[Hank Kerchief]

This is not a defence of Christianity, in the doctrinal sense, but of the spirit of Christianity and its contribution to Western Civilization against the securalism that is destroying both European and American society.

[GOP Poet]

Can't wait to read bookmark

[American Quilter]

Thanks for mentioning Theodore Dalrymple's book. I hadn't heard about it, but I'm certainly going to buy it.

[aynrandfreak]

Great post, thanks!

[GOPJ]

Every kind of outrage is "tolerated" as diversity, unless it exhibits exceptional intelligence, decency, or strength of character.

[HungarianGypsy]

Does anyone know what H.G. Wells's religious affiliation was? In his History of the World he says of the main religions he thought Jesus' teachings were the most relevant.

[GOPJ]

Every kind of outrage is "tolerated" as diversity, unless it exhibits exceptional intelligence, decency, or strength of character.

Interesting - ping

[apackof2]

BTW Lee Strobel an award-winning reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist wrote a book called "The Case for Christ" that many would find interesting:

Synopsis;

If you were a journalist, how would you handle a news story so big it would utterly eclipse all other world events? How thorough would your investigation be? How many hard-hitting questions would you ask? How carefully would you consult with top experts to get detailed, accurate answers?

Lee Strobel knows firsthand. It was as an award-winning reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist that he first investigated the greatest news story of all -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, in The Case for Christ, he presents compelling evidence and expert testimony for the claims of Christianity. As a seasoned journalist with a Yale law background, Strobel systematically tracks down his leads and asks the blunt, tough questions you would want to ask -- questions that can make or break the Christian faith. He refuses contrived, simplistic answers. Instead, he pieces together hard facts through interviews with a dozen of the country's top scholars.

Written in the style of a blockbuster investigative report, The Case for Christ is a provocative and spellbinding read, marshaling expert testimony and persuasive evidence.

With unerring instincts, Strobel ferrets out:

Historical evidence: Do we possess reliable documents concerning the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus? Scientific Evidence: Is there archaeological substantiation for the historical accounts about Jesus? Did Jesus perform miracles?

Psychiatric Evidence: Did Jesus really claim to be God? What evidence is there that he fits God's profile?

Fingerprint Evidence: What does prophecy have to say about Jesus? Other Evidence: Jesus' death, the missing body, eyewitness accounts, and claims of personal encounters.

The Case for Christ reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But, it's not fiction. It's a riveting journey to the truth about the most remarkable event in history: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And it's a revealing, personal testimony to his power to transform people yet today -- even the most case-hardened, cynical journalist.

[kipita]

Great post and read. It's a shame it's put in the religion section because it is the most important issue facing western society. I've been living in Europe for 3 years and I agree 100% with what's said. Religion is dead in Europe and will not probably not return. The European governmental bodies should respect the fact that the success of the west has been via the Greeks, Romans, Protestants, US.........

[American Quilter]

I can't find any listing for "Suicide of the West" by Theodore Dalrymple on amazon.com. However, there is a recent book (June 2006) with that title written by Richard Koch and Chris Smith. Dalrymple's most recent book (unless he wrote two simultaneously) appears to be "Romancing Opiates", published in April 2006.

Am I missing something?

[Socratic]

When nothing is sacred, when nothing is revered, when there is no absolute truth, there is nothing to live for beyond the moment, nothing to inspire one to do or be more than they can get away with, nothing to believe in beyond what one sees and feels, "right now," and what they see is bewildering and what they feel is fear.

This helps to explain Liberalism.

[Valpal1]

Those who call themselves Objectivists or individualists wonder why people are so resistant their philosophy of objective reason. Most men are not philosophers, but they know the kind of men a right philosophy would produce—men of character, decency, and integrity—that's the kind of philosophy they want. They look around and see the kinds of things men stand for, or stand against, the kind of language they use, the entertainment they enjoy, and how they live their lives, and after they look, they can see no difference between those who call themselves Objectivists, individualists, or libertarians and the rest of corrupt society. Then they look at Christians and find in them all the attributes of character and moral rectitude they expect to find in those whose philosophy is the correct one—and the Christians win.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Every self proclaimed rationalist or objectivist I every met was a selfish bum that used his "philosophy" to justify his exploitation of those around him.

[GOPJ]

While multiculturalism promotes something called, "diversity," it despises anyone who is truly different, that is, exceptional. Every kind of outrage is "tolerated" as diversity, unless it exhibits exceptional intelligence, decency, or strength of character.

Religious tolerance, for example, is extended to all religions, and the more backward, oppressive, cruel, and savage it is (e.g. Islam) the more it is tolerated. There is one religion that is not tolerated, however, and that is Christianity. This fact is becoming more apparent every day.

Ping.

[Just another Joe]

Bookmark for a later, in fepth, review.

With only a brief read I think I could agree with most of his main points but further reading into the explanations of those points is needed before I can give any decent review of the article.

[ModelBreaker]

A well written and interesting article. I predict the author will eventually come to the Lord. I have been where he is at in my life.

The author understands that reality is the final arbiter of the rightness of one's decisions and actions. But the author does not yet see that a personal, loving God who came and died on the Cross for us is the creator of our reality. We don't get to choose that reality. We can only recognize and accept it. Our life has to be molded by that, not by philosophical grasping-at-straws to find objective truth and morality thru reason.

The Jews got this early-on. The fundamental tension of early Genesis is between obedience to God and eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I have always understood that to mean that, on the ultimate questions that religion and philosophy address, it is God who sets the rules (who establishes reality), we do not make them up on our own and should not attempt to. As Genesis describes in IMHO, allegory (but TRUE allegory), down that path of "knowledge of good and evil" lies insanity and death. We see this process being acted out all over America and Europe today.

The author bemoans that Objectivists do not model the philosophy they espouse. But that is inevitible, given the author's notion that reality is the final arbiter. He assumes that reality will punish what he intuitively knows to be wrong behavior. But it doesn't--hence the eloquence of many of the Psalms and Job. Were he consistent with his philosophy, he would do whatever he liked as long as his odds of getting away with it were good--strictly reality driven. But he's not doing that because of his intuition that there is good and evil, regardless of consequences. As CS Lewis points out, that intuition is universal and it comes from Someone.

[Taggart_D]

ping for later reading...

the spirit of Christianity....that's the Holy Spirit

[1000 silverlings]

People like Hitchens hate God, pure and simple. It is fallen man's arrogance and pride in him that is responsible. So he wants to replace the Bible as a moral guideline with "literature"? God forbid.

Just think, what is one of America's most popular books of modern times? How about American Psycho?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Ellis2.html

[dyed_in_the_wool]

You might dig this.

[VOA]

bump

[Bellflower]

Ping for later. Took a quick browse but plan to read it carefully later.

[Tench_Coxe]

""From a report on a television discussion in Denver, Colorado, I gather that one member of this movement has made its goal and meaning a little clearer. 'God,' he said, 'is a process of creative social intercourse.'

"This, I submit, is obscene. I, who am an atheist, am shocked by so brazen an attempt to rob religion of whatever dignity and philosophical intention it might once have possessed. I am shocked by so cynically enormous a degree of contempt for the intelligence and the sensibility of people, specifically of those intended to be taken in by the switch.

"Now, if men give up all abstract speculation and turn to the immediate conditions of their existence—to the realm of politics—what values or moral inspiration will they find?""

"The highly influential 19th century American theologian and evangelist, Charles Finney expressed the common Christian view, "God has given us minds and expects us to use them.""

These two items underscore the entire article.
There is no passage in the Bible which states, "set aside your reason, for only that way may you enter the kingdom". God did not create automatons.

Where the article does lead is that while not admitting it, those who would tear down man's aspiration to something better, and man's inherent dignity, have, in essence, abandoned reason. While it might be argued that those epitomized in the character of Ellsworth Toohey are using reason while destroying it in others, I would argue that those like Toohey are excercising a form of reason at a very base level--which, in the end, has very little differentiation from the sort of reasoning a bear or raccoon uses to snatch food out of a covered garbage can.

Good article.