• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Wrong Road to Cultural Revolution

    by Wolfgang Grassl

    The title of the sophomoric 1,518-page manifesto is “2083 — A European Declaration of Independence,” and its author, Anders Behring Breivik, is the self-confessed murderer of 93 people by current count. Nothing can justify his Breivik’s cold-blooded brutality, but the concerns that motivated him are both perfectly understandable and shared by many of us. Only hours before his first attack, Breivik published a document on the Internet in which he not only recorded the details of his preparations but also presented a long explanation for them. It was written in English, for the obvious purpose of gaining an international audience. In this he may have succeeded. As a self-declared “Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe” and “one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” — organizations police are investigating at this very moment — Breivik produced a concoction of facts, romantic fiction, historical data, and quotations from both academic sources and wacky commentators alike.

    Nevertheless, his manifesto, based on references to many more-or-less reliable websites and on literature from Shakespeare to Burke and Churchill, and from Jefferson to Hayek and Scruton, together with historical examples from the Crusades to the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, puts one in mind of someone who correctly spots a problem but draws a conclusion that the moral law plainly forbids. It is a remarkable document for being so right in presenting facts, so wrong in determining their underlying cause, and so utterly deplorable in deriving a justification for murder. It also gives us occasion to reflect on what the legitimate Catholic path might be in a situation of obvious cultural decline.

    There is no doubt that the West — and through Western educational dominance, most of the world — has come under the sway of a form of relativism that Breivik refers to as “cultural Marxism.” Multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, and other collective ideologies have been foisted upon us by the media, by our schools and universities, and by governments at an accelerating pace. In many cases, the defense of Christian positions rooted in both reason and natural law — such as the sanctity of life, of marriage and the family, or of education that teaches what is true and truly good — has become an indictable offense. Breivik identifies many of the ills of a culture that has given up the values of Christianity, humanism, and even the Enlightenment. Pope Benedict XVI has referred to this movement as the “dictatorship of relativism,” as objective categories of true and false, and right and wrong, are relativized to accidental membership in groups by nation, sex, race, or class. In his admirable 2006 University of Regensburg speech — to which Breivik actually refers — the pope argued that this movement undermines the rationality of the logos that Western tradition has inherited from the Greeks and combined with the monotheistic faith of the Jews to develop a singularly successful culture.

    The fruits of relativism can be seen everywhere in the Western world in what John Paul II called a “culture of death” — declining birth rates and population growth, high rates of abortion and divorce, ailing families, indebted households and governments, young people without prospects and optimism. We have forgotten what is good for the human person, for society, and for nature, according to God’s plan. We have started to believe that all boundaries can be shifted, and so we legalize homosexual “marriage,” allow indiscriminate immigration without integration, glorify promiscuity, enjoy debased entertainment, and destroy families by making regular, well-paying work hard to find. This is the world against which Breivik revolted, and many of us can understand his frustration.

     

    Breivik’s (literally) fatal mistake is in having misdiagnosed the source of our cultural and political malaise. Manifestations of relativism do not occur in a haphazard and unrelated fashion. They can be reduced to an underlying cause — man’s belief, at least since the Enlightenment, in autonomy, and thus his abandonment of God. Alas, Breivik’s act of autonomous violence was an expression of precisely this culture rather than a countercultural act of resistance. In embracing nationalism, he still subscribes to a collectivist ideology. Why should the identity of a person be defined more by being Norwegian, or French, or Moroccan, than by being Asian, or female, or a factory worker? Catholic social thought, and even old-fashioned humanism, places the individuality of the person before membership in any group. The dignity of humans is inviolate regardless of other properties, and it therefore extends to all.

    Nor is the cultural problem of Europe heavy immigration as such, whether from Muslim countries or elsewhere. The real problem is the lack of integration, which is merely a function of weak political will. Governments have buckled to Islamic pressure and allow immigration without integration, to the extent of even admitting Sharia law in their own courts. They have failed to pursue an effective two-step strategy — to select appropriate immigrants and then make them fully functional parts of society. The political failure to handle Muslim immigration correctly has been paid for dearly — by riots in the banlieues of Paris, self-contained ghettos in British cities, and social tension in much of Europe. Between 1979 and 2009, the Muslim population of Europe more than doubled, and it will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys’ names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine, and Hamza. In Marseilles and Rotterdam, more than 25 percent of the population is Muslim, in Malmö more than 20 percent, and more than 10 percent in London, Paris, and Copenhagen. For many Europeans it is perfectly understandable that French law since 2004 forbids conspicuous religious symbols in public primary and secondary schools, including Muslim headscarves or veils (but also kippot and large crosses), and since April 2011 also bans face-covering veils. Several other countries have similar laws at local levels or are discussing national legislation to prevent the further growth of parallel societies.

    Breivik erred not in overlooking the problem but in drawing the wrong conclusion. Vigilante action — whether in the form of the Unabomber or of Muslim suicide bombers — is always morally wrong, not least because its victims are not responsible for the perceived predicaments. Breivik’s rampage reminds one of those priests (and now typically ex-priests) in Latin America who believed in seeking social justice according to their own judgment by means of violent revolution. The Catholic answer is that responsibility is individual, while action is social and is carried out through the political process or non-violent forms of resistance. There is a venerable tradition of Christian just war theory that defines the clear conditions by which war may be justified as a last resort. It can never be waged by one person alone. Even the Crusades were collective actions authorized by the highest legitimate authorities — the pope, the emperor, and kings — for a specific religious purpose.

    The press has already started to brand Breivik as a “Christian conservative.” Despite the biblical citations in his manifesto, he is very far from that. One wishes that he had read Benedict’s encyclical Spe Salvi (2007). It lays out the case for hope being based in faith and argues that no situation is dismal enough for us to lose that hope. We must act morally, under the guidance of practical reason, and within the community of the Church. Hope and action then form a virtuous circle where each builds up the other. Despite his reading, in his ideological obstinacy, Breivik missed the point. As the pope made clear: “Christianity did not bring a message of social revolution like that of the ill-fated Spartacus, whose struggle led to so much bloodshed.” Christians are called to work for a cultural revolution by building on “a hope which transforms life and the world from within.” That was Breivik’s error: He went looking for a shortcut, and found only violence.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Mark Millward

      Mr Grassl, I wholeheartedly concur with your analysis and the inevitable conclusions to which faithful adherence to true Christian principles point. From the instant this story broke, there has been an alarming tendency amonst the media to simply take Breivig’s description of himself as Christian at face value. Comments columns are thick with the usual kneejerk reactions of instinctive atheists who are ignorant of or unwilling to know the truth of Christian teaching. I fear that your own balanced article may be subject to many a partial reading and wilful misunderstanding.

      Best wishes, Mark Millward

    • Tom

      This is exactly what this Norwegian nutter wanted, some “academic” to give him a semblance of credibility. Shame on you and shame on Crisis Magazine to post such junk. We need such “wisdom” like a hole a in the head.
      Plus you say:
      “The real problem is the lack of integration, which is merely a function of weak political will.” So now government is the answer? This indicates a propound misunderstanding of the American melting pot. It was successful precisely because of minimal government intervention. Problems we are facing now are not so much political, but the weakening of faith values.
      Unfortunately the Catholic Church is unable to respond effectively because it is in a terrible self inflicted mess, in large part because it is has been in the hands of nutters, first from the left (’50-‘70), then (’70-now) the extreme right (OD, LC, NC, etc..) and their rich, self justifying and selfish supporters, that wont even come to terms with some thing idiotic like the abuse scandal…

      • http://www.communionantiphons.org Andy

        Wow, all the way to the second comment before someone mentioned the abuse scandals! See Anderson’s Correlary to Godwin’s Law.

      • Pete

        Tom, why the pastrami should I come to terms with an abuse scandal? Tom, the current in-thing among left circles is pro-pedophilia and easy sex, baby. Leftist Parties in Western Europe have been pro this. Even old Boy Richard Dawkins does not see anything wrong with sex between older men and young boys. Besides a priest is less likely to abuse a child than a school teacher or a boy scout counselor.

        I’ve known many priests and never a priest abuse victim but I treated many abused kids, kids victims of their mothers’ boyfriends, stepfathers, teachers and strangers. Please grow up, there are bigger things in the world to worry about.

        • Tom

          ..Totally agree. The fact is that abuse in the Church has gone down by a lot in the last decade (although reporting methodologies are fully disclosed). The problem is that Church leadership keeps on shooting themselves in the feet by needless obfuscation. Just read recent documents from the Church on this matter. This needlessly damages to the reputation of the Church. In fact I would say it almost encourages free for all behavior. Just look at the Polanski affaire. The French public as a whole was for his extradition, but not the French inteligencia. As per coincidence, he was quietly released, just as the European Church abuse scandal broke. The Church is about to loose an entire country (Ireland) because of this obfuscation. Dumb ass lay that keep quiet about this, or condone this garbage by pooh-poohing it are not much better (I was one of them a decade ago). How can one have any traction or credibility when talking about marriage, abortion, etc…

          • Tom

            should read: although reporting methodologies are NOT fully disclosed, sorry

    • Well Said, but Consider Another Explanation

      What if this isn’t what it seems?

      From Jihadwatch.org:

      Who… would find it attractive to smear by association all the most cogent, respectable sources of resistance to Islamic expansion, EU integration, and Marxist theory? A highly sophisticated supporter of those three movements, or an operative working for someone else who was.

      Imagine if Lee Harvey Oswald had before his shooting of John F. Kennedy published a manifesto citing as his inspiration… the leading Marxist professors at Ivy League colleges, civil rights leaders, and members of the Hollywood Ten. Astute observers might have spied there the hand of J. Edgar Hoover. And they would have been dismissed as conspiracy cranks.

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/who-benefits-whos-behind-it.html

    • Steve N.

      Here’s a small point, but then perhps not so small. It could easily be possible that Breivik did read ‘Spe Salvi” but chose not to be affected by it. What one does not do is as important as what one does….omission and commission.

    • Margaret

      “There is no doubt that the West — and through Western educational dominance, most of the world — has come under the sway of a form of relativism that Breivik refers to as “cultural Marxism.” Multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, and other collective ideologies have been foisted upon us by the media, by our schools and universities, and by governments at an accelerating pace. ”

      This is very patronizing to the millions of people who freely embrace the ideologies of multiculturalism, feminism, and socialism. I’ve visited Norway more than once and love the place. It is a beautiful, innocent, clean, tolerant, kind, decent nation. In 2010, Norway ranked at the very top of the UN Human Development Report, which is based on such factors as longevity, education, and standard of living. After this hideous attack, Norwegians have come together and asserted that they will never let fascist forces break down their commitment to openness and tolerance. I found the comments complaining about the prevalence in European cities of names such as Mohamed absolutely repulsive. Imagine a German in the 1930s kvetching that “Ira” was becoming too common a name!!! What makes Anders Breivik evil is not only that he killed so many people. It’s that he embraced the politics of hatred and division and completely rejected the values of inclusion and tolerance expressed in multiculturalism and feminism. This rejection of others as equals is narcissistic and anti-social and is at the root of the savagery and barbarism exhibited by Anders Breivik, the 9/11 murderers, and Tim McVeigh.

      • http://theorist-wwwsummaomniacom.blogspot.com/ Theorist

        Still, unreasonable peace or unreasonable amounts of toleration, etc. is vicious.

        Considering the level of viciousness attained around the world, one must end up spreading hate -not hatred for your neighbor as neighbor -but certainly a disdain for the wrong people’s habits.

        Indeed all choice and probably all politics is of hatred, for hatred is an aversion to something apprehended.

        so even liberalism, in so far as it doesn’t choose to be conservative, hates conservatism.

        • http://theorist-wwwsummaomniacom.blogspot.com/ Theorist

          Sorry, I mean that hatred is a remedy for the viciousness in the world. That’s not entirely clear from what I wrote above. There’s no escaping it.

    • Michael PS

      Anyone who knows France and the French press will know that there is great concern about communautarisme, by which they mean ethnic solidarities and allegiances that threaten to override Republican unity. This concern is largely incomprehensible to Americans who have learned to embrace the realities of their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, but it is deeply rooted in French political culture, going back at least as far as Rousseau’s suspicion of particular interests that undermined the general will. Hence, the determination to keep the State and Civil Society, l’espace public and l’espace privé distinct and separate. Religious and cultural activities belong to l’espace privé

      Indeed, many Muslims, and especially Muslim women, are manifesting their confidence in the Republic and proclaiming their adherence to its values.

      The president of the Muslim women’s movement Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Sluts nor Door-Mats) Sihen Habchi, in a forceful attack on “multiculturalism” has demanded “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads”

      Rachida Dati, herself a Muslim and former French Minister of Justice told the National Assembly that
      “The Republic is alone capable of uniting men and women of different origins, colours and religions around the principles of tolerance, liberty, solidarity and laïcité, making the Republic truly one and indivisible.”

      Likewise, Fadela Amara, another Muslim and Secretary of State for Urban Policies has declared that “For this generation, the crucial issues are laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation, based upon living together in harmony throughout the world, and not only in France.”

      Nor are these lonely or isolated voices. Every politician, of the Left or of the Right, berates the perceived racism of “Anglo-Saxon” multiculturalism – Try Goggling “l’affaire du voile” or “l’affaire du foulard” [[The headscarf business] However much people might have differed over the particular policy, they vied with each other in declaring their commitment to the Jules Ferry Laws, the Law of 1905, the ideal of laïcité and their unbounded faith in the capacity of the educational system to eliminate communautarism (that fertile source of all social ills) and to mould future citizens of the Republic, one and indivisible.

    • Tom

      The problem is that France is not the US. Despite all the fine words (the French “intellos” so good at bs-ing), those living in the banlieux are much less integrated then US immigrants, even after several generations. How could they be? Both people on the left and right of this debate, people like Zemour, sound ridiculous. Why should some one with Marocan or Protuguese ancestry feel proud of “nos ancetres les gaulois”? Plus their cherished post-Catholic “valeurs laiques” are crumbling. Just look at the DSK affaire. They are caught like a deer in the head light; they don’t know where to turn to understand right from wrong. This is why, in my humble opinion, the Church needs to shed all that left/right internal turmoil (it use to be the left, now it is leaning to much to the $$$$$ influenced right) ASAP, and get back on the saddle. That means all of us. But unlike the author, that advocates a Government-Lösung/solution (we know where that leads to, right Wolfgang?), it is each one of us to lead by prayer and example, it seems to me.

      • Matt

        Tom, I think the DSK affaire is a peculiarly French phenomenon. It’s not about crumbling values. It’s about values that were always there and which were probably even more pronounced in days gone by. The French have a history of being culturally prone to sexual excess that goes back many centuries. I certainly agree about the need to “shed the left/right internal turmoil” and “get back on the saddle.” I think you’re right that each of us needs to set a decent and preferably non-political example.

      • Michael PS

        Zemour has his own axe to grind.

        Like most French Jews, he is horrified by the prospect of French Jews, regressing into their own communal identity, which could, in turn, validate that of the Muslim community. They are concerned that “the Jewish community” and “the Muslim community” could be seen as two mutually hostile minorities, separate from the mass of the French nation, especially as 60% of France’s Jews are, like Zemour himself, second-generation immigrants from the Maghreb.

        DSK’s mother, by the by, was from a Tunisian Jewish family, of Sephardic origin.

        France is very much a country of immigrants; even before the mass influx from 1959 onwards, a quarter of the population had at least one foreign-born grandparent – De Gaulle’s family, for example, was Flemish (De Waal) The comparison with the US is closer than you imagine

    • Johann

      What a weak and disingenuous analysis. So the problem is not immigration, but integration? So in your view it’s ok that Europe is overrun by Arabs and Africans, so long as they speak the native language, name their kids Hans and Greta, watch soccer and go to Mass? So what you’re saying is that White people, as a biological entity, have no right to exist? You neoconservatives are disgusting. Norway is a country of a little over 4 million people. A few more years of their policy of open borders and multicultural egalitarianism, and Norway will only exist as the name of a political entity, not an ethnicity. Norwegians will have ceased to exist. This is genocide, and the same thing is happening across the White world. In the face of this existential threat to his people, you would have us argue philosophy or promulgate papal encyclicals. What a weak and loathesome creature you are. The Norwegian political class is engaged in an active conspiracy to destroy their own nation. Last week they learned that ideas have consequences.

      • Michael PS

        “So what you’re saying is that White people, as a biological entity, have no right to exist?”

        No one, so far as I know, is proposing to liquidate them

        • Johann

          Uncontrolled non-White immigration plus official multicultural propaganda IS genocide. It is dispossession, marginalization, miscegenation and ultimately genocide for the entire White race.

      • Tom

        Johann
        ….when Norway was not as prosperous as it is now, you know, little isolated villages with a few crummy potatoes as crop, Norwegians emigrated to North America by the hundreds of thousands to escape famine. It’s a good thing they were not discriminated when the arrived, right? Or are you saying that perhaps they should all pack up their bags and return to Norway?

        • Johann

          Norwegians are White. They are our people. They are us. In addition, they are law abiding and industrious. We should welcome White immigration. White immigration benefits our country. Non-White immigration detracts and destroys.

          • Tom

            So it would be out of the question for you to listen to a Middle Eastern preacher, some one say, called Jesus, right? You may not like that idea, but Christ message is for all. Half or more of Catholics in the World are non white. As Catholics and Christians, it is our duty to make sure that all have a chance at Salvation, or at the very least, that we don’t impede His message from bearing fruit by stupid words and deeds (such as racist rants).

            • Johann

              You seem very confused, Tom. Do you think Christ’s message is impeded by the existence of White countries? Do you think that world evangelization will be advanced by White suicide? The fact is that every single White nation on earth is being invaded and overrun by non-Whites. In a few short decades, the entire White race will have been effectively colonized, politically dispossessed and physically conquered. With the ensuing decades, our people will cease to exist as a separate biological entity. And you seem to think it’s a sin for us to want to exist?? That’s absolutely sick. You want to sentence my children to living on reservations. You are the evil one.

            • Tom

              Johann. You make no sense. If people of European ancestry are not having children, it is their fault, no one else’s. Plus having a little more or less melanin pigment in one’s skin does not determine what is in one’s heart. This is a Catholic site (I think it is), so perhaps you are on the wrong blog.
              This being said, I am not saying I have all he answers either. In this increasingly borderless world, where people travel and settle, tensions do happen, even between people of same “race” but different ethnicities. In fact, it is more of a cultural issue then racial. My point is that, as Christians we need to fill a growing values vacuum, with God’s two commandments: Love of God and Neighbor. Just look at the abortion rates. Now that is a problem. A lot of “white” babies end up that way. That is not the fault of any one else than the parents that swallow new selfish dogmas. How about opening our Christian homes to adoption, for example? Peace.

      • Meredith

        “So in your view it’s ok that Europe is overrun by Arabs and Africans, so long as they speak the native language, name their kids Hans and Greta, watch soccer and go to Mass?”

        Yes! Absolutely!

        “So what you’re saying is that White people, as a biological entity, have no right to exist?”

        The last time I checked, no one was preventing them from reproducing. I would be very sad to see a world without redheads, but really, it’s up to them to get married and have children. Johann, you need to lay off the anger and go meet some chicks.

        • Johann

          Well then, Meredith, you are a mad woman. I suggest you move to Mexico or Nigeria and see the world you extol. I don’t need to meet chicks. I am married and expecting my first child. And what kind of country am I bring this child into? An America where his people make up a mere 60% of the population and shrinking. A country where he will be a minority by the time he is 20. A country where he will be a stranger in a teeming mass of black and brown skinned people who hate him, all thanks to air headed liberals like yourself.

          • Pete

            Johann has a point. There is a lot of racism among blacks and other races too. There is a lot of hate and tribalism as well as xenophobia. None of it is right and perhaps Johann is more afraid of this ‘reverse’ racism than he is of a mere mixture of skin pigments. Lots of people out there have inferiority complexes and many people do blame all whites for excesses of colonialism, despite the fact that more than 50% of the whites were not colonialists but at times even supported black et al freedom movements – e.g. Eastern Europe and some central European/Scandinavian nations and their descendants in the USA and Canada. Let’s not forget the white Northern soldiers who died to end slavery in the Civil War.

            Sadly, to the non-white racists– all whites are bad and liberal white guilt is not only inappropriate (not all whites were slave owners or exploiters of non-whites) it is also racist itself, for it considers black people and others to be immature and requiring different standards then whites. It’s as if non-whites cannot stand the truth that xenophobia, tribalism, envy, hate and so forth are common among vast numbers of their own racists and bigots. Let’s be consistent and fair to all people.

            Finally, in a post modern world, everyone, including a ‘bigot’ has a right to his opinion, and since there is no truth, everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Liberals need to be consistent on this point and consider their points of view as mere subjective wishes and hopes not grounded in any objective reality.

    • Jim

      Whatever happened to just loving each other as Christ calls us to?

    • Margaret

      That is an extraordinarily unChristian view, Johann. Christ taught a message of love and inclusion. Do you really think Jesus Christ, He who taught the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule, would endorse the ugly racism you preach? Remember the story of the Good Samaritan who helped the social outcast? I think you sound a little crazy. It’s just sad that people think the way you and Anders Breivik do.

      • Johann

        I sound crazy? I want to stop the invasion of my country. I want myself and my children to have a country of our own. I don’t want to be a minority in my own country. You want all those things, and you call_me_crazy? If this were happening to any other country in the world, it woul be called colonization and genocide. But you seem to think that suicide is the Christian thing to do. That is seriously deranged.

        • Margaret

          Johann, if you want to be a hate-filled racist, so be it, but why are you promulgating racial hatred on a Christian website? And why do so many Christian websites allow/encourage this divisive sort of melodramatic crusade reenactment? Weird and Orwellian!

      • Pete

        Margaret, I think Christ’s view is important but must be reflected on each individual. You cannot force Johann to change his morality to your idea of Christ’s view. If you feel Christ wants you to be charitable to the millions of poor out there, by all means go to places like Africa with your dollars and help the people there. There are also many charities one can donate to. However, we can’t force Johann to change his way of life, it has to be his choice according to his understanding of what Christ wants from him. Let’s keep Orwell out of religion.

        • Tom

          “Finally, in a post modern world, everyone, including a ‘bigot’ has a right to his opinion, and since there is no truth, everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Liberals need to be consistent on this point and consider their points of view as mere subjective wishes and hopes not grounded in any objective reality.”
          This sound like rightwing self defined cafeteria dogma, which is equally as bad as cafeteria dogma from the left. Sure, freedom of speech is guarantied in our society. That does not mean that, as Catholics, we can spew anything that comes to out of our mouth, regardless of consequences to ourselves and others.

          James 3 3-5
          If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we also guide their whole bodies. It is the same with ships: even though they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes. In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions. Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire.

        • Margaret

          Pete, how about leaving racism out of religion? The point of the Good Samaritan story was to show the morality of being kind to someone of a different race. (Although, of course, the poor are “blessed” according to the Beatitudes and there’s that bit about what you do “for the least of my little ones.”) I find it a little disturbing that someone would even defend Johann’s racism on a Christian web site. One would think Christians would want to distance themselves from his views.

          • Pete

            I don’t know if Johann is a racist. If he hates non-Caucasians because of the colour of their skin then yes he could be a racist. However, if he is concerned that a flood of people of different cultures some of whom have been indoctrinated to hate whites or Westerners or simply rich people (and consider him rich because their countries are poorer) will one day make things more difficult for his children – that is not racism.
            I’m sure he’d be just as upset by a gang of skinheads as by a gang of non-white delinquents.

            The Good Samaritan is a parable with much to tell (not just about racism but also about self-righteousness, hypocrisy and putting love into practice) and yes I know that the Kingdom of God is open to all people, and all people are equal but it does not follow that people have no right to voice their concerns over what they fear will be a change to their own cultural norms and values.

            As an immigrant myself I think it’s fair to ask foreigners who arrive in another country, to adapt to the customs and values of the new land (at least in public) or at least not force one’s own norms on the indigenous population. I know quite a few people who immigrated to the US, did not like the culture and American way of life and moved back home.

            • Margaret

              Pete, yes, Johann is unashamedly racist. Look back at some of his comments (I’ll excuse you while you puke.) Do you see the hypocrisy of your telling me I shouldn’t be imposing my idea of Christianity on Johann but then expecting all immigrants to “adapt to the customs and values of the new land”? You really can’t have it both ways. Johann has every right to believe in ideas I consider repulsive; I have every right to tell him what I think. You seem to be defending the right to be a cultural bigot while lecturing me about railing against it. I have to wonder why so much anti-Islam and anti-immigrant sentiment is so prevalent on Christian blogs (along with anti-science sentiments.) Personally, I don’t see anything Christian about demonizing Muslim immigrants or being a scientific ignoramus.

    • Pete

      Tom, I don’t believe in post modern moral relativism. I am however pointing out that that’s the current fashion among the progressive elites, of whom and whose mode of thinking Margaret seems to be fond of. It’s a kind of Reductio ad Absurdum.

      And of course I agree with your point.

    • http://boxofscraps.wordpress.com/ Jordan J

      While I am sympathetic (if not empathetic) to Johann’s concerns, I do hesitate to share his desire to limit immigration, white or otherwise, to the First World.

      North America and Europe is infested with so much nihilistic rot that, indeed, our cure will no doubt depend, partially if not wholly, on the faith of our Christian brothers and sisters from Africa, Asia, and South America.

      As for Breivik, he merely invokes Christianity as a sort of “civil” religion on which is ultimately materialist political goals lie, which really isn’t that new of a phenomenon. Breivik’s invocation of the name of the Prince of Peace (because it is CHRISTianity) should serve as stark warning for those of us who would brazenly and blasphemously attempt to remake God into our own desired image.