Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

03/02/2008 (7:21 am)

Defend Liberty, Find Faith

Please do not dismiss this post as sermonizing; this is a serious, strategic consideration, and our liberty as free American citizens is at stake.

America faces religious enemies. Religious enemies are committed, devoted, and sacrificial; they commit their lives to achieving their goals, and those goals include demolishing our liberties. My argument will be that nothing will resist them that is not similarly committed.

In the 1930s, Marxists started addressing America, preaching in the streets, organizing labor, organizing neighborhoods, engaging the poor against the wealthy. They did more than that, though; they taught their children to invest their entire lives in achieving “social justice” by training for strategic positions. Marxists instructed their children to aim a judgeships, and sent them to law schools; they taught their children to aim at teaching teachers, and sent them to schools of education; they instructed their children to aim at controlling newspapers, and sent them to journalism schools. Marxists are True Believers, and have no difficulty with committing their entire lives, including their careers, to the Cause.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Marxism did not disappear, it just redirected its aims. Instead of the ascendancy of the world’s largest socialist state, they directed their efforts toward a non-existent, socialist Utopia, in which there will be no racism, no sexism, no homophobia, and no exploitation by rich corporations. Does that sound familiar? It should; it’s in the textbooks your kids read at school, and in the movies they see at home. It’s the bias in the news you read and hear; it’s the bias in the insane court decisions that liberal judges insist are implied in our laws. Marxist True Believers control our universities, our entertainment, our schools of education, our courts, and our newsrooms.

They had help from the Soviets. A column by Paul Weyrich in 2006, which I wrote about at the time, produced this admission from Russian Premier Arkady Gaidar:

…the Soviets spent millions of dollars infiltrating your media. Just because the Soviet Union went away doesn’t mean these people have gone away. They are still there.

People were sent here who had committed their lives to the cause of international Marxism; they help write our newspapers. But they had help here at home; ask any young reporter, any newsroom editor, what their purpose is, and they’ll tell you “To change the world.” Not “to present the facts.” They think they’re there to change the world. That’s why news reporting is no longer reliable; the people producing it are True Believers of a foreign religion, bending the facts to fit the narrative of their faith, and preaching their dogma as fact.

To some degree, they’ve now taken over the Democratic party. Mind you, old-line liberalism was something very different. But the modern, hard American left that has driven the Democrats to the left is basically Marxism, re-directed to use modern terms; instead of “borgeoisie” and “greedy capitalists,” we hear about “the wealthy” and “evil corporations.”

And, of course, they’ll never admit to being Marxists, because that automatically associates them with failed, murderous nations. But make no mistake: it’s the same thing, a Utopian goal explained in terms of economic class struggle, and if it gains control, it will produce here the same thing it produced elsewhere.

And then, there’s Islam. The goal of Islam is, and has always been, world domination in the name of Allah. They choose to spread to where Islam is not preached, and then they assert their faith. Europe has largely lost the will to resist them. Sections of cities are closed to European policemen, and enforce their own law — Sharia. The will to resist Islam largely comes from America’s Evangelicals — another religion.

The threat to liberty comes from two religions, but can we resist them? Look at ourselves who oppose Marxism and Islam. We who love liberty commit our lives to pursuing what we’re created to do, whether it’s fix cars, program computers, or write essays. We can do this because we’re free. But I have to admit that if I were going to commit my life to a cause, it would not be “conservatism.” I’m not going to touch people in the street and ask them, “Have you read The Road to Serfdom? It will change your life.” If I do engage in that sort of thing, it will be for Christ.

Liberty was established here in North America by people who were every bit as committed as the religions we’re facing. Look at the Leydenites — the people we call “the Pilgrims.” They were driven out of England because their religion was hated; they left the Netherlands because they were dying out. They came to America so they would be free to serve God as their consciences demanded. Half of them died the first year, but they did not abandon the experiment.

It wasn’t just the pilgrims, though. Anybody who’s read Alexis de Toqueville’s “Democracy in America” has heard his observation about how Americans cannot separate liberty from Christianity:

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 rather than to live in the soul.

I have known of societies formed by Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western states, to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be allowed to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising states be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from whom they came. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that “all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free.” Such are the opinions of the Americans; and if any hold that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race on the other side of the ocean is to believe with Spinoza in the eternity of the world, or with Cabanis that thought is secreted by the brain, I can only reply that those who hold this language have never been in America and that they have never seen a religious or a free nation.”

I write all that to say this: we have liberty because somebody before us had faith. Today, liberty is threatened by other faiths. Faith conquers self-interest, every time. We will not find either the will or the means to resist those who assault our liberty unless we rediscover the faith that created liberty in the first place.

If you’re not a believer, re-acquaint yourself with the faith that drove our Founders. (No, I don’t mean “Deism;” the claim that they were Deists comes from modern revisionists influenced by university Marxists. Surprised?) Call a local church and ask if they have an “Alpha” program, which is a simple introduction to Christianity geared toward the modern mind. Find out about what you’re rejecting; it’s probably the case that you’re rejecting something that isn’t even being said.

I’m saying this because I love liberty, and I want to beat back the religions that are encroaching on it. I don’t think we can do this as mere conservatives. I think we can only do this if we’re as committed as the people who are attacking us. I think we can only do this as Christians.

« « Obama Demagogues NAFTA — Update | Main | The Latest "60 Minutes" Debacle » »

17 Comments »

March 2, 2008 @ 3:44 pm #

“If you’re not a believer, re-acquaint yourself with the faith that drove our Founders. (No, I don’t mean “Deism;” the claim that they were Deists comes from modern revisionists influenced by university Marxists. Surprised?)”

This little bit of oversimplification does help you make your point, I must admit. But there were several very strong deists among the Founders (once could be worse); Thomas Jefferson was likely not a Christian in the classic sense, based on his writings, but a religious man nonetheless.

Philisophical questions:

1. Can a person who happens to share one or more beliefs in common with classic Marxism be a good American? Or would the Founders have us export them, prosecute them, marginalize them…?

2. Can any other faiths outside of Christianity (realizing both you and I, to the best of our understanding, believe Christianity to be correct) lend themselves to freedom?

3. Are you calling for Christians to live their Christianity more fully (admirable), or to try to create a Christian nation in the same way the Jihadists try and create Muslim nations?

March 2, 2008 @ 5:26 pm #

The Founders did say things from time to time that seemed to align them with forms of Deism. Moreover, anybody who imagines that these guys would fit well into a modern Evangelical church would be pretty disappointed after talking to them.

However, the Founders also said things that indicated that they believed God was active in the affairs of men. Next time you pick up any of their writings, look for the use of the word “Providence.” It’s not just a nice name for God, it’s a declaration of a particular theological point: “providence” is the God’s use of His sovereign power to turn the acts of men to His own purposes. More to the point, it’s the theological opposite of Deism, and the Founders’ writings are full of it.

Regarding your questions:

1) Depends on your definition of “good American.” Is one a good American who uses the system to alter the system into a Marxist state, then changes it so it can’t easily be changed back? I would say not; yet, the system itself demands that we allow individuals to pursue this avenue if they choose.

I don’t advocate either exporting or prosecuting Marxists — or anybody else — who obey our laws. I do, however, advocate marginalizing them, and I think that’s how the first generation of Americans would have dealt with them, as well. How would you recommend we regard advocates of a system that had murdered 100 million human beings in the last century?

2) Empirically, I would say no other religion can produce anywhere near the same sort of individual liberty. My empirical evidence is that no other religion did — including, by the way, Catholic Christianity.

3) The Christians who founded America created a Christian nation in a very different way from the way Jihadists create Muslim nations: they created a secular government, and granted everyone free and equal access to engage in politics. This is (as implied by my answer to #2, above) a decidedly Christian way to do it; or rather, a Protestant way, deriving from the inherent dignity and freedom of conscience God granted every man. I’m calling for the defense of this form of government by Christians who take their recognition of God’s sovereignty seriously; I’m doing it because it’s under assault by religious systems that believe different things that will produce very different, and very oppressive, alternative governments.

March 2, 2008 @ 5:36 pm #

Just curious, darkhorse, if Jefferson was not a Christian, what was he? He very definitely believed that God the Almighty had sent Christ to atone for the sins of man. He didn’t believe in miracles, he thought most of the New Testament was embellishment, but he believed the core of Christianity.

Besides, even if he was a heretic, his was a Christian heresy (as opposed to, say, Baha’i, which is a Muslim heresy.) Since my claim is ultimately that only the presuppositions of Protestant Christianity lead to the conclusion of individual political liberty, then Jefferson’s heresy was close enough for government work.

March 2, 2008 @ 6:07 pm #

“The Founders did say things from time to time that seemed to align them with forms of Deism
…However, the Founders also said things that indicated that they believed God was active in the affairs of men.”

Here is your oversimplification – the Founders were not some monolithic unit. Some were very Christ-centered Christians – some were not believers at all. We have a hard time separating them from a distance (why bother?), but we know that, just as most of the culture did, they all used Christian terminology (else the less-than-Christian among them would risk being castigated).

I am asking that you don’t simply posit “Christianity” as the founding idea behind our nation. You yourself are admitting that it was more like protestant ideals – not all of which were purely Christian. If that’s what you’re pushing for, fine…just don’t take God’s name in vain by saying that He has some kind of interest in that venture.

As CS Lewis posed so well at the end of the Narnia series, God is not so interested in “Tashlan” – the blending of Aslan with something else.

March 2, 2008 @ 6:14 pm #

I disagree from the bottom of my soul that calling the founding of this nation “Christian” constitutes using God’s name in vain (more relevantly, I disagree from the depths of my considerable education). You are wrong, and you are slandering an innocent man.

I will posit Christianity as the founding idea behind our nation loudly, repeatedly, and as often as I like, because it was so.

Don’t like it? Start your own blog, and state your contrary opinion. That’s how we do it here in America — because Christian men and women built it to be that way. CHRISTIAN men and women. Fact. Deal with it.

March 2, 2008 @ 6:18 pm #

Jefferson gets tagged a Unitarian and Franklin a Deist though at that time a Unitarian simply didn’t believe in the Trinity, much different from todays Unitarians. That lines up pretty well with not believing miracles as they were to demonstrate Jesus messiahship. Both read and quoted the Bible and I believe it can be infered that they thought it came from God.
As for all those “founding fathers” they don’t mention any more even in college history classes, the vast majority were Christians but they seem to disapear as they don’t line up to well with revisionist history as it is presented today.

March 2, 2008 @ 6:29 pm #

Since the only real records of the Constitutional Convention are notes made by James Madison, it’s hard to show what role Christianity may have played in that particular endevor. Getting the Articles of Confederation had been such a contentious business that they didn’t keep records for the Constitutional Convention. The Bible is the most quoted book in the Articles of Confederation where they did record the proceedings.

March 6, 2008 @ 1:23 pm #

I would submit that your desire to marginalize and suppress all those who oppose your notions of morality, is more damaging to the spirit of libery in this nation than those whom you myopically label and villify. After all, when you attack the least among us, you do it at your own immortal peril.

Your blind allegiance to this administration and their actions is also contrary to the pursuit of a free and just society. You hear them “pray loudly so that men may hear” like the hypocrites, and mouth their Christian morality while in public office, and you militantly take up their cause in the name of selective liberty, ignoring their misadventures undertaken in our name. As we are tought, by their deeds shall they be known:

After seven years of Republican control, we have more people in prison than China, North Korea, you name it. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown dramatically, and the ranks of the homeless, hungry, and uninsured are swelling. 3 trillion dollars will sink into a bloody hole in the sand, when it could have been used in a moral and intelligent manner. We have gone from the greatest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation the world has ever seen. And the war profiteers run with their bloody gains to dubai and buy up euros, rupees and gold before the once proud greenback sinks even further. For the first time ever, the Canadian dollar buys more than ours. $4 oil is on the horizon, and the “Godless” Chinese and wahabiist Saudis own huge chunks of our country and industries and hold much of our massive debt, allowing them to dictate terms to us as never before. Children are denied health care, and emergency rooms are overflowing because it’s the only way some people can see a doctor. Millions of good, working middle class family wage earners can’t possibly afford insurance or routine care, and Bill McGuire of United Health walks away with a $1.7 billion compensation package. Bankruptcys are through the roof, and a huge chunk of them because of unforseen illness or accidents. People are losing their homes and what does this administration do? They stop publishing the M3 number, to try and hide the amount of money they’re printing to prevent collapse. The presses at the Treasury have overheated, and the consequences are dire. And your major concern is paranoid fantasy that Marxists/Muslims are going to take over, because there’s unrest in muslim ghettos overseas.

In Matthew, chapter 25, we hear the most definitive concept of Christian morality and your ensuing duty as a believer: We are told that our path to the fires of hell would be certain if we hear this as the result of our INACTION: “I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” And lo and behold, we hear that more and more often as a result of this administration’s policy. Meanwhile, George makes it clear who’s side he’s on: “the haves, and the have mores”. And when he’s asked what he’ll do when he’s out of office, his first response is “gotta replenish those coffers”. Yep, we know what’s important to him. Later in the same chapter we hear “you cannot serve God and money”… hmmm… who does George serve, now?

I know these comments will anger you, and the plight of the innocent americans above will fall on deaf ears, and you will immediately assault my logic and try to refute that facts as I have presented them. That is your right, as is it mine to voice them. I pray the right to speak out without fear of attack, and the right to speak truth to power will remain a cherished notion in this country.

March 6, 2008 @ 1:51 pm #

I know these comments will anger you

Actually, they made me laugh. I think perhaps you need to do a mirror check on your self-importance. Seems to me the book you’re quoting has a few, choice things to say about that topic as well.

After seven years of Republican control, we have more people in prison than China, North Korea, you name it.

None of those in prison here are prisoners because they disagree with the ruling government. That makes all the difference in the world. The problem of a populace increasingly resorting to illegal acts is hardly a problem caused by the party affiliation of the resident of the White House.

The gap between the rich and the poor has grown dramatically

This is one of the left’s favorite myths. The truth is, the single most powerful variable for determining personal income in the US is age. The young make less, the older make more. Consequently, the alleged gap between rich and poor gets solved for each individual as he gets older; as he progresses, he makes more. Whereas the Left likes to pretend that we’re facing an oppression situation akin to that faced by 17th century France before the revolution, what we’re actually facing is a growing economy in which personal achievement gets rewarded no matter who you are.

Oh, by the way: the income of one’s family of origin is one of the worst predictors of personal income, accounting for nearly none of the disparity you mention.

We have gone from the greatest creditor nation in the world

I actually don’t recall when this was. We’ve had a negative balance of payments since I become aware of economics, which was the late 1960s. Clue me in — when were we the greatest creditor nation in the world? Back up your answer with documentation.

by their deeds shall they be known

So, you’re saying that our current economic difficulties are judgment from God on the wicked? How does that differ from Jerry Falwell saying Katrina was judgment for abortion? Not that I necessarily think the premise is wrong — I have conflicting opinions on the subject — but I’m curious to know why you might think Falwell’s application was “hateful,” but yours is appropriate. Just asking.

In Matthew, chapter 25, we hear the most definitive concept of Christian morality and your ensuing duty as a believer…

I’m very familiar with what Matthew 25 says. I’m just wondering where you get the notion that if the believer is not advocating GOVERNMENT action, he’s therefore deaf to the needs of the poor. That doesn’t follow logically, you know, and the Republicans you despise so much are actually a great deal more generous with their own money and time than are folks like you, who rail about how much conservatives hate the poor. Personally, I don’t think it’s biblically acceptable for you to insist on being generous with other peoples’ money (e.g. taxes gathered by coercion).

I’m not quite arrogant enough to assert that God feels the same way I do about the subject; apparently, you are.

Enjoyed your comment. Do come again.

March 6, 2008 @ 3:20 pm #

“by their deeds shall they be known:”

Notice the colon? That means the following paragraph would list the striking accompllishments of the Bush administration, who are PERSONALLY responsible for the policies that are tearing this country apart. Hence the Matthew quote. Thank God a vast and growing majority of Americans don’t agree with you, and are clamoring for a change.

“Republicans you despise so much are actually a great deal more generous with their own money and time than are folks like you, who rail about how much conservatives hate the poor.”

I find it amusing that you would presume to know the breadth and depth of the charitable contributions of “people like me.” For your consideration, I spent many years in the poorest parts of India and Africa as a volunteer. But you leap to conclusions and tar us all with the same brush because we advocate compassion. So who’s being judgemental here?

In my book, it’s FAR more immoral to take 3 trillion of my tax dollars to spend on a misguided war, than to perhaps use a small portion of it in a constructive way in this country. What convoluted logic will you use to refute that?

March 6, 2008 @ 3:51 pm #

But you leap to conclusions and tar us all with the same brush because we advocate compassion.

No, not because you advocate “compassion,” but because you so blithely dismiss, and mindlessly despise, those who advocate compassion in a manner different from yours. And I didn’t presume anything, there have been studies correlating personal contributions with political opinions.

In my book, it’s FAR more immoral to take 3 trillion of my tax dollars to spend on a misguided war, than to perhaps use a small portion of it in a constructive way in this country. What convoluted logic will you use to refute that?

No convoluted logic at all, simply straightforward assessment of the results. Perhaps you should read today’s post, “Muslims Rethinking Jihad,” for an explanation of why I think that $3 trillion was well spent (which is actually a lot less than $1 trillion, but the true expenditure is still pretty large.)

As to where it might be spent better, I’ll simply point out that the nation spent TWICE the amount you name, $6 trillion, in the various projects encompassed by Johnson’s “War On Poverty” from 1965 through 1995. The result? Four generations of Americans who had never held even one job, millions of Americans enslaved to the government dole, worse poverty than existed before, hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats making a permanent living off of government largess, and hopelessness unbounded.

That’s what you call moral? Using the government to combat poverty not only doesn’t solve what it was intended to solve, it produces something much worse. That’s compassion from HELL. No, thanks.

Christian charity is private and personal, and produces positive results. What you’re talking about is Marxist charity, not Christian charity, and like Marx, it comes from a different spirit, and produces the opposite results.

PS: I did notice the colon. Your assessment of the Bush administration evidences some pretty unhinged thinking. I just cherry-picked a few of the whoppers for comment.

March 6, 2008 @ 5:31 pm #

Once again, an irrational presumption full of hate, that I “blithely dismiss and mindlessly despise those who advocate compassion in a manner different from mine” How can you say that? I applaud charity in any form. I would say, by that statement, that YOU are the one who mindlessly despises anyone who disagrees with YOUR ideas about how our tax dollars are best spent. And because I said I would rather see a small portion of that money “spent constructively” in this country, you jump down my throat saying I’m advocating Marxism and government handouts. What a croc. Take a deep breath, and stop frothing at the mouth. And I will once again thank God the vast majority of this country desperately wants a change from your wise and exalted leader, who has never ever made a mistake, who always knows best, like you.

March 6, 2008 @ 9:57 pm #

Actually, I felt as though I answered you directly and with appropriate respect. Let the reader judge for himself which of us is displaying a hateful attitude; I assure you, though, I simply responded to the ideas I was seeing, which are ideas which have been tried many times, and found sorely wanting.

The ease with which venomous people accuse others of displaying “sheer hate” simply by disagreeing with them, is one of the stunning ironies of the modern age.

March 8, 2008 @ 8:34 pm #

reality bite,

Reading these juxtapositions of posts between you and Phil is like switching between the WWF and an episode of “How It’s Made” on the Discovery Channel.

On one side we have a calm, rational, presentation of facts. And on the other? Well, we have the WWF.

(Here’s a hint: you’re not the one on the Discovery Channel.)

If you sought to make a point, you did so very well. Alas, it was not likely the one you intended to make. I quite agree with Phil that the hatred is uni-directional and he is not the one dispensing it.

I am always amused at the thoroughly un-Christian notion that Christ has somehow commanded the government to be the primary arm of charity and provision for those in need in a society. I would assert that this is precisely the opposite of what Matthew 25 is all about because when the government begins assuming such responsibilities, it is only because individuals have abdicated it. Think about why higher taxes are being advocated in almost every instance. It is to cure social ills, not to provide fundamental services such as roads. This is as telling a sign as any I know of that a society is becoming not more “compassionate” but less. The parable of the Good Samaritan was just that: the Good Samaritan…not the Good Samaria.

The left is obsessed with “Render unto Ceasar…” but then act as if it also says “…and Ceasar shall supply all of your needs according to his riches in Rome.”

True Christian charity changes lives and meets needs. Government charity destroys lives and creates dependency. If you do not understand this, I strongly suggest a field trip to the nearest Indian reservation or inner-city project.

Why do such programs invariably backfire? Because they violate some fundamental scriptural principles of which you seem to be unaware. The first that comes to mind is “if a man will not work, neither shall he eat.” Proverbs 31 is also largely about self-sufficiency, as is Paul’s example. We are told that the role of government is to wield the sword of justice, but nowhere are we told that it is to wield the purse of charity.

May I suggest that you read the entire New Testament (along with the Old) and begin conforming your ideology to the Scriptures, rather than vice-versa?

March 15, 2008 @ 1:23 pm #

I no longer think that it is possible for educated men of good will to postulate that America was not founded as a Christian republic upon Christian political principles. It is simply unquestionable.

Bringing America back to that is likely beyond our ability. We need to do what is set before us, of course. And if God were to send an Awakening, and we do our part to disciple, that -might- be possible.

Having studied history, I do think that apart from that, we are moving towards universal fascism “ignorant armies clashing in the night” to quote the poet. (OK, Islam technically isn’t fascism, because it does believe in a transcendent objective, signified)

From the things leading and grassroots Democrats have been saying for a good 16 years now, real physical persecution may not be long in coming in America.

The Ron Paul campaign was probably the last, futile attempt to restore a lawful, licit government to these united States.

Despair is a sin, but I’m not despairing of God in saying this. Yet, in the affairs of nations, God judges and rewards, and what nation on this Earth at present does not deserve His wrath?

(note to “progressives” – I am not saying that I or any human should be agents of His wrath)

March 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm #

One of the great mysteries of my life is how ordinary people, people with families, neighbors, caring, intelligent people, could stand by, even participate, in the Holocaust.

Reading the comments above by “reality bite” and thousands others like it on blogs and forums around the net, I’m starting to fear it could indeed happen again. When people allow themselves to hate that with which they disagree, and allow that hatred to build and expand, the result is violence and a willingness to kill those they hate.

Note the eco-violence and violence directed towards recruiting stations around the country, not just by individuals, but by institutions such as the Berkely City Council.

I’ve always wished for an explanation of the mindset of such people, but as has been pointed out: “The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?”

March 15, 2010 @ 2:47 pm #

[…] Islamic state. (For the link between American fundamental liberty and Christianity, see here, here, and […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>