Someone (H.L.Mencken?) once said that Protestants referred to the Lord as Jesus, while to Catholics he was Christ. But, sorry as I am, and meaning no disrespect, I believe that right now Jesus is stone dead in the literal sense. Traditional conservatives are not all Christians, which I hope is not a statement of the obvious.

While Jesus Christ is one person, the names “Jesus” and “Christ” could be seen as having different emphases that could perhaps be expressed like this: that Jesus was the human being who lived and taught in Palestine 2000 years ago, was crucified, rose again and ascended into heaven, while Christ means the resurrected eternal Son of God accessible to all believers for all time. Either way, it is hard to see how Gracian’s comments, made on this day, can be taken as other than disrespectful. It wasn’t that long ago that no decent person in this country would publicly express atheism or publicly attack Christian beliefs. Now our culture has descended so far that even self-described traditionalists feel perfectly free to attack the most central Christian beliefs in a public forum, in the midst of Christianity’s central religious observance.

William Buckley once observed that an atheist can be a conservative if he still respects religion, but that an atheist who thinks religious beliefs are absurd and openly expresses his contempt for them cannot be a conservative.

Isn’t there a way in which saying “I’m unable to see” is not lacking in respect even on solemn occasions? Somehow, Gracián’s comment didn’t strike me as the “in your face” sort which might have been indelicate or abrasive on this occasion.

Also, truth is strong. It can take it. View From the Right is a strong, true outfit, and can take it (Christianity too).

I agree with Unadorned that the agnostic or atheist who does not attack religion but simply says, “The idea of God doesn’t make sense to me, I am unable to believe in God,” is not giving offense. But that’s not what Gracian said. He said, “I believe that right now Jesus is stone dead in the literal sense.” With all due respect to Gracian, that is not a respectful statement, especially at a web site whose participants are largely Christian, and especially on Easter.

It is an unfortunate fact, and no mere belief, that at this moment in time it is Gracian who is stone dead. I am truly sorry about that and mean no disrespect in saying so.

Richard Poe has posted an entry on Poe’s Blog this morning which links to several interesting articles about Easter. The articles deal with the Christian origins of Easter, its Jewish origins and the Jewish “threads” still to be seen woven within the Easter “fabric,” its pagan origins, the origin of the name Easter, controversies as to the dating of Easter, the reasons some puritannical Christians have for not celebrating Easter, and other things of interest:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=163

Well, I certainly did not think that I would provoke this much discussion. I reiterate that I meant no disrespect, and consider myself someone who respects religion. I worked at a Catholic hospital in Sierra Leone for two years, was raised a Catholic, and currently work for a Protestant medical facility. Yet now I am informed that I am disrespectful of religion because I merely stated a belief of mine in a “public forum”. Seems to me that Mr. Auster is more than a little thin-skinned. Surely he knows that there are many other people in the world who don’t agree with his religious beliefs, and never will. But I guess atheists are just supposed to sit down and shut up. My entire purpose in bringing the matter up was to say that traditional conservatives include even areligious, atheistical types. And I think that no one, not even WFB (especially him, as his mag is neo these days) has the power to summarily dismiss us.
If I understand Bubba’s remark correctly, then I guess about 4 billion other people who are nominally “alive” today are, by his lights, really dead.

A few more comments on our little tempest here. First, if I gave offense, I apologize. That was not my intention. Second, this “public forum” business: a web site with, I suppose, a few hundred readers hardly qualifies as the town square. Much on this site would be quite offensive to leftists. Besides, isn’t a forum a place for airing opinions? Perhaps VFR could have a speech code like many of our more progressive American universities to avoid offending anyone. Third, my personal policy about the public statement of religious beliefs is that I will keep quiet so long as others do, just as I don’t state my political opinions in the workplace. But when a coworker makes a remark a bout Bush’s idiocy or America’s evil as if anyone within earshot could not possibly disagree with it, then I speak out. As this site is not specifically Christian, I took Mr. Auster’s remarks in the same spirit. I would never make similar remarks on, say, a Catholic website. Fourth, this says a lot abourt the nature of religious belief. If I had said that the earth was flat, I would have been ignored or ridiculed, but surely I would not have given offense. It is precisely because of the paucity of evidence that Christians are so touchy about their beliefs (when challenged ,that is). If it is all based on faith, which is given us by God, why should a Christian care that one such as myself can not see it? For it only means I have been deprived by God or blinded by the devil.

Happy Easter everyone! Even for those who mutter humbug, cheers. (Maybe especially for them). I’m reminded of some moving words by Rabbi Schiller regarding the necessity of faith for Western Man. Schiller obviously follows a different tradition then Easter celebrants, but I think he had some wise words for us to consider. He was noting the tough choices ahead of us in terms of resisting the anti-Western, anti-white trends and tied it to faith. This comes from his speech/sermon at the American Renaissance conference titled “Saving Our Civilization”:

“For those people capable of religious faith — I think a traditionalist Protestantism, Catholicism, or Judaism is an important ingredient to this resistance.
“For those incapable of traditional religious faith — I strongly suggest that you find some suitable substitute for it. Because it’s going to be very, very difficult to maintain your families and communities without it. But maintain families and communities is our foremost imperative.”

Let me add to that, the words of the late Oswald Chambers, a Scottish clergyman who’s writings a friend introduced me to. These writings come from his daily devotional (“My Utmost, for His Highest”) which I do find inspiring, although I fall short from the mark. The devotional, while old, is still extremely popular among many Christians. Perhaps some of you may also find them of interest occasionally. Especially if you can find youself in the first category of Western traditionalists that Rabbi Schiller describes. Here is a link to Oswald Chamber’s writing for April 20th:

http://www.myutmost.org/04/0420.html

Gracián, I think Mr. Auster’s concern was more over what are called “good manners” than anything. Of course (as you already know from this site’s characteristics), no one here fears criticism of anything they believe, voiced by anyone on the planet. (After all, to paraphrase Scripture, when truth is with you, who can be against you?)

Say you, I, and Mr. Auster were out in Manhattan together having a sandwich somewhere, and as we were going through the restaurant door, I shoved my way past a woman who was trying to go through at the same time. I can imagine Mr. Auster turning to you and saying, disapprovingly, exactly as he should say, “Unadorned was a bit disrespectful there,” and he’d be all the more likely to think that of my behavior, knowing me to be a regular of VFR.

Manners can be superficial if they’re part of snobbery, for example, and under some other circumstances. But they are usually valid, legitimate, and called-for. There’s something to be said for manners — especially for our side.

My sense is that Mr. Auster’s comments were meant along those relatively benign lines.

To Unadorned: Thanks, point taken. This site does seem to be unique in its readers concern for decency and decorum, and I greatly appreciate that. My original statement could certainly have been phrased differently.

You’re welcome, Gracián. And thank YOU for your interesting, informative, and valuable contributions to this forum!

I agree with Unadorned’s construction of what I said. The issue I raised is, primarily, a matter of civility. In my view, there are certain things that a civilized person does not do in social conversation or in a quasi public discussion. One of those things is gratuitously to attack another person’s stated religious beliefs. If I met a Hindu who told me he believed in the god Shiva, I would not dream of saying to him, your belief is false. But when it comes to Judaism and Christianity, a different dispensation seems to have taken hold since the 1960s. It used to be that agnostics or even atheists would publicly defer to Christianity, reflecting the fact that our dominant culture was Christian or at least respectful of Christianity. This doesn’t mean that they would have to conceal their beliefs, but that they would express them in a more deferential way. Today, by contrast, people get right in your face and express their total contempt for religion. I know a distinguished professor at Columbia University, a long-time conservative, who came right out once and said in a contemptuous manner that “of course” he didn’t believe in God, as though it was simply understood by everyone that the belief in God is a crock. He had no reason for believing that I and the other people present were not believers. He just felt a complete freedom to mock the very idea of believing in God. And this was a man who had spent his life among conservatives, including religious conservatives. My point is that in the old days, this professor would not have used that contemptuous phrase “of course.” He would have said something like: “I personally don’t believe in God,” or “I find it impossible to believe in God,” thus showing that he was not challenging the religious beliefs of others or the religious beliefs respected by society, but only expressing his own personal beliefs.

Traditionalists need to try to bring that older dispensation back. That involves the difficult and uncomfortable job of drawing boundaries, of saying: “This is allowed, that is not allowed.” In today’s society people who attempt to draw such boundaries can expect to be called “thin-skinned” and similar names, just as in the sixties any parent or clergyman or teacher who criticized the sexual liberation of the time was attacked as “up-tight.” No one likes being called thin-skinned or uptight, and the fear of being called such names weakens most people’s will to resist the disorders of the time.

However, Gracian has written to me privately apologizing for any offense.