Christians are nutters too

One of the wonderful things about the blogosphere, and particularly in the way that we all link to one another, is that one can follow the white rabbit, as it were, and find out new things. In this case, Unity has a problem with my assertions that Christian loonies are not as dangerous as Islamic ones. (oh, and Unity, great post title!*)

Unity points at the Patrick Henry College (and, nope, I hadn't heard of it) which

exists specifically for the self-appointed purpose of training young men and women:

"who will lead our nation [America] and shape our culture with timeless biblical values"

Sorry DK, not only is there genuinely a Christian plan to remake the world under their god, and Patrick Henry College is part of it, but they’re actually going about it both in plain sight and in a fashion that’s a damn sight more intelligent and hell of a lot scarier than any number of bearded wingnuts wandering round the public transport system with rucksack bombs.
...

DK’s got a valid point in the sense that when it comes to religious fanatics, its the educated ones you need to be keeping a close eye on, but when it comes to posing a threat to yours truly, I tend to figure that the odds of me getting on bus in Birmingham city centre and encountering a bearded guy muttering religious incantations to his himself in Arabic with electrical wires sticking out of his puffer jacket as still slim enough to thought negligible, while the thought of his Christian counterparts infesting the White House and Capitol Hill like a bunch of clean cut cockroaches make me rather more nervous.

Strangely enough, I don't feel that way: I wonder why not? Perhaps it's because I have never encountered a Christian who was anything other than quite quiet and pleasant. And Christianity, as it is usually practised in this country, seems to lack (most of the time) that religious zeal that we see in so many Muslims; Christianity is also, at heart (following the teachings of Jesus), not an inherently violent religion. Although is does instruct its adherents to proselytise, it encourages them to do so through peaceful means, rather than by the sword (which the Koran instructs).

However, when I think about it, I am reminded of Somerset Lloyd-James, one of the most scheming characters from Simon Raven's Alms For Oblivion series (highly recommended, by the way: each book in individually entertaining and self-contained, but taken as a series (of ten) they are unsurpassed, both in trajectory and quality of writing).

Somerset (who was allegedly based on Rees-Mogg) is the editor of Strix, a magazine on business and economics, and, whilst ugly, is incredibly charming: he is also the most manipulative and cunning strategist in the whole series, relentlessly doing down his rivals and using subtle influences to get his way?

How is this relevent? Well, he was a Roman Catholic and as one character observes, his religion provides both the motive and absolution for Lloyd-James's twistiness. Lloyd-James delights in doing people down but, when doing so, ensuring that he does not violate his religions strictures. It is the pleasure in this occupation that provides much of the motive for his wiles: he is simply incapable of behaving in straight-forward manner.

All believers in religion are loonies to some extent: it doesn't do to forget that.


* By the pricking of my thumbs... something wicked this way comes: it's from a film Macbeth. How embarrassing, mea culpa. That's what happens when you study plays for GCSE: you try to forget 'em.