislation based on religious revelation. Instead, we argue from natural law, as Amherst professor Hadley Arkes explained quite brilliantly, speaking at an event of Thomas More College–the school that sponsored Robert Spencer’s debate with Peter Kreeft. As Arkes said:
In my own teaching I’ve found no clearer model of natural law reasoning than that fragment Abraham Lincoln wrote for himself when he imagined himself in a conversation with an owner of slaves, asking why he was justified in making a slave of a black man: Was it intelligence – that the black man was less intelligent than the white? “By this rule,” said Lincoln, “you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.” Was it color – “the light having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.”The upshot was that there was nothing one could cite to disqualify the black man that would not apply to many whites as well. Some of us simply used the same mode of reasoning applied to abortion: Why was that offspring in the womb anything less than human? It didn’t speak yet? Neither did deaf mutes? It had no arms or legs? Other people lost arms or legs without losing anything necessary to their standing as human beings to receive the protections of the law. And the upshot: there was nothing one could cite to remove the child in the womb from the protections of the law that would not apply to many people walking about well outside the womb.
But I’d point out further that nowhere in this chain of reasoning is there an appeal to faith or revelation. The teaching of the Church has been a weave of moral reasoning joined with the facts of embryology. In other words, one doesn’t have to be Catholic in order to understand the argument on abortion – and that has been precisely the teaching of the Church: The argument depends simply on that discipline of moral reasoning that forms the ground of the law natural for human beings.
What some doctrinaire secularists seem to want is a reading of the Constitution that disenfranchises religious believers, and deems moot the ultimate questions they consider important–such as the beginning of human life, the nature of marriage, and the meaning of the family. If my opinion about such issues is grounded in reasoning that in any way connects to religious faith, I lose my vote. So state and federal courts can strike down democratically enacted laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, based on arbitrary, recently concocted theories of sexual identity. Can laws against polygamy be far behind? The secularism that dissolves the cultural substance of American law under the acid of utilitarianism will equally remove every barrier to colonization by faith-filled foreigners. Having scraped America’s womb clean of anything vital or human, they will come to see that it is, instead, inhabited by a monster: the bastard child of multiculturalism and Islam. This rough beast, its hour come at last, slouches toward Brussels to be born.
Pages: 1 2