6. The Democracy Itself as the Sacred Value

For the Danish Constitutional Assembly of 1848 God, King and Motherland were still the sacred values, just as it had been for the King and the absolute Monarchy. The members of the assembly only had the opinion that the people's representatives would be able to make better decisions to the benefit of their country, than the absolute king and his ministers were.

That the Assembly found the motherland very important can be concluded from Denmark's following involvement in the Slesvig Wars in 1848 and 1864, and in general by the nineteenth century's nationalism.

Later times have silently, without our notice, replaced the sacred values of "God, King and Motherland" with "Democracy, Human Rights and Tolerance towards other races and religions".

Today we are a people, who in effect have rejected the values of Christianity and the Motherland. Only few are interested in religion, and many find it a bit ridiculous to talk about "The Danish People" or "The Motherland". Contrary - Democracy, Human Rights and Tolerance for other races and religions are supported with the greatest enthusiasm. Theses are the new sacred values of the people, which one cannot criticize without being made a suspicious person or even frozen out from social connections.

It is not right to replace the objectives with the means to obtain them.

One can support the concept of democracy, because we think that this is the system, which best can choose the right leaders and make just the right decisions to the benefit of the real objectives, which should be should be dominated by the wish for welfare and happiness of our people and our country.

But one should not worship Democracy, just because we think, it is a holy subject, which all decent and honest people simply have to support. It is a big mistake to worship the tools and ignore the real objectives.

In modern time Freedom and Human Rights have got very much the same status, which the Ten Commands had in the past. Confused teen-agers arrange demonstrations and street fightings for total freedom.

The Christian God has handed down the Ten Commands to us. Who gave us "Human Rights", and why should these commands be so sacred for us?

Human Rights should not be such ultimate commands, which all governments have to obey without questions. But perhaps they could be useful as a kind of international legal standards or guidelines, which the governments can follow, if they so prefer, and if the nation and the taxpayers can afford it.

Human rights as legal standards are good. It is a good thing to live in a country, where you can believe, what you want and say, what you like. For example, I can write this article without being persecuted by the authorities.

But in essence human rights are empty values.

Let us take the human right of "Freedom of Belief" as an example. OK, now we are free, and we can believe, what we want. Then, what should we believe in, apart from the Human Rights, Democracy and Total Freedom and the like? The Human Rights say nothing about this. Most people, who presently are very committed to Human Rights, seem to have only vague ideas about, what it is, the rights allow them to do.

For the American settlers religious freedom was not an empty concept, they had their Protestant sects, which they wanted to have freedom to believe in, as they pleased. It was the Lutherans, Presbyters, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Amish, Mormons and of course, Catholics and Russian Orthodox and so on.

Also for the fathers of the Danish Constitution and their contemporaries religious freedom cannot have been an empty concept. Grundtvig himself was a member of the Assembly, and he had, as it is well known, very specific ideas about, what you may believe in. Only a few decades later the country became divided in two rivalizing religious camps, "The Inner Mission" and "The Grundtvigians".

Thus we can take the human rights one by one. We do not really have anything to use them for. We live in a value vacuum. It is a very dangerous situation for our people and our Motherland.

Already a considerable number of European and also US citizens have converted to Islam. Women seem to be especialy attracted to the Muslim faith. The britsh journalist Yvonne Ridley became converted to the Muslim faith, when she was a prisoner of the Talibans. Fatimah Mohammed from Iowa seems to have converted in order to get a husbond.The German convert Eric Breininger have joined the Talibans in Afganistan as a Jihad fighter.

It looks like that especialy in our neighbouring countries, England and Sweden. Many natural borne Englishmen and Swedes have already converted to the Muslim faith.

Helena Benauoda is a natural born Swede, however she has become an important member af the Islamic Board in Sweden. She estimates that in Sweden alone already about 5000 natural born Swedes have converted to Islam.

Famous philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jeremy Bentham did not recognize the concept of human rights.

"Right is a child of law", Bentham wrote. "From real laws comes real rights; but from imaginary laws, from the "law of Nature", comes imaginary rights - natural rights are simply nonsense".

The real sacred objects for our nations should be the welfare of our own people and our own country and not some imaginary "rights" handed down to us from an unknown God.

The concept of tolerance was mainly developed during the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance.

John Locke wrote about tolerance in his "Letter Concerning Toleration." He distinguished between matters that it is possible to achieve true knowledge about and issues relating to faith. Jews, Muslims, Christians and heathen are all equally convinced of the truth of their religious faith, he wrote.

John Locke and his contemporaries attention was primarily directed at the many new Protestant sects in England. Since we cannot obtain full knowledge about which faith is true, we must tolerate them, he argued.

However Locke did not think that Catholics and Atheists should be tolerated.

Catholics could not be tolerated, because they "professed allegiance to a foreign prince", this means the Pope.

Atheists could not be tolerated because "those that deny the being of God" are not bound by "promises, covenants, and oaths". "The taking away of God dissolves all", Locke wrote. In the court-rooms of many countries it is used to swear to speak the truth with the hand on the Bible. It must be a procedure, which goes back to Locke and his contemporaries.

Nowadays the concept of tolerance is used to defend the immigration of Muslims.

But note that Locke wanted to tolerate those of his own countrymen, who had accepted a new faith. If he had seen the English cities been filled up with Muslims, he would surely have written quite different.

Locks arguments against Catholics and Atheists have still validity against the modern Muslims as well.

It is well known that Muslims are more loyal to religious authorities in their homeland, than they are loyal to the Danish Queen and her government. It is also well known that the Muslim faith includes the concept of "Holy War", which allows them to use any means in their fight and struggle against the infidels, including swearing falsely.