apartheid state of mind

reflections on civilisationism

In my previous post, I linked to a few essays and conversations on the recent situation in the land the Romans called Palestine, but I didn’t share much of my own perspective. As a blue-eyed Boer¹ who dimly recalls the transition from the old regime to the new on the southern tip of the continent the Romans called Africa, and who now lives in voluntary exile on the island the Romans called Britannia, my despair is tempered by wry amusement as I listen to pundits argue whether actually existing Zionism can fairly be termed an Apartheid state; and what, if anything, this analogy tells us about how outsiders should respond to the situation.

Lately though, my thoughts have been occupied by Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s very public conversion to Christianity² and the various reactions this has elicited.

Richard Dawkins wrote her an embarrassingly chummy open letter³ calling for a public debate so he can mansplain atheism to her again. Ross Douthat did his Christian duty, welcoming her into the fold and letting God judge her motives. Freddie de Boer did his Marxist duty, admonishing her for worshipping the god-shaped hole rather than the classless society-shaped hole.

Tyler Cowen observed with equanimity that “classical liberals” are increasingly religious, quoting Aella’s view that it seems to be more “cultural” now and less about belief. Speaking of classical liberals, Henry Oliver pointed out that secular saint JS Mill had fairly nuanced views on religion.

On a more personal note, Justin Smith-Ruiu offered some characteristically meandering thoughts on conversion and reversion⁴.

Circling back to the Holy Land(s), Zohar Atkinson approved of Ayaan’s willingness to pretend to believe in the Christian God as a psychological crutch and a cudgel against the Muslim hordes⁵, provocatively calling her conversion Jewish.

1. I was genuinely surprised that my 23andme results came back 1/8th Ashkenazi Jew.

2. Infidel left a big impression on me when I read it as a young homosexual struggling against the Calvinist interpretation of the Abrahamic God, so I feel personally invested in her spiritual journey.

3. Mercifully, he does not use the term Muslima. He does, however, use the term wokery pokery.

4. I was reminded of following passage from Awaiting God (which sits quite uncomfortably besides Weil’s own scathing views of Judaism):

When one is born into a religion that is not too unsuitable for pronouncing the name of the Lord, when one loves that native religion, well-oriented and pure, it is difficult to conceive of a legitimate motive to abandon it before direct contact with God offers the soul to the divine will itself. Beyond this threshold, the change is only legitimate as an act of obedience. In fact history shows how this rarely happens. More often — perhaps always — the soul that reaches the highest spiritual regions is confirmed in the love of the tradition that served as its ladder.

5. To be clear, this is my uncharitable characterisation of Ayaan’s position, not Zohar’s. As John Pistelli once replied to a question about Puritanism I submitted anonymously to his Tumblr account (shoutout to parasocial situationships!), people like to talk about Athens vs Jerusalem, but the interesting splits are within Athens and Jerusalem. I don’t think it makes much sense to criticise or defend Christianity tout court. There are perhaps as many Christianities as there are Christians. What my gay ass finds triggering is the type of Christianity that, as Sarah Haider described here, has ‘a begrudging respect for Islam’ as a ‘based religion’ or the type where Lady Ayaan crusades into Jerusalem like a 21st century Jeanne d’Arc. (Although I have to confess that not unlike my first problematic literary crush Saint Genet, I am not immune to the erotic attractions of (anti)fascism — I once got stoned and ordered a massive Taschen picturebook of Tom of Finland because I saw Camille Paglia had contributed an essay — nonetheless I believe certain fantasies should be kept firmly in the boudoir, which is not the same as saying they should be kept strictly private; I’m not one of those LGB gays shrieking ‘we are not consenting to your fetish!’).

But I digress. I’m cautious of hawking my own brand of sex positive psychedelic pseudo-Christianity because I have the humility to admit that it is not so much a coherent worldview as a makeshift framework cobbled together from various pieces of cultural flotsam and unprocessed trauma and complexes that a dilettantish interest in Jung has only partly unravelled. The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way. But I have one humble suggestion to civilisationist Christians and their fellow travelers: reread the Sermon on the Mount.