You are here:   Text > The New Intolerance
 

The result is actually a culture in which injustice is rampant and morality has been negated. With "discrimination" now the supreme crime and the very idea of a hierarchy of cultures, beliefs or lifestyles deemed to be discriminatory, self-designated "victim groups" can do no wrong while the majority culture can do no right. Any objective evidence of harm that may be done by such "victim" groups has been swept away. All that matters is that they must not be made to feel bad about themselves, nor be put at any disadvantage even if this results from their own actions. 

Activities previously marginalised or considered transgressive are privileged. Those considered to embody normative values are actively discriminated against. In the cause of non-judgmentalism, only those who are in favour of moral judgments based on the ethical codes of the Bible are to be judged and condemned. In the cause of anti-discrimination, only those who believe in a level playing-field are to be discriminated against. In the cause of freedom, those who seek to limit its absolute and anarchic expression in order to prevent harm to others are to be denied the freedom to do so. 

But there is a further curiosity — that in doing this, the secular, post-religious West is not merely adopting a quasi-religious posture but a specifically Christian one. The governing story of Christianity is of sin, guilt and redemption. And, remarkably, that is precisely the pattern lying behind the utopian agendas of Western secular progressives. 

For the Left, the West is guilty of the exploitation of the poor, the marginalised and the oppressed. Britain has to do penance for the sins of imperialism and racism. Israel has to do penance for the sins of colonialism and racism. America has to do penance for the sins of imperialism, slavery and racism. 

For the environmentalists, the West is guilty of the sins of consumerism and greed, acquisition, and luxury which have given it far more than it needs. So these things must be taken away and the West must return to a simpler, austere, pre-industrial way of life.

And because of its sins, the West is being punished through the wars and terrorism being waged against it. The West "had it coming to it" on account of its manifold iniquities. So America is responsible for Islamic terrorism that murders American innocents. Israel is responsible for Palestinian terrorism that murders Israeli innocents. And Britain is responsible for the radicalisation of British Muslims and the 7/7 London bus and Tube attacks in which dozens of British innocents were murdered, because it has backed America and Israel and is guilty of "Islamophobia".

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
TM
June 12th, 2012
1:06 PM
There were problems in Medieval Christendom, as there were in all of Europe in all of time, but they were far less problematic than the problems of the Reformation and Anglican split would be. http://the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html When the medieval church did go after dissenters, it was because they had started some sort of political or military upheaval. And these violent rebellions only got worse as the Reformation and Enlightenment took hold. It was often the medieval church that was responding to violence, not initiating it.

TM
June 12th, 2012
5:06 AM
It is ironic that in decrying the legends of the Enlightenment, Melanie succumbs to them as well. The "pre-modern despotism" she complains about was not the result of the Church, but of secular encroachment on the territory of the church. http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0930-medaille-real-catholi... I'd also recommend that anybody who seriously thinks that Medieval Christianity was anything like contemporary Islamism to read Rodney Stark's "God's Battalions". This essay has a lot of positives, but sadly Melanie holds on to too many wrong-headed Enlightenment ideas. "Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

asc
May 30th, 2012
7:05 PM
Ms. Phillips' argument basically boils down to this: Sure -- if you define "rationality" as belief in the evidence of the senses, scientifically reproducible results based on quanitifable data, a common set of observational tools and principles that can bridge disparate cultures, and a trust in logical and verifiable facts and explanations, that makes you "rational." But if you define "rationality" as "belief in the supernatural," as I do, then I'm rational too. I win!

Citizen Ghost
May 23rd, 2012
9:05 PM
Melanie writes: "A committed atheist, Francis Crick found it impossible to believe that DNA could have been the product of evolution" Nonsense. Francis Crick found nothing of the kind. Of course even Francis Crick or Richard Dawkins DID postulate a theory of panspermia, how on earth is that an example of "intolerance?" Very strange article.

Gerald Duffy
May 8th, 2012
12:05 AM
Excellent article, Eric Voegelin in his book Science, Politics and Gnosticism details at length the Gnostic mentality that underpins many of the mass movements that are unwttingly destroying western civilisation. Most notably he describes the prohibition on questions that would undermine the ideologies on which these movements i.e. Enviromentalism, multiculturalism, Scientism, Egalitariarianism, etc. are built. Much of the academic and media establishment are a major factor in this process.

Anonymous
May 3rd, 2012
9:05 AM
So Judaism gave rise to reason and rationality that gave rise to science grew from? Well then how did people build the pyramids pre-genesis the pyramids are a feat of engineering, of maths and physics. If people were irrational and had no reason how did they construct them? Infact how did all the pre-biblical civilisations build any constructions and what about the agricultural revolution nearly 10,000 years ago how would people of worked out how to farm if they were irrational? How about cavemen. All over the world we found spears that early man hunted with there lightweight with sharp ends, in other words they were designed to kill from a distance, this is tens of thousands of years ago, it took reason to design them, but how is it possible if there was no reason before Judaism? What about if we don't look at people let's instead look at lions how do they hunt? The lionesses lay in wait hidden in the grass for the perfect time to pounce then out flank the weakest wilderbeast. If lions were irrational they would charge straight in be seen and not catch anything. But how can lions hunt with reason and rationality if there not Jews or Christians? It's because lions, like humans, have EVOLVED to have rational working minds for survival purposes no matter what you religious windbags say!

Hzle
April 28th, 2012
2:04 PM

Hzle
April 28th, 2012
2:04 PM
I agree that Dawkins' tiresome intolerance and blinkered intellectual bullying seem as narrow-minded as the worst religious bigot. So to, the progressive left seem to thrive on social pressure to believe their 'rational' version of events. But I think you've slightly misrepresented or misunderstood Crick. Sometimes his theorising led him in odd directions. Panspermia is simply a theory with no hard evidence to support it. Scientific impatience from Crick, and probably wrong. To claim that this discredits science is weak. Science makes verifiable observations and predictions based on theories. You have to go through many wrong theories to get closer to 'truth' Religion tried to do this, but can't compete. But it gives human life a purpose which science cannot do. So religion & science should not be at odds. They very seldom overlap and disagree.

Colin
April 27th, 2012
12:04 PM
Way to go, Melanie! You should also refer to Vishal Mangalwadi's thesis in an article he wrote recently that much of this has come about due to Christians themselves abandoning the concept of "truth" to the secular folk and embracing only "faith". Whereas, after all, Jesus' clear claim is that He is the truth (and the way and the life) and, as you have shown admirably in your speech, that it is the Biblical worldview that gave rise to reason. So when I read in your speech about Dawkins et al labeling you as "lying for Jesus", I said to myself - go, Melanie, go - keep shouting the truth!

Martin Kelly
April 27th, 2012
10:04 AM
Bryan Tookey summed it up. At best, gods and religions are a speculative hypothesis from thousands of years ago when they were the best guess. In fact, that's being kind because there is no evidence whatsoever for supernatural beings. Not some evidence or a bit of evidence. There is none. Nothing. Not anything. If Melanie wants to follow her Creator argument through, then any god can be put forward for that exalted position. This being so, why doesn't she choose the best, the latest model. Allahu Akbar = Allah is greater (i.e. than other gods, including the Christian and Jewish versions). Allah is far more powerful, not having to share his/her powers with a trinity. And as Islam is apparently an improved variation of Christianity and Mohammed is the last prophet, it's difficult to see why Melanie doesn't become a muslim

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.