Alternative Right: Anti-Christian or post-Christian?

Some have claimed that the website is anti-Christian; the charge had been levelled before at certain writers around Mr. Spencer when they were at TakiMag. Is there a fair charge, if this "alternative right" includes professing Christians among its ranks?

James Kalb concludes his essay published at Alternative Right, "The One, the Many, and the Alternative Right":

The theo-trad option

What the foregoing shows is that modernist--secularist, rationalist, reductionist--alternatives to liberalism don't work.

Like liberalism, they try to be more rational than the traditional order, and give us clear, demonstrable, forceful answers that will stand up in the modern battle of ideologies. They do that though by making the world smaller and simpler than it has to be for us to inhabit, and end up as crazy as liberalism and probably more violent.

That's why, I suppose, Alternative Right found it advisable to define itself as "magazine of radical traditionalism," where "radical traditionalism" is defined (I also suppose) in a "big tent" fashion to include people other than the Integral Traditionalists.

A big tent is a nice place to discuss things, but it doesn't tell us how to understand the world and organize human life. What's needed to deal with the issues we've run into is some more particular view that--no doubt along with other requirements--accepts that universals, particulars, and intermediate arrangements are all necessary and real. None reduces into the others, and each has its role:

* Universals provide the setting that determines the nature and significance of particulars.
* Particulars give universals reality and function.
* Intermediate arrangements look both ways. From one direction they bring universals down to earth and make them particular standards individuals can deal with. Instead of Duty we have particular duties to attend to. From the other direction, they connect individuals to more universal concerns by making them part of something concrete larger than themselves.

The basic issue for an alternative right, then, is what can bring particulars, universals, and intermediate arrangements into a stable and satisfying common order that respects each. Unless we have some such principle we're not going to be able to propose anything that works better than liberalism.

And that, of course, is a religious question. The basic question for the alternative right, then, is which religion best presents a cosmic order that does justice to all its elements. The issues really are that basic. Secular rationalism won't solve them. Assertion of particular identity and denunciation of universals wouldn't solve them even if that move made sense for Western man. We need something beyond those things.

He doesn't give his own answer here, but I don't think it is Islam. Alas, I can't access the comments so I don't know what others have written in response to the essay. Mr. Kalb professes Catholic Christianity to be the answer. Only a few of the commentors assert a belief in Christianity; others reject Christianity or do not think that the theo-trad option is viable.

See his "Is Christianity for Wimps?"