European Islamophobia

[Sheilbh]

I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. 

I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.

I used to be a big fan. But it was like when I was a big fan of Noe films (though I still LOVED Enter the Void), it's something I'm out of now.

Having said that I've heard excellent things about his last book so maybe I should give him another go.

His new book actually sounds interesting. I haven't read it but based on that interview it seems like it suggests you can't have Christian civilisation without Christ. Thus the turn to Islam. There's no such thing as an Enlightenment civilisation or a secularist civilisation because the intellectual forces that undermined religion, or Marxism also undermine those ideas. It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.

The Guardian quite like Submission, I think it could be more interesting than it may be being sold as right now:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo

[Martinus]

It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.

That's a really interesting view.

[Admiral Yi]

I sounds to me like magical bullshit.

[Martinus]

Not really. It means two things.

For Christians, it means secularism is not an alien ideology but, like all heresies, it's a wrong answer to a valid question. So rather than simply fighting it, it tells the Church it should identify the question and find the right answer.

For secularists, it means that they can't simply expect to take secularism and transplant it to places where non-Christian creeds are dominant. In that, Christianity becomes less of a foe and more of a competitor - but one that plays according to the same rules as secularism, as opposed to other rivals. It also perhaps means that Ann Coulter's "we should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not as ridiculous as it sounds.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I completely missed the interview being posted in the other thread, lost upon the sea of raz and garbon. 

I read it. Previously my opinion, such as it was, of Houllebecq was based on second hand information. Exposure to his own words did nothing to change that opinion. As for what I thought of the piece itself, that is fairly predictable. I don't think there's a need for me to post a detailed response.

I used to be a big fan. But it was like when I was a big fan of Noe films (though I still LOVED Enter the Void), it's something I'm out of now.

Having said that I've heard excellent things about his last book so maybe I should give him another go.

His new book actually sounds interesting. I haven't read it but based on that interview it seems like it suggests you can't have Christian civilisation without Christ. Thus the turn to Islam. There's no such thing as an Enlightenment civilisation or a secularist civilisation because the intellectual forces that undermined religion, or Marxism also undermine those ideas. It isn't that far from the view that secularism is fundamentally a Christian heresy.

The Guardian quite like Submission, I think it could be more interesting than it may be being sold as right now:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/09/soumission-michel-houellebecq-review-charlie-hebdo

That sounds a lot more interesting than the impression that the media had given me before, namely that the book was rabble-rousing sensationalism 

[CountDeMoney]

He is right at least in one thing - politically and ideologically speaking, Muslims and right wing Catholics could not be more similar.

Maybe in the 19th century, but that's a bit of a stretch, even for you.

[Martinus]

He is right at least in one thing - politically and ideologically speaking, Muslims and right wing Catholics could not be more similar.

Maybe in the 19th century, but that's a bit of a stretch, even for you.

I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".

[CountDeMoney]

And I was one of the people who was gung-ho about going into Iraq;  I still say it was the right thing to do.  Yeah, we botched up the occupation and rebuilding, but that's a separate issue. 

Lucky for us at the time, Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't think so.

[CountDeMoney]

I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".

And what, exactly, defines "right wing"?  Free market sympathies, on top of gay-hate?   

[Martinus]

I said "right wing Catholics", not "Catholics".

And what, exactly, defines "right wing"?  Free market sympathies, on top of gay-hate?   

No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.

[CountDeMoney]

No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.

So, Mel Gibson then?  Roger that.

[Martinus]

No, Catholic integrism/fundamentalism.

So, Mel Gibson then?  Roger that.

Yup. Or the lefebrists. Or Opus Dei. Or followers of that Polish preacher, Father Rydzyk.

I think people like this are much less influential in American Catholicism than they are in Europe.

[Sheilbh]

I think people like this are much less influential in American Catholicism than they are in Europe.

They're there too. But a lot of the natural market of white conservative Catholics in America sold their soul and shill for the Republican party.

Though I think that's changing and they're becoming more European.

[CountDeMoney]

They're there too. But a lot of the natural market of white conservative Catholics in America sold their soul and shill for the Republican party.

They don't carry the political heft like the big protestant mega-churches, though.

Though I think that's changing and they're becoming more European.

Cake or death?  Pretty much.

[Sheilbh]

They don't carry the political heft like the big protestant mega-churches, though.

It's weird. They don't have the heft which is why the Republicans can basically get them arguing for policies that normal Catholics would find impossible - like the death penalty, the Iraq war, or torture, all while cheering on multiple philanderers like Limbaugh and D'Souza.

But I do think they have the intellectual heft. Look at the Supreme Court and the arguments that are now brought out against abortion. It's not at the level of the seamless garment, but they've been improved and moulded by Catholics.

Edit:

Cake or death?  Pretty much.

No. I follow a few very conservative American Catholics and from their posts there seems to be a big row brewing from Francis. Some are moving to a more European version of ultra-Catholicism, while others are movement conservatives first Catholics second.