Posts Tagged ‘morality’

Evolution, The Religion Of Fools. In One Picture.

April 28, 2015

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

I was on one of my hikes out in the desert when I came upon this scene way out in the middle of nowhere that caused me to marvel (you can click on it to enlarge it in a new window):

P1000062 - Copy

I state for the record that I did not assemble this or see it assembled.  It was there when I walked a route that I walked for the very first time.  It simply stands as a brute fact.  It is what it is.  The only question is how it came to be the way you see it.

Somehow, in some amazing demonstration of the power of evolutionary forces, a strong wind managed to lift one rock atop another.  And then, without knocking that rock over off its new evolutionary perch, the wind managed to stack two rocks side-by-side on top of the second rock.  Amazingly – and the miracle of evolution is clearly on display here – a fifth rock, and then a sixth rock and a seventh rock and then ultimately an eighth rock, were all successively and successfully stacked one atop the other by this marvelous Darwinian breeze.

Now, maybe you believe that.  Or maybe you’re not what the Bible labels “the fool” (Psalm 14:1) and you immediately realize what a total pile – LITERALLY – of abject idiocy the notion  that this rock pile just happened all by itself clearly is.

I truly did marvel when I saw this pile of rocks and contemplated the implications.  Because I was very well immediately aware that SOMEBODY had very clearly put this together from the determination of a mind to create something where without a mind and a decision to create there would have been nothing.  And everybody who isn’t a complete fool clearly knows that somebody assembled this monument; it didn’t just “happen,” it didn’t “evolve” by some random natural process.  And as I shall shortly demonstrate with something called “science,” I don’t care how many billion years you want to wave at this monument to claim that it happened by itself.  The longer you want to think it took, the worse the fool you are.  This is a one-to-one, apples-to-apples, direct comparison: the rock pile did not happen by random, chaotic chance, everyone knows, because it is simply too complex of a structure to have happened all by itself.  And the whole universe is SO much more complex that it is beyond foolish to claim that it happened by itself when we all know that something as simple as this stupid rock pile couldn’t have happened by ITSELF.

And this principle is true throughout any legitimate science.  I was watching a documentary on Julius Caesar and his defeat of the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia in 52BC.  Archeologists were able to fully discover the fortifications at Alesia by flying overhead and doing detailed photography of the area.  And what they did was look for lines that were simply too symmetrical or too straight for nature alone to have been able to produce.  Because they were demonstrating something called “common sense” that every evolutionist and atheist has none of whatsoever.

It’s stupid enough to claim that something that nature cannot produce was somehow produced by nature, such as the straight, symmetrical lines revealing ancient Roman fortifications or the rock altar I photographed.  But it is a level of stupidity beyond “dumb and dumber” to say that while nature cannot produce symmetry or design, it can somehow produce the infinitely GREATER complexity of the people who produce the things that even fools understand that nature cannot produce.  Think about it; the atheist, the secular humanist believes that obviously nature cannot produce the simplest kind of order or symmetry, but these same fools believe as an act of RELIGIOUS FAITH AND NOTHING ELSE that nature can produce infinitely MORE complex order and symmetry in the so-called “evolution of life” that is GOOGOLPLEXIANS of times more complex.  If nature cannot even produce so much as a straight line or a simple pile of rocks, please do not insult your own intelligence by claiming it somehow produced the Mona Lisa.

I’ve got another one for you to riddle me.  There’s just an awful lot more to reality than the eye can see.  Things are vastly more complex than they appear.  Science itself has taught us that.  See, according to science, we’re a collection of particles, right?  Atoms, molecules.  There are 70 trillion cells in a human body consisting of about 7*1027 atoms (that’s a 7 followed by 27 zeros!).  Atoms are by definition mostly made up of empty space.  And so for one thing, we’re not solid.  Truth to tell, we’re actually FAR more water (about 60%) than anything else.  So then why are we solid?  You’ve got theories, but we don’t really know.  “We are spirits in a material world” is as plausible as anything “scientific.”  And then what about this one: given that we’re a collection of particles, how or why are we a whole?  How can this collection of particles consisting of atoms numbering in the 7 followed by 27 zeroes be one thing?  And what about this notion of “I”: “I” am one thing!  How can “I” be an “I’, let alone one thing as opposed to many different parts?  What about this notion of consciousness and individuality?  How does science explain that?  Have you ever heard a scientist attempt to explain these things to you?

You see, just as we can know BY SCIENCE that we CANNOT see everything with our physical senses – such as atoms, particles and molecules – we can also know that there is a realm beyond science, beyond the physical.  We can know that just as there is a realm smaller than our senses, that there is also a realm bigger than our senses.  There must be a realm that is beyond science, beyond the physical, a realm that has been called “supernatural,” but is surely metaphysical, above and beyond the physical.

That’s why the Bible uses the word “fool” to describe such people who deny God and the supernatural.  It’s frankly beyond merely idiotic.

Atheists and evolutionists mock religious people for believing that a transcendent, personal, omnipotent God can do all things.  But what do THEY believe in?  The too-idiotic-to-even-qualify-as-“fairy-tale” notion that if something sits around for long enough, a MIRACLE will somehow happen.  And no, boys and girls, time doesn’t possess magic power.  All time does is sit there and do nothing.

If I were to employ the evolutionists’ argument back at them, it would go like this: I promise that I will refute evolution and prove that it is bogus.  In 4.5 billion years.  Because all they do is turn that very same argument upside down and claim that something somehow happened that long ago when no one can even begin to prove that it did.  It’s an assertion, nothing more.

Which invites the question as to the nature of ALL of “nature.”  We don’t just have the problem of explaining how the pile of rocks somehow got assembled into that neat little monument.  We have the problem of the origin of the individual rocks themselves according to the Big Bang theory of cosmology held by nearly all physicists today: all matter, all time, all energy and all space suddenly exploded into existence at some finite point of time in the past very much as if Someone had declared, “Let there be light.”  It’s as Robert Jastrow described it in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  Those rocks in that picture did not always exist; they came into being because they were caused to exist by something (or of course Someone).  And it happened in a manner that confirms the account of the Book of Genesis chapter one.  Jastrow – one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century – also stated: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”  And after that “Let there be light” declaration that same  Somebody somehow – and we weren’t there to see Who or how any more than we saw who assembled the pile of rocks in the above picture – stacked a pile of rocks on top of one another to assemble our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all living things.   And the fact that we are here as a result is very properly indeed the result of “supernatural forces” and properly called a MIRACLE.

Atheists and evolutionists once confidently declared that there were a septillion (that’s a one followed by 24 zeros) planets capable of life.  These arrogant, ostensibly knowledgeable fools were so wrong it is unreal.  Every single time they send taxpayer-funded prayers to the heavens in the form of enormously  powerful radio communications, satellites, unmanned spacecraft like Voyager, etc., it amounts to perennially unanswered prayers to their god or gods.  Just as I contemplated the pile of rocks on the trail and ask the question, ‘How did this get here?  Could it just have happened?’, we must likewise contemplate the brute fact of the universe that we observe: the nature of the fine tuning of the universe is mindboggling when you consider it.  How did the fact of universe and the fact of life get happen?  Did Someone create it – which is the prima facie conclusion of any creature possessing common sense – or did it just assemble itself the way we know that pile of rocks in the picture above could never have assembled itself?  When you realize how many things had to happen in precise sequence and with infinite precision for us to be here at all – rather than residents from those septillion planets visiting us or contacting us the way we’re trying to contact “them” – it should occur to you to question why we are here at all.  How did just the right sort of solar system to contain the planet that contains the rocks that yielded all the necessary building blocks for life get here?  How did just the right sort of moon that orbits the planet in just the right way to result in a planet that contains the rocks get here?  How did just the right sort of star with just the right characteristics to result in just the right sort of solar system and just the right moon result in just the right planet to contain those rocks get here?  And I mean, I can go on and on and on.  Because the level of complexity within the system of the universe is so far beyond mind-boggling that it is obviously the result of supernatural mind determining to create.

Do you see my point here?  When you can’t even so much as glance at a simple pile of what, seven rocks arranged one atop the other, what kind of fool do you have to believe to think that ALL of the many INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX systems and sub-systems that compose the universe all around that rock pile got here by chance without an Intelligent Designer?

When you start to think about the system of the universe and the billions of sub-systems and the trillions of sub-processes within the system, you have to mock the fool who believes that all that we see around us just somehow happened by chance.  Because that fool is in all actuality a far worse fool than the fool who would look at the stack of rocks above and conclude that it happened by chance.

Look at that picture above again and consider the complexity of those seven rocks piled one atop the other and realize that it is far too complex a system to have happened by any act of random nature.  And then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are not vastly more complex than that system which you obviously know was intelligently designed.

And then keep reading to comprehend just how appalling the case for godless evolution truly is and the foolish idiocy you have to believe in order to deny the reality of God.

Allow me to give you the flavor of what actual hard SCIENCE really says about the possibility of life happening by chance:

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

“Time-consuming.”  There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you.  Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it.  That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison.  And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it.  That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes.  We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe.  And that 10^450  years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins.  That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450  years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one.  Each one is going to take you about another 10^450  years’ worth of random trials to generate!  And finally after 10^450  a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later???  Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

How long did it take whoever built that rock pile to complete the job?  I’m guessing a few minutes.  Because our Creator God gave that person a miraculous mind and a fearfully and wonderfully made body to think about creating it and then an amazing body to actually make it happen.  But the simple scientific FACT of the matter is that, no matter how long you want to claim the universe is, it STILL wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough time in the universe even times a million billion trillion to “evolve” the simplest cell there is apart from that Creator.

If you don’t believe that rock pile assembled itself by purely natural processes without any Intelligence, but you believe that everything else – including humanity – got here the very way you deny that that rock pile got here, the Bible is truly right to call you “fool.”

You should begin to understand that “evolution” is the most fanciful fairy tale there IS.  When we talk about evolution, we’re talking about something that not only didn’t happen, but COULDN’T even POSSIBLY have happened.  At least if you accept actual SCIENCE rather than the atheistic philosophical nonsense masquerading as “science.”

You need to comprehend this: legitimate science can’t even begin to explain how just the proteins necessary for the simplest bacteria cell evolved by chance.  And that the fool who postulates that “evolution” created the magnificent human mind that is so much more sophisticated and miraculous than any supercomputer ever designed is someone who seems to lack so much as that bacteria cell for a brain.  Because we’re no longer talking about the simplest bacteria cell the origins of which science can’t begin to explain or even explain away; we’re talking about a brain jam-packed with billions of infinitely more complex cells in infinitely more complex arrays.

And the human brain has an apparently very clear purpose: to allow a soul the ability to freely interact with its body.  But that of course, is denied by evolutionists:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1]

There is absolutely no question to even a fool like Richard Dawkins that life very much has “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  But being a fool, he proceeds to simply dismiss the fact that the Bible declares in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18-23: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to themFor since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Yes, all complicated things were very self-evidently designed for a purpose.  And that Designer is God.  Don’t be a fool and deny the obvious.  It is OBVIOUS to even Richard Dawkins that the universe was “designed” for “a purpose.”  The prima facie case is obvious and if you want to claim that there is no Creator you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is NOT a Creator, rather than telling a bunch of fanciful atheist fairy tales to describe how things happened the way the most primitive cave men told stories about how we have wind because the trees are moving and swaying and creating the ensuing wind by their actions.  The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the unbeliever; but they have performed a bait-and-switch by the most disingenuous means.

You’ve got your pseudo-scientists who claim that this amounts to some argument about “science” versus religion.  I call them “pseudo-scientists” because if you understand the history of science, these people are very clearly speaking out of complete ignorance – and legitimate scientists never speak out of such ignorance.  The so-called “science” these pseudo-scientist ideologues embrace is every bit as “religious” as any serpent-handling Pentecostal who ever lived.

Please realize what junk “science” becomes when it becomes an ideological tool.  The fact of the matter is – as I have documented before – is that modern science founded upon the scientific method uniquely came from and depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.  It is a simple historically verifiable fact that: The first modern scientist and the discoverer of the scientific method upon which modern science is based was a product of Christendom and a publicly avowed Christian who described his faith in Christianity – and its influence on his approach to science – in his writings.  That the discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  I say it again, not only was the first true scientist in the modern sense who discovered the scientific method a publicly confessing Christian, but so were the discovers of every single major branch of modern science. And that is because the very presuppositions necessary FOR the rise of science itself uniquely came out of the Christian worldview:

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

You can’t use physical science to arrive at or derive the laws of logic; they are self-evident only within highly particular worldviews that are uniquely based on the presuppositional and foundational belief in the supernatural and the divine.  We today have the denunciation of “Western logic” by the postmodern movement.  Because Western logic is based upon the reality of “either/or.”  And the moment you allow Western logic profoundly powerful “either/or” arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument begin to pour in and drown the godless fire of atheist thought.  Our Western laws of logic were derived from Greek thought, which was highly DUALISTIC.  There were the gods and there were men.  There were the non-material abstract and yet substantial Forms and there was the material world of change.  You cannot accept the laws of logic and not accept the distinction between the material and immateraial world and the existence of the immaterial world which bequeathed us with the Form of logic that we aspire toward without being a pathologically dishonest hypocrite and an intellectual parasite.  And as you contemplate the existence of “truth,” recognize that either our minds and our brains were created by a Truth-Knowing Being to know truth, or they are the result of a entirely random and unguided process and therefore no reason whatsoever to assert the capacity to possess “truth.”  And in the same way, when it comes to the rise of science, any notion of genuine science pitted against genuine religion is a total fraud and fabrication.  Modern science uniquely arose out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions from a geographical place and a philosophical worldview called Christendom.  It arose out of no other worldview and never could have arisen out of any materialistic worldview.  Science was allowed to rise because Judeo-Christian-worldview inspired men – ALL publicly professing Christians – believed that there was an orderly universe that was created to operate on orderly principles and that we as image-bearers of the Creator possessed the mental faculties to marvel at the work of the Creator and “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” – as Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, declared.

Atheistic evolutionists are frauds and thieves who usurped an entire foundation upon which logic and science originated.  True logic and true science mock these people, because true logic and true science come uniquely from a worldview that they reject.  Their feet are firmly planted in midair.  But these people are such complete fools that they walk like idiots without a foundation toward nothing.

This ideology-masquerading-as-“science” also amounts to a bait-and-switch regarding science as “testable” or “falsifiable” versus “creationism” which is NOT testable.  Charles Darwin gave as the standard of “testable” evolutionary “science” this definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 158

But a brilliant lawyer exposed that “falsifiability” standard for the total fraud that it is merely by replacing a couple of words in the otherwise exact same definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

And she then proceeded to ask, “Would the Darwin believers take that standard as a scientific test for God?”  Would they accept the burden of proving that “God could not possibly have created” us???

Let’s consider the human brain and its implications on the foolish theory of evolution.  Are you a meat puppet mindlessly and soullessly dancing to the tune of random evolutionary forces?  Atheist-ideologue pseudo-science declares yes, you are:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Is whatever thought that is floating around in your head merely determined by how your random brain atoms randomly arranged themselves?  Or do you think rational thoughts because you are the rational, thinking image of a rational thinking God according to Genesis 1:26-27 who said “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Which are you?

I can go on literally all day citing evidence that scientists and atheist/secular humanist philosophers claim that human free will is nothing more than some philosophically useless illusion, and that you are nothing but a meat puppet entirely conditioned by your DNA and your environment.  Both atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science and the atheistic philosophy based on that atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science readily dismiss the notion of anything legitimately called genuine free human will.  It is nothing more than an illusion, so please go back to your pasture, all ye mindless and soulless herd animals, and chew your cud until slaughter-time.

As Richard Dawkins asserted in his atheist tome The Blind Watchmaker, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”  And YOU neither know nor care and you dance to the music the way a puppet jerked around by strings uncontrollably dances to whatever random notion randomly enters your randomly-generated skull.

If we are in fact created in the image of an invisible Creator God, then we are NOT meat puppets, for the God who created us in His image is no meat puppet.  If there is no God and we are products of mindless, soulless evolution, then we are and can be nothing else and nothing more than meat puppets.

If it is a fact that you are nothing but a herd-animal meat-puppet with no mind and no soul, there is necessarily another terrifying truth: you have no moral responsibility.  And the worst people in the history of the world by any “moral” standard have no moral responsibility, either.  And this terrifying fact is necessarily true both on an individual level and on a societal level.

On the individual level, if free will is an illusion, as any materialistic system science or philosophy asserts, then how can you hold someone criminally or morally responsible for their actions that result from no free will of the person who is committing them?

Further, if Darwinism is true, then Social Darwinism is necessarily entailed: if natural selection is your process for evolving into better creatures, in which the fittest members of a species survive, and both inferior members of species and inferior species themselves must perish to give way to the stronger, then why should it not be so in how we govern the world?  Why shouldn’t we help evolution by eradicating the unfit so that the more fit can better survive in a world of finite and scarce resources?  Adolf Hitler understood that under any consistent Darwinian view, there were the predators and there were the victims – and he made his Germany a predator.  Maybe you want to argue that it is false that big fish eat the smaller fish or that lions eat the gazelles.  But you’re wrong because they really do.  Nazi Germany was without any question THE most “scientific” society on earth during the time leading up to World War II, and a consistent Darwinism was precisely their philosophy: if Darwinism is in fact “science,” then have the damn courage to embrace the crystal clear implications of that science and embrace some form of Nazism or Stalinism which both embraced evolution and thus made horror such as has never before been seen possible.

A guiding philosophy of Nazism was completely and fundamentally compatible with any “science” of Darwinism that had the decency to be consistent: they called it “lebensunwertes leben,” or life unworthy to be lived.  And they killed off all members of society that were not sufficiently fit to be adequate Darwinists.  And if you are an evolutionist and you do not think the precise same way, you are either a coward and a hypocrite for not having the courage to be consistent and live out your view or you are tantamount to a slack-jawed idiot for not having the ability to logically comprehend the ramifications of your own worldview.

You can mock that above link between godless Darwinism and Nazism all you want, evolutionist.  But first I ask you to explain how your teacher Charles Darwin – the full title of whose book was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” – precludes you from believing yourself to belong to a “favoured” master race and then possessing the justification to wipe out all the other races you compete with “in the struggle for life.”  And I’ll explain how my Teacher Jesus of Nazareth precludes me from doing so.

Adolf Hitler made the mindless German crowds who supported him the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is an inherently and implicitly and intrinsically Darwinian argument.  And that fact is not altered now as intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.  Modern Darwinists want to use their hypocritical and self-contradictory system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”

And Adolf Hitler clearly stated in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – had prior to Hitler correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

That same Darwinian theme of Judaism and Christianity thwarting Darwinian supremacy would be echoed more than a century later by the historian who wrote the book on Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would die in the death camps:

Regarding Hitler’s hatred of Christianity, Metaxas further writes, “Hitler’s attitude toward Christianity was that it was a great heap of mystical out-of-date nonsense. But what annoyed Hitler was not that it was nonsense, but that it was nonsense that did not help him get ahead. According to Hitler, Christianity preached “meekness and flabbiness,” and this was simply not useful to the National Socialist ideology, which preached “ruthlessness and strength.” In time, he felt that the churches would change their ideology. He would see to it.”

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”  And unlike Christians and Jews with their weak and insipid morality, they were Nazis who were willing to grab the Darwinian bull by the horns and do whatever was necessary, no matter how morally heinous.  Just as any true Darwinist would do if he or she had the courage of conviction.

Hitler used the word “Christian” in his some of his speeches before deluded crowds of Germans many of whom had long-since largely abandoned true religion under the profound influence of a generation of profoundly anti-religious and in particular anti-Jewish and anti-Christian German scholars such as the well-known Friedrich Delitzsch who wrote:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But to his inner circle Hitler said very different things than what he said publicly.

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels was one of Hitler’s inner circle to whom Hitler revealed his true beliefs:

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me.  He certainly rabidly abandoned Judeo-Christianity as few other human beings ever have.  And while the Nazis were cynically willing to exploit Christianity or anything else they could twist to manipulate people into following them, it was put in the form of “Almighty God has created the German people to be a race of supermen” kind of garbage.  But think about that for a second: created by WHO and by WHAT PROCESS?  Certainly NOT created by the “Jewish God” of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible; and certainly NOT created according to the creation account in the “Jewish Bible’s” book of Genesis.  So WHO created and by WHAT process?  By Darwinian evolution, of course.  God threw His random evolutionary dice and His throw came up Nazi snake eyes.  And Hitler would tell you that lie and any other lie he needed to tell you to twist your mind into following him.

Proto-Nazi atheist and secular humanist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Delitzsch gave way to full-blown Nazis such as Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound.  And the toxic atheistic and secular humanistic evolutionist ideas of these toxic men had toxic consequences.

Furthermore, the most brutal form of human government that ever existed was communism otherwise known as “state atheism.”  Every single officially state atheist society has been a violent and vicious opponent of human dignity and human freedom.  Every single one.

Political and economic Marxim was based on the following atheist/secular humanist premise:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

And the result of atheism/secular humanism being allowed to dominate was a boot stomping on hundreds of millions of human faces since its rise.  It is the most murderous system of thought ever devised by man, with well over 110 million human beings murdered by their own atheist governments just during peacetime alone.  The continual bait and switch of these purveyors which the Word of God according to Colossians 2:8 warn us about –

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual forces of this world, rather than from Christ”

– continue to bear murderous fruit.  They seize upon the imperfect results of imperfect political system that depend upon an imperfect pursuit of a religious worldview, and replace it with a demonic system in which the Government BECOMES God and proceeds to crush everything and every one that gets in its way.

Nazism and Stalinism have one thing in common: godless socialism.  The intent of these movements was to replace God with Government in which Government became the Savior and the people were encouraged if not viciously driven away from embracing any worldview that had a place for a Creator God in it.

And today we have people every bit as wicked and every bit as willing to commit acts of incredible vicious genocide as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (socialists all) – and I’m not talking about insane jihadist Muslims such as fill the ranks of Islamic State.  No, I’m talking about leftist environmentalists who have top access to leftist politicians.  Listen to some of their quotes:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Realize the left today would murder people on a scale that would even shock Adolf Hitler, if they could just get the power they wanted.

You don’t even so much as qualify as a cow to these people.  I mean, in their own words, you don’t even make it to the level of a slug.  At least we merit equal status to a cancer tumor.  I don’t think even the Jews under Hitler got that little respect.

These rabid leftists evolutionists believe that earth randomly evolved.  And in order to protect the result of random evolution they believe they must wipe out somewhere between half and 95% of all randomly evolved homo sapiens.  You can bet none of these people are going to volunteer to walk into the gas chambers first, mind you.

Realize “the absurdity of life without God.”  Realize that apart from God, there is and can be no true meaning, purpose or value in your existence.  And that is precisely how the state atheists and the secular humanists treat you the moment they get power over you: like a farm animal that can be slaughtered and should be slaughtered.  And simple factual history proves it.  It’s happened before and it will very likely happen again.  The ideology might change, but the evolutionary/Darwinian worldview that underlies it guarantees the same contempt for the dignity of the human spirit that we’ve seen before.

Whatever you are, what you are not is either morally intelligent or in any way wise.  Rather, as Romans 1:22 puts it, “Professing yourself to be wise, you became a FOOL.”  A fool so captured by empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense, as Colossians 2:8 points out, that you abandoned the real world for an atheist fairy tale in order to childishly ignore the authority of God and thereby ignore His moral commands.

Unbelief does not come from intellectual causes or objective analysis of the data or any form of legitimate science.  In fact science exists BECAUSE of the Judeo-Christian worldview and it arose in Christendom based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone.  Rather, unbelief is a moral collapse by which wicked people do not seek God because they refuse to be responsible to Him and acknowledge that He alone is sovereign and He is the Creator and they the creatures.  They resent any limitation on their ability to do as they please, or, according to their meat-puppet, herd-animal doctrine, whatever random string of atoms masquerading as a thought or a desire compels them or stimulates them to mindlessly act out.  They resent any limitations to their mindless DNA-puppet-dangling animalistic autonomy.  They refuse to honor any moral boundaries that they despise and so they therefore refuse to acknowledge the Boundary Maker.

What they do is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not moral and it is not “science.”

So if you want to think of me as being an idiot for believing in God, that’s just fine; provided you realize that YOU are the idiot of all idiots and frankly THE most idiotic idiot who ever lived in comparison to people like me.

I mean, please don’t sneer condescendingly at me for believing in God given the fact that evolution is a fairy tale for fools.

A theologian, commenting on Romans chapter one, wrote:

“Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the clamor and he shouting against it and in the end judges every man.” [R.C.H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 93]

If there is no God, then there is no “truth” anymore than there is a “creation,” because “truth” is however the hell the molecules in our brains randomly arranged themselves to believe.  If the human mind is mrely a randomly-generated product of natural selection, then the ideas in our minds were selected purely for their survival value and NOT for their truth-value.  And so your “truth” – whatever the hell that is – is by definition of evolution no less random than mine.   Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.  If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, “the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth,” as John Gray expressed it.  But consider the ramification and the ensuing contradiction of Darwinism: if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.  It has been a simple game for philosophers to devise all sorts of scenarios which demonstrate that something might facilitate “evolutionary success” and yet be patently false beliefs.  I can document prominient politicians and even journalists such as Walter Lippmann – who said that “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality” – to document that people have been inspired to take actions that others deemed the best course based entirely on propaganda or lies.  Lets let smart people deceive stupid people into policies for their won good, they say.  We just saw that that described as being the mindset behind ObamaCare from one of its chief architects.  There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between something that could be an “evolutionary success” and “truth.”  And in fact history is replete with examples demonstrating that “truth” has frequently been done away with to pave the way for something that has been passed off as being for the people’s own good.  This is an epistemological box that evolution simply cannot climb out of no matter how many billions of years of fervent, fanatical faith in random evolutionary processes they want to throw at the abandonment of truth inherent in their theory.

And unless you can patiently exlain to me how Hitler and Stalin were somehow bad atheists, and unless you can establish whatever the hell “evolutionary morality” is, then it stands as a simple FACT that the murderer is no different from the martyr and the rapist is no more praiseworthy or blameworthy than then humanitarian since none of us are truly free to be truly responsible for our actions.  And in fact if evolution is true, then rape is actually PRAISEWORTHY as we “dance to DNA’s music.”

Question: Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape is merely one more horrible, demonic thing that evolution justifies, if not necessitates, in the same vein that it justifies/necessitates social Darwinism, Nazism, Stalinism and every OTHER horrible “-ism.”  And all under the guise of “science.”

If this were anything resembling true science evolution and atheism and secular humanism would have been thrown onto the ash-heap of failed ideas.  But we’re NOT talking about anything resembling legitimate science; we’re talking about a fanatical religious movement masquerading as science.

That was one of the powerful realizations I had years ago as I considered the FACT that if there is no God, then all things are equally possible, and there ARE no boundaries and no morals and that everything I believe is right and everything I believe is wrong are nothing but mere arbitrary constructs of a constantly evolving culture.  And I am NOT the kind of thing that dances to the music of DNA or follows some constantly-shifting morality like some mindless farm animal as Hollywood tells me what is right and wrong this morning; I am a human being created in the image of a rational, moral God Who will one day hold me accountable for what I did in this world that He created and placed me in.

Unlike the animals, who see it get dark when I watch a beautiful sunset, I have eternity in my heart.  Which means I can contemplate my existence after I die and leave this earth.

I am NOT an evolutionary meat-puppet farm animal; I can know the truth.  And the truth can set me free.

I believe in God as the reason we have a universe containing life in it because it’s every bit as obvious and every bit as self-explanatory as it is for me to believe that those rocks in that pile didn’t happen by themselves.  God designed us to be free and to be accountable to the nature that He imbued in us as His image bearers.  And He created a world in which to place us.

I am free because God set me free.  And when I look upon the stars at night and contemplate their wonder, I give praise and honor to the God who is so much bigger than the universe that He created.  I thank Him for giving me a place within His vast and beautiful creation.  And I glorify Him for loving me as I look up in divine awe searching for His face.

Advertisements

Moral Outrage About Liberalism’s Vile ‘Moral Outrage’

May 28, 2014

I came across an all-too typical liberal op-ed from a Harvard professor from the Kentucky School of Government named Moshik Temkin.

The subject in this case was the death penalty.  Basically, Professor Temkin says that Obama ought to once again ignore the constitutional limits on his power and declare as our Führer that the death penalty is immoral and he will not stand for it.  He ends his screed saying:

What abolitionists need to do is call for change to emanate from the very top. The president (whether the current one or a future one) will need to express a principled opposition to the death penalty in terms of the sanctity of human life and dignity.

Here I see some room for guarded optimism. Obama does not need to worry about his political future. This could be the moment for him to take a stand against capital punishment, the way he did on gay marriage. But he will probably not do this on his own; public pressure is the key.

Those of us horrified by the death penalty should not look to the courts or the states. We must look toward our national leaders and demand that they do what is right.

In the print version, the giant bold type face screamed, “Outrage over botched executions isn’t enough.  It’s about a moral stand.”

It’s an interesting thing to consider what the left would do if a right-wing president used the tyrannous dictatorial power the way Obama has to merely impose his law in place of the rule of law.  Basically, liberals are people who shout, “It’s never fascist when WE do it; it’s ALWAYS fascist when you do what wasn’t fascist for us to do!”

And they are morally idiotic enough to actually believe it, which is the truly astounding thing.

I leave my case to a LIBERAL legal scholar who has had more than enough of Obama’s fascism.  What is Jonathon Turley saying about Obama?

I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

And:

“…the President is outside the line… we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view, in my lifetime… this body (Congress) is becoming less and less relevant.”

And:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Our system of government is intentionally tripartite, with each branch holding certain defined functions delegated to them by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress is charged with writing the laws; and the Judiciary is charged with interpreting them.

The Obama Administration, however, has blatantly, repeatedly and defiantly ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement at his dictate.

In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen the same pattern repeated over and over again: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.

And fascists like Temkin – a vile hypocrite in that he would be SCREAMING FROTHINGH RABIDITY if a right wing president declared anywhere NEAR similar power for himself – is encouraging him to go farther.

And I am outraged that a documented FASCIST like Moshik Temkin is allowed to hold a position whereby he can pollute the minds of young people with ideas that history has declared to be truly evil.  Fascism is ugly.  It is immoral.  We fought a World War to stop it.  We shouldn’t be forced to have to fight the same war over again.  But fascist progressive liberal secular humanist atheists appear to be ensuring that we will have to.

People like Moshik Temkin yearn for a dictatorship, so long as the dictator is a liberal progressive secular humanist atheist like themselves.  These roaches WELCOME Big Brother as long as they get to choose their Stalinist totalitarian dictator.

I frankly laugh in disgust and contempt at anyone who wants to impose “morality” on a people not through the legislative process, but through the unconstitutional dictate of a tyrant.

On that “secular humanist atheist,” aspect, I quote Temkin as declaring that the death penalty is immoral in terms of “the sanctity of human life and dignity.”

As I read that line, I thought about Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

I want you to stop and think about what Temkin is asserting: the people who have now murdered well over 55 million innocent human babies in their abortion mills are now asserting that “the sanctity of human life” that they have viciously refused to apply to the most helpless and the most innocent among us – and if you didn’t have your start in your mother’s womb, this doesn’t apply to you – ought to apply to the most depraved torture-rapist-murderers among us.

Let us see what the Bible says about children in the womb, with this being but one example:

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

In 1999, Clayton Lockett – the heroic martyr of liberalism – kidnapped, beat, and shot nineteen-year-old Stephanie Neiman and ordered an accomplice to bury her while she was still breathing. She slowly died after having been buried alive from two wounds from a shotgun fired by Lockett. In 2000, Lockett was convicted of murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, assault and battery and sentenced to death.

According to progressive liberal secular humanist atheist, this monster deserves to be honored with the recognition of the “sanctity of his life” and his “dignity.”  But you can and should go on exterminating human beings in the womb in a vicious manner that these selfsame self-righteous liberals would be weeping over if we did the same thing to rats.

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” declares these truly morally stupid and morally evil people.  That is the soul-diseased left talking.

God declared capital punishment in very simple terms:

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. — Genesis 9:6

I want you to notice here that God explains that it is precisely BECAUSE of “the dignity of human life” – that results from being made in the image of God and from NOTHING less and nothing ELSE – as the reason why there should be a death penalty.  It comes down to this: when one human being literally takes the power of GOD into his or her own hands to destroy the image of God in another human being, that murderer needs to die in order for the dignity of human life to be honored.  To allow such a murderer to live after that murderer took another human life is to DISHONOR and DISGRACE the image of God and to spit on the memory of the victim(s) of such a monster.

To argue that murderers ought to be spared but helpless innocent babies ought to die horrifying deaths as they are literally torn to pieces while they try to avoid the medical implements that are killing them, burned alive by acid, and ripped apart by suction (see also here), is evil.  And to repeat that evil more than fifty-five million times makes the Nazis look positively humane.

But the thing is that that means absolutely NOTHING to a genuine moral idiot like Moshik Temkin.

No, liberal secular humanists stand in JUDGMENT of God and they have declared Him evil and His ways wicked.  They have placed themselves above God and condemned Him.  And that is why they hate Christians and conservatives who try to live according to the morality God provided in His Word.

Jesus taught in John 15:18-22 (NLT):

“If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first.  The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you.  Do you remember what I told you? ‘A slave is not greater than the master.’ Since they persecuted Me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to Me, they would listen to you.  They will do all this to you because of Me, for they have rejected the one who sent Me.  They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they have no excuse for their sin.”

Progressive liberal secular humanists hate me and hate my ways because they love evil and because they hated Jesus first.

That is why they have become the official party of the wrath of God according to the divine condemnation of Romans chapter one (see here and here).

Liberalism is a rejection and a replacement of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

Liberalism is the defiant contempt of God and God’s ways and God’s people, nothing more and nothing less.  Liberals are people who kicked God out of America with their contrived “separation of church and state” myth that is NOT found in our Constitution but IS found in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And having exorcised God much the way Jesus exorcised demons and banished God in the name of “secularism,” they rapidly moved in to replace God with their totalitarian State that abrogated all of the divine prerogatives of God unto themselves.

Communism is State atheism.  And it is therefore no surprise that progressive liberal secular humanists would embrace the essence of Communist theory: The dictatorship by the proletariat embodied in their leader will bring about a Utopia.  And I still hear the Satan that is Obama shouting, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek” while his followers worshiped him like a god.  I still think of Obama actually saying that as a result of his presidency, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”  I still remember liberals literally teaching their own children – along with as many OTHER people’s children as they could – to worship Obama in songs to their deity.  I wanted to puke.  But liberals are a stupid enough, depraved enough, leader-worshiping enough bunch of moral idiots to fall on their knees before this pseudo-messiah.

You show me doing any of that crap with Bush.  By a wide margin over the 2nd place Abraham Lincoln, Americans say that Ronald Reagan was our greatest president.  But even with Reagan, conservatives never worshiped the man the way liberals have worshiped Obama even as Reagan led America upward versus Obama who has led this nation downward and further downward.  Liberals are quintessentially FASCIST; they YEARN for a Führer.  They’ve basically found one in Obama – and they want him to keep moving his Führership forward to the next level and then the next one after that.

It is and always has been the LEFT that 1) purges God from society and 2) establishes a cult of personality for its leaders.  Something must fill the vacuum when God is removed.  And leftists fill that vacuum with the State as epitomized in their current Stalin, their Obama.

In progressive liberal secular humanism, just as in Stalinsim, we have an ideology that suggests society would be better if it could be purified.  Stalin purged “kulaks” by the millions.  HE alone got to define what or who a “kulak” was.  Just being so labeled pretty much meant you were finished.  And now we’re seeing JUST ALL OVER THE LEFT that the same fascist murderous heart that beat in Hitler and in Stalin beats in the liberal progressive as well.  A modern “kulak” today in America is pretty much anybody that says or does anything progressive liberal secular humanists don’t like.  And they will come after their “kulaks” with a rabid hate that is astounding because the very same people endlessly talk about how “tolerant” they are at the same time they’re dumping hate on you for disagreeing with them:

Howard Dean, who is still alive, told attendees at a fundraiser for a Democratic congressional hopeful that Republicans “are not American” and would “be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia.” He also screamed that GOP supporters should “stay away from our country.”

Dean, a former Vermont governor, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a 2004 presidential candidate, made the statements last week in a fit of zeal as he was speaking in support of Colorado 6th Congressional District candidate Andrew Romanoff.

“This is a Republican party that has decided they like power so much that they think it’s okay to win by taking away the right to vote,” Dean told the gathered assembly of 750 people at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant in Aurora, Colo.

“They are not American,” he bellowed. “They could be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia but stay away from our country. This is based on the right to vote.”

Amusingly, Dean then lectured Republicans on tolerance and love:

“We have had enough of the extreme right wing,” Dean continued. “We have had enough of the politics of anger, we have had enough of the politics of hate, we have had enough of the politics of division,” Dean told the estimated 750 in attendance at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant.

You’d think their skulls would explode trying to contain all the massive contradictions, but not progressive liberals; their very ideology is pathological hypocrisy.  And so what they say versus what they do and how they demonize others for doing a fraction of the evils they do is an intrinsic part of liberalism.  Such that if you removed the hypocrisy from a liberal he or she would utterly dematerialize never to be seen again.

Progressive liberals say they’re like Jesus because they want socialism to care for the poor.  No.  You’re NOT like Jesus because Jesus never taught socialism: when the disciples came to Jesus and told Him that there were 5,000 men (probably on the order of 15,000 people altogether), Jesus did NOT say to call Herod or Pilate and urge them to begin a government welfare program; He said “YOU feed them.”  The ONLY places that talk about big government in the Bible, such as 1 Samuel chapter 8, CONDEMN IT.  No, you’re not like Jesus for wanting socialism, liberal; you’re like Hitler and Stalin.  You’re like Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with supposed programs to care for the poor.  And oh, yes, you really are like them.

Jesus very definitely found nothing of Himself in a liberal system by which one group forcibly seizes the wealth of another group and then gives that money not to the poor but to a totalitarian State that endlessly promises to help the poor but which year after year and decade after decade pisses away more than a half a billion dollars every single day.

If you think that Jesus believed in homosexual marriage, you’re beyond morally idiotic and you’re just plain evil.  Jesus taught that He had come to fulfill ever single jot and tittle of the lawwhich very definitely called homosexuality an “abomination” and “a detestable act.”  And Jesus commissioned the New Testament, which very clearly condemns homosexuality every bit as forcefully as does the Old Testament that Jesus lived and breathed.

For the record, one of the things Jesus lived and breathed and said He came not to abolish but to fulfill was the commandment concerning the death penalty for murderers.  That’s there, too, you know.

I read through articles in which people actually try to argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality and simply marvel at the determination to self-deceive and to deceive as many others as possible.  Paul spoke of these minds that “profess themselves to be wise, but become fools” (Romans 1:22) as “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

You’re definitely not like Jesus when it comes to children; Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me.”  In the entirety of the Bible and the biblical worldview, children were (and are) a sign of blessing from God.  But YOU say, “we define fifty-five million dead children as ‘a good start.'”

I recently wrote an article titled, Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?.”   Secular humanists routinely and constantly mock and slander “Christian morality,” but I’ll take that over “Darwinian morality” every day of the year given the catastrophic consequences of embracing the “morality” of the left.  One moral system is timeless and based on God; the other continually evolves at the whim of a group of people who crave for themselves the place of God.

If there is no God, there IS no “morality.” We should act like the beasts we are. But what these people are truly looking for is to stand in the place of God over the human race (which they are strangely part of even as they view themselves as inherently superior over it) and impose THEIR vision, THEIR stamp, on the human race. We shouldn’t do what GOD says, we should do what Barack Obama says.

Such a person’s “moral outrage” is itself morally outrageous.

 

 

 

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Bill Maher Dumps More Hate On Tea Party, Repeats Tired Liberal Lies

January 19, 2011

I dare say that “liberal media personalities” (an oxymoron in virtually all cases for these prototypically moronic morons) such as Bill Maher and Rosie O’Donnell only have any following at all because they faithfully keep playing the game “Jump the Shark” they started with themselves.  Every episode they have to be more hateful and more deceitful than they were last time – and every episode they manage to succeed.

Bill Maher had this to say recently:

“Now that they’ve finished reading the Constitution out loud,” Maher said to chuckles from the audience, “the tea baggers must call out that group of elitist liberals whose values are so antithetical to theirs. I’m talking of course about the founding fathers.”

Maher:

“Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think it’s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And what’s more, you would’ve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly b—s—.”

Maher went on to claim that the Founding Fathers had a moral code, but it didn’t come from the Bible – ”except for the part about, ‘it’s cool to own slaves.’”

I mean, on a surface examination, I’m sure you’re right, Maher.  They’d hate the people who actually care about what they wrote and what they thought; they’d love liberals like you, who demonize them as evil slaveholding bastards.

Clearly Obama’s speech wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on, when his own side didn’t bother to pay attention to him about his “let’s make Christina proud of us” calls for restraint for even five minutes.

But let’s go beyond the surface, where the founding fathers love Bill Mahr – even though Bill Maher clearly despises them – and hates the tea party.  Because maybe it’s not the way Maher thinks it is.

Bill Maher reminds me of Homer Simpson; both men think their incredibly stupid and buffoonish ideas are clever.  The only difference between the two cartoon characters is that Homer Simpson usually discovers that he’s an idiot by the end of the episode, whereas Bill Maher is pathologically immune from reality or truth.

And, of course, unlike Maher, at least Homer is smart enough to believe in – as he calls him – “Jeebus.”

I’ve had to respond to these atheist versions of Homer Simpsons before.  Here’s a response to one such that basically confronts Bill Maher with the facts he so despises:

Whose Country Do We Want: Our Founding Fathers’ Or Our Secular Contemporaries’?
By Michael Eden, 07/26/2009

This article consists as part of a much longer discussion with a self-described “Democratic socialist” found here (with much of the rest consisting over an argument as to what is or isn’t socialism and the supposed benefits of socialism to societies).  An argument over the significance of the founding fathers relative to “current Americans” provides for what I believed to be an informative article.

Poster: I profoundly disagree that Christianity has been the wellspring of America’s greatness. Christianity in American history has too often been the source of narrow-mindedness, intolerance and reaction.

I too love and revere the Constitution, and would risk my neck to defend it and the USA. But the Constitution is a living, organic document that evolves and pulsates. I agree with the late Justice Brennan that the only correct way to interpret it is as modern Americans. I don’t care about the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.

Michael Eden: Let me start with the words and meaning of George Washington in his Farewell Address given on September 17, 1796:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And he wasn’t alone. I can well understand why you would throw out the wisest and most brilliant political geniuses who ever lived. I can understand because George Washington wouldn’t have even have allowed you to call yourself “a patriot” in his presence. What they wrote, what they thought, what they believed, utterly refute you. But it was THESE men, and not Marx, or Mao, or any other socialist, who devised the greatest political system the world has ever seen.

Statements by our founding fathers (who presumably understood what the Constitution that they themselves wrote and ratified meant better than Justice Brennan) announcing their religious beliefs, and stating the profound impact those beliefs had in their founding of the United States of America:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” —- Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry,November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” –- Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.“ –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.” —- Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book”, 1798

“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” –  Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

“Information to those who would remove (or move) to America”: “To this may be truly added, that serious Religion under its various Denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there, Infidelity rare & secret, so that Persons may live to a great Age in that Country without having their Piety shock’d by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his Approbation of the mutual Forbearance and Kindness with which the different Sects treat each other, by the remarkable Prosperity with which he has been pleased to favour the whole Country.” —- Ben Franklin, 1787 pamphlet to Europeans

“Independent of its connection with human destiny hereafter, the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power.” —- Lewis Cass, A Brigadier-General in the War of 1812, Governor of the Michigan Territory, a Secretary of War, a Senator, a Secretary of State. The State of Michigan placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –- “Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…” — George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” — John Adams, Letter of June 21, 1776

“It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington

“So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” —- Abraham Lincoln

“History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” —- Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 2

“I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them.” —- Patrick Henry, from a courtroom speech, Wirt Henry’s, Life, vol. III, pp. 606-607.

“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.” —- Patrick Henry, 1796 letter to daughter, S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry (Auburn: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.

“This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.” — Patrick Henry, From a copy of Henry’s Last Will and Testament obtained from Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation, Red Hill, Brookneal, VA.

“It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington, James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209.

“While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” —- James Madison, James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources.

“Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.” —- James Madison, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” —- George Washington, 1778, upon seeing the divine hand in the Revolution against the greatest military in the world.

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” — U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. U. S. — Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” —- Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren dated February 12, 1779

“Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties.” —- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

“I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for ‘there is no salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12). If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must perish forever.” —- John Witherspoon, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

“I am a Christian. I believe only in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ my Savior.” — Charles Thomson, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence

“My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come Lord Jesus! Come quickly!” — Dr. Benjamin Rush, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Dr. Benjamin Rush, John Adams said, was one of the three most notable founding fathers along with George Washington and Ben Franklin. Benjamin Rush was the founder of five universities (three of which are still active today); he was the father of public schools under the American Constitution; he was also the leader of the civil rights movement, the founder of the first abolitionist society in America, the founder of the first black denomination in America, served in 3 presidential administrations, is called the father of American medicine, and 3,000 American physicians bore his signature on their diplomas, started the American College of Physicians, founded the first prison ministry, and started the Sunday School movement in America, started the very first Bible Society in America, etc.

“I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” —- Samuel Adams

“An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Motte, in a discourse of much emotion and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added, that in heaven, God knew no distinctions, but considered all good men as his children, and as brethren of the same family. I believe, with the Quaker preacher, that he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven, as to the dogmas in which they all differ. That on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristides and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Baptists, will find themselves united in all principles which are in concert with the reason of the supreme mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, pp.377-78, letter to William Canby on September 18, 1813.

“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

“But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. XIV, p.220, letter to William Short on October 31, 1819.

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” —- John Quincy Adams, 1837 speech

“Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. . ?” — John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, “An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request,” on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel.” —- Benjamin Franklin, appeal for prayer at Constitutional Convention, as cited by James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985.

“God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved.” —- Roger Sherman.

“God has promised to bestow eternal blessings on all those who are willing to accept Him on the terms of the Gospel – that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. — Roger Sherman. Sherman was the ONLY founding father who signed all four founding documents (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Association). He is called “the master builder of the Constitution.” He came up with the bi-cabinal system with the House and Senate. He was a framer of the Bill of Rights. And he was also a theologian who got George Washington to announce the first federal Day of Thanksgiving proclamation, going through the Scriptures to show why we should do so. He was also a long-term member of Congress. A newspaper article on him (the Globe) dated 1837 quotes, “The volume which he consulted more than any other was the Bible. It was his custom, at the commencement of every session of Congress, to purchase a copy of the Scriptures to puruse it daily, and to present it to one of his children on his return.” He had 15 children.

“The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in His truth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Ghost.” —- John Adams

“There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but what is administered by the Holy Ghost.” —- John Adams

“There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation.” — John Adams (And Abigail Adams was the REAL Bible thumper in the family, telling son John Quincy Adams, ‘You know how I’ve raised you. You know how you’ve been raised in church, how you’ve been taught the Scriptures, how you’ve been taught morality.’  She tells him that if he’s going to go to France and give up his faith, that the Lord seek him out and drown him to prevent that from happening).

“I am grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, He has conferred on my beloved country.” —- Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and framer of the Bill of Rights. He was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, dying at the age of 95 years.

At the age of 89 (in 1825), he wrote, “On the mercy of my Redeemer, I rely for salvation, and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.” —- Charles Carroll

“Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion…. [T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles…. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” — Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

And, of course, there is the assessment of the great political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville:

“Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337, respectively.

As to your socialism, de Tocquevelle wrote:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Poster: Whatever outstanding Americans said or believed in the 1700’s or 1800’s is no refutation of whatever I said. Big deal, so George Washington said that morality is not possible without religion. Just because I appreciate that he spearheaded the military efforts against the redcoats doesn’t mean I care for his views on religion.

Many of the Founding Fathers you constantly bring up were not even Christians. Men like Jefferson, Franklin and Tom Paine were Deists. Forget the Founding Fathers when dealing with today’s issues. The Constitution that they gave us has evolved into something quite different since then.

I care what Americans today think. I am not interested in what men who died when even my grandfather was not yet born believed.

Michael Eden: Actually, one of the quotes that you probably didn’t bother to read has Thomas Jefferson specifically declaring his Christianity. And I have numerous quotes from Thomas Jefferson on display. Quotes by Benjamin Franklin abound – clearly attesting to his FERVENT commitment to the need for not only religious but specifically Christian religion as a necessary and fundamental support for the country being founded. I would further point out to you that Thomas Paine was NOT a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and he was also not a delegate to the Constitutional convention. So that kind of blows a gigantic hole in your thesis.

You show the portrait of the Declaration of Independence signing, and it’s funny that people have been trained to be able to pick out the two least religious founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson – notwithstanding Jefferson’s profession of Christianity he was not as devoutly Christian as the rest). And then we’re assured that the rest of them are just as irreligious. But of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 54 were confessed Christians and members of Christian churches. 29 of them had seminary degrees and were ordained ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a bunch of atheists and deists.

No one would ever have thought this was a secular nation in the past because Americans knew their history.  An 1848 book used in public school for generations entitled, “Lives of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.” And in public schools for years children learned the faith and character of their founding fathers.

And again, everything they believed was an anathema to what you believe.

And that says something. Because what you say, what you think, what you believe, fundamentally doesn’t work – and never HAS worked. And what they said, what they thought, and what they believed, has stood in irrefutable proof of their wisdom.

Your argument is this: the Constitution has “evolved” into whatever the hell anybody wants it to mean. It is intrinsically meaningless. If the Constitution truly is a living, organic document that evolves and pulsates, it “evolves” into whatever you want it to become and “pulsates” into whatever form you want it to take. We might as well have a telephone directory as our Constitution, so that scholars in voodoo-fashion could discern “penumbras and emanations” wherever they wished.

Let’s take a look at the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Your atheistic socialism has never worked and never will work because you fundamentally deny the SOURCE of the rights you claim: an objective, transcendent Creator God who created man with these fundamental rights. You have never had, and never will have, anything concrete or objective by which to secure the rights that our founding fathers’ secured. Furthermore, you would do to any such transcendent/objective rights exactly what you want to do to the Constitution itself: make them mean whatever the hell you – or the next dictator/tyrant on the block – WANT them to mean. And that is why your God-denying socialism has produced one despot and one nightmare after another, and why it always WILL.

What socialists ultimately pursue is power over people’s lives.  And so long as leftists hold such power, principles will not matter.  And frankly, even if there WERE any “binding” principles they would invariably be blurred into meaninglessness by a succession of “penumbras and emanations” to suit the will of the next dictator.  That ultimately becomes tyranny every single time.

And that is why George Washington would be kicking your butt across the floor as he shouted, “YOU ARE NO PATRIOT!”

You instead argue for a system of government that has NEVER worked and never will. I will tilt at the government handed down by my religious founding fathers and leave you to tilt at your godless socialist windmills.

Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again

November 29, 2009

Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

“For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” [page 175].

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“The war is going to be over.  The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem.  It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” [From Hitler’s Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.

Whose Country Do We Want: Our Founding Fathers’ Or Our Secular Contemporaries’?

July 26, 2009

This article consists as part of a much longer discussion with a self-described “Democratic socialist” found here (with much of the rest consisting over an argument as to what is or isn’t socialism and the supposed benefits of socialism to societies).  An argument over the significance of the founding fathers relative to “current Americans” provides for what I believed to be an informative article.

Poster: I profoundly disagree that Christianity has been the wellspring of America’s greatness. Christianity in American history has too often been the source of narrow-mindedness, intolerance and reaction.

I too love and revere the Constitution, and would risk my neck to defend it and the USA. But the Constitution is a living, organic document that evolves and pulsates. I agree with the late Justice Brennan that the only correct way to interpret it is as modern Americans. I don’t care about the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.

Michael Eden: I could begin by simply stating that the Constitution has just “evolved and pulsated” to represent “the source of narrow-mindedness, intolerance and reaction.”  And now what the hell are you going to do – support the Constitution or rebel against it?  What you are REALLY saying with all your self-serving hyperbole aside is that you support your secular humanist worldview and are perfectly happy to twist and distort the Constitution – regardless of what the words actually say or what they historically were clearly intended to mean – until it “evolves” or “pulsates” into whatever you want it to mean.  And then you of course demand that the very “evolution” or “pulsation” you first demanded STOP so it can’t “evolve or pulsate” any further.  Which is precisely the reasoning you used to “evolve and pulsate” to Roe v. Wade only to then claim that now that we have so “evolved and pulsated” it is a matter of “settled law” and therefore cannot ever be altered.

That philosophical point made, let me begin with the historical words and clear historical meaning of George Washington in his Farewell Address given on September 17, 1796:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And he wasn’t alone. I can well understand why you would throw out the wisest and most brilliant political geniuses who ever lived. I can understand because George Washington wouldn’t have even have allowed you to call yourself “a patriot” in his presence. What they wrote, what they thought, what they believed, utterly refute you. But it was THESE men, and not Marx, or Mao, or any other socialist, who devised the greatest political system the world has ever seen.

Statements by our founding fathers (who presumably understood what the Constitution that they themselves wrote and ratified meant better than Justice Brennan) announcing their religious beliefs, and stating the profound impact those beliefs had in their founding of the United States of America:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” —- Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry,November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” –- Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.“ –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.” —- Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book”, 1798

“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” —  Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

“Information to those who would remove (or move) to America”: “To this may be truly added, that serious Religion under its various Denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there, Infidelity rare & secret, so that Persons may live to a great Age in that Country without having their Piety shock’d by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his Approbation of the mutual Forbearance and Kindness with which the different Sects treat each other, by the remarkable Prosperity with which he has been pleased to favour the whole Country.” —- Ben Franklin, 1787 pamphlet to Europeans

“Independent of its connection with human destiny hereafter, the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power.” —- Lewis Cass, A Brigadier-General in the War of 1812, Governor of the Michigan Territory, a Secretary of War, a Senator, a Secretary of State. The State of Michigan placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –- “Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…” — George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” — John Adams, Letter of June 21, 1776

“It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington

“So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” —- Abraham Lincoln

“History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” —- Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 2

“I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them.” —- Patrick Henry, from a courtroom speech, Wirt Henry’s, Life, vol. III, pp. 606-607.

“Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.” —- Patrick Henry, 1796 letter to daughter, S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry (Auburn: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.

“This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.” — Patrick Henry, From a copy of Henry’s Last Will and Testament obtained from Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation, Red Hill, Brookneal, VA.

“It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington, James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209.

“While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” —- James Madison, James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources.

“Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.” —- James Madison, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” —- George Washington, 1778, upon seeing the divine hand in the Revolution against the greatest military in the world.

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” — U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. U. S. — Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” —- Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren dated February 12, 1779

“Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties.” —- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

“I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for ‘there is no salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12). If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must perish forever.” —- John Witherspoon, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

“I am a Christian. I believe only in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ my Savior.” — Charles Thomson, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence

“My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come Lord Jesus! Come quickly!” — Dr. Benjamin Rush, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Dr. Benjamin Rush, John Adams said, was one of the three most notable founding fathers along with George Washington and Ben Franklin. Benjamin Rush was the founder of five universities (three of which are still active today); he was the father of public schools under the American Constitution; he was also the leader of the civil rights movement, the founder of the first abolitionist society in America, the founder of the first black denomination in America, served in 3 presidential administrations, is called the father of American medicine, and 3,000 American physicians bore his signature on their diplomas, started the American College of Physicians, founded the first prison ministry, and started the Sunday School movement in America, started the very first Bible Society in America, etc.

“I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” —- Samuel Adams

“An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Motte, in a discourse of much emotion and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added, that in heaven, God knew no distinctions, but considered all good men as his children, and as brethren of the same family. I believe, with the Quaker preacher, that he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven, as to the dogmas in which they all differ. That on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristides and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Baptists, will find themselves united in all principles which are in concert with the reason of the supreme mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, pp.377-78, letter to William Canby on September 18, 1813.

“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

“But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. XIV, p.220, letter to William Short on October 31, 1819.

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” —- John Quincy Adams, 1837 speech

“Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. . ?” — John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, “An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request,” on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel.” —- Benjamin Franklin, appeal for prayer at Constitutional Convention, as cited by James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985.

“God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved.” —- Roger Sherman.

“God has promised to bestow eternal blessings on all those who are willing to accept Him on the terms of the Gospel – that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. — Roger Sherman. Sherman was the ONLY founding father who signed all four founding documents (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Association). He is called “the master builder of the Constitution.” He came up with the bi-cabinal system with the House and Senate. He was a framer of the Bill of Rights. And he was also a theologian who got George Washington to announce the first federal Day of Thanksgiving proclamation, going through the Scriptures to show why we should do so. He was also a long-term member of Congress. A newspaper article on him (the Globe) dated 1837 quotes, “The volume which he consulted more than any other was the Bible. It was his custom, at the commencement of every session of Congress, to purchase a copy of the Scriptures to puruse it daily, and to present it to one of his children on his return.” He had 15 children.

“The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in His truth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Ghost.” —- John Adams

“There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but what is administered by the Holy Ghost.” —- John Adams

“There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation.” — John Adams (And Abigail Adams was the REAL Bible thumper in the family, telling son John Quincy Adams, ‘You know how I’ve raised you. You know how you’ve been raised in church, how you’ve been taught the Scriptures, how you’ve been taught morality.’  She tells him that if he’s going to go to France and give up his faith, that the Lord seek him out and drown him to prevent that from happening).

“I am grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, He has conferred on my beloved country.” —- Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and framer of the Bill of Rights. He was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, dying at the age of 95 years.

At the age of 89 (in 1825), he wrote, “On the mercy of my Redeemer, I rely for salvation, and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.” —- Charles Carroll

“Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion…. [T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles…. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” — Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

And, of course, there is the assessment of the great political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville:

“Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337, respectively.

As to your socialism, de Tocquevelle wrote:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Poster: Whatever outstanding Americans said or believed in the 1700’s or 1800’s is no refutation of whatever I said. Big deal, so George Washington said that morality is not possible without religion. Just because I appreciate that he spearheaded the military efforts against the redcoats doesn’t mean I care for his views on religion.

Many of the Founding Fathers you constantly bring up were not even Christians. Men like Jefferson, Franklin and Tom Paine were Deists. Forget the Founding Fathers when dealing with today’s issues. The Constitution that they gave us has evolved into something quite different since then.

I care what Americans today think. I am not interested in what men who died when even my grandfather was not yet born believed.

Michael Eden: Actually, one of the quotes that you probably didn’t bother to read has Thomas Jefferson specifically declaring his Christianity. And I have numerous quotes from Thomas Jefferson on display. Quotes by Benjamin Franklin abound – clearly attesting to his FERVENT commitment to the need for not only religious but specifically Christian religion as a necessary and fundamental support for the country being founded. I would further point out to you that Thomas Paine was NOT a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and he was also not a delegate to the Constitutional convention. So that kind of blows a gigantic hole in your thesis.

You show the portrait of the Declaration of Independence signing, and it’s funny that people have been trained to be able to pick out the two least religious founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson – notwithstanding Jefferson’s profession of Christianity he was not as devoutly Christian as the rest). And then we’re assured that the rest of them are just as irreligious. But of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 54 were confessed Christians and members of Christian churches. 29 of them had seminary degrees and were ordained ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a bunch of atheists and deists.

No one would ever have thought this was a secular nation in the past because Americans knew their history.  An 1848 book used in public school for generations entitled, “Lives of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.” And in public schools for years children learned the faith and character of their founding fathers.

And again, everything they believed was an anathema to what you believe.

And that says something. Because what you say, what you think, what you believe, fundamentally doesn’t work – and never HAS worked. And what they said, what they thought, and what they believed, has stood in irrefutable proof of their wisdom.

Your argument is this: the Constitution has “evolved” into whatever the hell anybody wants it to mean. It is intrinsically meaningless. If the Constitution truly is a living, organic document that evolves and pulsates, it “evolves” into whatever you want it to become and “pulsates” into whatever form you want it to take. We might as well have a telephone directory as our Constitution, so that scholars in voodoo-fashion could discern “penumbras and emanations” wherever they wished.

Let’s take a look at the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Your atheistic socialism has never worked and never will work because you fundamentally deny the SOURCE of the rights you claim: an objective, transcendent Creator God who created man with these fundamental rights. You have never had, and never will have, anything concrete or objective by which to secure the rights that our founding fathers’ secured. Furthermore, you would do to any such transcendent/objective rights exactly what you want to do to the Constitution itself: make them mean whatever the hell you – or the next dictator/tyrant on the block – WANT them to mean. And that is why your God-denying socialism has produced one despot and one nightmare after another, and why it always WILL.

What socialists ultimately pursue is power over people’s lives.  And so long as leftists hold such power, principles will not matter.  And frankly, even if there WERE any “binding” principles they would invariably be blurred into meaninglessness by a succession of “penumbras and emanations” to suit the will of the next dictator.  That ultimately becomes tyranny every single time.

And that is why George Washington would be kicking your butt across the floor as he shouted, “YOU ARE NO PATRIOT!”

You instead argue for a system of government that has NEVER worked and never will. I will tilt at the government handed down by my religious founding fathers and leave you to tilt at your godless socialist windmills.

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

April 29, 2009

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberalsConservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

ted-rall-hate-military-cartoon

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

statue-of-liberty_whip_ny-times

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.

The REAL Cause of the Housing Finance Meltdown

September 22, 2008

What’s the biggest problem today in our financial market?  What caused this disaster?  Was it mismanagement?  Was it lack of regulations?  Was it the “other” political party?

Let me just state it for the record: the problem was greed, pure and simple.

We can see a level of shocking greed in our elite business and investment circles merely by looking at the disparity between worker salary and CEO compensation.  In the “better days” of the 1960s, the average CEO earned around 40 times what the average worker earned.  Today the average CEO makes over 500 times what the average worker earns.  And the gap is widening, year by year.

Why has this happened?  The pro-business side argue that this more than twelve-fold increase of CEO pay relative to the average worker can be attributed to proportionately similar increases in market capitalization of large US companies over the years.  The pro-labor side argues that the decline of unionization has been the primary cause of skyrocketing executive pay.  But again, you can’t just play with numbers and justify this massive disparity in compensation; nor can you claim that unionization would be our savior (particularly in a global economy, where increased unionization of labor would merely result in the increased “outsourcing” of jobs).

And the problem has persisted – and continued to dramatically increase – through periods of dominance of both political parties.

Let me say it again: the problem is rampant, cancerous greed.

And this greed does not merely exist at the top of the corporate and financial food chains.  It is in the masses of Americans who wanted more than their means could provide for, who took out loans they could never hope to repay.

And why has greed become such an enormous problem in American life?

Because our ruling elites have actively discouraged religion for decades, and we are eating the bitter fruit of cultural relativism and practical atheism.

What happens when we discourage belief in a Creator God – who created man in His own image, and holds us morally accountable as His image bearers, and begin to inculcate Darwinism in its place?  We get social Darwinism.  And in social Darwinism, the strong eat the weak, and the rich most assuredly devour the poor.  And why shouldn’t they?  Are they not merely living by the obvious standards of the law of the jungle?  Why not be predatory carnivores?  Isn’t that what we ultimately are?

In the early 1960s, during the Warren era of the Supreme Court, we began to see the Establishment Clause interpreted in a more and more secular humanist and blatantly anti-religious manner.  In the case of the Ten Commandments, it was decided that, “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments.”  And we couldn’t have any of that, could we?

What happens when you divorce religion and morality from society and from public life?  The thought of our founding fathers, the thought of the men who framed and wrote our laws, and the thought of the men who contemplated what made our culture great, continues to teach us if we will but listen:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts in the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have been advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”
– George Washington“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”
– John Adams, Letter to Zabdiel Adams, Philadelphia, June 21, 1776

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion…  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams, Address to the Officers of the Massachusetts Militia, 1798

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” -Thomas Jefferson in “Notes on Virginia”

“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.”
– Thomas Jefferson”Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”  – Samuel Adams, 1790

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever by encouraged.
– Northwest Ordinance, Article III, July 13, 1787

“…[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Messrs. The Abbes Chalut and Arnaud, April 17, 1787

“The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in Religion.”
– Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress

“The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
– Benjamin Rush, “Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical,” 1798

“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste
so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.”
– Benjamin Rush, 1798

…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel…
– Benjamin Franklin

We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages…I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…”
– Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787

“…how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly appealing to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?…
– Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” Foundations Reappear
– James Wilson, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.  Signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress

“To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you
destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated
and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.”
– Daniel Webster, 4th of July, 1800, Oration at Hanover, N.H.

“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
– Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Gouverneur Morris, 1832

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should,
in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority…from this original.”
– William Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Law,” 1723-1780

“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”
– William Blackstone 1723-1780, “Commentaries on the Law,” 1723-1780

“…the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws…  All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising
or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
– Noah Webster, “History of the United States,” 1833

“It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations.  But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…”
– Noah Webster, “Value of the Bible,” 1834, #302

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other.”
– Alexis de Toqueville, “Democracy in America”

“The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me upon my arrival in the U.S. In France, I had seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions, in America, I found them intimately linked together and joined and reigned over the same land…
– Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”

Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God…
– Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation & Prayer, April 30, 1863

…We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us…and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own…
– Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, 1863

…Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, 1863

… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863

Our founding fathers knew full well that religion and morality were inseparable to good governance and to the well-being of a democratic society.  If you throw out God and religion, eventually morality and ethics will likewise go down the drain.  And then you will see more and more greed, worse and worse behavior, more and more crime, which in turn will necessitate more and more regulations and laws and more and more oppressive government in order to restrain an increasingly amoral and frankly bad people.

It should come as no surprise that our society, and frankly our country, began to unravel beginning in the early 1960s, as a series of sweeping policies from unelected secular humanistic judges and liberal politicians began to dramatically alter society.

We’re paying dearly for the amorality that has been increasingly encroaching upon our society.  And we will continue to reap the whirlwind until – like Lincoln – we realize that we have forgotten God.

It’s not yet too late to remember Him.  But I fear that we are on the verge of reaching a tipping point, where the culture just begins to spiral inexorably downward, as though driven by some giant reciprocating engine whose every stroke takes us farther and farther downward into a chaos from which we can never emerge.

What’s the Difference Between Democrats And Republicans?

August 27, 2008

What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A lot of people are frankly pretty apolitical and frankly don’t know a lot about the two parties. I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would like to try to provide at least the accurate essence of what Democrats believe in before offering the Republican counter.

I understand that many people are not particularly involved in politics until major elections. It is not a matter of ignorance, but rather a matter of being occupied with raising children and running households. When an election rolls around, many people want to make the right decisions for themselves and for their country, but become bogged down in a morass of partisan claims and counter-claims.

The truth is, Democrats and Republicans differ on nearly everything today. But let me focus on three categories – social policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy – and try to describe a few key differences.

(more…)