Archives for : America

St. Valentine

Posted by :webmaster On : February 10, 2017
1

Category: America, Archives, Christianity

The origins of Valentine’s Day appear to go back to at least three Christian martyrs named Valentine. One legend states that a Roman priest in the Christian church was the namesake for our modern Valentine’s Day. Valentine lived during the rule of Claudius II (Claudius the Cruel) in the third century. Emperor Claudius involved Rome in many unpopular and bloody campaigns but had difficulty maintaining a strong army. He believed the problem arose because many Roman men refused to join his armies for fear of what would happen to their wives and families if they died in battle. Claudius’ solution to the problem was to ban all marriages and engagements in Rome. For Valentine and the Christians, this was a violation of biblical commandments with regard to marriage and sexual relations between men and women. Valentine ignored Claudius’ decree and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. Valentine’s actions were discovered, and he was sentence to death in 269 A.D. Claudius ordered that Valentine be put to death by having his head cut off after being beaten with clubs. The sentence was supposedly carried out on February 14, 270 or very near that time.[1]

But there’s more to Valentine’s story. While imprisoned in Rome, Valentine’s jailer knew of his Christian beliefs and asked if he could heal his daughter Julia’s blindness which had afflicted her from birth. Although Valentine didn’t promise that Julia would be healed, he agreed to teach the girl. As Julia listened to Valentine’s account of Rome’s history, his descriptions of the world of nature, his instruction in arithmetic, and his stories about God, Julia’s new found knowledge led her to a greater understanding of the world beyond her blind eyes and greater comfort and peace from her faith in God.[2]

The night before Valentine’s execution, he asked the jailer for a piece of paper, pen, and ink. He wrote a farewell note and gave it to give to the jailer for delivery to Julia. In the note he encouraged her to continue to follow God. He ended by signing the note “…From Your Valentine…” When the jailer went home, he gave the note to his daughter. She opened the note and found a yellow crocus inside. Gazing at what she held in her hand, she saw the brilliant colors of the flower. Her eyesight had been restored.[3]

Another legend amends the story by replacing the jailer with Asterius, one of the men who judged and condemned Valentine according to Roman law of that time. After Valentine prayed for the judge’s daughter, her sight was restored. Such was the effect on Asterius that he became a Christian. And similar to the story about the jailer, Valentine was said to have written a note to Asterius’ daughter just before his execution which was also signed “from your Valentine.”[4]

The significance of February 14th as the date of Valentine’s Day is said to have been linked to a Roman holiday which celebrated the Roman Goddess Juno who was the Queen of the Roman Gods and Goddesses including the Goddess of women and marriage. The day following the celebration of the Goddess Juno began the Feast of Lupercalia. During the evening of February 15th, the names of Roman girls were written on slips of paper and placed in jars. From these jars young Roman man would draw a name and the girl selected would be his partner for the remainder of the celebration.[5] In 496 AD, Pope Gelasius put an end to the pagan Feast of Lupercalia by declaring that henceforth St. Valentine’s Day would be celebrated February 14th.[6]

Whatever the origins of Valentine’s Day, it is a major if not official holiday in much of the Western world. It has become a huge festival of romantic love symbolized by billions of dollars spent on the giving of cards, letters, flowers, chocolate, jewelry, dinners, and assorted other tokens of love.

According to a recent article in Time magazine’s Money website, only 55% of Americans celebrate Valentine’s Day, but those that do spend an average of $146.84 (I know I’m hopelessly “old school,” but that’s hard to believe.). In 2015, total spending for celebration of Valentine’s Day was estimated to be $19.7 billion. That’s billion with a capital “B.” Of that number, Americans spent $4.5 billion on romantic dinners and tickets to various attractions including movies and shows and $1.7 billion on candy and other sweet treats. Valentine’s Day expenditures are not only for the romantics. For those Americans that celebrate Valentine’s Day, they spend an average of $28 on cards, gifts, and other items for kids, parents, and other family members; nearly $7 on their child’s teachers and classmates; and almost $6 for coworkers.[7]

There are certain facts that any male over the age of 16 should already know, but as men generally have short memories, these facts bear repeating. Don’t always believe it when she says, “Don’t bother with a gift on Valentine’s Day. It’s not necessary. Just being with you is enough.” The insincerity of her words was confirmed by a credit card company’s survey which found that only 25% really meant it. The other 75% of those who said not to bother buying a gift were lying! Of that 75%, one-third said they really didn’t mean it, and the other two-thirds said that the giver should go ahead and buy a gift anyway.[8] So fellows, when she tells you that you don’t need to buy a gift, you have only a one-in-four chance of staying out of the dog’s house if you forego the gift.

One final word, especially for you younger guys. “Gift” does not mean a new mixer for the kitchen, a set of new snow tires for her car, or lawn furniture. And above all, don’t make it a “joint” gift that you “both can enjoy”! You may be able to get away with that at Christmas or possibly on mother’s day, but never try it on Valentine’s Day or her birthday.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Kithcart, “St. Valentine – the Real Story,” CBN. http://www1.cbn.com/st-valentine-real-story (accessed January 4, 2017).
[2] “The Irish Valentine,” Roaringwater Journal, February 8, 2015. https://roaringwaterjournal.com/tag/claudius-the-cruel/ (accessed January 4, 2017).
[3] Ibid.
[4] “St. Valentine beheaded,” History. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/st-valentine-beheaded (accessed January 4, 2017).
[5] “The Irish Valentine,” Roaringwater Journal.
[6] “St. Valentine beheaded,” History.
[7] Martha White, “The Truth About Valentine’s Day Spending,” Money, February 10, 2016.
http://time.com/money/4213074/valentines-day-spending/ (accessed January 4, 2017).
[8] Ibid.

The failure of Western liberal ideology

Posted by :webmaster On : January 20, 2017
0

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars, Humanism, Progressivism

Nothing has exposed the falsity of the reigning humanist-progressivist worldview and its tenets of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in Western civilization as has the massive flood of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. The same is occurring to a lesser extent along America’s porous southern border. Floods are destructive, but a steady flow of unpolluted water is crucial to sustain a beautiful and bountiful land. Is the analogy of the hydrology of water and the occurrence, flow, movement, and distribution of immigrants into a country not accurate?

One is not anti-immigrant to want an orderly, lawfully conducted immigration process that respects the existing citizens of a nation whether they were natural born or properly immigrated and assimilated. Progressivist policies that fail to stem the continuing surge of large numbers of illegal immigrants were one of the greatest flashpoints of conflict in the campaigns of the two aspirants for the presidency in 2016. These progressivist policies undermine American society because they reflect a failure to understand the true meaning and importance of culture.

There is a ceaseless struggle between a culture’s will to survive and the agitant of modernist pluralism. Pluralism, rightly defined, is “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.”[1] [emphasis added] But modern progressive definitions of pluralism have attempted to displace the general synthesis of values in America, that is, its central cultural vision. Humanistic forms of pluralism attempt to supersede and thereby shatter the confines of a common civilization through imposition of perverse definitions of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in all spheres of American life.

Progressivist tolerance

Progressivism’s idea of tolerance is a consequence of the humanistic doctrine of cultural relativism. But how does one order a society if it is culturally relativistic, that is, what anchors its beliefs and welds together a cohesive society? Humanists claim that order is achieved by a tolerance that requires a suspension of judgment as to matters of truth and beliefs with regard to moral judgements of right and wrong since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all the truth. In such a progressivist view, a strong belief in anything becomes a desire to impose those beliefs on other people which translate into loss of freedom. It is humanism’s values-free approach which must ultimately deny any absolutes. Through the humanist understanding of toleration comes liberty by preventing the development and promotion of strong beliefs.[2]

One dictionary’s definition of tolerance is “…the allowed deviation from a standard.”[3] This definition implies a standard by which to measure the value of other cultures as well as a limit to the extent to which deviation from the prevailing culture’s standard will be allowed. However, this definition violates the humanistic understanding of tolerance which suspends all judgement as to standards of truth and morality.

Progressivist multiculturalism

Progressivist ideas of multiculturalism closely mirror its rationale for tolerance which is based on a relativistic, values-free society and a denial of absolutes. Multiculturalism is a humanist doctrine that came into vogue during the late twentieth century. As humanists see it, morality shouldn’t be imposed by religions or legislated by governments. Rather, the alternative is to develop civic and moral virtues in accordance with humanist doctrine by means of moral education.[4] As a result the humanists’ doctrine of multiculturalism has spread throughout the educational system in America. Humanist educational elites believe that America has been too immersed in Western “Eurocentric” teachings to the detriment of other cultures. It has been their goal to redirect the education curriculum toward various counterculture teachings (i.e., Afrocentrism, humanistically defined feminism, legitimization of homosexuality, and radical doctrines such as neo-Marxism) that challenge the “white, male-dominated European studies.” But a closer examination of the humanist agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity.[5]

Progressivist diversity

Humanism’s diversity is a close kin of multiculturalism and focuses on the differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and humanism’s perverted concept of equality.[6]

The meaning and defense of culture

Once again we must turn to Richard Weaver for his brilliant insights into the meaning of culture and its defense against becoming syncretistic (a culture that attempts to mix or combine different forms of belief or practices).

It is the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth…Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight or authentic history behind them. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness…There is at the heart of every culture a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive…it must insist on a pattern of inclusion and exclusion…[It is] inward facing toward some high representation…Culture is by nature aristocratic, for it is a means of discriminating between what counts for much and what counts for little…For this reason it is the very nature of culture to be exclusive…There can be no such thing as a “democratic” culture in the sense of one open to everybody at all times on equal terms…For once the inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost, disruption must ensue.”[7]

The essence of a culture may be described as a general synthesis of values common to a group’s vision of the world, that is, the way things ought to work. Every culture has a center which commands all things. Weaver called this center imaginative rather than logical and “…a focus of value, a law of relationships, an inspiring vision…to which the group is oriented.” The foundation of the cultural concept is unity that assumes a general commonality of thought and action. A unified culture requires a center of cultural authority from which radiates a subtle and pervasive pressure to conform. The pressures to conform may range from cultural peer pressure to moral and legal restraints. Those that do not conform are repelled of necessity. Thus, in any culture there are patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Without such patterns, the culture is unprotected and disintegrates over time.[8]

There is an inherent tension between the exclusivity demanded by culture and progressivism’s doctrines of tolerance and its corollaries of multiculturalism and diversity. Tolerance suggests acceptance and inclusiveness while exclusivity implies segregation and denial. By segregation is not meant segregation within a culture but between cultures. The culture that values its central vision welcomes integration of diverse groups that share or at least respects that culture’s common central vision. Because of such diversity, a culture becomes a stronger.[9] It is in the humanistic definition of pluralism in which cultures are prone to failure because the central cultural vision becomes fragmented as the values-free central cultural vision does not provide the cohesion necessary for survival.

By its very essence, culture must discriminate against those outside its boundaries that do not share or respect its central vision. A culture must believe in its uniqueness, worth, and the superiority of its worldview. To attempt to meld together or comingle multiple cultures into one culture with multiple centers of vision is to create a powerless culture with little influence and place it on the road to disintegration. By definition, culture must be an inward-looking vision and resist the alien. Without such is a loss of wholeness, and a culture’s cohesiveness dissolves into chaos as its various parts drift into orbits around parochial interests and egocentrism.[10]

Failure of Western liberal ideology

There is hope that Western civilization is awakening to the real and looming dissolution of its respective cultures because of decades of dominance by liberal elitists who promote a humanistic culture and impose policies in support of that worldview.

In the evening of December 19th, a terrorist hijacked a truck and ran over and killed twelve people and injured forty-eight more at a Christmas market in Berlin. Patrick Buchanan wrote of this tragedy and points out that it was merely the latest of a decade of similar attacks in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, and Berlin. Buchanan wrote that the responsibility for the attacks can be laid at the door of Western liberal ideology which is says is the ideology of Western suicide.[11]

…the peoples of Europe seem less interested in hearing recitals of liberal values than in learning what their governments are going to do to keep the Islamist killers out and make them safe…Liberals may admonish us that all races, creeds, cultures are equal, that anyone from any continent, country, or civilization can come to the West and assimilate…But people don’t believe that. Europe and America have moved beyond the verities of 20th century liberalism…Only liberal ideology calls for America and Europe to bring into their home countries endless numbers of migrants, without being overly concerned about who they are, whence they come or what they believe.[12] [emphasis added]

Buchanan rightly identifies the first duty of government is to protect the safety and security of the people. But the responsibility for our present peril in the West goes beyond a failure of government to protect its people. It is the failure of the peoples of Western civilization to defend their respective cultures from the false claims of those holding and promoting a humanistic view of the world. The rapidly approaching demise of the Western ethic can be stopped and reversed. It will not be quick, easy, or painless, but we have no choice other than to battle this menace if we care about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “pluralism,” Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism (accessed December 29, 2016).
[2] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom – Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), pp. 40-42.
[3] “tolerance,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publisher, 1963), p. 930.
[4] Paul Kurtz, Toward a New Enlightenment – The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994, p. 101.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity –The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, LLC, 2011), pp. 188-189.
[6] Ibid., p. 398.
[7] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 10-12. Originally published by Louisiana State University Press, 1964.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., pp. 11-13.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Patrick J. Buchanan, Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website, December 22, 2016.
http://buchanan.org/blog/europes-future-merkel-le-pen-126291 (accessed January 4, 2017).
[12] Ibid.

Much for which to be thankful!

Posted by :webmaster On : November 24, 2016
1

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars

This has been a difficult year in America and for most of the world. In spite of all the bitter rhetoric on both sides, the 2016 presidential campaign was not so much about a choice between two candidates but was substantially about the fundamental differences in the worldviews of the voters they represented. Some (including myself) believed that the presidential election would determine the trajectory of the nation for decades to come. Given the outcome of the election, it appears that those identifying with the Judeo-Christian worldview have been given another chance to make the necessary course corrections to save the nation from cultural disintegration.

For many, the election is not over as can be seen on college campuses throughout America, in Hollywood, academia, establishment media, and the remainder of the self-anointed intelligentsia of America who try to guide the political, artistic, and social development of society. Most of the jabbering classes are either largely clueless about or remarkably disdainful of the nation’s original values, principles, and the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which it was founded. Much of their secular-humanistic chatter is nothing more than a lot of noise wrapped in false egalitarian definitions of multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion. Their post-election sophistry has evolved into a mass tantrum orchestrated and paid for in part by their puppet masters including George Soros and Planned Parenthood. Instead of hot cocoa and grief counseling to mollify their loss of power in the White House and other government offices around the nation, they should be sent to time-out which would be the normal consequence for most three-year-olds that exhibited similar behaviors. The same should happen to the tiny fraction of society who celebrated the election by property destruction, racist rants, and hateful rhetoric because their actions are totally foreign to the substantive positions of the vast majority of those who voted against a humanistic and socialistic future for America.

In spite of all of this present foolishness, Americans have a multitude of reasons to be thankful for our heritage and blessings that surpass even the deep divisions and failings of American culture. If one doubts this, pick a spot on the globe that would be a better place to live than America…New Zealand perhaps?

During the special seasons of Thanksgiving and Christmas, I suggest that both sides of the culture wars take a break, chill out, unplug from the 24-7 news cycle, and reflect on what once made America great and what can do so again. I will be the first to set the example. There will be no more articles published on culturewarrior.net until January 2017. Come January 1, 2017, the engines of what passes for civil discourse can be fired up again. And if they behave during our self-imposed hiatus, perhaps we can release the mindless protesters and malicious celebrants from time-out.

Larry G. Johnson

The Church triumphant – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : November 11, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

[Part II was intentionally written before the results of the November 8, 2016 elections were known. It was released for posting on November 11, 2016.]

Will the church of Jesus Christ survive in Western civilization? If Christianity does not survive, then the church must also die, and there have been many predictions of the imminent death of both over the last three centuries.

The skeptics

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first—rock n’ roll or Christianity.[1]

These are the words of John Lennon of Beatles fame who made these statements during an interview for a magazine article fifty years ago (1966). But Lennon won’t be the last and he certainly wasn’t the first to predict the demise of Christianity and the Church.

However mild and reasoned their protestations against God and His church are in the beginning, skeptics invariably end with the creature murdering his Creator. The anti-God philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) thought this the most promising and glorious event in human history. He continued his vitriolic harangue about the death of God to the end of his life from a padded cell in a Venetian insane asylum.[2]

What if our modern skeptics could be transported back in time and allowed to stand at the back of the crowds and listen to and observe Jesus during His earthly ministry, eavesdrop on His private conversations as He taught His disciples, and follow Him as He trod down dusty paths and ministered to people along the way such as the Samaritan woman at the well. Would a seeing-is-believing moment change their opinion as to the longevity of the church of Jesus? No, they would have been like the pagan rulers and religious elite of Jesus’ day who most certainly believed that the itinerant preacher who claimed to be the Son of God and his little congregation of twelve were undoubtedly destined for failure, and sooner rather than later. They would call this little church anything except “The Church triumphant.”

They had multiple reasons for their skepticism. The church did not have the right venue to be successful. It was located in a troublesome little backwater country on the fringes of the Roman Empire. The preacher had little formal education and obviously was not born to wealth and privilege. He was the son of a carpenter and trained as a carpenter. Rumor was that the carpenter may not have been His real father. Even members of his own family thought him delusional. The members of His congregation were not found on the social registers of the day. Most of these men would be called blue-collar workers in today’s vernacular—fishermen and other low-ranking occupations and one hated tax collector. Above all, the preacher’s message was too demanding and short on benefits in this life. He called His followers to a life of surrender, sacrifice, and death to self. He told them that in this life they would be hated of men, persecuted, and that many would be killed for their faith. And He was always in trouble with the establishment—both political and religious.

After only three years of ministry, the preacher was executed on a Roman cross, and his little band of followers went into hiding. The skeptics must have felt assured that their original predictions of the demise of the little church had been justified. The skeptics stooped to etch an epitaph on the tombstone being prepared for the little church. It read, “The Church humiliated.” And the skeptics would have been correct except for one thing. The itinerant preacher really was the Son of God.

The Church triumphant

Why did Jesus’ followers believe He was the Son of God? Was it blind faith? Low intelligence? Lack of education? Hysteria? Wishful thinking? Delusion? Kevin Swanson gives us the correct answer. His followers knew Jesus had defeated death and that only God could do that.

It is an indisputable fact: the Lord Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and He is reigning as sovereign Lord on the right hand of the Father, until all of His enemies are under His footstool. For the Christian this is the historical fact by which all other previous and future events are to be understood. It is the most important historical fact of all. Marx and Nietzsche hated this historical reality, and they fought it with all that they had within them…

However the future is viewed, there is no avoiding one stubborn, historical fact—Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, and His kingdom will never fail. Faithless men will put together eschatological scenarios that ignore this fact. Faithless men will minimize the antithesis or compromise with it. Faithless men will give too much credence to the antithesis and not enough to Christ. Contrary to John Lennon’s premature pronouncements, this is not the end of Christian influence in the world. It is only the beginning.[3] [emphasis in original]

The Church and the end of the age

In light of the seeming meltdown of Christianity in America and the Western world, many Christians are exceedingly distraught about the future. Although Christians should be greatly disturbed and dismayed at what is happening in America, they should never be fearful of the future and never believe that the church has been defeated. The words of Isaiah assure God’s people of His and their ultimate victory. “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” [Isiah 59:19. KJV] Even when the ungodly rule the land, Daniel reminds us that God is in charge of the times and seasons and that He removes kings and sets up kings (See: Daniel 2:21). Thus we know that God is sovereign and that He orders the affairs of men in all ages.

As the last scenes of history play out, proud, boastful, and seemingly independent man is oblivious to the reality that he is being drawn as though by a hook in his nose to the prophetic conclusion of the age. Mankind is on its last downward slide and nears the end of the last days. The Bible’s itinerary for a sin-filled world cannot be ignored or changed as it nears its final destination. There is no escaping it. The only questions that remain are the final dispositions of the lives of men and women living at this defining moment in history. Nations are also being sifted, tested, and tried to determine the final outworking of events within each before His soon return.

The circumstances and events in the political, economic, and social arenas that Christians see as disastrous for the church are only passing scenes in the unfolding drama that God is directing as the end of the age approaches. Nations that turn their back on God and His laws are paying a high price for their disobedience. Although Christians are aliens in a foreign and hostile land, they are also citizens of these earthly regimes and will also suffer because of their nation’s descent into wickedness. Even now the body of Christ (the Church) in many nations is experiencing a measure of this suffering before the rapture. But the church must never forget that its real home is in the wonderful and eternal presence of God. His purposes in allowing these momentary afflictions are often beyond our ability to comprehend, but He has assured His followers that, “…all things work together for the good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” [Romans 8:28. KJV]

Becoming impossible people

Satan is attempting to destroy the church through the destruction of the Christian culture of America and all of Western civilization. He and his evil empire oppose righteousness, weaken the church through compromise, debauch the truth of God’s word in the minds of men, and pollute the land with a vile stream of wickedness that is flowing into every facet of life. Knowing this, Christians who in the world’s eyes are “impossible people” must have

…hearts that can melt with compassion, but with faces like flint and backbones of steel who are unmanipulable, unbribable, undeterrable and unclubbable (i.e., coercion through comfortable conformity), without ever losing the gentleness, the mercy, the grace and the compassion of our Lord.[4]

Perhaps the best advice for the church in this troublesome age comes from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. First, he makes certain that we understand who the real enemy is that the church battles. Then, he tells it how to prepare for battle.

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [Ephesians 6:12-13. RSV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps gives our modern minds insight into what Paul is saying.
Satan and a host of evil spirits are the spiritual rulers of the world. They empower ungodly men and women to oppose God’s will and attack believers. They form a “vast multitude and are organized into a highly systematized empire of evil…”[5]

The church must confront this empire of evil and does so by putting on the whole armor of God (see Ephesians 6:13-17). And when the battle is heated and defeat seems near at hand, having done all, the Church must continue to stand. It can do so because that itinerate preacher who trod the hills and valleys of ancient Palestine two thousand years ago really was the Son of God, and his kingdom will never fail.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 277.
[2] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 11.
[3] Swanson, pp. 289-290.
[4] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), pp. 31-32.
[5] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p.439.

The Church triumphant – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : November 4, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

Christians in the West are living in a grand clarifying moment. The gap between Christians and the wider culture is widening, and many formerly nominal Christians are becoming “religious nones”…

We face a solemn hour for humanity at large and a momentous showdown for the Western church. At stake is the attempted completion of the centuries-long assault on the Jewish and Christian faiths and their replacement by progressive secularism as the defining faith of the West and the ideology said to be the best suited to the conditions of advanced modernity. The gathering crisis is therefore about nothing less than a struggle for the soul of the West…[1]

So wrote Os Guinness wrote in Impossible People. One aspect of this grand clarifying moment for Christians will occur as Americans go to the polls in in the November elections. The results will be more than a minor historical footnote and promises to be a pivotal event in deciding the direction of the nation and ultimately Western civilization. Many Christians are shaking their heads in disbelief. They ponder how America could have arrived at such a low point. But the assault on Christianity is not of recent origin for Satan’s war against God predates the Garden. However, God’s special creation gave Satan a new target for striking at the Creator.

After two centuries of growth, anti-Christian progressive secularism in America has recently achieved critical mass and now boldly attacks Christians and Christianity in every sector of American society. We must ask how the church arrived at this sorry state of powerlessness in defending the faith and influencing American culture. When we speak of a powerful church, that does not mean the church should wield power to dominant the state but to change men’s lives who subsequently may exert a Godly influence on society and its institutions.

The large and momentous showdown between the Western church and humanistic progressive secularism is also occurring during the time of the great apostasy within the church—a confluence of events in which Christianity is caught in the perfect storm. Paul spoke of the end of the last days in which much of the church would become apostate, that is, falling away from or departure from the faith. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…” [2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. KJV] [emphasis added]

Is the Christian West in that day spoken of by Paul? Considering what has happened over the last two hundred years in Europe and America, Kevin Swanson called this period “the most significant Christian apostasy of all time. As measured by sheer numbers, there is no other apostasy so extensive in recorded history.” [2] Without doubt, the church is in the time of great apostasy.

An apostate church is a powerless church because it has fallen away from or rejected the truth of God’s word. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the inerrant teachings of the Bible, and without a firm foundation of biblical truth, they become powerless.

The powerless condition of the church in America is not unlike the German church following World War I. The German church was weak in both the war and the peace that followed, but it had not yet allied itself with evil. The weakened German evangelical church was filled with terror as its political power and influence declined during the 1920s. Frail and fearful, the church became territorial and defensive, and some looked to a rising political leader as the savior of the church. This eventually led to an unholy alliance between the German church and one of history’s greatest incarnations of evil—Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Whatever their private thoughts, both the Protestant and Catholic churches capitulated to Hitler’s demands and domination upon his rise to power. Hitler’s program for the church was deliberately ambiguous. He placated fearful church leaders with these words, “We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the state so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the customs and morality of the German race.”[3] Do we not hear similar words from our secular leaders today? They assure us that there is freedom for all religions so long as they do not stand at cross purposes with the state.

While the German Lutheran Church was a principal pillar of the Reformation during the sixteenth century and a subsequent forthright defender of the faith, the depths of apostasy to which the vast majority of German church leaders had sunk during the 1930s is incomprehensible. Some sought to obliterate the Jewish background of Christianity. Others proclaimed Hitler as “the redeemer in the history of the Germans…the window through which light fell on the history of Christianity.” Still others welcomed barbarous uniformed Nazi units into their churches and supplied them with chaplains. Both the German Protestant churches and the German Catholic Church gave huge support to the Nazi regime during its rise to power and throughout World War II.[4]

Hitler was not a Christian and most of the members of the Nazi elite were openly and vigorously anti-Christian. Hitler never officially left the church into which he was born, and for political reasons he occasionally attended church during his early years in power. But Hitler hated Christians and Christianity. Soon after assuming power he vowed that he would stamp out Christianity in Germany.[5]

One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both…Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished…but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us… [6]

The stated goal of Hitler with regard to Christianity aligns substantially with the goal of most of the humanistic-progressive-secularist ruling elites in all spheres of modern American society Many Christians unintentionally or unknowingly support that goal through their ignorance, apathy, or lethargy. That goal is to stamp out Christianity altogether or so constrain it that it will die of its own accord within a generation or two, and the church has been complicit in its own demise.

Satan subverts the church by injecting into it the very thing in which it is in a struggle to the death—a simpering humanistic worldview that caters to self. Guinness wrote that these church leaders are “courting spiritual and institutional suicide” for themselves and for those they are leading astray.

…[They] are reaping what others sowed with such fanfare a generation ago. For were we not solemnly sold a barrel of nonsense in the form of maxims that all good seeker-sensitive and audience-driven churches were to pursue? Here is one example from a well-known Christian marketing consultant: “It is also critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign.”

The audience is sovereign? No! Let it be repeated a thousand times, no! When reaching out as the church of Jesus, the message of the gospel and Jesus the Lord of the message is alone sovereign—and never, never, never the audience…[7] [emphasis in original]

Audience-driven Church Growth leaders of seeker-sensitive churches justify their methods by pointing to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in winning the lost (See: 1 Corinthians 9-19-23). Here Paul renounces his rights in sympathetic consideration of the sinner. However, Paul does not mean that he was willing to compromise his Christian principles or sought to please others for the purpose of winning their esteem. Rather, Paul was willing to conform to the standards and convictions of the lost as long as it did not violate his Christian principles.”[8] Church Growth leaders cry foul and say that they are only changing their methods and not their doctrine. But their methods are in truth filled with the humanistic spirit of the age that undermines or ignores doctrinal truths and are leading millions to an eternity in hell.

Seeker-sensitive churches in their quest to please the seeker have compromised the gospel and allowed the world to change the church instead of the church changing the world. Over the course of the last fifty years, not only has the church failed to defend the faith in the public square and failed to transmit its values to its children, many modern church leaders have also drunk deeply from the well of doctrinal apostasy and have allowed the marginalization of Christianity in the larger culture. The evidence is abundant and undeniable. Many have embraced humanism’s themes of abortion, homosexuality, relativism, higher criticism of the Bible, evolution, progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, religious universalism, promotion of socialist-Marxist concepts of organizing society, heretical concepts of salvation, and such like. They are digging their own graves and have betrayed their God.

Hosea’s description of Israel’s sinful state is a harbinger of what awaits the Western church without repentance and turning back to God.

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. [Hosea 8:7. RSV]

Much of the modern church has foolishly sown to the wind and is reaping a whirlwind. Hosea’s prophesy revealed sin and pronounced judgements on a people that would not be reformed and had become apostatized over several generations.[9] Our modern crisis of the soul in Western civilization has arisen because the majority of the Western Christian church is powerless to defend the faith let alone win the lost. There is little truth, little harvest, and what little harvest occurs is devoured by a cunning and rapacious humanistic secularism driven by Satanic forces.

Does this mean an end to Christianity? Never! Whirlwinds need not be followed by obituaries. God is ready to redeem returning sinners (both individuals and nations) and restore a right relationship with Him. The true Church lives and will always remain triumphant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), p. 22.
[2] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 19.
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Touchstone Book, 1976), pp. 479, 483, 485.
[4] Ibid., pp. 484, 488.
[5] Ibid., p. 485.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Guinness, pp. 72-73.
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Gen. Ed., Commentary, The Full Life Study Bible, The New Testament, King James Version, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 366.
[9] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1105.

America’s “Gray-suited bureaucrats”- Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : October 28, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

As described in Part I, most Americans believe they have been stripped of most of their Constitutionally-mandated freedoms and are being controlled by a vast army of gray-suited governmental officials and bureaucrats who are no longer responsive to the will and wishes of the people.

Three principal culprits were identified in the marginalization of the American electorate in the governing process. First, the modern judiciary has crossed the line of its Constitutionally-mandated powers by creating legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. These court-created laws are wrongly assumed to be the law of the land. Second, overreach of the Executive branch has ignored or violated the Constitution through disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers, selective enforcement and/or bureaucratic changes to laws enacted by Congress, and circumvention of the powers of the legislative branch through issuance of illegitimate executive orders. Third, there has developed an autocratic, rapacious nanny-state bureaucracy whose regulatory oversight intrudes into minutest areas of the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference. This massive, heavy-handed, and adversarial bureaucracy has become largely unaccountable to Congress and the American people.

The Road to Serfdom

F. A. Hayek in his seminal work titled The Road to Serfdom written during World War II addresses the question of how democracies that begin with limitations on the power of their elected officials can succumb to the exercise of arbitrary power of the few.

There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary…it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary…If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.[1] [emphasis added]

The American Founders’ Constitution fixed the rules by which the Republic was to be governed. However, in spite of the intent of the Founders when writing the Constitution, the popular liberal mantra for most of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. By living document, the Constitutional liberals believe that its meaning and intent should be an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour. The liberals’ living document has become an arbitrary document in which the few impose their will on the majority. But Thomas Jefferson cautioned against such liberalism regarding the Constitution.

On every question of construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.[2]

On June 23, 2016, the British people cast off forty-plus years of rule by the European Union, a super-state conglomeration of twenty eight nations that had surrendered much of their sovereignty to an unelected bureaucracy headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. Ignoring the advice, warnings, and propaganda of politicians, cultural elites, and others with a vested interest in the status quo, the British voters asked themselves one fundamental but simple question, “Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny?” The question the Brits asked is the question Americans must also ask and answer quickly before the loss of freedom is irreversible.

Hillary Clinton has given her answer, and it is on the side of an undemocratic authority to rule American lives. In a May 2013 paid speech allegedly delivered to Banco Itau, a large Brazilian bank, Clinton said:

My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.[3] [emphasis added]

For Americans, the process of repairing nearly two centuries of humanistic erosion of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built is far more difficult than the single ballot box victory achieved by the British people. The unelected and unresponsive British task masters operated from the outside—from the headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and its various outposts throughout the EU. America’s wayward overseers are home-grown humanistic oligarchs entrenched in the nation’s governing fabric and headed by the likes of Hilary Clinton.

That America’s governing elite would eventually succumb to lure of power and position to the detriment of the people being governed would be no surprise to the Founders. Daniel Webster recognized the love of power within the hearts of men was a constant threat to liberty.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions…There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters…They think that there need be but little restraint upon themselves. Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority…The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts even for their own scrutiny…[4] [emphasis added]

How can Americans recover their freedoms when their leaders ignore or pervert the original meaning of the Constitution?

For Americans to recover their freedoms from the reigning government by the few (i.e., oligarchy), they must revisit the Constitution to once again fix the rules by which their representatives are to govern. Fortunately, the Founders held the biblical understanding of the fallen nature of man and wisely made provision in the Constitution to rein in a wayward government led by wayward men and women who have strayed from the meaning of Constitution as intended by the Founders. That provision was made in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…[5]

The Convention of States Project was founded by Citizens for Self Governance for the purpose of stopping the increasing abuse of power by the federal government. They believe the governing process in Washington, D.C. is broken because of the growing massive debt incurred by the government and the seizing of power from the states.[6] The following is the stated goal of the Convention of States Project:

…to urge and empower state legislators to call a convention of states. The delegates at such a convention would have the power to propose amendments to the Constitution that would curb the abuses of the federal government. Article V of the Constitution gives them this power; the COS Project will give them an avenue through which they can use it.[7]

Rather than proposing a specific amendment, the COS Project is calling for a convention under Article V of the Constitution for a specific subject which is the limitation of the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.[8] [emphasis added] The COS Project has identified four major areas of abuse by the federal government which are the subjects to be addressed by a Convention of States.

• The Spending and Debt Crisis
• The Regulatory Crisis
• Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty
• Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process[9]

To call a Convention of States under Article V of the Constitution, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34) must pass a resolution called an “application” calling for a Convention of States. The applications must request a Convention of the States for the same subject matter. In the COS Project, the subject matter is the limitation of the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The applications are delivered to Congress. The business of the convention is to propose amendments to the Constitution related to the specific subjects agreed upon by the states.[10]

Commissioners from each state propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to the Constitution. All amendments at the convention must pass by a simple majority of those states at the convention. The approved amendments will be sent back to the states for ratification. Each state has one vote at the Convention regardless of the number of commissioners sent by that state. A state’s vote is on the amendment to be sent to the states will be determined by a majority of the voting commissioners in a state’s caucus. Three-fourths of the states (38) must ratify any proposed amendments. Once states ratify, the amendments become part of the Constitution.[11]

Generally, Congress designates the state legislatures as the ratifying body. However, Congress may choose to have the states call ratifying conventions whereby an election would be held in each state to allow the electorate to choose delegates to the ratifying conventions.[12]

A Constitutional purist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the most articulate and clear thinking justices of modern times. Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan and served on the Court until his death in February 2016. In 1979 Scalia was a law professor at the University of Chicago when he participated in panel discussion on Article V conducted by the American Enterprise Institute. His remarks at the panel discussion captured the heart of the importance of and need for a Convention of States.

We have come a long way. We have gotten over many problems. But the fact remains that a widespread and deep feeling of powerlessness in the country is apparent with respect to many issues, not just the budget issue. The people do not feel that their wishes are observed. They are heard but they are not heeded, particularly at the federal level. The Congress has come up with a lot of palliatives—the legislative veto, for example-which do not solve the problem at all. Part of the problem as I have noted is simply that the Congress has become professionalized; its members have a greater interest than ever before in remaining in office; and it is served by a bureaucracy and is much more subject to the power of individualized pressure groups than to the unorganized feelings of the majority of the citizens. This and other factors have created a real feeling of disenfranchisement that I think has a proper basis. The one remedy specifically provided for in the Constitution is the amendment process that bypasses the Congress.[13]

These feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement arise because the processes of a huge and complex government have usurped the power of the people to govern themselves. Thomas Jefferson recognized the inability of man to restrain his innate lust for power. His solution was also found in the Constitution. “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”[14] Article V is an integral link in that chain.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Bruce Caldwell, ed., (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1944, 2007), p. 111.
[2] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 28.
[3] Frank Camp, “WikiLeaks strikes again: Clinton Allegedly Praised ‘Open Borders’ in Paid Speech to Foreign Bank,” The Daily Caller, October 8, 2016. http://www.dailywire.com/news/9802/wikileaks-strikes-again-clinton-allegedly-praised-frank-camp (accessed October 12, 2016).
[4] Daniel Webster, Speech delivered at Niblo’s Saloon in New York, March 15, 1837, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1837), p. 17 from Archives.org. https://archive.org/details/speechdeliveredb01webs (accessed October 25, 2016).
[5] Article V, The Constitution of the United States.
[6] Media/About/News, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/about (accessed October 12, 2016).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Learn – The Problem, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[10] Learn – The Solution, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Learn – Frequently Asked Questions, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[14] Thomas Jefferson, “Two enemies of the people are criminals and government…” Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (US), https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/two-enemies-people-are-criminals-and-governmentquotation (accessed October 25, 2016).
by

America’s “Gray-suited bureaucrats”- Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : October 21, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

On June 23, 2016, the British People throughout the United Kingdom voted to end forty plus years of membership in the European Union. As one writer put it, many Britons felt forsaken by the country’s political and cultural leadership. Many believed that their lives were controlled by “gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats” at the EU’s headquarters.”[1]

Many Americans and possibly a large majority feel they, too, are being controlled by a vast army of gray-suited governmental officials and bureaucrats who are no longer responsive to the will and wishes of a majority of the people. There are three principal culprits in the marginalization of the American electorate in the governing process.

Judiciary

The problem with the modern judiciary is that it has crossed the line of its Constitutionally-mandated powers by creating legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. In the first eight decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

In Marbury v. Madison, President Jefferson rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[2] [emphasis added]

Sixty-two years later, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery throughout the nation.[3] Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[4] [emphasis added]

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In defending his veto of legislation passed by Congress and deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[5]

Irrespective of words of Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, the modern judiciary in the age of the “living” Constitution has made it increasingly pliable in order to accommodate the humanistic worldview and philosophies of society’s elites and overseers in order to impose their socially-engineered laws and regulations which stand in opposition to the popular will and wishes of the people and their mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past.

Executive Branch

The rule of law implies that governmental authority (power) is limited and may only be exercised in accordance with written laws adopted through an established procedure. When elected or appointed officials and bureaucrats exercise power beyond the limits established by the law, it is called abuse.

The brazen overreach of the Executive Branch under the Obama administration has occurred through the disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers and may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws through his selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve and to frustrate implementation of legislation that Congress has approved.[6]

The two pillars of Barack Obama’s crumbling legacy are Obamacare and the American foreign policy of disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism.[7] But perhaps Barack Obama’s presidency will be most remembered for his above-the-law actions in the Executive Branch and the attendant widespread lawlessness at all levels of the federal government under his administration.

Unelected bureaucracy

Regardless of President Obama’s involvement in or prior knowledge of the various scandals that have been endemic throughout his administration, his arrogant example sent the message that his decrees and agenda were superior to the laws of the land. Although an abusive bureaucracy was not the invention of President Obama, he has dramatically accelerated the level of abuse.

Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning in 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.[8] The burden and cost of regulations on average Americans and businesses is staggering. To give insight into the massive size of the federal bureaucracy we look to Title 27 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. This is the U.S. Tax Code which contains 16,845 pages including the part written by Congress. It is available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing office for $1,153. However, the U.S. Tax Code is just one of 50 titles found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, each of which contains one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis.[9] To these we add a multitude of state, county, city, and other regulatory entities’ rules and regulations.

In recent years there has been a frightening new adversarial mutation to the once overbearing but benign American governmental bureaucracy. The most recent scandals at the IRS and Departments of State, Justice, and Health and Human Services have exposed the dark underbelly of the rapacious bureaucratic monster. The goal of these agencies and bureaucracies is self-perpetuation which is accomplished by aiding those in power that are most friendly to their continued existence, financial health, and growth. A recent op-ed piece written by John Brock reveals how this symbiotic system works.

Government agencies are extorting billions of dollars from companies they regulate to the extent they are becoming independent of congressional appropriations and congressional oversight. For example, a Tulsa manufacturing firm was recently notified by the Environmental protection agency that a report was late. The company’s government consultant informed the company that previously such an error would have resulted in a $10,000 fine. The fine this time was $300,000. However, if the company would agree not to appeal through courts, the EPA would reduce the fine to $200,000. That is about the legal cost of an appeal. The delinquent report was that “there is nothing to report.” Early on regulators required a report only if there was a rule violation.

Most think that fines and penalties assessed by regulators go into the Treasury. Not so. The agency gets to keep the money, which it uses for bonuses to employees, employee parties, hiring more employees and buying equipment. For example, in the last eight years most agencies, using funds acquired from fines, have created their own police departments in lieu of using federal marshals. There are now more agency police than there are Marines in the U.S. Marine Corp. This extortion happens every day and all over the country and is increasing.[10]

In a 2008 speech, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Where is this civilian national security force? It is housed in over seventy agencies according to a 2012 report and includes such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which has an enforcement division manned by 191 employees and a budget of $65 million. Also, these agencies are often called on to conduct joint enforcement operations. And to whom do these seventy agencies ultimately report? That’s right, the president.[11]
______

It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the excesses of the Judiciary and Executive branch of government that has undermined Constitutional balanced of powers as designed by Madison and the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. Can there be a Brexit for America to shut down these gray-suited bureaucrats who are threatening the freedom of ordinary Americans? No, but there is a Constitutional solution. More on that in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Amanda Taub, “Brexit, explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters,” The New York Times, June 23, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html?_r=0 (accessed October 5, 2016).
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, (Alledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[3] Ibid. p. 272.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, “The end of sustainable government,” CultureWarrior.net, August 15, 2014. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/08/15/the-end-of-sustainable-government/
[7] Charles Krauthammer, “The Stillborn Legacy of Barak Obama,” The Patriot Post, October 7, 2016. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/45242 (accessed October 10, 2016).
[8] Larry G. Johnson, “The fragility of free speech in America,” CultureWarrior.net, March 21,2014. http://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/03/21/the-fragility-of-free-speech-in-america/
[9] “What is the Real Size of the U.S. Federal Tax Code,” Isaac Brock Society, February 12, 2012. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/12/what-is-the-real-size-of-the-u-s-federal-tax-code/ (accessed April 9, 2014).
[10] John Brock, “Citizens deliver a vote of no confidence,” Tulsa World, July 15, 2016, A-9.
[11] “Beware the increasing militarization of government,” Investor’s Business Daily, April 16, 2014. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/many-federal-agencies-have-armed-divisions/ (accessed October 10, 2016).

Would Jefferson label the modern Judiciary as the “Despotic Branch”?

Posted by :webmaster On : May 22, 2015
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

George Will is one of the brightest and most articulate columnists on the national scene (Washington Post Writers Group). I normally savor every one of his appearances on the opinion page. This is why I am disturbed by Will’s false and malicious criticism of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (“Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification”).[1] Will is a huge fan and student of baseball and occasionally writes a column on the subject. Using a baseball analogy, Will must know that his column’s pitches at Huckabee were not only far outside the strike zone but that they were intended as bean balls meant to injure and harm Huckabee. This disappoints because Will has not lowered himself to such levels in past columns that I have read.

Will claims to be “appalled” by Huckabee’s recent remarks that deal with the question of judicial error and overreach with regard to the Constitution, an issue that also concerns a great number of Americans. Will takes Huckabee to task for rejecting “judicial supremacy” and suggesting that a ruling by the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In doing so, Will incorrectly links Huckabee’s remarks with the pre-Civil War doctrine of nullification which arose in 1830 during Andrew Jackson’s presidency.

The doctrine of nullification evolved from resolutions initially adopted by the South Carolina legislature in December 1828 and which opposed certain tariffs imposed by the federal government. In opposition to President Jackson with regard to the tariffs, Vice President John Calhoun authored a lengthy essay on state government which supported the Southern position of state sovereignty and minority rights. According to the doctrine of nullification, individual states did not have to follow a federal law and in effect could “nullify” the law. By 1830, the nullification debate had evolved to the larger questions of origin and nature of the Constitution. Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster defended the federal position by “…attempting to show that the Constitution was not the result of a compact, but was established as a popular government with a distribution of powers binding upon the national government and the states.”[2]

It is misleading for Will to accuse Huckabee of crusading for nullification of federal laws at will because the Constitution was merely the product of a compact. Huckabee’s concern is with modern judicial efforts to create legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. What is interesting and lends authority to Huckabee’s position on interpreting the Constitution is Andrew Jackson’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the constitutionality of a re-charter of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. Although the Supreme Court viewed the legislation passed by Congress as constitutional, Jackson did not and vetoed the legislation. The bank charter debate became the major issue of the 1832 presidential campaign.[3] In defending his veto, Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[4]

In the first seven decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

Marbury v. Madison

In the last hours of the presidency of John Adams, he made several Federalist judicial appointments in the District of Columbia in an attempt to further load the bench with Federalist appointees. Under President Adams, John Marshall was both Adams’ Secretary of State and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As Secretary of State, it was Marshall’s duty to deliver President Adams’ legally executed appointments, but he failed to do so. When James Madison became Secretary of State under newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, the president refused to have the appointments delivered. The disappointed appointees sued, and in Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court at first ruled that the Court had no judicial authority over the case. Then with a surprisingly contradictory action, the Chief Justice ruled that President Jefferson should deliver the appointments. Jefferson and Madison ignored the ruling and received virtually no condemnation voiced by Congress, the Supreme Court, or the public. Jefferson called the Court’s attempt to interfere with the business of the Executive decision a “perversion of the law” by attempting to strike down the Judiciary Act of 1789 in which on two occasions the Supreme Court had found no objection or fault.[5]

Nineteen years later, Jefferson affirmed the general view of the Founders that any of the three branches could interpret the Constitution.

[E]ach of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.[6]

Jefferson specifically rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[7] [emphasis added]

Jefferson and the other Founders would be greatly alarmed with the modern view of the Judiciary that it may prescribe rules for the other branches of Government.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott was a Negro slave, a household servant for Dr. John Emerson who had taken Scott to various areas in the North where slavery was prohibited. Scott eventually sued for his liberty in Missouri courts and maintained that he was free because of his stays in a free state and a free territory. In March 1857, the Supreme Court ruled (Dred Scott v. Sanford) that Scott (and all other slaves) was not a citizen of the U.S. or the state of Missouri and therefore not entitled to sue in the federal courts. For Scott and all other slaves, the effect of the ruling reinforced the status quo of slavery and made it impossible for slaves to gain their freedom through the courts or legislation.[8] Effectively, the Supreme Court had declared that Congress could not outlaw slavery and that slaves were not citizens but property.

Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[9] [emphasis added]

Like Jefferson’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison sixty two years earlier, both Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery.[10]

Jefferson, writing to Abigail Adams in 1804, said of the Supreme Court, “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[11] [emphasis added] But this is what the Supreme Court has become in 2015 America. Thoughtful judicial interpretation of laws in light of the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. But through judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature in making laws, the courts have appropriated unto themselves a law-making role never intended by the Founders and breaches the coveted separation of powers.

Will is not only incorrect in his spurious charge that Huckabee was crusading for nullification, he crudely disparages Huckabee’s Christian faith because of his call for prayer for the Supreme Court justices considering the fate of same-sex marriage (See: 1 Timothy 2:1-2). He also belittles Huckabee’s well-founded concern that the nation is moving toward the criminalization of Christianity which is amply demonstrated by the growing trend of the judiciary and bureaucracy to punish Christians for practicing their faith.

In the age of the “living” Constitution, the Judiciary has made it pliable in order to accommodate the whims of a humanistic society unhooked from mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past. In Jefferson’s words such a Constitution becomes, “…a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Combining the words of Jefferson and Lincoln, such a Judiciary would become a “despotic branch” and “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] George Will, Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification,” Tulsa World, May 15, 2015, A-15.
[2] Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1953), pp.167-168.
[3] Ibid., p. 173.
[4] Ibid.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 275-176.
[6] Barton, p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Morris, pp. 221-222.
[9] Barton, p. 272.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Barton, pp. 271-272. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 27, to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804.

Gridlock – Governmental stalemate arising from a deeper cultural divide

Posted by :webmaster On : December 5, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Constitution, Government, Progressivism

Gridlock is a favorite bogeyman of journalists, columnists, and commentators in recent years, especially following national elections. They may as well save their breath and barrels of printer’s ink for the political divide has never been wider and deeper. Perennial prescriptions of non-partisanship and cooperation disappear as quickly as the morning mist following Election Day. One must ask if political polarization always results in gridlock which is shorthand for the inability of government to govern effectively. A cursory review of American history reveals many times of intense polarization, but the country and its government survived. Why was that possible then and not possible now? An examination of one of the defining moments in our nation’s history suggests an answer.

The fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention had labored through the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. Their efforts to draft a constitution for the fledgling nation were floundering and near failure amidst bitter debate and hostile feelings. On June 28th, eighty-one year old Benjamin Franklin rose to his feet and addressed General Washington who served as Convention president and the other 54 delegates. Here we recite only portions of this perhaps nation-saving speech.

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question…is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.

In this situation of the assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

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…

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: we shall be divided by our 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 blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…[1]

Franklin noted on the bottom of his copy of the speech that the convention, except for three or four, thought prayers were unnecessary.[2] But he was wrong. Jonathan Drayton, delegate from New Jersey, reported the response of the convention.

The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected.[3]

Upon motion of James Madison, seconded by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Franklin’s appeal for prayer was approved by the delegates who further voted that at the request of the Convention a sermon be preached on July 4th and thereafter prayers be used in the Convention every morning.[4]

On June 30, two days after his speech, Franklin would help set in motion events that would break the impasse and ultimately help shape the new nation.[5] John Drayton noted a profound change in the convention as they assembled on July 2nd. “We assembled again; and …every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”[6]

The entire delegation assembled at the Reformed Calvinistic Church on July 4th to hear a sermon preached by Reverend William Rogers. Rogers prayed that the delegates would be favored “…with thy inspiring presence, be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole…” He closed with, “May we…continue, under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all blessings of cultivated and Christian society.”[7] God answered Rogers’ request. On September 17, 1787, the delegates approved the Constitution of the United States of America. This was not the first of many instances of God’s providence in the founding and preservation of the nation amidst polarizing events and difficulties including the greatest threat of all—the Civil War that divided the nation not only politically but also divided families and friends.

In reality, the political divide in the nation’s first 150 years was probably more dramatic then than it is today. So what makes modern political divisiveness more intractable than that of our forebears?

The fundamental divide in America goes far deeper than mere political polarization and gridlock. This divide is the result of the ascendance of a humanistic worldview that believes that “change and progress are the law of life.” To maintain progress, America must be unshackled from the past. On the other side of the divide are those who are concerned with the nature of man and values.[8] It is on this side we find the central cultural vision of the colonial Americans, the Founders, and most Americans since then.

The collective consciousness of those early Americans was essentially Christian in the way they saw the world. Man was fallen but redeemable. Their values were fixed by timeless truths found both in the natural law and the revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. Even though Franklin and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were mired in deep philosophical disagreements regarding the details of founding a nation, the Christian worldview held by virtually all of the delegates defined their basic beliefs and informed their deliberations which made possible compromise and success in creating a document that reflected their understanding of timeless values and the nature of man.

For those who believe that change and progress are the fundamental forces for directing life, it is essential that the Founders’ central cultural vision and values be discarded. In their central cultural vision, man is not fallen. He need not look to any god or the supernatural for solutions to his problems for those solutions come only through man’s reason and scientific advancement. As man progresses, values must change to reflect the times and accommodate current attitudes and situations.

The problem with the worldview of progress and change is that it violates the essential requirements that define a viable and sustainable culture. The essence of culture is to give allegiance to a center of authority that reflects moral codes and laws whereby it enforces what it believes is right and good for society. In other words, a culture must have a unifying central vision of how things ought to work, what’s important, its moral values, and what must be included and what must be excluded from that culture.

The progressive view of culture is essentially disintegrative because it has no unifying, cohesive central vision for it, by definition, produces multiple centers of cultural vision. Progressives attempt to create coherence and cohesiveness among these multiple centers of vision by substituting falsely defined concepts such as diversity, equality, and other egalitarian ideals as the cultural center of authority. However, these concepts do not resonate with man’s innate understanding of truth and freedom and fail to answer the basic questions of life. Therefore, these humanistic concepts inevitably lead to tensions and frictions, are inherently divisive, and result in cultural disintegration.

These tensions and frictions are most evident in the modern political arena and result in gridlock. Present day political polarization has become insurmountable because the conflict flows from fundamental differences in our basic beliefs that can’t be compromised without destroying who we claim to be as individuals and as a nation. And it is in these basic differences of belief that we see the flashpoints in the culture wars which include abortion, same-sex marriage, and homosexuality.

For over 150 years America overcame its political polarization and gridlock because its citizens and leaders were guided by a single cultural vision. Now, many of the leaders in the nation’s spheres of influence adhere to and promote a humanistic view of life in which God is a myth and man is the master of his own destiny. From such beliefs come political solutions that conflict with the central cultural vision that has been held by most Americans for three hundred years (colonial Americans, Founders, and most citizens since then). And without the cohesive and coherent central cultural vision of the Founders, there is no firm foundation upon which America’s leaders can overcome political polarization and gridlock. In Franklin’s words, they have become “the builders of Babel.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc.1996), pp. 248-249.
[2] Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin – An American Life, (New York, Simon & Schuster), 2003), p. 452.
[3] Federer, p. 249.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Isaacson, p. 452.
[6] Federer, p. 250.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 4-5.

“Workplace violence” comes to Canada

Posted by :webmaster On : November 21, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Government, Humanism, Islam, Worldview

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines workplace violence as “…violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide.” The OSHA website also tells us that workplace violence can strike anywhere and anyone…people in homes, pizza delivery persons, gas meter readers, psychiatric evaluators…literally anywhere work is or can be done.[1] But OSHA’s definition is so broad that it is meaningless. Almost any violence can be classified as connected to the workplace however tenuous that connection might be. Not only does OSHA mask the real reasons for much of the violence, but it magnifies the level of workplace violence by equating minor non-violent and non-criminal occurrences with violent crimes such as physical assault and murder. Effectively, a large segment of general societal violence is jury-rigged to the workplace and made the responsibility of employers. The assumptive language of OSHA’s workplace violence regulations is that all such violence is workplace related.

OSHA’s workplace violence rules were written long before November 5, 2009, when Army Major Nidal Hasan shot to death thirteen people (fourteen including the unborn child of one of the victims) and wounded thirty-two others at Fort Hood, Texas. Major Hasan committed these crimes after years of open and verbal support of Islamic jihad while serving as an Army officer. Hasan is an American-born Muslim who had exchanged emails with a leading Al-Qaeda personage in which Hasan asked if those attacking fellow soldiers were considered martyrs.[2] Hasan fired over 200 rounds in the killing spree while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” which means “Allah is the Greatest” and is the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer as prescribed by the Prophet Muhammad.

Only four days after the shootings at Fort Hood, General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, appeared on several Sunday news talk shows and expressed concern regarding the speculation as to the cause or motivation behind the shootings. “We have to be careful because we can’t jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that have come out. As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” (emphasis added) Not only was the general more concerned with protecting diversity than exposing the truth regarding the attack, he deliberately switched the focus of what happened when he said that he did not think there was currently discrimination against the estimated 3,000 Muslims who served in the Army at that time. Implicit in the General’s unwarranted statement was that if Hasan had acted because of his religious beliefs, it would have been because of discrimination against Muslims within the Army.[3]

Forty-six people were killed or wounded just three days earlier on an Army base whose supreme commander was General Casey. The perpetrator was a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” and had a well-known history among his military peers and superiors of being in sympathy with and vocally supporting Islamic jihad. However, the general’s greatest concern was for discrimination against Muslims in the military and not the families of the dead and those wounded by Hasan. It is incredibly naïve for anyone to believe the general did know the complete story of Nidal Hasan within hours of the killings and not just little snippets of information.

So the United States government saw to it that Hasan’s crimes were labeled “workplace violence” as opposed to what it really was…an act of terror whose motivation was to advance the beliefs and purposes of a false religion. Workplace violence may describe the location, but it does not reveal the cause or motivation of the violence. Government leadership committed to the philosophy of humanism must at all costs defend its humanistic concepts of diversity and multiculturalism in which moral relativism rules and all belief systems are coexisting and equally valid. Thus, we can all rest well tonight because diversity has been defended and OSHA is churning out even more rules and regulations to combat “workplace violence” such as committed by Major Hasan.

Recently, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a thirty-two year old Muslim convert, shot and killed a ceremonial guard on his way to attack the Canadian House of Commons and was subsequently killed by guards. Humanism in Canada is even more advanced than in the United States, but Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the courage to call the assault on the House of Commons a terrorist attack. However, true to liberalism’s humanistic roots, liberal leader Justin Trudeau quickly reassured the Muslim community.

And to our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community, Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual cooperation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. We will walk forward together, not apart.[4] (emphasis added)

According to Muslim tradition, the Quran was verbally spoken to Muhammad and is the mother document upon which Islam rests. One wonders how Zehaf-Bibeau’s actions are a deviation from the Islamic faith when the words of the Quran repeatedly justify his actions. Two examples of many similar verses that justify Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack are found in the Quran.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.[5] [Surah 4:89. Quran]

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you, give firmness to the believers: I will instil [sic] terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.[6] [Surah 8:12. Quran]

Are these verses, which are consistent with the actions of Zehaf-Bibeau, distorted ideological propaganda as Trudeau would have us believe? The Quran either does or does not define Islam and direct the actions of its followers? If they are reflective of the Quran’s instruction for conduct of the followers of Islam, the verses cannot be distorted ideological propaganda. If the verses are not reflective of proper conduct for the followers of Islam, how does a follower of Islam determine which verses of the Quran are to be followed and which must be considered distorted ideological propaganda?

The philosophy of humanism would have us believe that all belief systems are equally valid. If all belief systems are not equally valid, then the tenets of humanism are fundamentally flawed including humanistically defined concepts of diversity and multiculturalism which are embraced by General Casey and most of the leadership of the institutions of American life. When common sense and thousands of years of human experience expose the falsity of the humanistic worldview, its defenders use the power of office and meaningless language such as “workplace violence” and bogus definitions of diversity and multiculturalism to mask its failings.

Humanism’s diversity is a close kin of multiculturalism and focuses on the differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and humanism’s perverted concept of equality.[7]

…the humanist multicultural agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity. The attack on Western civilization comes through a dismissal of American religious values as they intersected with and made possible the rise of the American political system…The essence of multiculturalism has its roots in the denial of absolutes, one of the cardinal doctrines of humanism, which translates into a moral relativism. Such a values-free approach, according to the humanists, makes it impossible to judge one period or era in relation to another or to say that one culture’s ethic is superior to another.[8]

The American experience since the first Europeans set foot on its eastern shores has been centered on a Christian understanding of the world. America became the greatest nation in the world because it was founded upon principles based upon that understanding.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] OSHA Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2002.
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-workplace-violence .pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
[2] Billy Kenber, “Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage,” Washington Post, August 28, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nidal-hasan-sentenced-to-death-for-fort-hood-shooting-rampage/2013/08/28/aad28de2-0ffa-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html (accessed November 5, 2014).
[3] Lindy Kyzer, “Gen. Casey on the strength of our diversity,” Army Live, U.S. Army, November 8, 2009.
http://armylive.dodlive.mil/index.php/2009/11/gen-casey-on-the-strength-of-our-diversity/ (accessed November 5, 2014).
[4] Erika Tucker, “Soldier killed in what Harper calls ‘terrorist attack’ in Ottawa,” Global News, October 22, 2014. http://globalnews.ca/news/1628313/shots-fired-at-war-memorial-in-ottawa-says-witness/ (accessed November 5, 2014).
[5] The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an, (Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah), p.49.
[6] Ibid., p. 98.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p 398.
[8] Ibid., pp. 189-190.