20 April 2011

National Unity again

I trust that no-one will have been deceived by the mannered frivolity of my last post into thinking that I am anything but horrifed at the sight of the Camerons of this world defining for all of us the markers of common 'British' national identity. The fact is that the dominant culture of this country is now not so much non-Christian as anti-Christian. Increasingly, definitions of the 'tolerant' 'inclusive' character of our 'British Culture' mask an ideological determination to eradicate Christian morality and Christian assumptions from our national way of life; and to exclude their assertion from public discourse. Much the same appears to be true of other Western European and North American cultures.

An interesting example is provided by recent French legislation to Ban the Burkah. Almost every degree of female immodesty is, apparently, treated as normative ... but modesty is put on trial. A newspaper cartoon, showing a beach full of topless female sun-bathers ... and a gendarme chasing one topless sunbather who happened also to be wearing a burkah over her face ... made this point rather neatly. Happily, the British political class is not, at the moment, much minded to go down this path.

But notice the way in which the secularist zeitgeist, with its libertine determination to promote sexual promiscuity, now occupies the central ground - that is, the cultural assumptions behind the arguments - in Western societies. I heard some Moslem women interviewed on the wireless; they justified their wearing the burkah on the grounds that this was what they freely themselves wished to do. Well, good for them, I have respect for their choice and their courage in expressing it. But the assumption underlying this dialogue was that a woman's 'choice' is paramount; so we are not surprised to find in the French legislation exemplifies, that the greater penalties are reserved for men who constrain their womenfolk to cover their faces in public.

Of course I am not a Moslem and of course I do not campaign to promote either Islam, Sharia law, or Islamic styles of feminine conduct, in our British society. But let me make clear: I do think it is entirely acceptable - and even laudable - for a man to be concerned for the modest dress and conduct of his wife and daughters without being at risk of prosecution. And it would be nice to be able to walk through the streets of this city on Friday and Saturday nights without being confronted by acres of bare thighs, as the bimbo classes hunt in packs for a Good Time; and not to have to make my way around drunken mobs of them and their followers while lethargic policemen whose overtime my taxes pay wait to intervene. And then to hear in the morning news bulletins that the 'Morning After Pill' is to be made more readily available, paid for out of my taxes.

When the insufferable Cameron pontificates upon the need for immigrant communities to accept 'British Values', I feel rather as German Jews must have felt in 1933 when they heard the mobs beginning to chant "Ein Volk ...". You think I'm overstating this? Well, a society formed by 'British Values' already slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent lives each year - lives, one suspects, largely conceived as the result of the sexual incontinence it has fostered; while, in 1933, the extermination of European Jewry was still only a manic gleam in the Fuehrer's eye.

'British Values and Culture' as defined by our cultural elite, an elite class hell-bent on the promotion of sexual promiscuity of every kind, are a corrupt menace. When I hear of proposals to constrain 'immigrant communities' to accept and conform to these notions, I feel that the bell is tolling for me as well.

I am not prepared to subscribe to what I perceive to be the modern British way of life. In my humble way, I shall do everything in my power to subvert it. When some future SuperCameron ships the 'unassimilated' Pakistanis back to Pakistan, where will he send unassimilated me?


Juventutem London said...

To a glorious martyrdom!

Flambeaux said...

We'll always have room for you in Texas, Father. :D

All jesting aside (althought offer of refuge in Texas is valid so long as I draw breath), my wife and I have been having this very discussion over the last several months with several of our friends.

All of us homeschool in different parts of the United States, some are more under the jackboot than others.

You're not alone in thinking along these lines and, alas, it's not just in the UK that such matters need to be considered.

Anonymous said...

if the French banned the female moslim outfit that covers the whole body and face, leaving only the eyes visible, then I applaud them for doing this. This has nothing to do with modesty or morality, the outfit is undemocratic and frightening. In our modern democratic culture we need to see the face of whom we are dealing with. I hope that the female moslim otufit whcih hides the face will be banned in my country soon.

William Tighe said...

"Modern democratic culture" is the enemy of both Christianity and morality, so ecrasez et ecrasons cette infame!

Sam Urfer said...

"And if it [her hair] be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering?' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."
St. John Chrysostom Homily on I Corinthians XXVI:2

"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.' Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head."
St. Augustine, 'Of the Work of Monks'

"Behold two diverse names, Man and Woman 'every one' in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand of veiling, on the other of baring."
Tertullian, On The Veiling Of Virgins.

"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons...Look downward when you walk, veiling yourself, as becomes women."
Apostolic Constitutions 7.395

We, as Christians, have forgotten that the Muslims got the hijab from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The burqa is a legalistic perversion added on top of this, but the simple veil is Christian, and Jewish, in origin.

Robert said...

Ihope our excellent prime minister will send Mr Hunwicke as far away as possible. Christianity is ok but not if it preaches intolorance & hatred. Mr Hunwicke is an unhappyy man but he seeks to drag us all down with him. Wear your veil with pride, Hunwicke. Nobody is really interested in ypur eccentricities.

Joe Tanner said...

Not true, Robert. Plenty of us are interested in Fr. Hunwicke's eccentricities. I don't hear any intolerance or hatred here, either.

Father, now that I've come to your defense, I have a bone to pick:

I certainly agree with you that secular society's values are, more often than not, at odds with the values of its religiously affiliated citizens. In our instance, more specifically, secular society is certainly at odds with our beliefs as Christians and even with our attempts to live Christian lives. Not that we should be surprised by this. However, I'm not sure what you're proposing. Isn't this disparity appropriate?

Why, as Christians (especially in the modern Western world), would we desire to live in communes with fellow Christians? Worse still, why would we think we're better off if we live in societies full of people who like to espouse a modicum of outward Christian virtue, but have no faith in Christ and no involvement in the Church? The former attitude drives the Christian homeschool movement in America, while the latter attitude is the defining characteristic of middle-class suburban America. Perhaps it's a defining characteristic of your country, where Christianity is the state's religious label, at least on paper. The Church may be a refuge from the world, but if it's doing it's job, it strengthens us and sends us back out to do the work God has given us to do. It's my conviction that this work happens in society at large, and that when we as Christians attempt to create additional refuge from society, we essentially squander our benedictions.

I'm not any more prepared to subscribe to the modern American way of life than you are to subscribe to the modern British way of life. However, it's important to point out that no one is asking us to, and equally important to remember that the life that we are asked to live is the life of the Cross. Oughtn't we rejoice in our tribulations living aside secularist society, giving thanks to God that we can we can bear it? As St. Paul would be eager to point out, his sufferings for Christ far surpassed the relatively trivial nonsense that we're asked put up with.

Little Black Sambo said...

Nobody is really interested in ypur eccentricities.
Would you show us the research supporting that statement?

The Raven (C. Corax) said...

Nobody is really interested in ypur eccentricities.

I would have thought that by taking the time to comment, you at least are interested in Fr Hunwicke's musings; I know that te rest of us are.

GOR said...

"...where will he send unassimilated me?"

You could put a word in for County Kerry, Father.

And you'd fit right in! Many people from the rest of Ireland don't consider the people of Kerry assimilated either!


justin said...

"Ihope our excellent prime minister will send Mr Hunwicke as far away as possible. Christianity is ok but not if it preaches intolorance & hatred"

Welll Robert...the only person I see preaching intolerance here is yourself! You're the one who wishes to BANISH someone who disagrees with you.

I don't get it. Tolerance = only if ideas expressed agree with Robert.

What rot!