Desert Storm Navy Combat Veteran here... I've seen heroism, I've witnessed brilliance in leadership and put my life in the hands of true subject matter experts. Ayaan is not only a hero of mine, but a brilliant SME whose voice is so important at this moment in history.
Dear Ms. Ali, I am sorry to see that the comment section of this second article is filled with so many naysayers. Your mission is noble and your method is worthy. Please ignore these nattering nabobs of negativism. May God be with you!
I am a college professor with graduate degrees in two separate STEM fields. You cannot explain how 26 fundamental constants of physics remain constant across the approximately 3 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion points of the space-time continuum of our universe without God. Your explanation is either 1) it's all just an incredible coincidence, or 2) a circular argument from science, whose very consistency is what is at stake. A universe without God would be so utterly chaotic that atoms could not form, let alone molecules, or life forms.
Your ongoing misery and/or anger does not change the facts of the universe. Its very predictability is proof of God's existence.
Please continue as you’ve begun, Ayaan. You have many readers who want to read what you have to say about saving the West. Some will not believe our God exists, their off topic points need to be ignored.
Your argument has been refuted a thousand times. If you try to explain a remarkable fact by invoking God, then you’ve just given yourself the harder task of explaining God. If you then try to get out of it by saying that God doesn’t need an explanation (“always was”, “is necessary “, “just is”, “made itself”, whatever), then you’ve overturned your initial claim that remarkable facts needs explanations.
Perhaps you didn't understand the post? A society wherein you are able to announce your athiesim on a public platform, without being stoned or beheaded, or spending your life under a fatwah, is Ms Ali's desire. Your despereate need to disprove and deny something that you believe does not exist is, within that context, irrelevant. As a refutal of the existence of a diety, it is somewhat lacking in coherent argument. And, if you choose not to join or support the movement proposed, why are you commenting? is there not a substack for athiestis and nihilists where you can air your view?
I have no desperate need for one thought only. In fact I understood immediately one’s right to not choose belief in God without losing the love of God. Atheism- Been there, done that. Publicly. Don’t expect God to give up. It’s His Gift to give.
This new venture gives me hope-thank you-It is the value of the individual that is the basis for truth that Western Civilization has held -we are made in the image of God, and this is the reason we can fundamentally argue the “why?” We can confidently go forward to protect the individual-In other past civilizations’ systems, their subjects had only material value like objects or usable “things”. Communism and Socialism would be more recent examples. Only the top layer of those systems’ rulers enjoyed prosperity and freedom. In many current ruling systems not based upon Western civilization throughout the world (China, fundamental Islamist rule, for example) freedom is not to be expected or enjoyed. Let us begin.
Wouldn’t it be better to call that list “Enlightenment values” rather than “Judeo-Christian values”? Many secular-minded people (such as myself) would be less likely to support you if you use the latter term.
Enlightenment values, if they are merely "secular," have no solid roots and shift with the wind. Judeo-Christian values, from which the Enlightenment sprang, are rooted in reality, in enduring truth—not to be confused with "religiosity."
It would seem those would be very shallow to turn a back on positive action based on values being termed Judeo-Christian. So to be clear, to what do you attribute those values to? Because I’m unaware of any other entities that build a foundation on those tenets.
Kosmos is measurable, not boundless. Astrophysics can "see" that it's expanding from a beginning, and if it has a beginning, it has a Beginner. Check the evidence from astrophysics.
Wrong. It is straight up Aristotelian metaphysical thinking (unrelated by method from reality's arbitration) to assign an agency and the agency's cause to movement (in this case, what we select based on an absence of further evidence to be a 'beginning'). Your assignment of agency - and then claim this assignment is 'evidence' doesn't make it so IN or FROM reality. For that extraordinary claim to have any knowledge basis rather than imported metaphysical musings mistaken for 'evidence', we need reality and not you and your beliefs, nor Aristotle's, to provide it.
While I find there to be laudable developments within certain Enlightenment thinkers, I think of them to be specialized continuations of classical and scholastic thought (namely those like Locke and Montesquieu). These are in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But to suppose the Enlightenment ideas of Rousseau or Condorcet are to be valued would be unacceptable. The French Revolution spawned some of the worst ideas and tyrannies in human history: namely all the proto-forms of socialism (later inspiring nazism and bolshevism).
Cultural tradition, yes but not derived from it. This is a common misunderstanding. Hirsi should know perfectly well that even a Richard Dawkins claims to be a cultural Christian but in no way does this association become causal to liberal principles. In fact and history, Christianity had to be overcome in political authority before these liberal values could find a home in reason and human rights.
Thank you for your constructive reply! I would add a caveat that the cultural tradition of the west is not arbitrary nor unfounded. It is a good thing because it a good thing throughout the ages.
To your point about the non-causality of Christian society to liberal principles. St. Gregory the Great spoke about human equality in the 6th century. Natural rights theory was systematized in the 12th medieval Europe. Free market principles were developed in the 16th in Spain. Education and healthcare were projects of the Church. Property rights of nonChristians was confidently defended by Vitoria and De Las Casas. And this is just the Catholic realm!
Enlightenment ideas and thinkers stand upon the shoulders of giants. The history reveals as much.
This is like claiming the principle of equality law was a Christian concept because the Magna Charta was produced in a Christian country by Christians in 1215. The point is that the Christian religious belief itself did not produce or cause any of these ideas you mention but, most often and throughout most of its history, was actually used by various Christian authorities as divinely authorized to stand contrary to them. My criticism here is that by basing the defence of liberal values on assumed and assigned 'Christian' heritage and faith of them by Hirsi automatically, fundamentally, and fatally undermines them. These liberal values are not religious in any way but fully and importantly secular. No need for any god or gods from which to derive authority for them but an emergent and sufficient property of simply being human (as in 'We the people' from the US Constitution that declares this authority - the people - and no other like some god or gods to be sufficient). So not an auspicious beginning to defending liberal values, methinks.
A rose, by any other name is still a rose. Similarly , replacing A.D. with B.C.E. Doesn’t change the fact that 95% of the world’s time is based on the life of Jesus Christ, whether or not a believer. If the first term would prevent you adhering support to the cause, perhaps Ayyan will accommodate you.
Exactly, I cringed when I read that. Not that It isn't a foundation of Western civilization, it's that Western civilization only began it ascendency when society became sufficiently secular.
Yes, Christianity strongly *opposed* “freedom of conscience and expression” for most of Christendom, and it was only with The Enlightenment, when Europe began getting secular, and many people stopped being religious, that freedom of speech and religion came to the fore.
It’s true that many Christian institutions often crushed dissent, but the very moral language the Enlightenment used to argue for conscience and human dignity was also nourished by Christian ideas—so the story is less ‘Christianity vs freedom’ than ‘power vs conscience,’ but it's also true that we find professing Christians on both sides.
Simply disagree. Rome and the papacy were responsible for withholding truth and using Christianity as a tool to control the people. Weaponized, in other words.
But ultimately they failed. Then the Enlightenment was wide open to the western world. That enabled Dawkins and Locke, et al, the freedom to express themselves.
You can’t blame it purely on Catholicism. For starters, Catholicism dominated Western Christianity for most of its history. Saying that the dominant form of Christianity is bad amounts to saying that Christianity is bad. For seconds, Protestantism has often been just as oppressive.
The dominant form of Christianity in this country has not been Roman Catholicism, it's been non-conformist. And rather than the faith being bad I'd suggest it's the abuse of religion that has been bad. The defining identity of Christian thought (rather than the politicised religion) is the clinging to a monotheistic notion of universal God who is also human, and who values selfless love above all, regardless of politics. Our culture must remain free of coercive religion from whichever country it comes, free of theocracy, free of fundamentalism and sectarianism, a place of fairness and decency.
This amounts to saying that if you define “Christianity” is being all the good bits of Christianity and none of the bad bits, then Christianity is good. It still remains true that the better versions of Christianity emerged from the Enlightenment.
I can understand atheists not wanting to sign up to an organisation that may be promoting religious ideas.
However, the West actually and historically IS based on the values of the Jewish and Christian religions.
It's just a historical fact. I think of it like this:
We all know that historically, scientists extracted the key compound of the drug aspirin from the willow tree, yet now, aspirin is unrecognisable as a part of that tree.
It stands as little pills in a pack or box that alleviates pain and thins the blood.
We all recognise what it is and how useful to humankind it has been but we don't have to study botany to value it.
It’s true that the West was Christian for most of it’s history, and it’s true that Judeo-Christianity has a way better set of values than Islam, but many important Western values today are improvements on Judeo-Christianity. For example, of the Ten Commandments, the first four are the opposite of “freedom of conscience and expression”, and it’s only vastly later that such values emerged, and that emergence was often coupled with secularisation. .
Since I can only see your replies in my notification and not in the original thread, I will have to reply to both of them here.
If our inalienable rights come from "we the people" as you claim, then they can also be withdrawn by "we the people" when "we the people" change their mind. The US Constitution can be amended. God's will cannot.
My argument for God's existence has not been refuted "a thousand times". I confirmed with a philosophy professor that my argument is actually a brand new argument. I did not say that God achieved something "remarkable". I said that the 26 fundamental constants of physics are constant throughout the 3 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion points of the space-time continuum of our universe. Mathematically, the probability of that happening at random is zero. Science alone cannot explain how science is possible. Any fundamental force or fundamental particle you imagine must have its own predictability explained. Either there were 8 times 10 to the 246th power amazing coincidences, or there is a Ground for existence.
You are projecting onto me your disdain for Christianity. I am not arguing for Christianity. I am arguing for an unmoved Mover, a prime Cause, a Ground for existence. You are unable to explain how science is possible.
Like you, I immediately saw the problem between making a religious ownership claim about "individual liberty, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, and the dignity of every human being," and what's factually true about these being revolutionary liberal principles. Promoting antithetical religious beliefs in the name of the enlightenment values they undermine is just another dishonest bait and switch religious apologetic tactic to claim what it didn't create and doesn't own.
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
A benevolent human may grant privileges, and a malevolent human may take those privileges away. The American Founding Fathers were wise enough to clarify that our rights derive solely from God, and that is what makes them inalienable.
The phrase "God of the gaps" is nothing more than an empty smirk, devoid of depth.
You cannot prevent the majority of people from witnessing the divine.
The Enlightenment grew from ancient Judeo-Christian values, as does modern Western law . You don't have to be either Jewish or Christian to align with these values, which apply to everyone including atheists and Druids.
Even if you are secular minded , your core values originated centuries ago from the values Arsan Hirsili mentioned. You can join this movement without being obliged to believe.
Ayaan, this is so inspiring. I am also an immigrant, but from South America. I have experienced first hand what corruption, class politics, excessive government control and leftist ideology can do to damage society as a whole. I came from a working class, impoverished family of ten, eight children and my parents. They were victims of that kind of politics and a society based on a model designed to keep people uneducated and dependent on government assistance. My family had to claw their way out of poverty. My parents wanted a different life for us, but could not do much apart from passing on the values inherited from their parents and grandparents. With their emotional support I made it to where I am, moved to the UK, I pursued an education and built a successful life. I was accepted and celebrated here. The British values, culture and heritage, this country’s history of heroism and selflessness aligned so much with all the values passed onto me by my parents. I fell in love with this country. It pains me to see what is happening here. I felt so much pain and despair, and hated this sense of helplessness. It gives me great joy to access your work and I am grateful that you opened up this forum so that we can exchange ideas and join in finding solutions to save our countries. Thank you so much!
What a great topic of discussion and raison d'etre. All the nonsense from the left is on every level preposterous. Yes, we did kill off and conquer and assimilate (more of the fomer most likely) the indigenous people of N. America. At least in the US. Our friends to the south are very interested in getting all their indigenous people to leave their countries for some strange reason..... and go to El Norte. The only real difference is that our conquest came about fairly recently in recorded history. We are ALL the descendants of slaves. Our ancestors were booted out of every place they came from. Otherwise, why would they have left "civilization". Might has almost always made right for all of human history and most of modern history including today too if you look around the world (i.e. Iran, China, Russia, etc). The world emulates...... the western model because it is WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. If they want to help, they should feel free to donate their time and money to help others. There is plenty of need within 5 miles of where any of us are reading this. Either here at home, or where-ever. The problem of foreign aid not tied to individuals is that most of it ends up in the hands of the very tyrants enslaving their people.
I am currently taking a deep dive back into the works of Francis Schaeffer and your manifesto echos his 1981 book A Christian Manifesto. This post hits all the main points, especially how Western Civilization principals are built on Judeo-Christian moral absolutes vs. the secular Humanism of the last century that has redefined every aspect of society from law to culture. Count me on board for this new and necessary project.
Speaking for myself, it would be a much better start to the program if it dropped the baggage of misinformed and dishonest religious claims to the liberal values being forwarded for support. I cannot in good conscience overlook the former to support the latter because the latter stands on its own merits.
Desert Storm Navy Combat Veteran here... I've seen heroism, I've witnessed brilliance in leadership and put my life in the hands of true subject matter experts. Ayaan is not only a hero of mine, but a brilliant SME whose voice is so important at this moment in history.
Dear Ms. Ali, I am sorry to see that the comment section of this second article is filled with so many naysayers. Your mission is noble and your method is worthy. Please ignore these nattering nabobs of negativism. May God be with you!
No deities exist...
I am a college professor with graduate degrees in two separate STEM fields. You cannot explain how 26 fundamental constants of physics remain constant across the approximately 3 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion points of the space-time continuum of our universe without God. Your explanation is either 1) it's all just an incredible coincidence, or 2) a circular argument from science, whose very consistency is what is at stake. A universe without God would be so utterly chaotic that atoms could not form, let alone molecules, or life forms.
Your ongoing misery and/or anger does not change the facts of the universe. Its very predictability is proof of God's existence.
Please continue as you’ve begun, Ayaan. You have many readers who want to read what you have to say about saving the West. Some will not believe our God exists, their off topic points need to be ignored.
Your argument has been refuted a thousand times. If you try to explain a remarkable fact by invoking God, then you’ve just given yourself the harder task of explaining God. If you then try to get out of it by saying that God doesn’t need an explanation (“always was”, “is necessary “, “just is”, “made itself”, whatever), then you’ve overturned your initial claim that remarkable facts needs explanations.
God of the gaps argument. It's a fallacy BTW, a basic thinking error shown to be a killer - if we let it - of acquiring knowledge (goddidit).
It’s easy to explain God people. God is The All. Period.
Nice!!
Perhaps you didn't understand the post? A society wherein you are able to announce your athiesim on a public platform, without being stoned or beheaded, or spending your life under a fatwah, is Ms Ali's desire. Your despereate need to disprove and deny something that you believe does not exist is, within that context, irrelevant. As a refutal of the existence of a diety, it is somewhat lacking in coherent argument. And, if you choose not to join or support the movement proposed, why are you commenting? is there not a substack for athiestis and nihilists where you can air your view?
I have no desperate need for one thought only. In fact I understood immediately one’s right to not choose belief in God without losing the love of God. Atheism- Been there, done that. Publicly. Don’t expect God to give up. It’s His Gift to give.
that you are aware of…
Heather, I need to inform you that I am not aware whom your comment is directed to. Please inform me if it is me. Thanks.
Not directed at you.
I love this new platform Ayaan! I have been a fan since I first read "Infidel". Thank you for everything you do!
Thank you for your kind words.
— The RtW Team
Thank you for this mission, for helping us put our thoughts into words.
Thank you, Ayaan! Looking forward to hearing more. 🙏
You are awesome! I love reading your perspective and views.
Thank you for your kind words.
— The RtW Team
This new venture gives me hope-thank you-It is the value of the individual that is the basis for truth that Western Civilization has held -we are made in the image of God, and this is the reason we can fundamentally argue the “why?” We can confidently go forward to protect the individual-In other past civilizations’ systems, their subjects had only material value like objects or usable “things”. Communism and Socialism would be more recent examples. Only the top layer of those systems’ rulers enjoyed prosperity and freedom. In many current ruling systems not based upon Western civilization throughout the world (China, fundamental Islamist rule, for example) freedom is not to be expected or enjoyed. Let us begin.
Thank you for your support. Let’s restore the West together.
— The RtW Team
I have been following you for several years now...Nial also...and you could not be more on point!
Thank you for your support.
— The RtW Team
Wouldn’t it be better to call that list “Enlightenment values” rather than “Judeo-Christian values”? Many secular-minded people (such as myself) would be less likely to support you if you use the latter term.
Enlightenment values, if they are merely "secular," have no solid roots and shift with the wind. Judeo-Christian values, from which the Enlightenment sprang, are rooted in reality, in enduring truth—not to be confused with "religiosity."
But if you build a campaign on that claim, then you’ll alienate roughly half of your potential supporters who don’t agree.
It would seem those would be very shallow to turn a back on positive action based on values being termed Judeo-Christian. So to be clear, to what do you attribute those values to? Because I’m unaware of any other entities that build a foundation on those tenets.
Rubbish. They stand on their own principled merit and owe fealty to no contrary religious belief that dishonestly claims to own them.
Historically, yes, but the kosmos is quantal, boundless, ineffable & inexplicable. We live & perish w/o meaning, love our sole assuage.
Kosmos is measurable, not boundless. Astrophysics can "see" that it's expanding from a beginning, and if it has a beginning, it has a Beginner. Check the evidence from astrophysics.
Wrong. It is straight up Aristotelian metaphysical thinking (unrelated by method from reality's arbitration) to assign an agency and the agency's cause to movement (in this case, what we select based on an absence of further evidence to be a 'beginning'). Your assignment of agency - and then claim this assignment is 'evidence' doesn't make it so IN or FROM reality. For that extraordinary claim to have any knowledge basis rather than imported metaphysical musings mistaken for 'evidence', we need reality and not you and your beliefs, nor Aristotle's, to provide it.
Are you from western Michigan? Do you have a relative named Ray Bronkema?
Respondent b. 1931 in Muscatine, Iowa, but Ray mite be 3rd cousin via Jacob Bronkema [b. Groningen, Friesland c . 1875].
While I find there to be laudable developments within certain Enlightenment thinkers, I think of them to be specialized continuations of classical and scholastic thought (namely those like Locke and Montesquieu). These are in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But to suppose the Enlightenment ideas of Rousseau or Condorcet are to be valued would be unacceptable. The French Revolution spawned some of the worst ideas and tyrannies in human history: namely all the proto-forms of socialism (later inspiring nazism and bolshevism).
Cultural tradition, yes but not derived from it. This is a common misunderstanding. Hirsi should know perfectly well that even a Richard Dawkins claims to be a cultural Christian but in no way does this association become causal to liberal principles. In fact and history, Christianity had to be overcome in political authority before these liberal values could find a home in reason and human rights.
Thank you for your constructive reply! I would add a caveat that the cultural tradition of the west is not arbitrary nor unfounded. It is a good thing because it a good thing throughout the ages.
To your point about the non-causality of Christian society to liberal principles. St. Gregory the Great spoke about human equality in the 6th century. Natural rights theory was systematized in the 12th medieval Europe. Free market principles were developed in the 16th in Spain. Education and healthcare were projects of the Church. Property rights of nonChristians was confidently defended by Vitoria and De Las Casas. And this is just the Catholic realm!
Enlightenment ideas and thinkers stand upon the shoulders of giants. The history reveals as much.
This is like claiming the principle of equality law was a Christian concept because the Magna Charta was produced in a Christian country by Christians in 1215. The point is that the Christian religious belief itself did not produce or cause any of these ideas you mention but, most often and throughout most of its history, was actually used by various Christian authorities as divinely authorized to stand contrary to them. My criticism here is that by basing the defence of liberal values on assumed and assigned 'Christian' heritage and faith of them by Hirsi automatically, fundamentally, and fatally undermines them. These liberal values are not religious in any way but fully and importantly secular. No need for any god or gods from which to derive authority for them but an emergent and sufficient property of simply being human (as in 'We the people' from the US Constitution that declares this authority - the people - and no other like some god or gods to be sufficient). So not an auspicious beginning to defending liberal values, methinks.
This!
A rose, by any other name is still a rose. Similarly , replacing A.D. with B.C.E. Doesn’t change the fact that 95% of the world’s time is based on the life of Jesus Christ, whether or not a believer. If the first term would prevent you adhering support to the cause, perhaps Ayyan will accommodate you.
Exactly, I cringed when I read that. Not that It isn't a foundation of Western civilization, it's that Western civilization only began it ascendency when society became sufficiently secular.
Yes, Christianity strongly *opposed* “freedom of conscience and expression” for most of Christendom, and it was only with The Enlightenment, when Europe began getting secular, and many people stopped being religious, that freedom of speech and religion came to the fore.
It’s true that many Christian institutions often crushed dissent, but the very moral language the Enlightenment used to argue for conscience and human dignity was also nourished by Christian ideas—so the story is less ‘Christianity vs freedom’ than ‘power vs conscience,’ but it's also true that we find professing Christians on both sides.
Simply disagree. Rome and the papacy were responsible for withholding truth and using Christianity as a tool to control the people. Weaponized, in other words.
But ultimately they failed. Then the Enlightenment was wide open to the western world. That enabled Dawkins and Locke, et al, the freedom to express themselves.
You can’t blame it purely on Catholicism. For starters, Catholicism dominated Western Christianity for most of its history. Saying that the dominant form of Christianity is bad amounts to saying that Christianity is bad. For seconds, Protestantism has often been just as oppressive.
The dominant form of Christianity in this country has not been Roman Catholicism, it's been non-conformist. And rather than the faith being bad I'd suggest it's the abuse of religion that has been bad. The defining identity of Christian thought (rather than the politicised religion) is the clinging to a monotheistic notion of universal God who is also human, and who values selfless love above all, regardless of politics. Our culture must remain free of coercive religion from whichever country it comes, free of theocracy, free of fundamentalism and sectarianism, a place of fairness and decency.
This amounts to saying that if you define “Christianity” is being all the good bits of Christianity and none of the bad bits, then Christianity is good. It still remains true that the better versions of Christianity emerged from the Enlightenment.
I can understand atheists not wanting to sign up to an organisation that may be promoting religious ideas.
However, the West actually and historically IS based on the values of the Jewish and Christian religions.
It's just a historical fact. I think of it like this:
We all know that historically, scientists extracted the key compound of the drug aspirin from the willow tree, yet now, aspirin is unrecognisable as a part of that tree.
It stands as little pills in a pack or box that alleviates pain and thins the blood.
We all recognise what it is and how useful to humankind it has been but we don't have to study botany to value it.
It’s true that the West was Christian for most of it’s history, and it’s true that Judeo-Christianity has a way better set of values than Islam, but many important Western values today are improvements on Judeo-Christianity. For example, of the Ten Commandments, the first four are the opposite of “freedom of conscience and expression”, and it’s only vastly later that such values emerged, and that emergence was often coupled with secularisation. .
Since I can only see your replies in my notification and not in the original thread, I will have to reply to both of them here.
If our inalienable rights come from "we the people" as you claim, then they can also be withdrawn by "we the people" when "we the people" change their mind. The US Constitution can be amended. God's will cannot.
My argument for God's existence has not been refuted "a thousand times". I confirmed with a philosophy professor that my argument is actually a brand new argument. I did not say that God achieved something "remarkable". I said that the 26 fundamental constants of physics are constant throughout the 3 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion points of the space-time continuum of our universe. Mathematically, the probability of that happening at random is zero. Science alone cannot explain how science is possible. Any fundamental force or fundamental particle you imagine must have its own predictability explained. Either there were 8 times 10 to the 246th power amazing coincidences, or there is a Ground for existence.
You are projecting onto me your disdain for Christianity. I am not arguing for Christianity. I am arguing for an unmoved Mover, a prime Cause, a Ground for existence. You are unable to explain how science is possible.
Like you, I immediately saw the problem between making a religious ownership claim about "individual liberty, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, and the dignity of every human being," and what's factually true about these being revolutionary liberal principles. Promoting antithetical religious beliefs in the name of the enlightenment values they undermine is just another dishonest bait and switch religious apologetic tactic to claim what it didn't create and doesn't own.
"...the laws of nature and *nature's God*..."
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
A benevolent human may grant privileges, and a malevolent human may take those privileges away. The American Founding Fathers were wise enough to clarify that our rights derive solely from God, and that is what makes them inalienable.
The phrase "God of the gaps" is nothing more than an empty smirk, devoid of depth.
You cannot prevent the majority of people from witnessing the divine.
They don’t. Americans’ rights come from “we the people”.
Agree. And “Five Pillars”? Really? What a marketing faux pas to directly reference Islam’s core principles in an effort to fight those beliefs!
Because Islam has five pillars of belief, that negates any mission from having five completely different pillars?
No. Îs because of secularism and Enlightment that we are here!
The Enlightenment grew from ancient Judeo-Christian values, as does modern Western law . You don't have to be either Jewish or Christian to align with these values, which apply to everyone including atheists and Druids.
Even if you are secular minded , your core values originated centuries ago from the values Arsan Hirsili mentioned. You can join this movement without being obliged to believe.
Ayaan, this is so inspiring. I am also an immigrant, but from South America. I have experienced first hand what corruption, class politics, excessive government control and leftist ideology can do to damage society as a whole. I came from a working class, impoverished family of ten, eight children and my parents. They were victims of that kind of politics and a society based on a model designed to keep people uneducated and dependent on government assistance. My family had to claw their way out of poverty. My parents wanted a different life for us, but could not do much apart from passing on the values inherited from their parents and grandparents. With their emotional support I made it to where I am, moved to the UK, I pursued an education and built a successful life. I was accepted and celebrated here. The British values, culture and heritage, this country’s history of heroism and selflessness aligned so much with all the values passed onto me by my parents. I fell in love with this country. It pains me to see what is happening here. I felt so much pain and despair, and hated this sense of helplessness. It gives me great joy to access your work and I am grateful that you opened up this forum so that we can exchange ideas and join in finding solutions to save our countries. Thank you so much!
Thank you for your note and for sharing your story. It’s truly inspiring.
— RtW Team
These guiding principles and manifesto statements are truly inspiring. Bravo!
What a great topic of discussion and raison d'etre. All the nonsense from the left is on every level preposterous. Yes, we did kill off and conquer and assimilate (more of the fomer most likely) the indigenous people of N. America. At least in the US. Our friends to the south are very interested in getting all their indigenous people to leave their countries for some strange reason..... and go to El Norte. The only real difference is that our conquest came about fairly recently in recorded history. We are ALL the descendants of slaves. Our ancestors were booted out of every place they came from. Otherwise, why would they have left "civilization". Might has almost always made right for all of human history and most of modern history including today too if you look around the world (i.e. Iran, China, Russia, etc). The world emulates...... the western model because it is WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. If they want to help, they should feel free to donate their time and money to help others. There is plenty of need within 5 miles of where any of us are reading this. Either here at home, or where-ever. The problem of foreign aid not tied to individuals is that most of it ends up in the hands of the very tyrants enslaving their people.
Thank you for starting this mission. Your street credibility will proof vital for the survival of Freedom in the West. God bless you Ayan.
Thank you for your kind words.
— The RtW Team
I am currently taking a deep dive back into the works of Francis Schaeffer and your manifesto echos his 1981 book A Christian Manifesto. This post hits all the main points, especially how Western Civilization principals are built on Judeo-Christian moral absolutes vs. the secular Humanism of the last century that has redefined every aspect of society from law to culture. Count me on board for this new and necessary project.
You’re one of my top favorite writers. You get it! Keep doing what you’re doing!
Thanks for starting this Ayaan. Publications like ours may prove vital in the information wars.
We're not fighting for the soul of the West, as much as we are claiming ground in the digital landscape, one which will define future norms.
Speaking for myself, it would be a much better start to the program if it dropped the baggage of misinformed and dishonest religious claims to the liberal values being forwarded for support. I cannot in good conscience overlook the former to support the latter because the latter stands on its own merits.