Over on the Telegraph's comment section, they raise the issue of something which I frequently bang on about.
The Dutch are going through an identity crisis. There is a growing view that liberty to choose has become a licence to do as you please, a free-for-all in which the baleful consequences include a rise in drug-related crime and the trafficking of prostitutes from eastern Europe.
This is the question which I have asked several times on here ..... how do you stop libertarianism descending into libertinism?
The question itself is not one of my own and it is certainly not new. It has occupied man's thoughts ever since man first learned to rationalise. The stories of Adam and Eve or Pandora's Box revolve around this simple issue.
The answer is religious based morality - the moral baseline as I like to call it - combined with the simple belief of the majority of people that even if they are never caught and punished for an immoral act while they are living they will be judged and punished eventually by God.
As I said, this is nothing new. There have been frequent periods throughout history when we've had similar moral decline. Britain in the late 18th and early 19th century was a moral cess pit with libertinism rife and, along with that, thriving criminality. The response was old fashioned Christian morality being brought back into fashion by the Victorians - particularly through Wesleyian Methodism.
As The Telegraph article points out, the moral decline of Holland has brought a huge increase in organised crime - particularly regarding drugs (completely destroying the liberal lefts myth that decriminalisation of drugs will mean less crime) and prostitution (another liberal left myth destroyed) - but this has coincided with a huge increase of Moslem immigrants to the country.
Those Moslems, with their religious morality, are understandably perturbed by what they perceive as immoral behaviour and, with growing numbers, are now starting to exert their influence. Unlike modern Protestantism, Islam is a strong, confident and assertive religion, but it is also a corrosive and perverse ideology with many beliefs and attitudes which are abhorrent to those of us brought up with western liberal democracy.
That liberal democracy only succeeded due to the presence of Christian morality which could act as a bulwark against libertinism, but after decades of sustained assault from progressivism and years of weak leadership from the Church, our moral baseline has been demolished and libertinism now holds sway.
As always, there will be a reaction to that and that reaction will be religion based. In the absence of Christianity in progressive, post-modern Europe and with Islam more tolerated by the progressive left - despite the fact that so many of its beliefs and ideals contrast starkly with progressivism - the religion most likely to take the lead is Islam.
The only thing that will stop it will be a Christian revival. That is unlikely to come without leadership and with Protestantism in the state it is - apologetic, uncertain, divided and at pains to be inoffensive - that is unlikely to happen.
The result will be the Islamification of Europe.
6 comments:
Stan when I was at school in 1975, a Christian missionary came to visit the school. I've never forgotten what he said:
"The greatest threat to World Peace is not Communism, it is Islam"
Can you imagine what would happen to him if he went to a school and said that now?
I beg you to consider the possibility that morality is quite feasible without having to invent an old guy up the sky with a big beard - or any other ancient, medieval (or, in the case of Islam, dark-age) fantasies come to that.
Is it not sufficient that we are human, that all other people are human, and therefore we ought to treat them decently?
To deny that possibility seems to me to make us mere machines.
Excellent post. I think what we lack is that 'moral baseline', as you call it.
Having recently read Roy Strong's book, A History of England's Parish Churches, I can see how families, and communities were bonded together through Christianity and the church. Everyone got involved.
It wasn't necessarily anything to do with believing in any sky fairy. For may it was, and perhaps still is, about continuity, tradition and comfort.
And let's not forget many of the things that our Western Civilization can be most proud of could not have happened were it not for Christianity.
I'm not a believer myself but I do recognize just how important it has been to our own country's development, and how much our moral decline is linked to the decline of that bond of civic religion. The progressives don't like it, but it's true.
The thing is, can you be a Christian libertarian? Not sure.
Anonymous: Is it not sufficient that we are human, that all other people are human, and therefore we ought to treat them decently?
No, it's not. First of all, this gives carte blanche to assume that, as long as no one is hurt, you can do what you like - but who is to say whether any one is hurt or not and what constitutes "hurt"? You?
I've gone through all this in previous posts and don't want to go through it all again, but the basic principle applies - if every body is free to judge what is moral by their own boundaries then there is no morality - just a free for all.
Secondly, what you say presumes that everyone is good regardless of human emotion. Unfortunately, people are not perfect - they are emotionally responsive creatures. Your assumption REQUIRES every body to be perfect non-emotional machines while religion allows them to be normal people who are prone to normal human frailty.
Bob's Head: The thing is, can you be a Christian libertarian? Not sure.
Yes they can! What do you think the Victorians were if not Christian libertarians? The concept of liberal democracy - which is based on libertarianism - rose to prominency during the era of Victorian Christian morality thus proving that it is not only possible, but desirable for strong Christian beliefs to exist in a liberal democracy. Besides, I consider myself to be, basically, a Christian libertarian. I support much of what the UK Libertarian Party espouse - with caveats - but can not see how their party intends to deal with the central question I asked in the post - how do you prevent libertarianism descending into libertinism?
Anonymous: Is it not sufficient that we are human, that all other people are human, and therefore we ought to treat them decently?
I will remember that and tell the Jhiadists when they come knocking at the door anytime soon.
Bad enough the bloody Jehovhas witness's coming round on a Sunday morning but a Muslim with an AK47 standing on the doorstep might just make me see the light and the error of my ways.
Post a Comment