Nothing without Christianity

Sir: Simon Haines, writing about Western civilisation (November 2017) exhibits what many would regard as a fundamental error of historical perspective. The subject itself is inherently historical—Western civilisation cannot be defined except in the light of its history—and so demands an optically accurate lens to view it through.

The lens being offered is that of the classics. Haines traces the foundations of Western civilisation back to Homer, Pericles, Justinian and Virgil. This is the perspective of the old nineteenth-century classicist. It is part of an enterprise that seeks to track Western civilisation from ancient times through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to today, while omitting the more unpleasant aspects of medieval and modern history. There is no sign of the disorderly influence of a universal religion, of the political and industrial revolutions, the scientific and technical juggernauts, and other potential interruptions to the cloistered calm of the classical scholar—including Christianity.

What is there to say about Christianity? In Simon Ramsay’s estimation, the Bible had a big influence on “literature and art”. This is correct; more so, perhaps, than he is willing to admit. It would be truer to say that the Bible, mediated through Christianity, is fundamental to understanding Western literature and art—so much so, that most of the canon of literature and art is actually incomprehensible without a familiarity with Christianity.

But is that all there is to say about Christianity? It seems to me that Western civilisation is far more to do with Christianity than the study of the Greek and Roman classics. The latter have only ever been the specialised area of interest of the intellectual elites. They were resuscitated in the Renaissance, and later dragged out as a half-decayed corpse to give an air of scholarly depth and ancient lineage to the superficial anti-Christian philosophies of the Enlightenment. They were finally embalmed in the nineteenth century, to repose in the ivory tower of the university.

Christianity by contrast has saturated Western societies. It has been a mass movement, a driving force of staggering potency, an influence of immense proportions that has shaped and moulded the West in every sphere of endeavour—not only in art and literature, but in architecture and music, in politics and ethics, in law, in family life and in the spiritual formation of untold millions. After all there were, for much of the past two thousand years, churches in every city and suburb, every town and village of the West, so that nobody was further than walking distance from Christian teaching.

To omit any mention of Christianity in a synopsis of Western civilisation—or at least to limit any mention of it to a feeble aside about the Bible—seems to me to betray a distorted perspective. The reason for the distortion is a matter for speculation. Of course Christianity is not exactly the flavour of the month with universities and undergraduates. But I think the problem runs deeper.

Christianity is very difficult to understand from the outside. I am reminded of an interview with a young musician who had the privilege of performing Bach cantatas with one of the great conductors of our times. Asked about his personal response to this Christian music he remarked, rather ruefully, that he only wished he could believe in it. In other words, the music sounded nice, but the words that inspired the music conveyed a message he was unwilling or unable to accept.

It seems to me that the real challenge facing Simon Haines and the Ramsay Centre is to find a way of communicating the central importance of Christianity in Western civilisation to students who will mostly be utterly ignorant of it, and indifferent, if not positively antagonistic, towards it. Yes, the Bible is important. But Christianity is not the Bible. Christianity is a vast, all-pervasive influence. Understanding this is the big challenge facing today’s student of Western civilisation, especially if the student is not a Christian. The temptation will be to remake the history of the West without Christianity—as Simon Haines has done in his synopsis.

Stephen C. Due
Belmont, Vic

Sir: With reference to Hugh Smith’s letter “Educating an Army” (November 2017), I offer my queries on two implications I detect.

First, referencing the statement, “the community sees the army as male-dominated, even anti-feminist”, it seems fair to suggest that armies have been male-dominated since around the time of Homo erectus (with possibly an ancient legendary exception), but were our men in any of the last century’s horror wars seen as “anti-feminist”? Is it not that, with the rise of feminism as a mode over the last few decades, the opposing “anti-feminism” must also appear, by definition and default (“no crime, ergo no police”)? Also, is it not seductively comfortable to attribute to the “community” a viewpoint that one would like to see it have?

Second, “to have a true university education … [students] … should be exposed to all manners of ideas and arguments and learn to judge and assess them—as we want them to do, in the course of their careers” is a noble statement brooking little dissent. When, however, that ideal is applied to the range of studies in the “gender, sexuality and society” spectrum, and the topic is the home culture of the students, they have been well embedded in that culture and will have their own judgments and assessments by the time they are going through university. It may just be that some teachers see the need to “readjust” those assessments.

Rather, for defence forces, it would be far more relevant to include “gender, sexuality and society” studies for the cultures where they may well be stationed—Bali, the Philippines, Afghanistan, the Pacific islands and the Middle East, for example. That would be more applicable to their understanding, service and effectiveness. Perhaps that may not be what many lecturers would regard as their intent in teaching “gender, sexuality and society”.

Neil Hudson
Sherwood, Qld

Sir: Re China’s long-term strategic objectives. Correct me if I am wrong: I have a vague memory of Chinese officials and commentators in the 1950s saying that not only was the whole of the South China Sea part of China’s sovereign territory, but so were its littoral states. That is, Vietnam, which China colonised for a thousand years and whose coastal Vietnamese it now considers to be mostly Chinese; peninsular Malaysia where it claims the Chinese arrived before the Malays; Singapore; parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, and of course Taiwan.

Fortunately, compelling arguments have been made that none of China’s “we were there first” and other claims to Taiwan, the South China Sea and its islands have any substantial historical validity (see, for example, Philip Bowring, Australian, June 8, 2012, and Bruce Jacobs, Australian, January 31, 2012, and February 20, 2013). The same applies to the littoral states.

Last October at the 19th Chinese Communist Party national congress in Beijing, Xi Jinping declared China’s vision for world domination within the next few decades. Whatever China’s ultimate strategic objective in the region proves to be, one hopes that as it strengthens it does not, like Germany in two world wars and Japan in the second, overestimate its own position.

Frank Mount
Ivanhoe, Vic

Sir: Since preparing my piece on the removal of America’s historic memorials (December 2017), Christ Church in Alexandra, Virginia, has announced it will remove two plaques to eminent former parishioners.

George Washington retained for his family a box pew in the heritage Episcopalian church. The Lee family also had a pew there, and Robert E. Lee was a regular communicant and active churchman. The marble plaques, which were prominent in the chancel, had been installed by Lee’s fellow congregants upon his death in 1870.

Christ Church has long taken pride in its role in America’s history. Seven serving Presidents have worshipped there, FDR even escorting Winston Churchill to a service in 1942. But this distinguished past now seems politically incorrect.

“This was not a discussion we entered lightly, but rather a sincere attempt to have a difficult family conversation about our worship space, our history, and our future,” the church warden, Emily Bryan, explains. “The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome.”

Christopher Heathcote
Keilor, Vic

Sir: Bravo to John Stone (November 2017) for recognising what the Recognise Campaign could not: the abject failure of government policy to improve disastrous life outcomes for Aboriginal Australians.

But the rest of Australia does owe Aborigines an apology—for our inability to end the self-loathing ideology underpinning these politically correct policies. From Peter Read’s original pamphlet to the Uluru Statement, these policies have Eurocentric roots, aimed at assuaging gnawing consciences in sway to a history of anti-Western rhetoric.
An infinite regress of blame for Aboriginal wellbeing outcomes proceeds, when responsibility for the wellbeing of our brothers sits squarely on each of our shoulders as Australians, whether of European, Aboriginal, or any other descent.

Just as G.K. Chesterton replied to the question, “What is wrong with the world?” the answer is still the hard-to-swallow, “I am.”

Jordan Grantham
Parramatta, NSW

Sir: No one has talked about a certain matter. That matter is about Harvey Weinstein and the grave concern is not Weinstein’s alleged behaviour, which may well be very, very bad.

Here is what has happened so far. Weinstein has been accused by a number of women of being a serial sexual predator and groper. A cavalcade of more than fifty women has taken a number to join the queue of his victims. Weinstein has been thrown out of his company, Miramax, which he founded with his brother, and the Weinstein Company. He has been defenestrated by the Academy. His wife is divorcing him.

Now, Weinstein may well be as guilty as a fox found in a chicken-coop with chicken feathers in its mouth. He is very likely a most nasty piece of work. The chances are he will end up with criminal convictions from both the US and the UK. He could well end up, and may well deserve to be, in a cell adjacent to Rolf Harris with his back pressed tightly against a cold stone wall confronting a large, tattooed and excited cell-mate named “Bubba”.

But there is a fundamental problem here, something that we have, until now, not permitted in lawful countries. Society is applying the sentence before the conviction. It is accepting, accompanied by sibilant tut-tuts, the declaration of the Queen of Hearts: “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.” And the scary part is that no one has noticed. Our sacred system of justice for which battalions of our sons have died is being sacrificed on the altar of politically correct moral indignation—and it’s all happening without a whimper.

Weinstein will meet justice in due course, but let us not pay for that justice by destroying it.

Peter R. Clyne
Edgecliff, NSW

Sir: Although it is predominantly a well written and well reasoned article, some holes are apparent in Ryszard Legutko’s argument in “A Critique of the Prague Appeal” (December 2017).

For one, Legutko’s assessment that liberal democracies are not under threat from “without” is erroneous. While China and Russia are most certainly not liberal democracies, and never were, so cannot be considered to be “backsliding”, this does not mean that these undemocratic powers do not pose a threat to liberal democracies.

Nations such as China strive for political influence in Australia, for example through political donations; such actions do threaten our democracy and the independence of our governance. One only has to look at the Sam Dastyari debacle to see the impact of Chinese money on the opinions of some of parliament’s more malleable representatives. Turnbull, for all his incompetence and indecisiveness, appears to be tackling this issue. Moreover, pervasive Russian interference in the US election is yet another example of how these undemocratic powers do indeed pose a threat to liberal democracies and the democratic process—contrary to what Legutko suggests.

Aside from his oversight in this area, the rest of his critique is largely valid. For example, his argument surrounding the mentality of the political elites in response to recent electoral wins for right-wing causes and parties, such as Brexit and Polish and Hungarian elections, is accurate. If anything, the choice of the British people to throw off the shackles of the unelected liberalism of the EU should be hailed as a win for democracy; most certainly not as a signal of its impending demise.

However, it is in Legutko’s concluding paragraphs that the second thesis of the Prague Appeal actually appears accurate. Democracy does indeed appear to be under attack from within; only not in the way that the authors of Prague Appeal suggest. It is the undemocratic and increasingly omnipresent legislative introductions, such as Canada’s Bill C-16 quoted in the article, that pose the most substantial internal threat to the great liberal democracies, including Australia. These decisions are corroding democracy from within.

Oliver Friendship
Eumundi, Qld

Sir: I have just received the results of a genetic screening test from a genealogy company. I am originally from the UK, and the test informs me that I have 10 per cent English genes. The original English (aborigines), the Celts, settled in England around 2000 BC during the inter-glacial of the latest ice age. They now constitute a small and shrinking part of the population of the UK.

According to Australian logic this means that, having been dispossessed of my country and, with the appropriate Mabo-type legislation in place, I could fight to have my traditional lands returned. My country has been invaded by many foreigners over the last 2000 years, including the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings and Normans. These invasions have resulted in real massacres (not invented), with ethnic cleansing, imposition of foreign laws and loss of my tribal identity and culture.

In discussing this matter I prefer to use the correct terminology. An aborigine is someone whose forebears came from that country—the Latin ab origine meaning from the beginning. I do not use, and see no reason to use, the term “aboriginal person”. The euphemism “indigenous” is incorrect as it merely means someone who was born in that country. The modern phrase “first people” has a fresh ring to it and implies some cultural superiority, so I will use this in my legal challenge.

I am unclear what percentage of aboriginal genes, if any, is required for my claim to progress. In New Zealand the definition of Maori does not require a specific genetic percentage, indeed, as in this country, there are those who “identify as indigenous” without descent. As the years go by, and the advantages increase, the number claiming aboriginality will increase significantly (currently around 15 per cent in New Zealand, increasing rapidly) and strict policing will be needed. Once I have my bona fides established I will make it a priority to prohibit those who try to take advantage of my ethnicity; genetic testing will be the sole arbiter of aboriginality.

The first stage of the process will be to organise the professional activists to take up the case. There should be no theoretical difficulty despite the white colour of my skin, education, language and Western origins. This will then be followed by a series of claims relating to discrimination. Special facilities will be demanded for housing, education, health and work opportunities to compensate for the years of bigotry.

The aboriginal population of Australia (3 per cent of the total) currently owns 30 per cent of the land mass, with claims in progress for another 30 per cent. Ultimately the courts, courtesy of the English taxpayer, will decide that large swathes of England should be returned to the traditional owners and compensation provided for its illegal seizure. We can then return to our traditional hunting and land management practices. With its return we can, for a small fee, develop welcome-to-country ceremonies for the invaders. We can also rediscover the sacred sites of our ancestors and make sure they are managed with cultural sensitivity.

As has happened in Australia, we will expect the court system to be sensitive to our needs, bearing in mind our deprived backgrounds. We may also consider establishing our own English aboriginal courts (like Queensland’s Murri courts, introduced in 2002). Attempts by other groups to run their own systems (sharia law, for example) will be rescinded.

No doubt there will be some residents of the country who will complain about these moves. Some (such as the local equivalents of Ms Hanson) will see this process as being discriminatory and will suggest that all should be treated equally. Fortunately the UK also has a Human Rights Commission to make sure that oppressed minorities, such as the English, have their rights protected.

This new dawn for the English will allow us to join other Native Peoples’ gatherings and participate in international meetings supporting the similarly oppressed. We may even be invited, at taxpayers’ expense, to events at the United Nations. Perhaps I am now getting too far ahead.

We need a slogan to promote our first people’s struggle for independence—maybe “English lives matter”?

Graham Pinn
via e-mail