Translate

martes, 14 de noviembre de 2017

Rod Dreher talks the future of faith, identity politics and the crisis of the West.


WHITHER CHRISTIANITY?



"Already the most discussed and most important religious book of the decade." That was how the New York Times described Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. And one can see why. Dreher, a prolific columnist and a senior editor and blogger at the American Conservative, has taken philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s contention in After Virtue (1981) – that modernity has impoverished spiritual life, shattering the Classical-Christian source of authority-sustaining morality – and run with it. He poses a critique of secular capitalism, the hypocrisy of liberals and self-obsessed identity politics, while also recognising the perilous situation in which Christianity now finds itself. The result is a work as deeply felt as it is moral.

To pursue some of the issues raised by The Benedict Option, from the decline of faith to the dangers of our emotivist, therapeutic culture, the spiked review’s Sean Collins decided to speak to Dreher. 

Here’s what he had to say:

Sean Collins: Is it an exaggeration to say that Christianity is dying in the West?

Rod Dreher: A slight one. Now, the West is a broad term. When I use it, I usually mean the Anglosphere and Western Europe. And I don’t think that Christianity will ever be completely extinguished in the West, but I do think that we are going to see a tremendous diminishment of it over the course of this century, just like what has happened in Europe. I think, strictly speaking, it won’t mean Christianity will be dead in the West, because there will always be signs of it somewhere, but in terms of it being a factor in public life, and in the way that Americans, and Westerners more broadly, think about themselves, yes, it will be just a shadow of its former self.

I do speak in alarmist tones in this book, not only because I am generally alarmed, and I think other people should be, but it’s also because, to quote Flannery O’Connor, when you are trying to speak to a world that is deaf, you have to shout. There are so many Christians in America who don’t see how fragile things are for us. Christians in Europe don’t have this problem, by the way. When I talk to them, they’ve been living with the collapse of the faith within their societies for generations now. They get it straight up. Americans have been very, very comfortable for a long time. In The Benedict Option, I’m trying to raise the alarm, and show them how the apparent strength of Christianity in America – strength in numbers, and strength of influence in society – is really a façade, and if we don’t make some really strong changes now, it’s not going to survive in a meaningful sense.

Collins: What would you say are the key forces that have led to the crisis of Christianity in the US?

Dreher: The key forces are, first, economic. We live in an economy that requires and mandates mobility. It is very hard for people even to think about staying in one place and putting down roots. This is what the Benedictines call stability. Stability, economically, is a hindrance to you getting ahead in our society.

There is also the matter of individualism, which is a broad category, but it’s in the air we breathe in America. This is the idea that we can only live in truth, so to speak, when we are true to ourselves and our own desires. This is something that none of us can escape in modernity.
The strength of Christianity in America – strength in numbers, and strength of influence in society – is really a facade, and if we don’t make some really strong changes now, it’s not going to survive in a meaningful sense
The sexual revolution is a tremendous factor here, too. Not just because the whole idea of Christian anthropology doesn’t make sense outside of the Christian tradition, and the disciplining of one’s sexual desires. But also because the sexual revolution teaches us that sexual desire is a central component of personal identity. It’s not just what you do, but who you are. We build practices and institutions around that. And I’m not just simply talking about same-sex marriage. The sexual revolution brought no-fault divorce and we’re seeing the fragmenting of families, especially among the poor and the working class.

This is going to have tremendous effects – not only economically and socially, but also in terms of passing on the faith. Mary Eberstadt, in her book How the West Really Lost God (2013), presents evidence that faith is passed across generations by intact families, by the way the faith is lived out within the family. It’s not simply a matter of stating a bunch of propositions, and getting the children to agree with those propositions. It’s much more organic than that. And so if you don’t have intact families where the faith is lived out in a real way, it’s going to be much less likely that the faith will be handed down to the next generation, and the generation after that.

So in that sense the sexual revolution is attacking the stability, credibility and feasibility of Christianity in ways that are only dimly perceived by many Christians. And even conservative Christians, who may affirm Christian sexual morality in a strict sense (no sex outside of marriage and all that), are missing the bigger picture here, of what the breakup of family means, and is going to mean, for the endurance of Christianity in American society.

Collins: In your book you lean on Philip Rieff and his 1966 book The Triumph of the Therapeutic. Rieff argued that religion was being replaced with a gospel of self-fulfillment. What impact specifically do you think the growth of this therapeutic culture has had on Christianity?

Dreher: It’s been absolutely devastating. Christian Smith of Notre Dame has written about how there is religious illiteracy in American culture, across denominations, and even across religions. It’s devastating because young people and people in general – look, I’m 50 years old and I was raised this way, too – don’t associate following a religion with living up to a certain set of standards outside of ourselves. I mean, called outside of ourselves to be sacrificial – not only sacrificial of our own desires, but in terms of our income and our time. To live up to a reality that’s outside of ourselves. So if religion no longer calls on us to make sacrifices for the greater good, to serve God, and to love our neighbour, then religion collapses into something that makes us happy. We come to believe that God wants us to be happy and feel good about ourselves, and that’s the greatest good. I do think God wants us to be happy and feel good about ourselves, but that only comes through holiness, when we are doing what God asks us to do. And that usually means some form of sacrifice.



Colloque des Catholiques en Action, le samedi 18 novembre à Paris

Chers amis,

De nouveaux intervenants seront présents au colloque des Catholiques en Action le samedi 18 novembre à Paris, qu'attendez-vous pour venir les écouter et les rencontrer ?
 
Parmi eux, Christophe Billan, ancien Président de Sens Commun et Charles Huet, consultant expert du "Made in France". 
 





Retrouvez Ichtus sur : 
Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter

viernes, 10 de noviembre de 2017

Reflecting on 100 Years of Communism

November 9, 2017

Reflecting on 100 Years of Communism

Share this story on FacebookTwitter, and Tumblr...
On November 7th, 1917, armed Bolsheviks seized the Winter Palace in Petrograd, marking the birth of modern communism. 
The Soviet Union was the greatest killing machine in history, slaughtering some 62 million people. During the worst of Stalin’s purges, the secret police set quotas. Chinese communists killed about 35 million people. Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge wiped out an estimated 2 million. Both the Vietnamese and North Korean regimes murdered about 1.7 million. Poland killed 1.6 millionthrough extensive ethnic cleansing after World War II. At the same time (and in much the same way), Yugoslavia slaughtered some 1.1 million. Lesser communist tyrannies also dotted Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. In some of these slaughterhouses the dead numbered only in the hundreds of thousands and even tens of thousands — indicating unusually mushy communism.

On the 100th birthday of modern communism, the verdict’s clear: No matter where it’s tried, communism has always resulted in shortages, inefficiency, poverty —and death.

Communism is dead. But a kind of zombie Communism still exists


After Communism, in the shadow of materialism
And not just in Russia
by Peter Kopa


............



Communism is dead. But a kind of zombie Communism still exists, promoting a sickly, critical attitude towards everything that was once regarded as true, noble and holy. It survives as a kind of black cloud of hostility toward God and truth which hovers over contemporary culture. And it is very difficult to dispel it because it does not operate logically, but through feelings and prejudice. It is utterly unselfcritical. Old-fashioned Marxism, evil as it was, at least laid its cards on the table and was open to criticism.
............


The end of Marxism

What subjective rationalism ignores is the fact that man is a spiritual being who aspires to a kind of happiness which material things alone cannot give. This is inscribed on his very nature, just as his conviction that God exists and that there is a law of God. This explains why Marxism has always failed, even at its very birth in Russia, because it always has had to be imposed by brute force.

And the situation is no different today. Most people spurn radical materialism, so it has to to be imposed upon them by powerful elites. Even in rich countries, then, the population is in danger of being brainwashed by music, literature, fashion and fashionable ways of thinking.

Those of us who are forced to endure this attempt to obliterate the spiritual dimension of man are the silent majority. But we are looking for leaders who will free us from this servitude to materialism and assert our rights on a political level. Where are we going to find them?

Peter Kopa is a Czech political analyst. He lives in Prague.


Read more: www.mercatornet.com

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology


by Daniel J. Mahoney - Author, Assumption College

Emitido en directo el 3 oct. 2017

https://youtu.be/7UfpBBhUi8Q


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfpBBhUi8Q

lunes, 6 de noviembre de 2017

Half of millennials said they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism


Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem.


by Jarrett Stepman


The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, but it didn’t end the ongoing battle of ideas between liberty and collectivism.

A recently released survey by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation revealed some disturbing facts about what millennials think of communism and socialism.

Some of the results are a little disturbing and could have big implications for the future of our country.

For instance, the poll found that about half of millennials said they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism.

The poll also found that nearly 1 in 5 millennials think Josef Stalin was a “hero.”

“Millennials now make up the largest generation in America, and we’re seeing some deeply worrisome trends,” said Marion Smith, executive director for the Victims of Communism, according to MarketWatch. “Millennials are increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

The findings of this study should be a wake-up call to those who think that communism is no longer a threat to the United States and the West. Young people, who had little personal experience with the half-century battle between Soviet tyranny and American freedom.

It is a sad indictment on a generation that grew up with more prosperity than any in human history would turn on the system that brought them there. Alas, socialism appears to be the opiate of prosperous utopians.

Perhaps in the decades of unchallenged international supremacy, Americans let their guards down to real threats to our way of life. We were lulled into a false sense of security about our future and have now fallen into the trap of bringing back dangerous doctrines that we have had the good fortune to escape.

Yet, apologies and even wistful nostalgia for the high tide of communist revolution are being peddled in the pages of mainstream liberal outlets like The New York Times.

The Times has shockingly featured a section called “Red Century,” which is all about the 100-year anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and its aftermath.

While the section has editorials about the evils of communism, it also features numerous pieces that actually celebrate or make excuses for it.

It has run a puff piece on Vladimir Lenin being an environmentalist, praised thesex life of women behind the Iron Curtain, and published flattering profiles of Communist Party organizers, among numerous other absurdities.

While it’s certainly reasonable to have a discussion of communism’s legacy, it’s jarring to see so many favorable columns devoted to the primary geopolitical existential threat to the United States in the 20th century.

As John O’Sullivan noted in National Review, the whole tenor of the section treats communism like “a noble experiment conducted in less than ideal conditions.”

One has to ask: Would the Times have had a similar section with glowing pieces about fascism at 100 years?

Of course not, and for good reason.

But this is part of a larger cultural normalization of a destructive creed that lay dormant but was never entirely extinguished in the last few decades.

And now its back in vogue.

It’s no wonder that so many millennials have a fanciful view of the ideology that took more lives than any other creed in human history, that destroyed civilizations, and nearly plunged the world into darkness.

This is a dire warning that we need to do a better job of educating young Americans about history and the blessings of liberty that have imperfectly, but ultimately, flourished in this country. Perhaps we need to see school choice and the revitalization of our education system as a higher priority.

As historian Sean McMeekin wrote in his book, “The Russian Revolution,” after communism’s “century of well-catalogued disasters … no one should have the excuse of ignorance.”

“Today’s Western socialists, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for,” McMeekin wrote. “They may just get it.”



Problematic sex reassignment surgery


The Ugly Truth About Sex Reassignment the Transgender Lobby Doesn’t Want You to Know

Bruce Ashford

Sex reassignment is as natural as being born, some in the media tell us. And many Americans are buying it.

But a growing chorus of dissenters made up of physicians, researchers, and even transgender individuals is beginning to paint a far different picture of the truth.

These dissenters are now coming forward to expose just how harmful gender transition and reassignment are—both medically and sociologically speaking.

First, consider recent revelations about how problematic sex reassignment surgery is as a therapy for gender dysphoria.

In an interview with The Telegraph, world-renowned genital reconstructive surgeon Miroslav Djordjevic said his clinics are experiencing an increase in “reversal” surgeries for those who want their genitalia back. These people express crippling levels of depression and, in some instances, suicidal thoughts.

In male-to-female reassignment surgery, doctors such as Djordjevic transform the man’s genitals into the shape of a vagina, removing the testicles and inverting the penis.

In female-to-male reassignment surgery, doctors remove the woman’s breasts, uterus, and ovaries, and extend the urethra so that the woman-turned-man can urinate from the standing position.

A recent Newsweek article takes note of Djordjevic’s concerns, illustrating their legitimacy by pointing to the case of Charles Kane, a man who underwent male-to-female reassignment surgery.

In a BBC interview, Kane explains that he decided to have the initial surgery immediately after having a nervous breakdown. But after having the surgery and identifying as a female named “Sam Hashimi,” Kane soon regretted the decision and went for reversal surgery.

“When I was in the psychiatric hospital,” Kane said, “there was a man on one side of me who thought he was King George and another guy on the other side who thought he was Jesus Christ. I decided I was [a girl named] Sam.”

Similarly, Claudia MacLean, a transgender woman, is quoted as saying her psychiatrist referred her to a sex reassignment surgeon after having only a 45-minute consultation. “In my opinion,” MacLean said, “what happened to me was all about money.”

Given that clinics charge up to $50,000 for reassignment surgeries, Djordjevic says he fears that doctors are stuffing their bank accounts without concern for the physical and psychological well-being of their patients.

Physical and psychological well-being should be a concern, given that 41 percent of transgender people will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, and people who have had sex reassignment surgery are approximately 20 times more likely than the general population to die by suicide.

In addition to the problems inherent to sex reassignment surgery, we should recognize the troublesome nature of giving hormonal “treatments” to gender dysphoric children to delay puberty.

In a recent paper, “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria,” endocrinologist Paul Hruz, biostatistician Lawrence Mayer, and psychiatrist Paul McHugh challenge this practice.

They note that approximately 80 percent of gender dysphoric children grow comfortable in their bodies and no longer experience dysphoria, and conclude that there is “little evidence that puberty suppression is reversible, safe, or effective for treating gender dysphoria.”

Thus, scientific evidence suggests that hormone-induced puberty suppression is harmful and even abusive.

Finally, gender transitions are problematic for society at large, as revealed in recent debates about restroom usage, military realities, housing policies, andsporting events.

What is often overlooked in these debates is the troublesome and even dangerous situation created when transgendered “females” compete in female athletic competitions.

Consider the 2014 women’s mixed martial arts bout between Tamikka Brents and Fallon Fox. During a two-minute beating, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and a head wound requiring seven staples.

“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night,” said Brents.

As it turns out, her opponent, Fox, wasn’t born female. She is a biological male who identifies as transgender.

Brents thought Fox had an unfair advantage. “I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor,” said Brents. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

Brents was right to consider Fox’s advantage unfair: The physical differences between men and women are significant enough that professional female fighters cannot compete effectively against other professional male fighters.

Given all this, why do we not see a more constructive and sustained public debate among surgeons, psychiatrists, and lawmakers about the ethics of sex reassignment?

The most significant reason is the power of the transgender lobby.

Consider psychotherapist James Caspian’s recent claim that Bath Spa University in the United Kingdom refused his application to conduct research on sex reversal surgeries because the topic was deemed “potentially politically incorrect.”

According to Caspian, the university initially approved his research proposal, but later rejected it because of the backlash it expected from powerful transgender lobbies.

Regardless of how politically incorrect the evidence may be, and even while we accommodate the privacy and safety concerns of those who identify as transgender, we must also draw a sober and honest conclusion about the human costs of sex reassignment.

The best medical science, social science, philosophy, and theology coalesce. As Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson puts it, they reveal that sex is a biological reality, that gender is the social expression of that reality, and that sex reassignment surgeries and treatments are therefore not good remedies for the distress felt by people with gender dysphoria.

The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria, therefore, will be ones that help people live in conformity with the biological truth about their bodies.


Source: dailysignal.com