Posted By Marc on February 17, 2010
The people in the past used to worship the idols which they used to make with their hands. Nowadays, people worship idols which are more intellectual – like democracy, liberalism, freedom, and so on. So these need to be destroyed as well, and replaced with worshipping and obeying Allah.
(source: Anjem Choudary)
I rarely write about religion, even though I use a lot of religious concepts in my writing. This comment, however, by Anjem Choudary (hat tip to MEMRI), however, has made my blood boil. His comment reminds me of something that H. Beam Piper wrote years ago
“Oh, no, Mykhyl; it will belong to everybody,” Khreggor Chmidd told him earnestly. “But somebody will have to take care of it for everybody. That,” he added complacently, “will be you and me and the rest of us here.”
“I believe,” Yakoop Zhannar said, almost smiling, “that this freedom is going to be a wonderful thing. For us.”
(source: A Slave is a Slave)
Choudary’s “proposals”, which are in keeping with those more modest ones of Johnathon Swift, would have us destroy that which we have spent centuries working for to embrace a vision of social order which even the Prophet Muhammad would have opposed (or has Choudary never heard of the concept of Jihad outside of its irhabi variant?).
He, Choudary, would do well to go back and read, since I am certain that “re-read” would be incorrect, the Revivification of the religious Sciences by Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.
earnestly. “But somebody will have to take care of it for everybody.
That,” he added complacently, “will be you and me and the rest of us
here.”
“I believe,” Yakoop Zhannar said, almost smiling, “that this freedom is
going to be a wonderful thing. For us.”
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on 
Mr. Xyz on 
Marc on
Marc,
Choudary is technically correct. Liberalism, at least in the extreme iconoclastic manifestation of 1789 Paris is antithetical to monotheism. It is the modernist vision of an evolving cosmos in which man is prey to natural selection in a materialist construct of reality that is diametrically opposed to a theocentric vision of reality.
Just by the demographics, theocentrists are outproducing liberal democrats and will surpass them soon in many places, to include Europe. If one is a true Muslim (or Jew or Christian) subscribing to the theocentrist vision of reality, these secularist models must be rejected as… well, idols.
Without a religious vision of the future and a strong belief in eternity, societies degenerate into slavery to the ‘tyranny of the now’. Or as the old Epicureans put it, “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Rationalism is soon enslaved by pragmatism, which, unchecked by transcendent morals and belief in an afterlife, finally devolves into a discordant paganism which is easily exploited by theocentrist powers.
I disagree with Qutb’s vision of a contemporary jihad but its not as though he formed his ideas from whole cloth. The West has replaced faith in God with faith in ‘science’ (actually scientific theories – the new paganism) and as such can only be seen as a threat to theocentric societies such as those dominated by Islam. It is far better for our foreign policy to evince a Christian character, which is at least a known entity and a measurable threat to Islamic civilization. The secularist liberalism is a graver threat and provokes a more desperate response that is motivated not by politics or greed, but a sincere (even if warped) commitment to God.
PS, I am MSG Proctor from SWJ.
Hi John,
Hmmm, some good points here, but I do diagree with a lot of what you say.
The teleology that you talk about is, after all, quite recent and, IMO, has often devolved into a similar form of tyranny. As for rationalism degenerating to pragmatism, sure, it happens, but it happens in all types of societies regardless of whether or not they accept a linear view of time. And, as far as “transcendent morals and belief in an afterlife” being the only check against “discordant paganism”, all I can say is I don’t think you have really looked at paganism .
If by scientific theories you mean the Baconian science, then that was certainly the split. then again, via negativa perceptions of “reality” are always antithetical to the via positiva creations of theocrats. BTW, I’m using “theocrat” rather than “theocentric” for a very specific reason: “theocrats” claim to know the mind (or will) of God, while “theocentrists” do not necessarily do so. I’ll also point out that both Bacon and Newton were theocentrists.
I will also note that “science” has become increasingly “theocratic” in character – the sheer inanity of the phrase “science has proven that…” is proof enough. It isn’t paganism, but it is “idolitry” (the two are not synonymous BTW). What many have forgotten, including many “scientists”, is that the Baconian metaphysics that grounded modern science is based in a much older mystical tradition.
Why? This is the same type of theocratic argument I can see in the PC blitherings of too many academics – “Oh, we shouldn’t annoy them!”. Such a stance is both morally and ethically repugnant to me: morally, because it says that “we”, as western societies, will conveniently disregard any of our members who aren’t Christian, and ethically because it is a lie; to quote (possibly apocryphally) Martin Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other”.
John, I don’t me any of this as an attack on you, personally. I just figure it is probably better for me to be up front about my positions on a lot of these things
.
Marc, no harm, no foul. I prefer candor to sophistry, and I am ill-equipped to wander too far into philosophy. You know that I am an ordinary Soldier and not a doctor or a professor. My Catholic faith informs my thinking and of course I have some experience in combat operations conducted among a theocentric population in Iraq.
As one who has been shot at, mortared and RPGed by Muslims, I am not advocating a “don’t annoy them” posture at all. To really and truly engage them requires a willingness to engage their teleology, at least as a way of finding the nonnegotiables and taking them off the table. I believe we have operated on skin deep assumptions about contemporary Islamic civilization and have fed antagonsm not so much to the orthodox believer as much as to the heterodox fanatics and extremists.
The teleology I speak of the ancient teleology of the Hebrews and the Catholic Tradition. Unless you were referring to Western secular liberalism, which is a newer innovation already waning and decaying.
Perhaps we have different definitions of paganism. Paganism is of course a Christian term referring to the nonAbrahamic traditions and animist religions. Paganism refers to adherence to false belief albeit in ignorance; idolatry refers to willful abandonement of truth in order to adore that which is manifestly not Divine.
My point of departure in referring to contemporary idolatry in science is Darwin, not Bacon or Newton. And I think we share some common ground here as evinced by your remark:
“I will also note that “science” has become increasingly “theocratic” in character – the sheer inanity of the phrase “science has proven that…” is proof enough.”
Finally, theocentrism (I don’t even know if that is a real term, I just coined it for the sake of discussion) as I intend it means societies with ethics established on monotheistic traditions. Theocrats(cracy) as you use it makes me think of Iran or North Korea – two regimes that rule through state-implemented religion.
“And, as far as “transcendent morals and belief in an afterlife” being the only check against “discordant paganism”, all I can say is I don’t think you have really looked at paganism .” Please Marc, context: the discordant paganism I referred to is a post-Christian order such as that in the decaying societies of socialist Europe. Europe’s enfatuation with ‘all things Green’ is a new paganism (adoration of the earth) that will soon be overtaken my Muslim theocentrists not by war, but by having more babies. The defeatism of contemporary European social theory with its focus on the tyranny of the now has obliterated the traditional sense of obligation to one’s children and the future. I would argue that Muslims are not bridled by any such pessimism and by sheer strength of demographics will soon take over European governments without firing a shot.
In that scenario, post-Christian liberals will exist as dhimmi in Muslim societies. This endstate is not inevitible but the current trajectory surely suggests this is the case.
Hi John,
Okay, glad to hear that
. I knew about your time in Iraq, but I wasn’t sure which branch of Christianity you were coming from.
I’m certainly fine with this, although I would expand it from teleology to cosmology.
Again, I would agree with you about the “skin deep assumptions”, and how they have inflamed the fanatics and extremists. Personally, I doubt they could be bought off or rendered less of a threat by the West taking a more “Christian” stance; I suspect it would only feed their egos. And, again, I think it is crucial to distinguish between the theocrats and the theocentrics. Hmmm, maybe a better way to distinguish between those two ideal types would be the former only listen to themselves while the latter listen to God. Theocentrics we can deal with.
No, I was referring to the Abrahamic teleology. From my viewpoint, 3,800 years or so is pretty recent, and it’s only become an important teleology, in terms of frequency distribution in the species population, in the past 1500 years or so. Quite recent in comparison to, say, concepts such as “tribe” which go back at least 12,000 (and probably a lot more).
Okay, yes, we are operating on different definitions of paganism. The term itself, BTW, actually come from the Latin pagani and means, roughly, “hick”, “uncultured”, “not urban”; sort of like today’s use of red neck
. As a note, the term well precedes Christianity, and only really gets picked up in its more modern sense during the 4th century ce. The definition you are using contains some of this implication and, in some ways, reminds me a bit of the canon episcopi. The more modern usage of it, coming out of comparative religion, tends towards a connotation of polytheism rather than monotheism and, in it’s most recent forms, i.e. the Neo-Pagan movement, it refers to the conscious rejection of the Abrahamic traditions (technically, this would be “heresy” rather than “ignorance”).
On your definition of idolitry, I think if you check with a Catholic theologian, you will find that you are not quite correct. “Willful abandonment” is a technical definition of heresy, while idolitry is the worship (not adoration, it might only be veneration) of either another deity before Jehova and/or the confusion of a representation for the essence (cf the old Iconoclastic Schism arguments).
Hmmm, well, I supose I shouldn’t be surprised that you take the jump off point at Darwin. So many people do, but if you really look at it, the division is much earlier. Hmmm, I’ll see if I can track down a good online article for you on it. Unfortunately, I have to run off and get to a choir practice. More later,
Cheers,
Marc
Part II
Sheesh, 4 hours in practice…..! Oh well, it will be six in a bit
Let me return to the “idolatry in science” comment, since that’s where I left off. Strictly speaking, and even using Catholic doctrine and dogma from the 16th – 19th centuries, science didn’t really become idolatry until sometime in the 20th century. Personally, I tend to use a post-WW II date, but that is really just when it became dominant. To my mind, the real shift is contained in the transformation of science from a via negativa to a via positiva. If you look back at Bacon, Newton and their ilk, and BTW I would include Darwin in that crowd although definitely not Spencer (or Comte!), it is marked by a popular shift from “Science has disproven…” to “Science has proven…”. This popular shift was, to my mind, absolutely catastrophic since it “converted” science from a semi-mystical corrective to various religious doctrines and dogma into a pseudo-religion. I call it “pseudo-” since it has very few of the popular characteristics of a “religion”. If I had to come up with an analogy from Christian history, that shift is probably fairly close to the development of Valentinian Gnosticism in the 2nd century (with Spencer being my nominee for Valentinus).
Okay, given the definition of paganism you are using, I can accept the validity of that argument. I would like to point out that the infatuation with “all things Green” is shared in large parts of North America as well, and I don’t mean the Neo-Pagan movement
. I’m thinking of groups like Earth First, PETA and other such. Neo-Pagans tend to view things subtly differently, although they would still (probably) fall under your definition of “paganism”; certainly, the California crunchy, Bunnies & Light crowd would! Despite that crowd, most of the Neo-Pagans I know, and I know a lot, believe in an afterlife (actually re-incarnation) and deities that are both transcendent and immanent.
On your larger argument about the Salfist and Wahabi’s in Europe taking over because of their birth rate, have you come across Mark Stein’s work America Alone in the area? Personally, I think it is a touch alarmist, but that is because I disagree with his assumed inevitability regarding birth rates.
Personally, I would argue that a greater threat to our societies lies in the theocratic impulses inherent in them that are being manipulated right now by various and sundry groups. Let me give you a couple of examples. First, “academic freedom” is an intriguing concept that is supposed to create a protected “class” (or caste) of people from the results of their research. It has, by and large, moved into a situation where it is now contingent on broader cultural factors which, IMO, is extremely dangerous. Now, you could say that I am biased in this area, being an academic and all, and you would be correct
– I am biased, and I’ll freely admit it. To my mind, if we are going to have a class of people who, by a LOT of frakin’ work let me tell you!, supposedly get this “freedom”, having it de facto taken away because it disagrees with the politics of our colleagues or it pisses people off means, IMO, that we no longer have it. Free speach is like pregnancy, you can’t have a little even if you do have to exercise a certain amount of social responsibility with it 
.
Let me give you another example; “religious freedom”. Now, you have to understand that Canada is radically different from both the US and Europe when it comes to religion. We actually do not have a single group that recognizes religions; we have three, and none of them are paramount (Revenue Canada, Corrections Canada (and various provincial corrections departments), and individual provinces in terms of marriage licenses). It is actually possible to have a religion recognized in one province that is illegal in another (wonky, but true)!
Culturally, Canadians are quite different from the US in terms of religion with the sole exception of the Roman Catholic Church. Our religious affiliations have rarely had any correlation with our socio-economic status (which is common in the US), and we have also tended to not take religion as, hmm, “seriously” isn’t the right term… perhaps “rigidly” or “dogmatically” works better. This, amongst other factors, has meant that group affiliation is much less strong in Canada than in, for example, the US, which shifting both denominations and entire religions is not uncommon. The dominant, acceptable, reason for doing so is that “it works for me at this point in time”. In US terms, we have an extremely “liberal” (small L) belief matrix, even amongst the conservative groups.
Now, to my mind, this is a major strength. Outside of being a neo-Darwinist (which I am), I also have to agree with Cromwell when he said [wrote] “Brethren, I beseach ye in the Bowels of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong”. In short, I believe that the “greatest good for the greatest number” comes out of assuming that no person holds “the Truth”, and that our (culture, society and species) best likelihood of surviving and prospering in the long run is to not get stuck in a single mode. And, you know, I think many Canadians would agree with the substance, if not the particulars of how I have phrased it, of this argument. Basically, at the cultural level, most Canadians reject theocrats, be they religious or secular, while accepting theocentrics of all stripes (sometimes, I’ll admit, that goes too far…).
You know, singing Victoria’s 1605 Officium Defunctorum for a couple of hours does really weird things to one’s mind
.
Cheers,
Marc
OK, Marc, this exchange has become a bit too professorial for me. It is your blog and I respect your using the occasion to platform your ideas, but I can’t possibly respond to all that you posted, as you would not be able to respond should I take a path that would leave you feeling a bit ill-equipped to match wits.
A few thoughts for your readers. If you self-disclose as an academic, I must self-disclose as a practitioner. For theories are fun to bandy about, debate, compare, contrast and apply in the safety of the classroom lab. But I deal in the world of broken marriages, buddies who get killed or wounded in action, suicides, young people trying to find their way, religion in combat operations (in the unforgiving concrete applications), not to mention being a father of four. These realities make me look a bit deeper than I would were I dealing with theories and abstractions, which as a Catholic, I do sincerely value. That is not a value judgment about you as a person, but a contrast between the two extremes. While knowledge is always a better teacher than experience, there are still some things that can only be fully appreciated in the crucible of gritty experience, and from that perspective, my journey of faith has been arduous and costly.
Without turning our discussion into a raw polemical debate, I contest your reference to civilizations/tribes older than 12,000 years. We both know that there is no archeological evidence for this assertion, and carbon dating is not a reliable method for dating anything older than a few decades at the most. Therefore, Abrahamic monotheism is neither new nor original to Abraham. All our monotheism originated with the perfect man who dwelt in paradise before the Fall, and lived 930 years (nearly contemporary with Noah, who was within a generation of Abraham). As you well know, Mesopotamian man was neither primitive nor technologically limited, and the monotheism passed on from Adam to Noah to Abraham was archived in Egypt (Joseph) and redacted by Moses 400 years afterward, with the supernatural intervention of the Exodus Event as confirmation of the Tradition.
Yes, I am familiar with Mark Steyn’s works, which I find relevant (“It’s the Demography, Stupid!”) and far from alarmist. Perhaps you have heard of the Demographic Winter studies? http://www.demographicwinter.com/
I reject darwinism in every form extant, and especially the hideous and dangerous ‘social science’ that emerges from it. I have never discovered a positive contribution to science this fabrication of bizarre conclusions has supposedly made, and its record with regard to eugenics and socialism in the 20th century is beyond honest dispute.
I understand that as an academic you must be precise in your definitions of terms, my definitions of paganism, idolatry, theocentrism, etc… are more colloquial than technical. That is deliberate on my part as I am speaking from the aforementioned practitioner domain rather than the educational. I thank you for the orthodox definitions – and I do not dispute them.
I must sharply criticize you here:
“Personally, I would argue that a greater threat to our societies lies in the theocratic impulses inherent in them that are being manipulated right now by various and sundry groups.”
Now THIS is alarmist in the extreme. Unless you broaden your definition of theocrats to include anyone who believes in God. The tyranny in the West today is wielded by radical secularists, statists, environmentalists, and socialists, not the tiny remnant of fervent religious believers who attract the derision of the dominant media culture and yes, you academics. God would have spared Sodom for 10 righteous men, and there were not. It is for the sake of a faithful remnant that God’s righteous judgments are not unleashed, and the scourge of abortion has richly earned the just retribution of the Almighty.
Lastly, while a rationalist, modernist, relativist citizen is rightly discomfited by the certainty of a believing Roman Catholic, we do maintain to profess The Truth, and not a truth. Long after Darwin, Huxley, Freud, Marx and Robespierre have faded into their deserved obscurity (except as models of derision), Christ will still stand high above all thought, philosophy, theory, and imagination of men, undiminished in splendor, humility and power, radiating Divine charity, and offering salvation to guilty sinners.
As an aside, an especially dark and fiery part of hell is reserved for Barth, Bultmann, Feuerbach, and their Modernist ilk, who advanced the destruction of the faith of untold millions, and who bear the condemnation the Christ gave to those who promulgate scandal:
“But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)
The only thing darker than a non-Christian society is a post-Christian society, Marc. We are descending down that path with increasing rapidity and as such, common, ordinary faith seems ‘theocratic’ to those who enjoy the freedom of unconstrained liberty and deny the retribution which is not sleeping.
Peace,
John
Marc, looking back over my remarks, I am sure I was too harsh, I just don’t know any other way to say what I said. You have been a real gentleman both here and on SWJ, and I want to thank you for that welcome.
Regards,
John
Hi John,
No worries; we are talking about some really hot button issues, here and, unfortunately, using a medium that really reduces our ability to communicate well .
I would like to make one response, though, to what you said here:
Please remember that I am using Geertz’ definition of religion which is not theocentric. Under that definition, it is quite possible and, indeed, somewhat inevitable, that one would find “theocrats” in secular “religions. I have had personal experience with the perceptual attitude I refer to using the label “theocrat” with secularists, statists, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Witches and accountants,… just to name a few . I have also run across true believers, including theocentrists, in all of these areas and seen how well their beliefs work for them which, BTW, is why I continue to be a religious pluralist
.