Comparative religion
Posted by Ron Coleman on August 27, 2007
Is Christianity inconsistent with nationalism? It depends, I guess, on what you call Christianity — a common enough problem. But see What’s Wrong with the World on this issue as crystallized in the ongoing Spencer-Derbyshire debate.
UPDATE: Wow.
Jack said
“Is Christianity inconsistent with nationalism? It depends, I guess, on what you call Christianity — a common enough problem.”
I suspect it has a whole lot to do with what your nation is like, don’t it?
Mckiernan said
The notion that either of these debaters might have a clue is suspect.
Derbyshire once wrote:
“Let’s face it, in the great 20th century struggle between the state and the individual, the state has won, game, set and match.”
It would seem that he has zero confidence in the individual, much less any religion.
Spencer, on the other hand, lacks certain and evident wisdom as it applies re: christian apologetics that he weakly attempts to provide.
craig mclaughlin said
“Is Christianity inconsistent with nationalism?”
Yes.
Roland Dodds said
I will also have to say that Christianity is inconsistent with nationalism. The basic tenant of the belief structure is that it belongs to all people of all nations, and applies these concepts to people of all backgrounds in the hope that they will all unite under a common identity.
Roland Dodds said
Sorry to post two comments in a row, but I think this story is something that needs broader exposure.
Jack said
“Sorry to post two comments in a row, but I think this story is something that needs broader exposure.”
Yes, it does.
The point the debate seems to be missing is that there are both all kinds of nationalism, and all kinds of Christianity.
There is modern American nationalism, which is basically easily compatible with modern liberal (not in the political, but philosophical use of the term) Judeo-Christian values.
There is modern Iranian government sanctioned and inspired nationalism, which is obviously incompatible with most modern liberal Christian values. There is Fascist nationalism, and Communistic nationalism, which obviously were opposed to Christianity, a priori.
There is ancient Christainity, which obviously was not sympatico with Rome, but which transformed Rome into being sympatico. There is medieval Christianity (of which there were also many forms, and several sects, Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox) and all of these forms would have been basically incompatible with modern liberal nationalism (though most of these forms got on quite well with the indigenous forms of nationalism at the time in which they operated, and although modern Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Coptics are no more, or less, naturally incompatible with their national identities than any other form of Christianity.)
By conducting the debate in such a way, for the most part those undertaking the debate seem to ignore the very real condition that various forms, degrees, types, and shades of nationalism currently exist, some of which are compatible with most forms of modern Christianity, some of which are obviously not.
If national goals, ideals, and aspirations basically parallel or augment or in sympathy with Christian ideals and Judeo-Christian principles, then obviously nationalism and Christianity are allies, many times natural allies. If Christian ideals and nationalism clash, then obviously they are opposed in general aims, objectives, and sentiments.
But the debate as framed is very much like saying, “Is Charismatic compatible with being a scientist?”
Well, whaddya mean by that sunshine?
A Frankenstein, or a Newton?