a very interesting point about the Edicts of Nantes. I certainly did not know that it helped sow the seeds of the French Revolution: I assumed that only early academics could have done that if it was not the masses.

However, when I read your story of the Huguenots I am reminded of the mass emigrations from Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is clear to me that these emigrations deprived Europe of the conservative masses who were needed to maintain religiosity. They left behind two growing classes – workers and businessmen – neither sympathetic to religion.

The result was that to a significant extent the story of twentieth-century Europe is of nations with religious politicians ruling over highly secular populations.

I cannot imagine you could view such a situation as anything except inherently unstable. Europe’s present radical secularism seems to me a natural long-term result of such a situation.

Julien Peter Benney

Will look into it.

Servaas Hofmeyr

Una Birch made that case in a 1911 book, Secret Societies and the French Revolution. A new version of it is still available: www.amazon.com/Secret-Societies-Illuminati-Freemasons-Revolution/dp/0892541326/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I certainly do not claim to be an authority on revolution and revolutions, so my thoughts would only be tentative here. While there may be a groundswell of discontent among the masses, it seems that this usually needs to be harnessed, mobilised and led along by activist elites. Presumably both examples and counter-examples could be brought forward here. History buffs might like to help us out in this.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

when you say:

“Corruption and abuse of privilege in both the absolute monarchy and the powerful Catholic Church provided fertile soil for the revolution, along with widespread poverty and starvation amongst the masses”,

Do you agree with those who claim that it is never the masses who cause revolutions? This point is often argued by conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Thomas Woods (in e-mails to me) and others, yet you seem to be following a less politically incorrect line about the cause of the French Revolution.

Julien Peter Benney

Easy to forget? Study your enemies and potential persecutors, and ensure that you don’t forget. During my youth I associated with Rationalist and Humanist groups, although I was not a committed member, mainly for political reasons. I assure you there are atheists in these sorts of groups who would like to see religion disappear from the face of the Earth. They are especially antagonistic to Christianity, although they go easy on people like Spong, probably because he is a termite. They are also two-faced, pretending to be tolerant and rational in public. They like to advertise themselves as “critical thinkers” but it is easy to catch them in their dogmatic slumbers. I was at a meeting of Humanists and Skeptics where a guest speaker, an honoured leader, ranted on about how Fundies were invading schools and destroying Australian culture (his very words). No evidence was offered for these sweeping libels. The best he could do was name a member in the audience who was expert in these matters. But all she came up with at a later meeting were unverifiable anecdotes about “Fundies” at her school. What struck me about this fellow’s rant was that the audience loudly applauded as if he had made a case. It dismally failed to critically examine his claims. Even a philosophy lecturer present couldn’t bring himself to call this fool to account. I tried, but couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

These groups are also inclined to humbug. They like dismissing other people’s opinions on the grounds that they are based on anecdote, yet I attended a meeting where the members amused themselves for half an hour with negative anecdotes about religion. This was a case of petty double standards, of course, such as one commonly sees in life, but it was nevertheless amusing to watch critical thinkers strut their stuff.

I really find these people a worry. During the early seventies I knew Humanists who only accepted abortion as a strictly limited practice. Now that abortion is in open-slather mode around the world with millions of unborn human beings being killed, I don’t see any Humanist protests. What happened to the cautious moderates? These people also promote voluntary euthanasia, duly regulated by the State. If it is institutionalised and it eventually slips into involuntary euthanasia (which the moderates do not endorse), will they be protesting? Are they protesting at euthanasia abuses in Holland where there is a strong Humanist presence? For people who promote “rational ethics” they are remarkably slack about the rational process of monitoring outcomes.

John Snowden

Wow this quote is pretty strong stuff. It’s easy to forget just how zealous many of those against God are, and what we are likely to see when the restraints are removed from such people.

And isn’t it just a sign of the times how the whole world seems to be caught up in celebrating this stuff? At time when evil is called good and good is called evil.

French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and now the Sexual Revolution – all were supposed to, in their own way, bring about ‘freedom’ for mankind, yet the result has been supreme captivity.

Garth Penglase

2. The heirs of the Huguenots became hostile against the French government, and tended to succumb to the prevailing scepticism. One of these was Pierre Bayles, son of a Calvinist pastor. His writings from exile were full of trenchant criticism of and invective against persecution for conscience sake, and exercised a powerful influence against the later Bourbon monarchy, which the philosophes took up and exploited for their own purposes. For the latter both the Catholic God and the Calvinist God were reprehensible, and France would be better without either. That mentality continues to this day: the fountainhead of secular ideas – evolution, godlessness, exaltation of reason, the expanded role of government – all emanate from France.

3. Never forget that the French Revolution, after all the terror and silliness was either nearing its end or over, produced dictatorships, first of Robespierre, then supremely of Napoleon, who engineered the first modern police state. “Liberty, equality, fraternity” rang the Revolution. Napoleon was all for the last two, but rather reticent about the first – to say the least. The subsequent history of revolutions have only confirmed that initial impression: they have a way of producing dictators.

Murray Adamthwaite

It is instructive to observe today’s heirs of the Enlightenment, the Secular Humanists. They preach freedom but one of their publishing houses prints guides to X-rated porn. Where’s the freedom in addiction to porn? They preach dignity for women but excuse prostitution and porn. They also are very liberal on drug issues. Where’s the freedom in drug addiction? They claim to be in favour of the family but I have received a letter from a Humanist official defending consensual adultery (is there a slippery slope from consensual to non-consensual adultery?). And I have seen a Canadian Humanist extol the “virtues” of a bizarre family of bisexual men and women, plus children. This “scientific minded” fellow gave no indication of seriously following up with a study of outcomes, including the health of the children. As “critical thinkers” they also preach the importance of considering evidence in forming beliefs yet too often they themselves do not honour that principle. The evidence is in their journals.

John Snowden