About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

17 Replies to “Pat Condell: ‘The threat of secularism’”

  1. I would remind Mr. Condell that secularism and secularists are no more immune to decline, disintegration, and stinking rot than the Christian religion. It is clear secularists have made of secularism both a state religion at odds with Christianity, and a means to social decay and even treason.

    I would suggest Mr. Condell, and others, read Fergus Downie’s piece over at New English Review. Downie’s first paragraph, in part:
    “If one had to identify those cultural trends which have done most to define the political terrain of the 21st century, the descent of the Left into barbarism must rank high on any conceivable list, and the alliances forged in the heat of the anti-war movement provide ample evidence of this intellectual and moral decay. If the left historically stood for anything it was the for the principles secularism, and the universal values of the enlightenment against the religious authoritarianism and blood and soil mysticism of the Reactionary Right. Nothing should have been less likely than the Red-Black alliance which, behind the scenes, has been the prime mover behind the mass protests and the political fronts spawned in their aftermath. Few individuals on the million plus marches organised by the Stop the War coalition, would have been aware the latter was a front movement dominated by the Socialist Workers Party and Islamist party the Muslim Association of Great Britain…”

    Secularism, as Mr Condell defines it, has not survived the onslaught of the last four decades any more than any other institution of the West.

    The entire Fergus Downie piece here:

  2. Condell is usually pretty good but he really has issues with Christianity. Funny though, the left is baiting and lusting for KKK-like evidence of Christian brutality, and, while everyone is subject to human failings, Christians have no corner on evil. While he’s at it he might want to add a little balance by demonizing sports coaches and Boy Scout leaders, since those groups are secular examples of the same kinds of human failings.

    Still waiting to hear of the widespread hatred coming from the Christian pulpits, and, except for a few radicals who have forgotten what Christianity is about (Westboro church, United church), you will be hard pressed to find examples endemic across the Christian spectrum.

    One should also note that secularists only donate to charities at about 10% of the rate of Christians also, since statism among the left and secularist ranks believe that the state can take care of that, removing all virtually all need to even think about charity.

    I wonder what Condell things about the poisons of teaching about seven sexes and gender uncertainty that the public schools are injecting into our children’s minds?

    I could continue this rant. Condell got to me today, and I have a little less respect for his ideas even though he has a few choice one-or-two-liners.

  3. Secularism and the Enlightenment themselves were founded by Christians.

    Separation of church and state was necessary to prevent the state from interfering in
    matters that were not its concern. Latter days secularists think the contrary.

    Secularism, liberalism, marxism etc, just do not have foundational strength to withstand an ideology that believes that it has been granted divine permission to conquer all. In the final analysis, it will be Christians, as in past Islamic invasions of Europe, that will reverse the tide.

  4. Pat defined secularism as the American Bill of rights defined it: to allow anyone to worship their god in peace and not interfere with others, including by the state.

    “Secularism and the Enlightenment themselves were founded by Christians”

    Nonsense. The Christian King of Abyssinia welcomed Muslim refugees from Makkah for Islam to take hold and grow. Blind then and blind now.

    Pat places Jesus teachings back into it proper place.

  5. DP111:

    My understanding of history and of the present (in point form) is as follows. Please correct me where I am in error.

    In the middle ages, the Catholic Church, which was not nearly as rich, powerful or cohesive as everyone fantasizes it was, made a feeble effort to resist Islam’s conquests into formerly Christian territories right up to Jerusalem but much territory had to be retaken before then.

    It was a feeble effort as it required the church to convince nobles to sell their lands and goods, raise small private bands of peasants and at their own expense, join other similar groups with little strategy or planning or training and the only motivation was salvation and not a drunken whore-mongering salvation like Muslims pretend to get.

    As a result, we, the West, lost crusade after crusade only pushing back Islam once Jan Sobieski fought the tards at the Gates of Vienna on 9/11 1683

    Today the church is even weaker making the notion of a Christian bulwark seem even less likely. However if you know of a church with even a few million members bent on preserving the enlightenment and the freedoms it brought please let me know so I can convert and work for them right away.

  6. “Today the church is even weaker making the notion of a Christian bulwark seem even less likely. However if you know of a church with even a few million members bent on preserving the enlightenment and the freedoms it brought please let me know so I can convert and work for them right away.”

    No such church exists anywhere, nor will it.

    Many if not most of you do not believe this and will reject it out of hand, but the foundations for one global religion is in the works every bit as much as the foundations for an all-controlling global government are. One need not even be conspiracy-minded to believe this since it’s an open conspiracy that’s been worked on quietly from the top down for decades.

    Relatively speaking, it will be somewhat easier to accomplish than global governance; once enough members of the major faiths are led by apostatized leaderships to deny their exclusive core doctrines in favor of getting along with their neighbors. They’re already well on their way toward this. So at some point, merging into a universal faith, which I suspect will go by many names, will seem to only make sense to almost everyone.

    Nuts and bolts, I have no idea exactly what confluence of events is coming to materialize this merging – specifically, which faiths will have to lose the most of their present identity in order to be peacefully subsumed into the whole (Islam will draw the short stick, I expect) – but it is coming and it will come.

    Just look up the Assisi conference of ’86 (I believe is when it was) for a foretaste of what it will look like.

  7. “…if you know of a church with even a few million members bent on preserving the enlightenment and the freedoms it brought…”

    “THE COUNCIL OF NICEA was convened in 325 CE[1] (AD) by Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Constantine, a worshipper of the “Sun God,” technically “converted” to Christianity. His reign marked the alliance of church and state. Christians were no longer to be persecuted by the pagans. Instead, Christians[2] would persecute other Christians with a zeal and a vengeance that would shock the pagans. More Christians were slain (by other Christians!) in the first 100 years after Nicea than had been killed by pagans in the previous three centuries.”

    There’ your army. Now join it.

  8. Pat Condell is using a common tactic- secularism means that all religions or no religion have any business in the public arena. That is another way of arguing that all religions, or lack therof are the same or of similiar value. That is relativism. The purpose it would seem is to to justify ousting Christianity from the public arena within the West, Europe in particular.

    Catholism is merely a sect within Christianity- not representative of Christianity as a whole. No more than the scandal of the pedophile priests, abuse and cover up within the Catholic Church is representative of Catholism as a whole. It went against all that Christianity is about and stands for. At the same time, it can hardly be compared to Islam!

    Christianity is fully compatible with secularism and it democratic instutions. It is an intergral part of the Westren style liberal democracies, their institutions and every thing they stand for- from liberty, freedom to human rights. Moreover, Christianity as a religion is a significant component in the culture and cultural identity of Westerners. While Secularism is a vital component in liberal style democracies, alone it will not hold a nation together on the long run.

    Take a look at the founding fathers of the US constitution how they considered Christianity as vital component when drafting the Constitution. See how it has worked in practice and kept the USA- intact as one nation.

  9. “While Secularism is a vital component in liberal style democracies, alone it will not hold a nation together on the long run.”

    Exactly, because they have nothing other than humanism itself (here meant in the most positive sense possible) to hold it together. Which is precisely why hypothetically utopian societies of the godless invariably end up dehumanized, corpse-strewn Hells on earth, far worse than anything any theocracy has ever foisted upon the world.

    Not defending theocracies one whit – I loathe and detest them all – but at least they have the excuse of a god on which to blame their evils.

    Humanists have only themselves to blame.

    Condell is a very intelligent, insightful man so you know he knows this, as history has invariably borne it out. If only he would devote a rant to it…you know, just to be fair. Perhaps in his next video.

  10. Kinder:

    That was 1600 years ago. I was thinking something a bit more contemporary. And your analysis sounds a tad jaded as well.

  11. Unfortunately Condell is the only secularist who opposes the alliance between radical Islam and the radical left. He is a lonely voice claiming that secularism is neutrality by the State with regard to religion. Most secularists, whether the Great Terror of the French Revolution, the anti-clericals of various Mexican civil wars, or Communism were opponents of religion. And those who oppose religion have allied themselves with Islam because such secularists hate Western Civilization, whites, and Christians. Any secularism is implicitly or explicitly anti-American, anti-European, anti-freedom and anti-white.

    Condell is quite lonely in his neutral secularism. Everyone else who is secular is anti-Christian and pro-Islamist. Basically a dhimmi. Nice that Condell is not a dhimmi, but he is the only one.

  12. I think many opponents of religions see that islam is the biggest threat to our infidels freedom at present times. There are also other religons ie, buddhist, hindus or christians who for economic reasons or political reasons allied with islamic people in asia. So, one just have to be careful who we infidels allied to, because some people of other faiths that one allied to may have subtlely allied to islamic people or influenced by islamic people.

  13. The only thing “secular” about what we have today is that “God” has been replaced by Marx. Other than that, its just like religion. It has holy tenants (political correctness, faux equality of race, gender, etc.) and fanatical, unconstrained visions of heaven (the socialist utopia). Just as any other crisis, its driven by ideological beliefs. While today’s progressive socialism claims to be secular, its by no means in the spirit of traditional secularism as laid out in the founding of our republic.

    Today’s “secularists” today have no trouble with the red-green alliance, because they see the muslims as revolutionary brothers in arms. While the ideas may be different, the immediate goals of each are one and the same: overthrow todays society spawned by western civilization and replace it with their own vision of utopia.

  14. The secularism Pat waxes on about exists in the US, where those who believe in a Judeo-Christian creed can live contentedly side-by-side with those who don’t. Oops, that’s right, those who don’t support gay rights, want to dispense abortifacients, or agree to abandon the traditional definition of marriage are bullied, mocked and fired. So much for the ideal. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one, and if you don’t like what’s being taught at government schools, you can homeschool–but you must fork over tax money to pay for both. So much for peaceful coexistence.

  15. GSK:

    Exactly right. Pat surely knows this, which is why he is either a hypocrite who is really ok with bigotry as long as secularists are empowered to be the bigots, or he’s just afraid to say something…which option makes no sense, as outspoken as he is on Muslims who’d gladly cut off his head if given the chance. So until someone can post a video of Pat slamming today’s leftist, secularist totalitarianism (which grows more oppressive whenever and wherever they take office), I’m going to assume he’s really just a hypocrite who is secretly happy with everything just the way it is, minus the annoyance of religious people of any stripe existing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *