In the earliest decades of the 20th Century, there were anti-clerical movements in France, Portugal, Mexico, and anti-clericalism was …involved in? Implicated in? the Spanish Civil War (but then, what wasn’t?). I really didn’t know about the French phenomenon, involving Emile Combes, until now, because I’m reading Houllebecq’s novel “Submission”.
Why didn’t I read it in 2015? I just kinda took it as read, and I tried his later novel “Seratonin” and couldn’t get into it. But if you haven’t read “Submission”, I recommend it. (And I know I’d have read it immediately if I’d known J-K Huysmans figures in it—I 
” À Rebours”)
As you probably know, “Submission” is about how Islam comes to power in France. It came out the same time a the Charlie Hébdo massacre.
So how does it come to power, in Houllebecq’s then-imaginary, now prophetic, scenario?
Alors: not by terroristic violence, but by embracing and emphasizing the, uh, “values” and tenets it has in common with Christianity, or at least, those we associate with what we oxymoronically call “Judaeo-Christianity”: daily pieties, religious education, the traditional balance of power within families, indoctrination of children- maybe, actually, these are common to pretty much ALL religions in their senescence.
Did early 20th century anti-clericalism provide a bracing reset to our civilization, or at least postpone the demise of liberty?
I don’t mean would Islam have taken over; that would’ve had to wait in any event until the theocratic Islamic states were enriched by oil.
I mean would we have seen a Christian religious hegemony ,or a sort of multi-culti “spiritualism” which none dare deny? Thats kinda what we’re previewing now, as evidenced by King Charles changing one of his traditional honorifics from “Defender of The Faith” to “Defender of Faith”. (Pick one.)
A few years I re-read “The Power and the Glory”, and was duly ravaged, but:
Do we, now, have too much religion, or, not enough religion but too much bland “religiosity”?
And would a new rash of 21st century anti-clericalism, 100 years on, this time including the imams, return us to a secular baseline again? Reinvigorate our desire for freedom, our resistance to submission?
Submission to islam comes slowly and at a price, but one that isn’t clearly seen and appreciated until (usually) it’s too late or almost too late. The Crusades are a great example. The islamic hordes of Muslimani stormed down from the dessert and slowly but surely cleared out Christianity where ever they went. They didn’t necessarily kill all the Christians; instead they made them into the dhimmi - and almost slave-like condition. Sections of the population that were ambitious and wanted to rise, usually then crossed over to islam so they would reap the benefits. The Crusades, then, were a late reaction of Europe to the existential threat of islam. It had been there for a long time, but no one either noticed or cared.
We have a very similar reaction today to islam and its inherent evil. We were brought up in the tradition of the 1st amendment, so muslims had the same right to practice their “religion” as we Christians did. But in truth the Founders were rather ignorant of islam and its evil, Their view was more aimed at allowing the practice of any Christian faith, not restricting islam - or allowing it. If they were alive today, they would most likely be aghast at the inherent danger of islam to their faiths - and would take a strong stand against it, trying to insure it didn’t trash their nation.
Anti-clerics are, in my mind, more a function of overly. educated men afraid of the challenge to their feeling of being god than any serious dislike of the idea of faith.
I’ve often seen quoted some letter George Washington wrote, I reckon in connection with the Barbary pirates, where he said “America has no quarrel with the Musslman”.
Yeah, but that was just a preface; the rest of the letter was sump’n like: BUT, if you don’t stop harassing our ships we’re gonna obliterate you.
In fact weren’t the Barbary pirates one of the main reasons we got the Constitution done, so we could raise a Navy, and protect our vessels from having to pay them? “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!”
As for “our founders”— I write an article about this, called “Who’s Your Daddy?” The Jamestown guys, whom I like to call our Founding Bachelor Uncles, probably didn’t care what religion anybody was so long as the man was English. The Puritans, though, came here not for religious freedom, but for religious hegemony. That’s what the Mayflower Compact was all about.
Then, the Deists who wrote all of our founding documents (all of whom were born here, BTW, none o’ this “immigrant” crap) well, a lot of them were Freemasons, so they were probably OK with Islam in principle, at least it is a monotheistic creed. But I doubt they foresaw that it would ever get any closer to our shores than the Barbary pirates did. And we never shoulda let it.
I haven’t thought about jury nullification very much, until your comment. I note there was a case which said it’s not illegal to promote the idea, so long as you stay a certain distance from a courthouse and you don’t claim to be attempting to influence a particular jury in a particular case.
But I recall from law school: the law—especially laws criminalizing conduct— should be “writ so that he may read it who runs”. Meaning a citizen should be able to be certain, at a glance, whether his contemplated conduct is illegal or not.
It’s a pleasant idea that juries with abolitionist beliefs refused to convict people accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act, sure. But,if juries can say the law in a particular case is too harsh, why can’t they also say the law is too lenient, and convict someone who did NOT violate the letter of the law? Thats close to what happened in the NY cases against Trump, of course with the judges’ enthusiastic aid.
Welp—it’s a safety valve, I reckon. Glad it’s there, but it’s only for emergencies.
Whatever role there is for anti - clericalism, it ought to be applied equally to every so-called religion. I use “so-called” because Islam is fundamentally different from the other two Abrahamic religions. It regularly amazes me that this difference is glossed over. Of course, I’m talking about the stark fact that Islam is a complete, total, political system demanding submission. Political submission (and supremacy, which is shockingly un-remarked by those who find it everywhere in every nook and cranny of the US political system) is also required under Islam. To be anti clerical is to call for separation of one’s head from one’s body.
Why is it that the totalitarianism explicit and fundamental to Islam is simply ignored in all comparisons between Abrahamic religions? The incompatibility between societies organized along its line with Constitutional self-governance with separation of church and state - is self-evident and rarely, if ever, mentioned.
Judaism famously does not proselytize; if you are born a Jew, you are among the Chosen. If not, you’re gonna have to jump through a lot of hoops to convert.
The narrative in the gospels is that Christ came ONLY for the Jews, too. “It is not meet to take the children’s food, and give it to the dogs!” he snapped at the Spyro-Phoenician woman, whose witty retort got her the healing she wanted.
But then , as the prophecies say, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” So the ministry was expanded to the Gentiles. And okay, today we believe in “tolerance”, and in separation of church and state, but it is still the mission of the Christian churches, ALL of ‘em as far as I know, to bring the entire globe to Jesus. “Jesus shall reign where’er the sun/Doth his eternal journey run!” Christians are supposed to try to convert everybody. And in the first centuries they did it militarily.
Islam is still, in far too many quarters, stuck in the “The Koran or the sword!” stage. But you, @civilwestman, of all people! should read Michel Houllebecq’s “Submission”. (it’s really short, I promise; an afternoon’s read.) Muslim conquest now is probably gonna be more like “The Koran or civil non-personhood!”
I tried it back when it came out, but put it aside, couldn’t get into it. I still have it & will try again. I am still aghast that those who can’t abide “supremacy”, misogyny, homophobia, ‘dishonor’ etc. never get around to criticism of Islamic dogma and legal actions - including killings - over these issues. Methinks the reason for the remarkable silence is simply cowardice.
Yes, evangelism is a significant part of Christianity, but today (and for some time in the West) voluntary conversion is sought, not ‘or else’ conversion. I imagine we are in agreement here.
It’s very French…I felt the same way about the first few pages, had trouble getting into it, where the narrator is examining his ennui in excruciating detail With contemporary French authors there’s always a kinda frowst, like the author is wallowing in a bed where the sheets are never changed. (In fact authors like Colette and Gênet actually write about that! ). Then when he gets to describing his now-prophetic political scenario, the bored, detached tone doesn’t change. He’s no Kurt Schlichter. But really the sequence of events he describes seems entirely plausible to me.
I have long held that islam is an ideology with religious overtones. Much like communism, the “believers” get swept up in all the rigmarole, but in the end, it’s a proscribed way of living, complete with submission of women, those not muslim, those of the “other” islamic belief (Shia vs Sunni). There is an excuse for every human excess, every base human instinct, including child molestation. Indeed, there is a whole koran section on how to “divorce” a child bride, including over and under age 13 and whether or not you have consummated the marriage (of the under 13 y/o!).
There is a book called something like “Conflict Around the World”. It comes out with a new, revised edition about every 5 or so years. I once bought the. new editions while i was in the service, to keep up with the wars around the world. At any given moment there are usually something like 150 wars going on around the world. Conservatively at least 2/3 are muslims against someone - whether it be other muslims, or simply other cultures. That was a phenomenal fact when I first started reading bout them, but I got “inoculated “, and it became SOS - different day and place.