The Place of Religion in Nationalist Politics

[Siegmund]

Inspired by a few recent posts in the "How Do You Imagine Jesus" thread, notably this one:

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Christendom is Europe. Before that there was only people north, south, east and west of the Graeco-Roman world.

In effect, the Church has finally been given a fatal blow. Not coincidentially so has Europe been given a fatal blow with it.

As for Christianity being today a vehicle against the preservation of Europe, this is not something new. There has always been deviations in that direction. The most noticeable has been Calvinism.

If the Church has finally been infiltrated and deviated, and has stopped being the repository of Christendom and European values, it is for us to pick them up and raise them again. Not to join forces with those who have brought the deviation.

I've beeing thinking a lot about this issue for quite some time. In the Spains, Ireland and Bavaria, it is difficult to imagine traditional ethnic culture without the church.

In other nations such as France, it is equally hard to imagine (or at least remember) a time when the church was integral to national consciousness. The French have Jeanne d'Arc, certainly a "nationalist" of a sort if one believes the hagiographers, but perhaps even more notably Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot - who were strongly French in feeling and yet despised the church and its priests.

Then there are the born again "neo-nationalists," usually but not always American with some Germanic heritage, who posit a sort of idealized heathenism as the one true religion of Europeans.

What to make of this diversity? Is there room for such variety among nationalists today?

[Menydh]

In my opinion is a common mistake to [want to] believe that Christianism (could be Eastern Orthodoxy and to some extent Lutheranism too, but here I refer only to Western Catholicism.. or Christianism before the big schisms if you prefer) is anything Jewish and therefore alien to Europe, when it is precisely the opposite.

Firstly, the New Testament tells us that Jesus the God Son comes to deprive the Jews from being God's chosen. His doctrine is, in fact and in essence, opposed to Judaism.

Secondly, it cannot be ignored that Christianism comes in Europe where it adapts to the European peoples by adopting and adapting to their souls, and from there shaping their spirituality, becoming an inherent part of their evolution. At some point surely nothing of the Middle Eastern sould and image has remained, and Christianism even becomes the repository of the traditions, values and spirituality of Europe.

So much so that it acts as a glue that holds Europe together. Before that, Europe is the Graeco-Roman world represented by the Roman Empire, which can stretch as far East as the Middle East or as far South as Northern Africa, while leaving much of Europe out.

With the fall of Rome and the arrival of the Germanic peoples in the West and the Slavic peoples in the East, Europe takes her actual and definete form (until today). Christianism keeps evolving together with Europe and adapting itself to Europe at the same time that it helps Europe to adapt herself to the new times. Christianity in the West becomes strongly influenced by the Germanics, and in the East more or less influenced by the Slavics. That probably helps to the Schism. However the Schism, Christianity keeps being a point of common reference for all despite the aroused differences. A point of common reference and therefore a link between all European nations.


It would be foolish to believe that the bonds of race were as strong as some fallaciously argue. To put an example, the Ostrogoths after being defeated by the Huns had no trauma for joining the armies of the Huns to provide for armforces in the continuous devastation of Europe by the Huns.

Later, no racial cry was issued to defend Vienna from the attack of the Ottomans. If peoples from other Germanic lands, as well as Italians and Spaniards, and others came to succour Vienna it was because of the call of the Western Church to defend Christendom. Others like the French and the English, for their own interests, were in more than friendly terms with the Muslim Turk.

In the Spains, the fight of the Christians against the Muslims only had a racial component when these battles were fought against the intervention of foreign armies (Almohads and Almoravids). The rest of the Reconquista was the story of Christian Spaniards fighting Muslim Spaniards. It is little wonder that Muslims joined the Christians to fight those invading armies of foreigners.

I've taken examples from the West. But more of the same could be said for the East.


Now, what would have been of Spain or Austria today, without Christianity? It is obvious that without Christianity there would have not been Christendom, and without Christendom there would have been no Europe.


It is important to notice is how the fall of Europe is the fall of Christendom. Both in the past and in the present. The destruction of Christianity and her institutions has been the antechamber to the destruction of Europe. Anyone who believes that modern Christian institutions are anything what Christianity was, is a fool.

Which brings in another point: how can anyone say that he is a European and a Nationalist, and at the same time go against Christianity.. Christendom? Those who have devised the destruction of Europe have done a careful and excellent work, a master piece which I'm afraid it goes beyond the comprehension of most of us.


P.S. I have debated myself for long years between my [Western] Christian Tradition, which is the Tradition of my Nation and Patria, and a self-styled agnosticism. No one can accuse me of being a staunch Catholic. If something, I should be accused of having turned my back to my Tradition and therefore to myself, even if unpurposedly.

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Which brings in another point: how can anyone say that he is a European and a Nationalist, and at the same time go against Christianity. Christendom? Those who have devised the destruction of Europe have done a careful and excellent work, a master piece which I'm afraid it goes beyond the comprehension of most of us.

P.S. I have debated myself for long years between my [Western] Christian Tradition, which is the Tradition of my Nation and Patria, and a self-styled agnosticism. No one can accuse me of being a staunch Catholic. If something, I should be accused of having turned my back to my Tradition and therefore to myself, even if unpurposedly.

I think you might be right here. I do not consider myself a Christian, but I have come to feel that bashing Christianity in the real world only plays into the hands of those who would destroy the European identities.

[Perun]

I agree with Mynydd on this one. In fact the common European perception of what it means to be a nation largely comes from the example of the Israelites in the Old Testament. So whatever your views on Christianity are, you cannot deny that European nationalisms have been largely shaped by it. Particularly the notion of various tribes uniting into one nation-state. This notion was relatively lacking among many(if not most) pre-Christian peoples of Europe. It was usually the tribe(or city-state for the Greeks) that gain most loyalty, not the nation.

And Mynydd touches onto another point. Although one cannot deny the influence of Greece and Rome on European civilization, we must remember that is largely a result of projection onto the past by following generations than on how the Greeks and Romans saw themselves. To them, Europe was a very vague geographical entity with constantly shifting borders. It had no cultural or ethnic/racial connotations. And the ethno-centrism of the Roman Empire was not based on it being a European empire, but on being a world empire. Nobody at that time identified themselves as "European".

It was Christians, through intreptations of the Biblical story of Noah's sons, that a racial element to Europe first came into place. Also it was the spread of Christianity across Europe that gave a more cultural element to it as well(and since it helped spread Greeco-Latin culture as well, which further celemented their place as the basis of Europe).

To try to sweep off Europe's Christian heritage as many try to do is actually in many ways to destroy the very meaning behind what it means to be European. Christianity was an important element in Europe's development, that simply cannot be denied.

[Perun]

btw, I did a post at my blog concerning this issue, although part one largely deals with how the Bible does indeed support a nationalist outlook far more than a multi-culturalist one.
http://thirdpositionreview.blogspot....tionalism.html

In a follow-up to that post, I typed this which deals with the relationship between nationalism and religion on a more general level.


http://thirdpositionreview.blogspot....continued.html

In a follow-up to my recent post concerning the relationship between religion and nationalism, here's an interesting scholarly commentary on the issue I've recently read:

"It may be futile and unrealistic to separate religion and ethnic identity. Many individuals behave as if their ethnic affiliation and professed religion are one and the same: to be born Croatian is to be born Catholic...There are few multireligious ethnic groups and their relative scarcity suggests that religion is the root of ethnic differentiations or that religious distinctiveness is a key to ethnic saliency."
-- Cynthia Enloe "Religion and Ethnicity"; Ethnicity edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, pp. 199-200; 201

[Laocoon]

OK nice sum up. May I add the battle of Tours (732) wich has been forgotten, yet it was a decisive battle for the whole Western Europe, in that it has fixed her destiny. Courtesy of the Franks.

But what about Religion in Nationalist Politics?

Religion and Politics should remain a part. Speaking as a French here, I just can say the common people has not the faith anymore. He just doesn't care about Christianism but about other down to earth issues (I say that without contempt). Nationalists would have interest not to insist on Religion. It is repulsive. It's something personal and shall remain so IMO. If you want to gather people, no choice though.

[Milesian]

Seperation of Church and State has been partly responsible for the decline in faith & tradition. It was always calculated to do so, ever since the first Masons proposed it as a central tenet of "progressive" societies

I agree that individuals should not be coerced into any religion, in fact to do so would be Un-Christian. Then again, to aquiesce with our opponent's plan of Secularisation doesn't seem very beneficial either since it results in materialism and spiritual bankruptcy. Surely, once can follow the spiritual traditions of a nation & recognise their worth and benefit without feeling forced into accepting it personally.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Surely, once can follow the spiritual traditions of a nation & recognise their worth and benefit without feeling forced into accepting it personally.

Charles Maurras seemed to have been able to, even though he thought Jesus was a lunatic Jew and the Gospels were trash(he wanted a Catholicism without Christianity as much as possible). This, plus some of his views concerning the relations between church and state, got him later condemned by the Vatican.

Note: I had a debate about this some time back where my opponent(Marlaud) tried to use this incident to prove that Catholicism is against nationalists. It wasn't Maurras's nationalism that got him into trouble but his theology. Pius X spoke foundly of Maurras's movement and even after the condemnation many top Vatican officials actually tried to get it revoked.

Nevertheless, the main result of the Papal condemnation was that many French Catholic nationalists forge themselves into new movements that were more acceptable to the Papacy.

Anyways, the main point is that many non-believing nationalists have supported the Church largely out of respect for its cultural contributions to the national heritage. In fact for some time I was of this persuation.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Perun

Anyways, the main point is that many non-believing nationalists have supported the Church largely out of respect for its cultural contributions to the national heritage. In fact for some time I was of this persuation.

My own father subscribes to this train of thought.
Despite being a devout atheist who has been known to ridicule religion, he paradoxically bemoans the decay of society & morals that correlates with the decline in religion. In fact, despite his caustic attitude to religion he also considers it to be of central importance in a healthy society.

In other words, while he doesn't believe a word of it he still recognises the stability & wholesome benefits it gifts to society.

I believe a healthy spiritual society begets a healthy temporal one.
They are both mutually complimentary and mutually supportive of each other.
Seperating them into two seperate water-tight compartments with no bearing upon each other is simple "divide and conquer" strategy.

Isolate them, then pick them off one at a time.
It is no coincidence that the last 3 centuries have seen religion put aside from government and everyday politics (as if it were some kind of poison), then religion gradually scandalised, demonised, slandered and discredited, and now finally we can see our temporal societies teetering on the verge of collapse as well. Now that we have our new Anti-Religions of Materialism, Secularism, Cynicism and Political Correctness - who will save us from these?

[Menydh]

Duchemin, I think that what you say is open to debate.

Indeed the common people have, at large, lost their faith and spirituality. And there lies a problem because with it they have lost also the soul of their identity.

Now, if you notice, in the process they haven't substituted that spiritual soul. Or they have, but what they have done is substituting spirituality with materialism. And there again lies another problem because it is what makes them not care.

Also, you must take into account that the fact that the soul of the people has not found a strong substitute, it is still alive in them even if deep inside. I'm not saying that Nationalism must be based on Religion, but it must be able to offer the people what they are lacking of, to awake their dormant souls. And you cannot achieve that through a new-age construct or through more materialism.

Of course that this is not like saying that I support a Church which is as weakened and even corrupted nowadays that it is impossible to identify her with Christendom. The nations must be reconquered, but it will serve to no purpose if they are to be left without a soul. It will serve to no purpose because that is exactly the departing point of this chaos.

[Perun]

Religion has always been at the basis of social identity. As the quote I posted above argued, it's largely useless to try to seperate ethnic and religious identities, cause they are so commonly linked. This is no accident, since religion often serves as the cultural basis of ethnicities, both religion and nationalism appeal to the same kinds of emotions for self-sacrifice for the greater good(in fact nationalist protrayls of heroic deeds is often based on religious notions of matyrdom); and both religions and nationalism clearly define insiders from outsiders. Religious devotion is often the source of emotions needed to drive nationalism forward.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Milesian

My own father subscribes to this train of thought.
Despite being a devout atheist who has been known to ridicule religion, he paradoxically bemoans the decay of society & morals that correlates with the decline in religion. In fact, despite his caustic attitude to religion he also considers it to be of central importance in a healthy society.

I'd fully agree. AntiYuppie at Phora probably said it best, "To be culturally Catholic is to be culturally European." In fact it was the strong connection between the Church and its traditions to Europe that first drew me back to the faith from atheism.

I have admitted to a few people that I myself have the tendency towards being more of a "cultural" or "social" Catholic than of actually being a spiritual one. Not that I dont have a spiritual side, I do, its just I tend to pay more attention to social/cultural aspects of the church.

I guess you could compare it to Hilaire Belloc's sense of Catholicism as this article explains:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050524.html

Another reason why Belloc considered the political battle in which the Church was engaged to be of principal importance was no doubt connected with the manner in which he would downplay his own private, personal Faith. He was, by his own admission, one with which all who knew him would happily have concurred, an instinctive, natural sceptic. His belief in the Church found strongest expression in his belief in Her as a force, a personality, an institution acting upon history and upon men. His life was spent in the service of the hierarchical, civilizing Church. The political and cultural attachments of the Church he was in many respects more cognizant of and sensitive to than Her theology or mysticism.


Another interesting aspect of this is when a friend suggested to him that he read St. John of the Cross, to which he replied that he found

...the whole thing repulsive. I don't say-I am not so foolish to say-that it is false. But I do say that I was never made for understanding this "union with God" business: St. Theresa and the rest. I don't know what it is all about and the description of isolation and detachment, "the necessary night of the soul," disgusts me like Wagner's music or boiled mutton. Good for others: not for me. I am no more fitted to it than is an elephant for caviar, or a dog for irony.

I really do enjoy St. John of the Cross, so Id have to disagree with Mr. Belloc on this specific issue. But the main point he touches on I certainly agree with. There are many aspects of Catholic spirituality that I personally find utter nonsense. Not that it's false or anything, it just doesnt appeal to me.

Good example of this veneration of the Virgin Mary. I certainly venerate her and recognize her importance to the church and the spiritual lives of fellow Catholics; but in my own personal spirituality she has little if any place in it. Same can be said of the eucharist. I know full well its importance in Catholic spirituality, but the way theologians constantly discuss it ad nausem really just annoys me.

I even further touched on this at CCF when discussing Lourdes. I stated that Im actually quite skeptical of claims of visions of the Virgin Mary there, and even more so towards the claim that the waters there heal the sick.

Nevertheless I still value Lourdes as an important spiritual and cultural center for Catholics(and particularly the French). Whether or not the Virgin actually appeared there is irrelevant IMHO. And just because Im skeptical of the claims doesnt mean I could not find spiritual strength from travelling to Lourdes, or Fatima, etc.

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by Perun

To be culturally Catholic is to be culturally European.

Quite possibly true for nations such as the Spains, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia and others.

But what of France, which arguably has not been culturally Catholic for perhaps 100 years or more? Do you consider France less culturally European as a result?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Siegmund

But what of France, which arguably has not been culturally Catholic for perhaps 100 years or more? Do you consider France less culturally European as a result?

Well thats an interesting question. But since secularist France pays little attention to ethnic identity and tries to impose the EU on others and allows Islamic immigrants in droves to displace its native population. In that case, yes you could make the argument that secularist France is not culturally European.

This sorta reminds me of what Charles Peguy and other French Catholic intellectuals of the 20th century argued, that industrial society was destroying the traditional French identity while the peasantry were the main guardians of France's identity. As Peguy once stated, it was no accident that peasants are Catholic while workers are not.

[Gil]

My father, like myself, wasn't catholic and his view was that religion was the "cement" that kept society together thru hardship and gave them a sense of community and nothing else (at least for him).
Speaking as a non-believer, I do think that christianity is so deeply entwined with european culture that it's impossible to separate one from the other (regardless of the fact that there are Catholics, Lutherans, etc).
I think one of the more problematic issues is the emergence of "cults" that proclaim themselves christians. Cults are, generally speaking, pro-multiculturalism and more than that, they oppose concepts like community and nationality instead adopting a globalising standpoint (a good example is that american merga-corporation Jehova's Witnesses).
Also, the problematic of "vanishing" belief goes hand to hand with the permissive trend of modern government: people don't want to follow rules, they want the rules to bend and fit their own "morals" (or lack of it).
I do nonetheless believe that respect for other religions is important provided that it's mutual and non-exclusive: I cannot respect a religion that is amoral or immoral and I can only respect the religions that fit within the profile of my nation.