The French people soundly rejected a proposed new constitution for the European Union, which would have further integrated the western part of the Eurasian subcontinent (it is rightly noted by geographers that Europe is not a continent in and of itself, and if history had not developed as it had, Europe would never have been classified as a continent, but I digress).
Europe's bloody thousand-year history was to come to an end after the denoument of the Second World War. So far, it has succeeded. But it is hardly time to make any sort of bold statements about peace in Europe with only sixty intervening years. The French rejection of the new EU constitution, and the impending defeat of the same by the Dutch exposes the deep-rooted, centuries old nationalism and cultural differences that have divided Europe throughout the ages. Without doubt, economic concerns are the overriding reason for the rejection, at least outwardly. But the reality is that the economic sovereignty issues are merely the manifestation of uneasiness the French have in signing over their national autonomy to German bureaucrats in Brussels.
When examining the economic problems of the Eurozone, it is important to recognize that the European economies, particularly in Western Europe, are stagnating rather miserably. They are experiencing little, if any economic growth, and massive unemployment. The situation is so wretched in Italy, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility if the Italians withdrew from the Euro altogether in the next few years. The integration of different economies with different fundamental infrastructures has proved to be a more difficult task in reality than it was in theory. With the widespread inequities in GDP, economic institutions, etc. that separate the countries of East and West Europe, there should be no wonder about why countries are weary of further economic and political integration.
For the United States, this development could be extremely positive, particularly in the short term. Leaders across Europe will now have to turn their attention and focus inward to deal with this major setback, and they will have to engage in serious gut-checking in order to determine the best future course of action in Europe. This strengthens the United States' hand in world affairs, and also puts to rest, at least temporarily, further talk of Europe as a "counter-weight" to U.S. global influence. T.R. Reid and the handful of other American Europhiles who released a flurry of books a few months ago declaring the dawn of a new age with Europe at the helm should now be hanging their heads in shame. The superficial success of Europe has now been proven to be just that, and the picture will begin to dim even further in the coming months.
However, there is a distinct danger in the French rejection of the EU treaty this week. As the Turks continue to overwhelm Germany through immigration, and the Algerians France, and various Arab sects the Netherlands, the possibility of a new bloody Europe emerges. With ethnic conflict continuing to rise in the Netherlands and parts of France, and the inevitable rise of radical elements among the indigenous population in response, the Turk will become to the 21st Century German what the Jew was to the early 20th Century German. The dangerous reality for Europe is that the Jew was not a threat in the 20th Century, but the Muslim is. As immigration control policies increase in Europe, so will Islamic violence and terrorism. A fractured European continent enhances the ability of Islamic factions to take control of smaller political units on the continent through strategic immigration.
Europe is in turmoil. Let us see what comes of it.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The Bankruptcy of Secularism
This is really more the title of a book than a blog post, but I hope the reader will indulge my overly-ambitious title for the thoughts in my post today.
I have not posted in almost a month, as life sometimes catches up with us and we get sidetracked. But today's post will make up for it, as this has been one of the chief topics on my mind in the last few weeks.
Life is filled with little observations, little occurrences, mishaps, coincidences, and contradictions. Much of our experiential knowledge of the world is garnered from these blips in our existence, as they seem to be of no consequence at the moment they happen, but later are often instructive if we take the time to reflect. All around me in the last several weeks I have witnessed these small blips in my existence, and in those near me, and I have come to a firm conclusion that not only is Secularism less than ideal, that is, that it is one system among many which is merely inferior, but that it is utterly bankrupt in every regard.
The world cries out in agony today. It occupies itself with distractions, while convincing itself that these distractions are the goals. Distractions have captured the fortress, and we seem not to know how expel them from our midst, since in their capture of the fortress, they have made us worse than servants to their designs, they have made us their prisoners. And though we may violently shake our prison gates, we call out to the night "Oh darkness where is thy deliverance?" Yet the reply is an eerie, deathly silence.
Our jailors do not feed us, and we shriek with hunger pangs. But the night does not feed us either. Our jailors do not give us water, and we groan in the misery of thirst. But the night does not supply us with drink either. When the morning dawns, we think we have a reprieve, and we play merrily with our jailors, who sport smiles during the daylight hours. They give us chocolates and sodas, and we for a time our lot improves.
We think we have no need to call to the Sun for help when he is breaking on the horizon. But as he flees from the clutches of the twilight, our captors' smiles fade and our shackles are put on us again. The temporality of the chocolates and sodas disappears in an instant, and we are suddenly strapped by our lack of sustenance and nutrition. But the night does not respond to our calls.
This is the likeness of America today. We consort with our captors and we call out to the night. Drunkenness, sex, money, drugs, entertainment, popularity have all become our captors. We think they will provide us happiness, and then they do not. But like the burnt fool's bandaged finger from Kipling's great poem, we go wobbling back to the fire. We are the dog returning to his vomit. We know they do not fulfill, yet we return to check again. "It will be different this time," we tell ourselves. But it is never different this time, and while the moment seems pleasurable, the aftermath is disastrous. Our souls mourn over the pain. Then we go back for another round.
Secular Humanism is the manifestation of true Existentialist philosophy. We are here for but a moment, our lives are meaningless, so we must maximize the pleasures and minimize the pains. Instead, we maximize the pains and minimize the pleasures, and lie to ourselves about the state of affairrs. Each moment in the Existentialist life is infused with anxious anticipation for the next moment. For if the next moment is not more pleasurable than this moment, then what will we have gained? And this moment-to-moment living produces despair. We have no hope for future joy, apart from that we obtain on our own (which we never seem to obtain). The reason Existentialism manifests itself as Secular Humanism is that only in the Secular Humanistic conception are we free from all moral constraints, all impediments to our temporal pleasure.
But Secular Humanism is an unstable philosophy. To the question "Where did we come from?" they say "an accident." To the question "Why are we here?" they say "to enjoy ourselves." To the question "What are the rules?" They say "There are none--but there are--but there aren't." And to the question "Where are we going?" they say "to the grave, and nothing more."
The entire system is Secular Humanism was conceived to annihilate moral restraint. But to the question of objective morality, they insist first of all that there is no objective morality, but the nihilism of this response is unpalatable even to the existentialist, for it would instantly justify rape, murder, and genocide. There can be no response to this problem from the humanist. He may attempt a response, but it will not stand up to scrutiny. If there is some objective moral standard, even as simple as "Murder is wrong," then it had to come from some objective moral law-giver. There can be no other way out.
But even if we make an unnecessary concession to the Secular Humanist and say that "there is no morality or immorality, there is only the pleasure of the self wherein it does not infringe upon others' pleasure" (again this is inconsistent with their philosophy, but I must use it to illustrate a point), we are left with an extraordinarily difficult problem. That is, if this life and its enjoyment is all that there is, how absurd is our meager existence? And since life has more pains than pleasures, how can even the physical fulfillments (which do not fulfill at all) make life less absurd, except by way of distraction?
In God, however, the personal creator of all of the universe, we find meaning. As William Lane Craig has said "God infuses every moment of our existence with his eternal meaning." Only through God does life lose its absurdity. More on this in the coming days...
I have not posted in almost a month, as life sometimes catches up with us and we get sidetracked. But today's post will make up for it, as this has been one of the chief topics on my mind in the last few weeks.
Life is filled with little observations, little occurrences, mishaps, coincidences, and contradictions. Much of our experiential knowledge of the world is garnered from these blips in our existence, as they seem to be of no consequence at the moment they happen, but later are often instructive if we take the time to reflect. All around me in the last several weeks I have witnessed these small blips in my existence, and in those near me, and I have come to a firm conclusion that not only is Secularism less than ideal, that is, that it is one system among many which is merely inferior, but that it is utterly bankrupt in every regard.
The world cries out in agony today. It occupies itself with distractions, while convincing itself that these distractions are the goals. Distractions have captured the fortress, and we seem not to know how expel them from our midst, since in their capture of the fortress, they have made us worse than servants to their designs, they have made us their prisoners. And though we may violently shake our prison gates, we call out to the night "Oh darkness where is thy deliverance?" Yet the reply is an eerie, deathly silence.
Our jailors do not feed us, and we shriek with hunger pangs. But the night does not feed us either. Our jailors do not give us water, and we groan in the misery of thirst. But the night does not supply us with drink either. When the morning dawns, we think we have a reprieve, and we play merrily with our jailors, who sport smiles during the daylight hours. They give us chocolates and sodas, and we for a time our lot improves.
We think we have no need to call to the Sun for help when he is breaking on the horizon. But as he flees from the clutches of the twilight, our captors' smiles fade and our shackles are put on us again. The temporality of the chocolates and sodas disappears in an instant, and we are suddenly strapped by our lack of sustenance and nutrition. But the night does not respond to our calls.
This is the likeness of America today. We consort with our captors and we call out to the night. Drunkenness, sex, money, drugs, entertainment, popularity have all become our captors. We think they will provide us happiness, and then they do not. But like the burnt fool's bandaged finger from Kipling's great poem, we go wobbling back to the fire. We are the dog returning to his vomit. We know they do not fulfill, yet we return to check again. "It will be different this time," we tell ourselves. But it is never different this time, and while the moment seems pleasurable, the aftermath is disastrous. Our souls mourn over the pain. Then we go back for another round.
Secular Humanism is the manifestation of true Existentialist philosophy. We are here for but a moment, our lives are meaningless, so we must maximize the pleasures and minimize the pains. Instead, we maximize the pains and minimize the pleasures, and lie to ourselves about the state of affairrs. Each moment in the Existentialist life is infused with anxious anticipation for the next moment. For if the next moment is not more pleasurable than this moment, then what will we have gained? And this moment-to-moment living produces despair. We have no hope for future joy, apart from that we obtain on our own (which we never seem to obtain). The reason Existentialism manifests itself as Secular Humanism is that only in the Secular Humanistic conception are we free from all moral constraints, all impediments to our temporal pleasure.
But Secular Humanism is an unstable philosophy. To the question "Where did we come from?" they say "an accident." To the question "Why are we here?" they say "to enjoy ourselves." To the question "What are the rules?" They say "There are none--but there are--but there aren't." And to the question "Where are we going?" they say "to the grave, and nothing more."
The entire system is Secular Humanism was conceived to annihilate moral restraint. But to the question of objective morality, they insist first of all that there is no objective morality, but the nihilism of this response is unpalatable even to the existentialist, for it would instantly justify rape, murder, and genocide. There can be no response to this problem from the humanist. He may attempt a response, but it will not stand up to scrutiny. If there is some objective moral standard, even as simple as "Murder is wrong," then it had to come from some objective moral law-giver. There can be no other way out.
But even if we make an unnecessary concession to the Secular Humanist and say that "there is no morality or immorality, there is only the pleasure of the self wherein it does not infringe upon others' pleasure" (again this is inconsistent with their philosophy, but I must use it to illustrate a point), we are left with an extraordinarily difficult problem. That is, if this life and its enjoyment is all that there is, how absurd is our meager existence? And since life has more pains than pleasures, how can even the physical fulfillments (which do not fulfill at all) make life less absurd, except by way of distraction?
In God, however, the personal creator of all of the universe, we find meaning. As William Lane Craig has said "God infuses every moment of our existence with his eternal meaning." Only through God does life lose its absurdity. More on this in the coming days...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
