According to First Amendment jurisprudence, the state must be neutral as to different religions. That is what passes for procedural fairness, democracy, and egalitarianism. The way to hell is paved with procedural fairness, democracy, and egalitarianism. Fighting the Christmas Wars, Bill O’Reilly recently unwittingly gave the devil’s own defense of Christmas.
This is what happens when one confuses means with ends, and principles with presuppositions.
Procedural fairness, democracy, and egalitarianism are not worthy principles; indeed, proceduralism is not a principle at all; America was founded as a republic, not a democracy; and egalitarianism is at best, a judicial practice that at best prevents the legal system from degenerating into a tyrannical caste system. As it is widely understood today, as both political principle and empirical reality, egalitarianism is variously a form of deception and of mass delusion. Thoughtful political observers have often recognized in democracy the rule of the mob. It is the Bill of Rights, which protects the citizen from the predations of the state, that is pre-eminent in our system, when it works; not democracy, which is the state’s instrument for preying on citizens. And Thomas Jefferson’s rhetorical hubris notwithstanding, in early America, egalitarianism meant procedural fairness and the refusal to recognize dynastic rights. (Sorry, Caroline, but as a great American once said, “Life is unfair.”) Unfortunately, although there has never been more talk of “equality,” its two positive senses have all but been lost.
America was founded as a Christian, English nation. Her Christianity is uniquely American, whence her tolerance springs; thus, Christianity may not be treated as no better than, say, Islam.
The rule of law is in America based on at least three pillars: The tradition of the Rights of Englishmen, Christianity, and cultural coherence. Remove any one pillar, and the other two become, at the very least, shaky. You lose trust, and with it, the rule of law.
The Supreme Court has, over time, removed all three.
One could argue for religious neutrality at the dawn of 19th or even of 20th century America. In 1800, religious neutrality would have meant neutrality as between Baptists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, etc. In 1900, it would have meant neutrality as between Protestants and Catholics. (What about the Jews? The Jews were tolerated under the Washingtonian dispensation.) But there cannot possibly be religious neutrality as between Christianity and
other religions.
When you permit, nay, encourage, millions of foreign hostiles who have contempt for the Rights of Englishmen, cultural coherence, and American (and in the case of Moslems, any kind of) Christianity; Christmas, Christianity, the rule of law, and thus, America become the hostages of political fashion and of the state. The history of hostages is not a sunny one.
There are very good demographic reasons why the rule of law, religious tolerance, and trust are so rare among the peoples of the world. Genetically and culturally speaking, most peoples simply do not have “the right stuff,” and do not even recognize it as such.
It is commonly said that demography is destiny, but what is unfortunately not said is what makes demography what it is, that a free people chooses its own demography, and that making mischief with demography is the devil’s own playground.
“Mercer sets O’Reilly Straight on the War against Christmas,” by Peter Brimelow.
“O'Reilly won the battle – but lost the debate,” by Ilana Mercer.
Please generously support VDARE.
VDARE is sponsored by the VDARE Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity; your contributions are tax-deductible.
Thank you for your support.
No comments:
Post a Comment