My own dogmatic pronouncement: the fundamental goal today for those in the West who reject what liberalism has become has to be the restoration of Christendom—a public order that recognizes Christianity as authoritative. Without a goal to give an overall orientation, particular efforts to resist liberalism will lack definition and continuity and get nowhere. That has, in fact, been the fate of conservatism. It’s been reactive, incoherent, endlessly compromised, and easily bought off with gestures and symbols. The claims that conservatism has “won” in fact show that it has utterly collapsed. The situation won’t change until those drawn to conservatism can find their own voice, based on something no less principled, comprehensive and definite than liberalism. What could that thing be, at least for someone in the West, other than Christianity?
You’re absolutely correct.
You’re absolutely correct. The thing we’re fighting for cannot be democracy, freedom, human rights, or even America. In the end, what we are fighting for is the West in its historical and cultural sense—i.e. Christendom—or we are fighting for nothing.
Our enemy is the Revolution. Democracy, liberty, the Rights of Man, and the nation-states that enshrine them are, in the end, creatures of the humanistic “enlightenment” and the Revolution it spawned, and as such are false gods unworthy of worship. The same goes for the United States: While every moral man is a patriot (a title with which I flatter myself), the existence of any political entity—even one as unique and as beneficient as our own—cannot be our raison d’etre. Only God in the Person of Jesus Christ can be.
Democracy is the “god that failed”; liberty becomes license; rights are idols created and worshipped by human hands; and our country grows ever more godless by the day. As Christians, as conservatives, we should strive to transcend the mere politics of our day and be beyond the Revolution’s false dichotomy of Left and Right. Instead of braying ceaselessly about self-rule, we should be obedient subjects of the King; instead of erecting a shrine to the goddess Liberty, we should bow before the icon of Duty; instead of worshippers of Rights, we should become devotees of Responsibility; and rather than tying our our ultimate loyalty to our wonderful Country, we should look to one cause above all others: the Cause of Christ and of the Civilization His Church created, out of which all the countries of the West were born.
There’s something that’s
There’s something that’s needed in addition to Christianity, or rather there’s a clarification of Christianity that’s needed, because for too long certain liberals have overcome the notion of nationality and things related to nationality such as respecting the settled ethnicity or race of communities by citing Christianity which they have claimed is in opposition to any such considerations.
One of the first political memories I have dates from the integration struggles in the South in the early 60s it must’ve been. I remember an outspoken Southern woman in Louisiana saying integration was against the Bible, citing the passages in Genesis, I think, which talk about the different animal species getting together “each to its own kind.” Then priests were brought before the T.V. cameras (the woman must’ve been Catholic, because I remember these were Catholic priests who were used to rebut her) to utterly debunk this woman with solemn pronouncements as to the way in which the Bible in no way supported segregration.
I consider legal segregation an intolerable evil in a society.
BUT … another intolerable evil is doing away with races, ethnicities, and ethno-cultures whose constituent peoples and communities like the way they are just fine and don’t want to be done away with by the liberal steamroller, thank you very much indeed.
So, it very much needs to be clarified somehow whether or not the maintenance of distinct races, ethnicities, and ethno-cultures is Christian. I believe it is.
I typed out all the above before seeing Bruce Lewis’ comment. I can’t tell whether he feels preservation of the nation-state is legitimate from the Christian point of view. If he does not, I disagree with him.
“So, it very much needs to
“So, it very much needs to be clarified somehow whether or not the maintenance of distinct races, ethnicities, and ethno-cultures is Christian. I believe it is.”
That depends entirely upon what has to be done to “maintain” these distinctions. Legal segregation is the most effective way of doing so, but you rightly reject this means. Providing financial and social incentives for keeping various races and ethnic groups apart is another method. What do you have in mind?
What pre-VII authoritative
What pre-VII authoritative Catholic magisterial teaching says that legal racial segregation is morally wrong, just out of curiosity?
“What pre-VII authoritative
“What pre-VII authoritative Catholic magisterial teaching says that legal racial segregation is morally wrong, just out of curiosity?”
None that I can think of. Just as you won’t find authoritative Catholic magisterial teaching that says forced racial integration is morally wrong. Yet both are morally wrong. Freedom of association seems pretty basic.
I can’t think of why either
I can’t think of why either would be an intrinsic moral wrong, actually, which is why I asked. Either could be wrong in practice depending on how it is done, as with all things; but I can easily imagine scenarios where, if I were king, I would choose to force racial integration or racial segregation depending on what was needed at the time. Either could be very unwise depending on the circumstances but I don’t see that there is any intrinsic moral wrong involved.
Maybe I misinterpreted this statement:
“Legal segregation is the most effective way of doing so, but you rightly reject this means.”
That statement seems to be saying that segregation should be rejected on moral grounds whatever its particular benefits in a particular situation. Have I read too much into Mr. Culbreath’s statement?
Matt:
These are perhaps not
Matt:
These are perhaps not absolute moral evils under all circumstances—prisons, for instance, find it prudential to segregate and integrate routinely—but who wants to live in a prison? The point of a Christian society is the creation of conditions in which virtue may flourish: in general, that requires freedom of movement and association.
Compulsory integration and legal segregation are both problematic considering: 1) they are physical impediments to acts of charity; 2) they create widespread social resentment; 3) they are usually motivated by racial ideology that is by definition un-Christian.
1) I don’t see that physical
1) I don’t see that physical separation by race is any more of an impediment to acts of charity than any other sort of physical separation, so unless we are prepared to condemn all physical separation in general I don’t see the point to the specific objection. Any arrangement at all favors some possibilities over others, and individual freedom is not an absolute value (indeed as an absolute value it is anti-Christian).
2) It seems clear to me that most sources of social resentment precede particular formal arrangements. Certainly formal arrangements can aggravate or inflame preexisting resentments. If formal segregation was a primary cause of racial resentments we should expect to see racial resentments disappear with the end of segregation; if anything the opposite has occurred.
3) It is difficult to say what Mr. Culbreath means in saying that racial ideology is by definition un-Christian. Certainly some racial ideologies are un-Christian, as are some anti-racist ideologies. Does acknowledging any fact of natural intrinsic racial difference – for example differences in intelligence as measured by IQ tests – constitute an intrinsically un-Christian ideology?
“I don’t see that physical
“I don’t see that physical separation by race is any more of an impediment to acts of charity than any other sort of physical separation …”
If the separation between races is natural, as it is between the Japanese in Japan and the Danes in Denmark, then it is not a significant impediment. However, if the legal separation of races involves, let us say, people who live in the same city and speak the same language and perhaps share the same religion, then it is a very significant impediment to acts of charity. It is hard to love one’s neighbor if one is forbidden to associate with him.
On a practical level, re-segregating the United States by race would be a grave injustice to millions. Even contemplating such a thing is insanity.
“… so unless we are prepared to condemn all physical separation in general I don’t see the point to the specific objection.”
See my comments above. Not all “separations” are created equal. Some are purely natural, some artificial, some entirely unjust.
“Any arrangement at all favors some possibilities over others, and individual freedom is not an absolute value (indeed as an absolute value it is anti-Christian).”
Agreed.
“It seems clear to me that most sources of social resentment precede particular formal arrangements.”
In the aggregate, perhaps. But the formal arrangements are imposed on many who don’t share the resentments.
“Certainly formal arrangements can aggravate or inflame preexisting resentments.”
Right.
“If formal segregation was a primary cause of racial resentments we should expect to see racial resentments disappear with the end of segregation;”
No, we should merely expect to race relations improve.
“if anything the opposite has occurred.”
I don’t think this is established at all. In the first place, the last generation to live under legal segregation is still with us: in that sense it is much too early to tell. Second, the abandonment of legal segregation has been followed by other programs (affirmative action, etc.) that have exacerbated racial tensions. Third, and most importantly, there has indeed been a decline in racial resentments in many places and among many groups. I see it every day. Whether this offsets problems elsewhere, I don’t presume to know.
“It is difficult to say what Mr. Culbreath means in saying that racial ideology is by definition un-Christian.”
By racial ideology, I mean an exaggerated notion of the importance of race to human life. A racialist is someone who considers race to be something that exceeds religion, language, and geography in social importance. It is un-Christian to the extent that it imposes divisions between men which Christianity seeks to overcome.
“Does acknowledging any fact of natural intrinsic racial difference – for example differences in intelligence as measured by IQ tests – constitute an intrinsically un-Christian ideology?”
There is nothing un-Christian about acknowledging IQ differences, of course. No doubt there are IQ differences between the Hatfields and McCoys, the poor and the rich, the tall and the short, and any other human grouping one might choose to measure.
Like anything else, the IQ question may be framed in an un-Christian way. To say that racial IQ disparities must be “natural” and “intrinisic” when in fact this is not established, or to exaggerate the importance of IQ to human society, is perhaps to be guilty of dishonesty in the service of ideology.
Mr. Kalb is correct is
Mr. Kalb is correct is saying that what we ultimately to defeat liberalism is a public order that recognizes Christianity as authoritative if what he means by Christianity is the Catholic Church.
There are differences
There are differences between races such that communities and nations lose things of value—their identities and related things (perhaps their degree of freedom from violent street crime, for example)—when governments acting under the influence of particular interests, interests which don’t dare to show themselves but prefer to remain hidden, force populations of people on communities which would rather not have those populations forced on them. It cannot be unchristian for a majority in a community to not want excessively large incompatible populations forced on them by government, especially when government is acting because of pressure exerted by interested third parties which keep themselves hidden.
Why are Somali Bantus being forced on that town in Maine by the U.S. government? (We know the answer: big business and industrial interests are calling the shots in D.C. and they badly want low-wage third-world workers to replace high-wage American ones.) Is it unchristian for Mainers to oppose that? I say no. Since when does Christian self-abnegation oblige communities to commit ethno-cultural or racial suicide?
Unadorned’s comment raises
Unadorned’s comment raises questions about the very possibility of the middle ground that Mr. Culbreath presents as the only moral option. That middle ground is something that has been discussed literally for centuries but has yet to ever manifest. Maybe it isn’t possible to use force to make something optional.
Mr. Culbreath wrote:
“A racialist is someone who considers race to be something that exceeds religion, language, and geography in social importance. It is un-Christian to the extent that it imposes divisions between men which Christianity seeks to overcome.”
Where in Christianity is there a requirement to overcome the natural divisions of race, culture, and family? If anything a strength of Catholicism (beyond its status as the universal truth) is that natural divisions and heirarchies among men are not required to be abolished. Slaves are admonished to be the best slaves they can be; masters the best masters (though that teaching has lost its luster in the eyes of liberal moderns). It isn’t one’s status as master or slave that reflects on the person, but rather how well one accepts what one is, loves one’s neighbor, and carries whatever crosses one must. The poor will be with us always, yet we are to care for them nonetheless. In other universalist religions (like Islam and liberal modernism) these imminent divisions and heirarchies are dogmatically required to be abolished, here and now.
I think Mr. Culbreath is a fabulous writer on things like family and religion, and I salute him. His recent blog entry on a young man choosing a wife was outstanding – I am saving it to show to my son at the appropriate age. Also as someone from a mixed-race family I understand how personal frank discussion of race can become. It seems important, though, in the service of honesty if nothing else, to refrain from exaggerating the importance of race by attempting to suppress its real consequences; just as it is important to refrain from exagerrating its consequences as more important than (e.g.) the Faith.
I find this discussion of
I find this discussion of race and Christianity to be disappointing at best and disgusting at worst. It’s too modernist, but counterrevolution.net is supposed to be antimodern. Where are all the dead men when we need them?
—
“The Negroes’ rude ignorance has never invented any effectual weapons of defense or destruction: they appear incapable of forming any extensive plans of government or conquest: and the obvious inferiority of their mental faculties has been discovered and abused by the nations of the temperate zone.”—Edward Gibbon
I completely fail to
I completely fail to understand the post of the individual signing as “What about Jews.” I can’t tell what side he is coming to this discussion from. His Gibbon quote is especially confusing in the context of the thread.
I’m Catholic, by the way (weakly so, I admit, but given my upbringing it’s surprising I’m Catholic at all, or any religion for that matter—sorry, but this degree of Catholicness is the best I can do at the moment).
I think the elimination of races, ethnicities, communities, and societies in the interest of generating bigger Wall Street profits and of certain other goals (one other goal being the frenetic drive by Western elites to prove they aren’t racist, and what more convincing way to prove that, both to themselves and to society at large, than by cheering the disapearance of their own race which they secretly prefer, through the mechanism of its forcible government-imposed replacement by another race which they secretly do not prefer)—I think the elimination of these things for those reasons is NOT mandatory in the eyes of Christianity and it’s high time after a half-century or so of the reign of this brazenly false, hateful, and destructive lie that it be exposed.
In reply to What about Jews who finds this topic disgusting, I do not wish to pollute this blog by talking about disgusting things but I find the ostrich-with-his-head-in-the-sand variety of Christianity the most disgusting kind and I want no part of it, thank you very much indeed. You see, I have this funny little preference for liking to open my eyes and actually see where society and I are going. Quaint, I know—but please, just humor me a little …
On the point Thaddeus
On the point Thaddeus raises, I do think that when public authority and the tendency of events is against Christianity it is important for Christianity to understand what it is in its integrity. That would include the creeds, sacraments, defined dogma, the Pope and so on. When things are going your way you can probably be sloppier on the grounds that every bit of snow adds to the snowball but that’s not where we are. So I think the emphasis should be on deepening the appreciation of distinctives and the commitment of Christians to them rather than playing them down in the interests of activities that ignore some or all of them (ecumenism, interfaith initiatives, openness of the kenotic pilgim servant people of God to the views and needs of the world, etc.)
On race, ethnicity, peoplehood etc. I think I need to write something further. I don’t think I’ve ever put together a collected discussion of those things from a point of view that tries to be Catholic although I ramble around a little at http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001388.html .
Incidentally, note that there are a couple of new polls, and I’ve made a couple other changes in the right column, including picking up some feeds from other sites (Mr. Culbreath’s being one of them).
I for one tend to think that
I for one tend to think that liberalism should be taken on in the same way they take on Christianity: as a religion. It is clear to me that the adherents to liberalism do so out of a religious type of blind faith. I think their own arguments can be used against them. For example: they pretend to celebrate diversity, yet in recent decades the world has become more uniform than ever. People everywhere dress the same, eat the same foods, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, have the same styles of government and political ideals. Diversity?
They claim to support peace and tolerance, yet they cannot tolerate any mention of religion, particular Catholic Christianity, nor do they tolerate any support for traditional values. As far as being peaceful, it was the godfather of liberalism, Voltaire, who said his goal was to see the last king strangled with the entrails of the last priest (I’d call that violent and intolerant).
What they have really done, and succeed at because of their control of education, is to take “liberal” values and declare them to be superior to traditional values like filial piety, loyalty to traditional authority and devotion for religion. They have also based all of their arguments on a view of mankind which is plainly false. As time passes, I think that especially is being made more clear and can be something to work with.
—God never established a republic; now we see why.
It seems forced integration
It seems forced integration as a fundamental principle destroys the family if the family is the fundamental unit of society. Forcing nonfamily members into a family lessens the importance of the family members. That is, if nonfamily members are as important as family members, then the family has no meaning.
Forced segregation as a fundamental principle supports the family. Forcing nonfamily members out of the family benefits all the parties. No party is being forced to prefer the other, only to respect the other’s choice.
It would be difficult for a Church to remain a distinctive Church under a forced integration system.
Dear Matt,
You
Dear Matt,
You wrote:
“Unadorned’s comment raises questions about the very possibility of the middle ground that Mr. Culbreath presents as the only moral option. That middle ground is something that has been discussed literally for centuries but has yet to ever manifest.”
I’m not looking for a middle ground at all. I’m looking for Catholic ground, and in that light it seems clear that neither legal segregation nor forced integration by race are consistent with Catholic social doctrine.
“Where in Christianity is there a requirement to overcome the natural divisions of race, culture, and family?”
The *natural* divisions of race, culture, and family are in fact quite elastic. I was speaking, instead, of the *artificial* divisions imposed by racialist ideologues.
“If anything a strength of Catholicism (beyond its status as the universal truth) is that natural divisions and heirarchies among men are not required to be abolished.”
Quite right. Natural divisions are not abolished, and I have often argued for their recovery. But they are softened and subordinated to the fraternal unity of the Catholic Faith.
“Slaves are admonished to be the best slaves they can be; masters the best masters (though that teaching has lost its luster in the eyes of liberal moderns). It isn’t one’s status as master or slave that reflects on the person, but rather how well one accepts what one is, loves one’s neighbor, and carries whatever crosses one must.”
That’s true, but although Christianity does not absolutely *require* the abolition of slavery, the institution of slavery is an intolerable contradiction to a Christian society. See Hilaire Belloc’s “The Crisis of Civilization” on how the Church did, in fact, gradually abolish slavery.
“I think Mr. Culbreath is a fabulous writer on things like family and religion, and I salute him. His recent blog entry on a young man choosing a wife was outstanding – I am saving it to show to my son at the appropriate age.”
That is very kind of you, although I don’t write so much as I quote better writers. 🙂
“Also as someone from a mixed-race family I understand how personal frank discussion of race can become.”
Indeed. It forces one to put theory into practice.
“It seems important, though, in the service of honesty if nothing else, to refrain from exaggerating the importance of race by attempting to suppress its real consequences;”
I don’t quite understand the above sentence, but I think I know what you are trying to say. I think the debate is about just what those consequences really are, and precisely when it is legitimate to act upon them.