There can be no compromise

Posted on December 18, 2011 by

A local book store has its staff write feedback about some of the books they sell on little pieces of card. The philosophy section, right next to the religious section, has a prominent display for The Good Book: A Secular Bible and a comment telling us that:

In every Church, Mosque, synagogue, at every lectern and in every pulpit, in each home and place of learning should sit a copy of this book. A secular humanist tome to which we can all relate and refer, and emerge, blinking, from beneath the religious dark age of the last few thousand years.

This is not a peaceful message where the ideal is living in tolerance of those who disagree and respecting their thoughts and opinons, but instead one that tells us to end ‘the religious dark age’ by getting a copy of this book into the holy places of others. The focus is militant humanist evangelism, not personal study, ending the faith of others, not sharing society politely. Whether they call themselves liberals or claim to be tolerant none of us should forget that they are here to attack and destroy that which they disagree with. This message was written by an employee in a book shop rather than a grandstanding university professor trying to shock and awe his students and grab attention as part of a never ending narcissistic ego trip. It is the plain and simple ideology of the rank and file members of the humanist movement and it reveals the mainstream thrust of their efforts.

None of this should be surprising: humanism is at odds with religion and so conflict is inevitable. We see this manifested now beyond the realm of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ and instead in the world of government enforcement. We have Christians refused the right to foster children as they will not promote sodomy, B&B owners fined thousands of pounds for refusing to allow sodomy under their roof and a Members of Parliament calling for churches to be forced to perform ‘homosexual marriages’.

What is strange is that so many people, on both sides, have been able to believe that tolerance and co-existence are goals of humanist, liberal ideology and that a middle way of compromise could be reached. Such a compromise solution could only ever be temporary as the moment either side were to get a political advantage they would push to enforce their values on the whole as few are they that are willing to co-exist with that which they consider evil, lies and perversion – whatever these things might be in their opinion. Thus the world can never be stable at a compromise point between the liberal and the conservative, but must instead wobble from one state to the other as numbers and strength change with the trends in conversions and demography.

Thus we must all realize that compromise is not an option and can never be the aim. As a tactical pursuit in the short-term it can perhaps be the correct course – this of course has been demonstrated in the western world by the success of the liberal gradualists who ratcheted along their program at a snails pace while convincing enough people to ignore the dire ends they were marching towards with the soothing words of liberal tolerance and diversity. Never, however, can such compromise and middle way solutions be the ultimate strategy as if you stop there when you are strong you will only find that your opponent will regroup and once they are in a position of strength you will be relying upon them to not eliminate you. Certainly our opponents realize this, the Member of Parliament mentioned earlier – seeking to force ‘homosexual marriage’ on churches – certainly does and wrote [with my comments]:

Several campaigns are currently calling for, variously, the creation of a right to a Marriage for same-sex couples and the creation of a right to a Civil Partnership for opposite-sex couples. Such proposals may seemingly be the next logical step in the campaign for equality [next gradualist step] but, if enacted, would still leave us with a messy compromise [comrpomise is unstable and only a temporary solution]. As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality. Such behaviour is not tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all [conclusion that the ultimate goal must be to force their views upon the religious (N.B. Catholic adoption agencies had to close in the UK for the sake of tolerance and equality of sodomy)].

The Church Militant must strive for complete victory in the name of Christ as we can be sure that those who oppose us are committed to nothing less than our complete defeat. Sadly for them, they have picked the wrong team: ‘And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’, Matthew 16:18. None the less, while assured of final victory, if we do not commit ourselves to the task we will lose many painful battles before the end.