Archives for : Culture Wars

Tis the Season for Secular Silliness

Posted by :webmaster On : December 13, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Humanism

Holiday letter to my secular humanist friends,

The first signs of the holiday shopping season peek from store shelves in September. October’s chill warns that Halloween nears. We must select a costume that tops last year’s. November heralds that most wonderful time of the year—Black Friday. But Oh My! What shall we do with December and that highly embarrassing “other” holiday? You know the one I mean. We once masked it by calling it Xmas. But the X could be misconstrued as a cross. And a cross can be associated with you know who, and that will never do. Now we call that “other” holiday by many names such as Winter Solstice celebration, Festival of Lights, and Winter Carnival. Those are so inclusive, so democratic…so…so generic. (I almost said ecumenical, but that sounds too religious.) With these new names, the holiday season can mean whatever one wants it to mean rather than have a religious meaning crammed down our throats each December. Why must we be subjected to those old-fashioned myths and fables that have lingered for two thousand years? We have Santa Claus!

But there are still millions out there who haven’t gotten the message. They are generally backward, unintelligent, and remain culturally insensitive unlike those of us who have progressed beyond those crude expressions of faith. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to join our shining, non-offensive, tolerant, all inclusive, sensitive secular society.

You hear those sentimental Christians whining every year at this time. They are always hiding behind the Constitution which they say guarantees their religious freedom. Well of course they have religious freedom as long as they don’t flaunt it in public!

We must be ever vigilant and ready to crush any efforts to return to those bad old days. Just a couple of years ago, a group of carolers singing at various businesses in a Silver Springs, Maryland, shopping center entered a U.S. Post Office also located in the shopping center. Dressed in period costumes reminiscent of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” they were only a few words into their first carol when the vigilant and brave Post Office manager rushed into the lobby to stop the indiscretion. “You can’t do this on government property,” the angry manager shouted. He ordered them to leave immediately because there was a Post Office policy prohibiting solicitation. They attempted to explain that they were going to all the businesses in the shopping center. But he would have none of it and insisted they leave in spite of boos from the patrons waiting in line. [Duffy] Even though there was no such policy, this Post Office manager should serve as a role model for that small minority of managers who aren’t so enlightened and have allowed caroling in their Post Offices. Fortunately, our government is filled with like-minded militant secularist bureaucrats rigorously defending society from such unauthorized merriment.

But we can never let down our guard. Just the other day the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives announced that its members would be allowed to use previously banned holiday greetings in official mailings to their constituents. Representative Candice Miller said, “I feel it is entirely appropriate for members of Congress to include a simple holiday salutation, whether it is Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and so on.” [Deaton] Shameful! How could these legislators abuse their franking privileges by including messages of Merry Christmas to thousands of their constituents? Such episodes tend to be contagious and must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Such blatant relapses can cause others to become weak-kneed when banning Christmas from any public display or expression. One example is the Bordentown, New Jersey, Regional School District administration that had banned religious Christmas music at winter public school concerts effective as of October 18th. Less than two weeks later the superintendent backed down after national attention was focused on the school’s ban. The superintendent announced that the religious Christmas music would be allowed for now “…after reviewing additional legal considerations and advice on this matter and the expressed sentiments of the community at large…” However, she promised that, “…the school board will continue to examine the issue to determine how the policy will be handled in the future.” Of course it is always wise to impose these unpopular restrictions on a low-key basis. The school administration should have imposed the restrictions banning religious Christmas music in, let’s say, March. Once policies are established and in effect for a period of time, opposition to those policies can usually be attributed to a fringe element of religious fanatics bent on imposing their religion on others and which violates our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. It doesn’t matter that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution; we know the Founders really meant freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. You see, that Constitution thing can work both ways.

Wait a minute. I must go to the door. No, it can’t be! There are carolers out there singing religious Christmas songs and indiscriminately shouting Merry Christmas right there on the public sidewalk for everyone to hear. Where’s my cell phone? Hello! 911? Send the police. No, better yet send a SWAT team. We are having a major public insurrection right here in River City in direct violation of the Constitution. Hurry! There are children in the neighborhood being exposed to this brazen criminal activity!

I must go. I think I see one of my neighbors putting a nativity scene on his front lawn. Hmmm. Would that violation fall under the city’s building code or advertising ordinance? Where’s my cell phone?

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

J. P. Duffy, “Post Office Manager Throws Christmas Carolers Out into the Cold,” Family Research Council, December 12, 2011. http://www.frcblog.com/2011/12/post-office-manager-throws-christmas-carolers-out-into-the-cold/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Chris Deaton, “Victory: House members no longer prohibited from saying “Merry Christmas” in official mail,” Red Alert Politics, December 4, 2013. http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/04/victory-house-members-no-longer-prohibited-from-saying-merry-christmas-in-official-mail/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Billy Hallowell, “N.J. School District That Banned Christmas Music With ‘Religious Origins’ Backs Down,” The Blaze, November 6, 2013. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/n-j-school-district-that-banned-christmas-music-with-religious-origins-backs-down/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Who owns the language?

Posted by :webmaster On : December 6, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Culture Wars, Truth

Sarah Palin spoke to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on November 9th. Her views on the damaging effects of the burgeoning federal debt were well received by the conservative audience, but it provoked considerable hostility in the liberal media and in particular from MSNBC’s Martin Bashir. What especially provoked Mr. Bashir was Palin’s statement that the burgeoning federal debt would eventually result in a form of slavery for American citizens.

Now you know coming up, the other side will offer more of the same, more false promises, more free stuff, and the media, for all too long, will go along with it and all of the deception. What will you counter it with? It’s free stuff! It’s seductive. Why is it marketers use free stuff to bring people in? Free Stuff. It’s such a strong marketing ploy. The tool of free stuff is seductive.

Didn’t you all learn too in Econ 101 that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch? Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China. When that note comes due…and this isn’t racist..try it, try it anyway…this isn’t racist. But it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due. Right? We are going to be beholden to a foreign master because there is no plan, no plan coming out of Washington, D.C. to stop the incurrence of debt is there? All we’re hearing about is why we need to grow more debt. I believe that if you’re in a hole and you don’t want to be in that hole, quit digging. [Sarah Palin quotes from video excerpts, DesMoinesRegister.com]

Apparently Ms. Palin’s use of the word “slavery” in her analogy was judged to be incorrect as well as unauthorized by the speech police of the liberal establishment. Such was the magnitude of her offense that Mr. Bashir was compelled to respond a week later on his Friday MSNBC show’s “Clear the Air” segment. [Tommy Christopher]

Bashir called Palin America’s “resident dunce” and that her remarks were “scraping the barrel of her long-deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt. Given her well-established reputation as a world class idiot, it’s hardly surprising that she should choose to mention slavery in a way that is abominable to anyone who knows anything about its barbaric history.”

To correct Ms. Palin, Mr. Bashir attempted to contextualize the horror of slavery by quoting from the diary of Thomas Thistlewood, an 18th century British overseer of a Jamaican sugar plantation. Bashir explained that Thistlewood recorded his brutality in a diary which included stories of forcing slaves to defecate and urinate on each other as a form of punishment.

Bashir ended his monologue by saying, “I could go on, but you get the point. When Mrs. Palin invokes slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.”
After a firestorm of criticism over his remarks, Bashir apologized to Palin and his audience during his show on the following Monday.

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post thought Bashir’s attack on Palin was vicious and unwarranted but agreed with Bashir that the comparison of slavery and debt was inappropriate. Parker wrote, “…slavery merits its own place in America’s memory. To compare it to anything else, especially something as mundane as debt, is wrong on its face. Indentured servitude to China might have been a better choice for Palin…In Palin’s defense, she obviously meant no offense and the attacks in response have been so vicious that the attacks themselves are beyond comparison.” [Kathleen Parker]

What Parker is saying is that some words are so unique or one of a kind that they shouldn’t be used for comparison with other things. She includes words such as “slavery,” “Nazi,” and “Holocaust” in this category of untouchables when devising a simile—a comparison of two essentially unlike things with similar characteristics. (Liberal hypocracy in the application of this practice is abundantly apparent as they frequently affix the label of racism to almost anything which is in opposition to the liberal agenda as defined by the humanistic worldview.)

Well, let’s follow Palin’s analogy to its logical conclusion. Ultimately the free stuff funded by borrowed money must be paid for by someone—either now or in the future. If repayment is not made, the debt is restructured upon negotiated terms or foreclosure follows. When a nation nears default it attempts to renegotiate the debt with its creditors. This generally results in heavy taxation and significant curtailment of services to the citizens of the debtor nation. If a nation defaults on its debts, the population continues its slide into abject poverty over time resulting in life lived at or near subsistence levels.

So, may we not call excessive, onerous, and perhaps unpayable debt a form of slavery? One definition of slavery is that it is “drudgery, toil…submission to a dominating influence.” Ms. Parker would substitute servitude for slavery, but the dictionary lists servitude as slavery, “…the state of subjection to another that constitutes or resembles slavery or serfdom.” [Webster’s]

Liberalism is the precursor for socialism. But the altruistic and lofty goals of liberalism (including the free stuff) become somewhat tarnished when one examines a society under the growing influence of socialism in which freedom gradually erodes slavery. The European Union is a great example in which a number of its members are in severe economic straits (e.g., Greece and Spain) and beholden to the creditor nations. The solvent members of the EU now dictate the rules which have placed extremely painful financial burdens and restraints under which the profligate countries must live. In spite of protests and riots in Greece and other EU debtor nations, it certainly appears that, in the end, debtor members of the EU have submitted to the will of the dominating creditor nations, a situation which we have correctly defined as a form of slavery.

Therefore, it appears Sarah Palin accurately described the potential outcome of our growing national debt as analogous to slavery. But the Bashir-Palin war of words is merely a tempest in the cauldron of the culture wars.

Who owns the language?

Richard Weaver believed that “…a divine element is present in language. The feeling that to have power of language is to have control over things is deeply imbedded in the human mind.” The symbols of language are words, singly and collectively, through which we assign meaning and truth, and it is inherent in man’s nature to seek truth. This is frightening to liberals for in their worldview truth does not exist except as mere perception without fixed reference points. Thus, the liberal must harness, manipulate, and thereafter mold words to end polarity that arises from pursuit of objective truth which allows man to define what is right and wrong. [Weaver, pp. 148, 151, 153.] Hence, liberals attempt to own the language through imposition of politically correct concepts of appropriateness as well as prohibitions through “hate speech” laws as defined by the liberals.

In our modern age humanists have effectively used semantics to neuter words of their meaning in historical and symbolic contexts, that is, words now mean what men want them to mean. By removing the fixities of language (which undermines an understanding of truth), language loses its ability to define and compel. As the meaning of words is divorced from truth, relativism gains supremacy and a culture tends to disintegration without an understanding of eternal truths upon which to orient its self. [Weaver, pp. 151-153, 163.] In the battle of worldviews, certain words have gained power to obscure truth and history through the intrigues of humanist redefinition. Again, Richard Weaver is a master at describing the humanist protocol with regard to corrupting the language.

Just as soon as men begin to point out that the word is one entity and the object it represents is another, there sets in a temptation to do one thing with the word and another or different thing with the object it is supposed to represent; and here begins that relativism which by now is visibly affecting those institutions which depend for their very existence upon our ability to use language as a permanent binder. [emphasis added] [Weaver quoted by Curtis and Thompson, pp. 195-196.]

Liberals (the vast majority of whom hold the humanistic worldview) attack language in its historic and symbolic contexts in an effort to dislodge the generally conservative biblical worldview from America’s central cultural vision. Media shock troops are complicit in the efforts to discredit and immobilize the opposition (those holding the biblical worldview) through the devaluation of language. For those holding the biblical worldview, we must be vigilant in our endeavor to free language from its enslavement by liberals.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Jennifer Jacobs, “Palin compares federal debt to slavery at Iowa dinner,” Video excerpts, DesMoinesRegister.com, November 10, 2013. Quote from video clip. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131110/NEWS09/311100047/Palin-compares-federal-debt-to-slavery-at-Iowa-dinner?Frontpage (accessed November 22, 2013).

Tommy Christopher, “Martin Bashir Says Someone Should Sh*t in Sarah Palin’s Mouth,” mediaite.com, November 15, 2013. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-says-someone-should-sht-in-sarah-palins-mouth/ (accessed November 22, 2013).

Kathleen Parker, “Some things shouldn’t be compared,” Tulsa World, November 23, 2013, A-19.

“servitude, slavery,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), pp. 793, 818.

Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 148, 151-153, 163.

George M. Curtis, III, and James J. Thompson, Jr., eds., The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver, (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, 1987), pp. 195-196.

Thrill killers, the ACLU, Benjamin Spock, and C. S. Lewis

Posted by :webmaster On : September 13, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Culture Wars, Worldview

Two young men and their driver (all ages 15 to 17) residing in a small rural town in southern Oklahoma allegedly killed a twenty-two year old college student from Australia by shooting him in the back while he jogged down a road. The only motive mentioned by one of the alleged perpetrators was “boredom”. Within a week another random attack killed an 88-year-old World War II veteran in Spokane, Washington. The two 16-year-old killers’ only motive was robbery. The man was only slightly above five feet tall and died of severe head injuries. What threat could this diminutive 88-year old man have posed to cause the 16-year-olds to beat him to death? These are but two instances among hundreds if not thousands occurring in the United States each year.

Few people in America are unaware of the recent spate of so-called “thrill killings” in various parts of the country. Headlines blaze and talk shows buzz. People shake their heads and use adjectives such as “senseless, heatless, and soulless.” The first reaction to these irrational takings of human life is incomprehension, then anger. We wonder why all of this is happening with increasing frequency and heinousness. Then a quiet sense of unease casts a pall over our minds as we see the evil that is rooted in our being, that indelible hereditary sin stain that has passed down to us from our first ancestor. Either as victim or perpetrator, we wonder, “There but for the grace of God, go I …”

Pundits and experts search for motives and causes that can be addressed and treated, or they attempt to fix the blame on some failure of society or some perceived culpable villains (i.e., the perpetrator becomes the victim). The solutions come in all shapes and sizes including more laws, more regulation, or added layers of social engineering. But the real culprit is the domination of American institutions and popular culture by those holding the humanistic worldview. Always ready with excuses, reasons, and solutions, the humanists with humanistic answers merely exacerbate the trauma inflicted on a society whose central cultural vision is no longer anchored to the biblical worldview.

It has been a half century since prayer was allowed in American schools. The posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and on our public buildings is now illegal. Young people are not taught the values upon which this nation was founded. In fact, they are taught that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, and all religions and belief systems have equal value.

Unrestrained by tradition or other moral force, popular culture denigrates the central cultural vision upon which the nation was founded. Tradition, by itself, can only maintain a central cultural vision for a time as the moral capital accumulated from adherence to that vision is eroded. If a society’s central vision is corrupt or false, that rebellion may be a good thing if one assumes that there are moral absolutes of right and wrong, truth and falsity. But a popular culture that misreads and wars against the validity of a morally sound central cultural vision will cause that culture to disintegrate. [Johnson, p. 367.]

Oklahoma’s State Capitol is seventy miles north of the little town of Duncan where three bored youths allegedly shot Chris Lane who died in the ditch where he fell. On the grounds of the State Capitol stands a monument paid for with private funds and inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The sixth commandment reads “You shall not murder” (NKJV). Six days after the murder of Chris Lane, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Capital Preservation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, seeking removal of the monument. The suit states that, “This piece of public property, placed upon public property, conveys an explicit religious message that supports and endorses the faiths and creeds of some churches and sects.” Brady Henderson, Legal Director with the Oklahoma ACLU, stated “Our constitution makes it clear you cannot use state property and state resources to support a particular religion and this monument does just that.” [Fox News.com]

In answer to Mr. Henderson’s interpretation of the Constitution, we once again return to the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, reputed to be the father of the Constitution which speaks volumes about Story’s understanding of the Founders’ meaning with regard to the Constitution and its Amendments).

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation (condemnation), if not universal indignation. [Barton, p. 32.]

One wonders if any of the killers in Duncan, Oklahoma and Spokane, Washington would have had second thoughts about their actions if at some point during their school years a copy of the Ten Commandments had been posted on their school room wall and a teacher had taken the time to explain what each commandment meant.

Even prominent humanists recognize the loss of our fundamental values in American society. One such was Benjamin Spock, famous for his baby care book. His life’s work and influence greatly advanced the humanistic worldview in America. He remained a champion of humanism throughout his life, and his efforts were recognized when he was named Humanist of the Year in 1968. In 1994, four years before the end of his life at age ninety, Spock wrote A Better World for Our Children – Rebuilding American Family Values. In the book Spock expressed considerable concern as he viewed the harmful effects of society on American children.

I am near despair. My despair comes not only from the progressive loss of values in this century, but from the fact that present society is simply not working. Societies and people who live in them fall apart if they lose their fundamental beliefs, and the signs of this loss are everywhere. [Spock, p. 15.]

Amazingly, Spock remained oblivious to humanism’s disintegrating effects and did not see that the ills of society are a direct result of well over a century of humanism’s dominance in American life as it stripped away our fundamental beliefs instilled by a biblical worldview. In his book The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis captured the essence of this cultural madness brought about by the unwitting soldiers in the army of the “knowledge class” having been indoctrinated with a humanistic worldview.

It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them a chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. All the time…we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible…In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. [Lewis, p. 704.]

America is losing its fundamental beliefs. America’s original central cultural vision is held together by the moral capital banked decades ago but is near depletion. Faced with a hostile popular culture and leadership in our American institutions that embrace the humanistic worldview, we are in critical danger of forever losing the central cultural vision established by the Founders—those men with chests.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

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. 367.

“ACLU sues to remove Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument” Fox News.com, August 22, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/aclu-sues-to-remove-oklahoma-10-commandments-monument/#ixzz2dHrcZwgM (accessed August 28, 2013).

David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1989), p. 32.

Dr. Benjamin M. Spock, A better World for Our Children – Rebuilding American Family Values, (Bethesda, Maryland: National Press Books, 1994), p. 15.

C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 1944, 1947, 1971, 1974), p. 704.

The Baby Veronica Case: Symptom of America’s eroding central cultural vision

Posted by :webmaster On : September 6, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Culture Wars

Veronica is the little four-year-old girl who is at the center of an epic custody battle between her South Carolina adoptive parents and her biological father. A member of the Cherokee Tribe, the father agreed to give custody to the birth mother four months after Veronica’s birth but claims he had not known the birth mother had placed her up for adoption. The adoptive parents raised Veronica from her birth in 2009 to December 2011 when the biological father won custody from a South Carolina Court under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 which gives a tribe the right to intervene in custody cases of children with any degree of Indian blood. However, in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that the Indian Child Welfare Act didn’t automatically guarantee the father custody. The South Carolina Supreme Court took custody away from the father and gave it to the adoptive parents. The South Carolina Court issued an order for the father to surrender custody immediately after he failed to bring Veronica to a court-ordered visitation with the adoptive parents. The child was never surrendered to the adoptive parents and remains in Oklahoma in the custody of the father while he awaits extradition to South Carolina to face felony charges for custodial interference. [Tulsa World, 8-25-13, 9-5-13.]

Indian tribes have become aggressive in not only defending but expanding tribal sovereignty into many areas of American life heretofore undreamed of. As a result many of the rights of Indians and tribal sovereignty are now superior to many of the rights of all Americans and the laws that govern them. The ICWA of 1978 is but one example. Under the guise of preserving tribal culture, the tribes have used law to prevent adoption of Indian children by non-Indians. The rationale for tribal interventions is summarized by the remarks of Terry Cross, executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association.

Tribal culture remains much alive and part of daily life. That culture is absorbed by living with your family and being with the extended family of your tribe and clan. If children grow up never knowing that way of life, they might not realize what they’ve missed. But that doesn’t make the loss any less real. This is about the rights of children to have their heritage and their culture. It’s about the rights of an Indian child to be raised Indian. [Tulsa World, 8-25-13.]

Mr. Cross’s statements raise a multitude of questions and problems for a society and culture already reeling from the disintegrating effects of the ascending humanistic worldview.

• To what degree of blood constitutes an Indian? In other words, how much Indian blood does it take to be an Indian—1/16th or 1/32nd or 1/64th or 128th? Does even one drop of Indian blood make one an Indian?
• In preserving one’s heritage, why is it more important to preserve the heritage of the 1/16th Cherokee and ignore the heritage represented by the other 15/16ths?
• If the law says that tribes may allow only Indians to adopt Indian children, then why shouldn’t all children placed for adoption in the United States be placed only with parents of the same ethnicity as that of their biological parents?
• If so, how do we decide in which ethnic groups the children are to be placed when the parents are not “pure bloods”? What if the parents do not know their ethnic backgrounds
with any degree of certainty?
• And perhaps the most important question, to which does the Indian owe his primary allegiance: the Indian Tribe first or the United States of America?

Once a government begins awarding special status to particular groups in society, the ultimate combinations and permutations of rights and privileges become surreal and exceptionally divisive (e.g., affirmative action, Sharia law). Because of popular but aberrant definitions of multiculturalism and diversity, American society is drowning in a myriad of Alice in Wonderland laws, regulations, and bureaucratic intrusions that are fracturing the unity necessary for a culture to survive. That unity is defined by the nation’s central cultural vision. We see these clashes tearing at the fabric of our central cultural vision as the culture wars play out between combatants holding the opposing biblical and humanistic worldviews.

The biblical worldview’s focus is not on the differences of various groups but upon diversity’s contribution to the whole of society, and from this emphasis comes unity. Unity is made possible when each member or group is recognized as an indispensable contributor to the body and not something that stands apart. The biblical oneness of all men is shown by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles when he wrote that God made “…of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth…” [Acts 17:26 KJV] The Apostle Paul reiterates the necessity of unity in his writings to the Corinthians, “But now are they many members but one body.” [1 Corinthians 12:20 KJV]

Humanism’s definition of diversity and multiculturalism focuses on 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 a perverted concept of equality. [Johnson, p. 398.]

Survival of a culture implies that it must have segregation and denial. By segregation is not meant segregation within a culture but between cultures. It must deny that which is alien and destructive to its central cultural vision. However, such a culture becomes stronger when it welcomes integration of diverse groups that share that common central vision. It is in the humanistic definition of pluralism that cultures are prone to failure. [Johnson, pp. 193, 398.]

By its very essence, culture must discriminate against those outside its boundaries that do not share its central vision. A culture must believe in its uniqueness, worth, and the superiority of its worldview. To attempt to meld together or co-mingle 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 have an inward-looking vision and resist the alien. Without such there is a loss of wholeness, and a culture’s cohesiveness dissolves into chaos as its various parts drift into orbits of parochial interests and egocentrism. [Johnson, p. 193.]

Today, America faces a cultural crisis in which the nation’s cultural unity is being undermined by a humanistic worldview that has seeped into all aspects of American life. The American central cultural vision as known by the colonists, Founders, and citizens to the present day is in peril because the “…inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost.” With such loss comes disruption and eventual disintegration.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Michael Overall, “Fight turning adoption into battle over ICWA,” Tulsa World, August 25, 2013, A-17; September 5, 2013, A-1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for America’s Central Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 193, 398.

End of the Citizen-Soldier?

Posted by :webmaster On : May 17, 2013
1

Category: Archives, Culture Wars

Topical moments in media and culture are often of great debate and concern but are largely forgotten within a short time. Such moments command headlines and sound bites repeatedly play during the 24-hour news cycle. Yet, it is by the accumulation of such topical moments we give a face and direction to the culture in which we live. However, there are singular occurrences, often unrecognized or thought of as only a momentary concern, which starkly define the reasons for “why we fight” in the raging culture wars. One such singular occurrence happened within the last couple of weeks.

George Washington once said, “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen.” But if the Pentagon has its way, we may see an end to our nation’s historical admiration and respect for the citizen-soldier as the wedge of state is driven between the two. The Pentagon has proposed a policy to prosecute military personnel for promoting their faith. Specifically, the Pentagon stated that, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…” For all military personnel the end result would be to virtually eliminate all expressions of faith, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends or merely social acquaintances. And for all practical purposes the military chaplaincy would cease to function.

It appears that the source of the anti-proselytizing agenda is former ambassador Joe Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Michael Weinstein, the head of the private Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The three men recently met with several generals to discuss religious issues. Wilkerson equates religious proselytizing to sexual assault, both of “which are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” So what did the generals also hear from Mr. Weinstein? Perhaps it was something like what he wrote for the Huff Post:

I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military. Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces… If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.

Well! Mr. Weinstein’s rant does tend to leave one breathless. But, let’s let one of our nation’s former citizen-soldiers who also knew a little about the Constitution speak for the opposition. On July 4, 1775, General George Washington issued the following order from his Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters:

The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness. And in like manner he requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance of Divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

A year later and five days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Continental Congress authorized the provision of chaplains for every regiment in the newly constituted army headed by General Washington. On that same day Washington issued his first general order to his troops:

The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.

In another general order issued at Valley Forge on May 2, 1778, General Washington implored his troops:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.

Unlike Wilkerson and Weinstein, Washington knew the real source of that which forged those bonds that keep soldiers together. That source was religion and in particular the Christian religion. However, if the Pentagon’s civilians and military brass have their way and General Washington was alive today, he would be court-marshaled for (paraphrasing Weinstein) forcing his weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon his helpless subordinates in the Continental Army in sharing his religious views.

Some will argue that we no longer have a military of citizen-soldiers but a professional army with no need of religious influences. Not so. Many are reservists and members of the National Guard. And those full-time members of the military didn’t leave their faith behind at the induction centers. More importantly, whether a professional army or citizen-soldiers, our nation’s Armed Forces without the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion will deteriorate into a palace guard loyal only to their masters and not to the Constitution or the people.

The Pentagon’s anti-proselyting regulation is the culmination of dozens of anti-Christian regulations and initiates in the military that have arisen during the Obama administration (See “I’m so shamed!” CultureWarrior.net – May 2, 2013). But it is this Pentagon regulation that is a singular occurrence which lays the ax to the root of our religious freedom of sharing one’s faith. This marginalization of religious freedom reaches far beyond the Armed Forces. The agenda of the Obama administration to fundamentally change America encompasses every segment of the public square and is the culmination of decades of humanistic infiltration of American culture.

Those of the humanistic worldview have risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed on a nation whose citizens that still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the cause of culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews. Christians who ignore or disengage from the battle place religious freedom and our nation at peril.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Ken Klukowski, “Pentagon may court marshal solders who share Christian faith,” Breitbart News, May 1, 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith (accessed May 7, 2001)

Sally Quinn, “U.S. military should put religious freedom at the front,” The Washington Post, April 26, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_print.html
(accessed May 3, 2013).

Michael Weinstein, “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters: Papa’s Got A Brand New Bag,” HuffPost, April 16, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (accessed May 3, 2013).

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 638, 639, 643.

I’m so ashamed! I was a member of a hate group and didn’t know it.

Posted by :webmaster On : April 30, 2013
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

They say confession is good for the soul, and after the shocking news I received a few days ago, I must somehow make amends for my life of crime. It’s a sordid story that began in my childhood. I can’t take all of the blame. Maybe it was peer pressure or parent pressure. Who knows? But I was molded, shaped, and destined for a life of hate. What’s worse, I am responsible for corrupting my own children with that hateful lifestyle. They say ignorance is not an excuse, but I really didn’t know that what I was doing was wrong. Actually I looked at my beliefs and activities as a badge of honor and felt that I was doing good works for the country.

The news came a few days ago as I was browsing through my emails, and there it was: the Family Research Council email warning us that our cover had been blown (it was only then that I realize that FRC is an avowed enemy of the state, a hate group organization with whom I’m associated-unofficially of course).

It seems that a certain military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jack Rich, discovered that a number of groups in America “did not share our Army values.” This shocking discovery prompted him to send an email to thirty-eight of his fellow officers and NCOs (non-commissioned officers) to educate them that “when we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army values—don’t just walk by—do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”

Well, I can tell you his warning sent chills down my spine! I lay awake several nights knowing that LTC Rich and the Army were not ignoring my behavior while wondering how they would address my problem. And I just can’t take it any longer so I’m confessing. I’m an evangelical Christian. And worse yet and to my undying shame I have been a member or fellow traveler of several subversive, hate-filled organizations including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council.

I know I can do nothing to atone for my sin other than to throw myself on the mercy of LTC Rich and the U.S. Army. Yet, I think there are some circumstances that might mitigate whatever punishment I receive. First, I blame the Army for not doing more to re-educate me before I became too deeply immersed in my life of hate. I was young and impressionable when I received the letter from President Johnson informing me of his invitation to join the military in 1967. If they had done the proper background checks, they would have known of my hateful tendencies and radical Christian associates and could have dealt with them then. I hadn’t intended to violate Army values. Heavens, I didn’t know there were any Army values other than to do what I was told by anyone with more than one stripe on their sleeves or they would kick my you-know-what to @#%! and back. (Sorry for the language but “Heavens” has been a part of my vocabulary for many years, and old habits are hard to break.)

But I’ve thought a lot about those days long ago since my discovery last week that I was deeply involved with domestic hate groups. Perhaps the Army realized back in 1967 that I didn’t share their values and that they did the right thing by sending me to Vietnam as a way of dealing with my issues before they became a problem. Certainly, a lot of people with those issues didn’t return from Vietnam to cause problems. Oh well, who knows?

I’m so glad to get this off my chest. I’m feeling much better already. I wonder if they will give me probation and allow me to join HA (Haters Anonymous). Perhaps I could be a group leader and go to some of those organizations identified by LTC Rich and show them the error of their ways:

• The Christian Right
• Various Racist Skinhead groups
• American Family Association (my alma mater of many years ago)
• Ku Klux Klan
• Family Research Council
• Various Neo-Nazi groups

These are just a few of the organizations identified by LTC Rich with the aid of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As the old saying goes, “The fields are white unto harvest!” I could be sort of a missionary spreading Army values across the land. Oops, sorry for the biblical language again.

It’s good to know there are other true patriots in the U.S. Army besides LTC Rich who have implemented a number of initiatives to expose or root out hate group activities in the military:

• A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
• A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
• Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
• Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions;
• Catholic chaplains were told not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop related to Obamacare mandates. The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

Well, this just goes to show those who think the country’s going to the dogs are wrong. There is hope for America with patriots such as LTC Rich spreading Army values!

With deep and sincere remorse,

An older but wiser—Larry G. Johnson.

Sources:

Todd Starnes, “The Army’s List of ‘Domestic Hate Groups’,” Fox News Radio, April 10, 2013. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/the-armys-list-of-domestic-hate-groups.html (accessed April 24, 2013).

“Are you an enemy of the state?” Family Research Council, April 11, 2013. http://www.frc.org/alert/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state (accessed April 24, 2013).

Dis-united States of America

Posted by :webmaster On : March 17, 2013
0

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars

George Washington’s farewell address to the nation was published on September 17, 1796 near the end of his eight years as the first president of the newly minted United States. He spoke of his concern for the nation’s welfare as he expressed his “sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people…” His advice, warnings, and prescriptions have influenced generations of Americans but have been largely forgotten or ignored in modern times. Upon the occasion of his recent February birthday, it is well that we review some of the salient points from his farewell address that are particularly pointed and appropriate in twenty-first century America. I will quote liberally from his address and then revisit those quotes in light of the disunity caused by the culture wars and the resultant American angst.

Washington expressed his greatest concern with regard to maintaining the unity of the nation, both geographically and culturally. Unity and the prescriptions for its preservation were the central themes of his address. Speaking of the importance and source of the nation’s unity, Washington said:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…

In other words, unity of government is the main pillar of America’s independence, tranquility at home, peace abroad, safety, prosperity, and liberty.

For this [unity of government] you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles….

Whether a person was native or foreign born, Washington believed that America has a right to concentrate its citizens’ affections such that local or tribal differences would be subservient to the quest for national unity. As the eighteenth century was near its end, Washington was most concerned with the geographical differences that might damage the national unity. Those things which gave him hope that unity would be preserved and the nation would survive were the similarities of its citizens’ religion, manners, habits, and political principles. Effectively, Washington was saying that Americans to whom he addressed his farewell had a central cultural vision, a common worldview if you will, that would sustain them in a quest for unity. Furthermore, Washington said that America had a right to concentrate its citizens’ affections in the preservation of national unity.

Let’s fast forward to the twenty-first century and examine our national unity or, more accurately, our national disunity. First, we must recognize that the rapidity of modern communication and transportation generally have erased the boundaries imposed by geographical self-interests as was the case in Washington’s time. If that is the case, why is America not all the more unified than it was in the 1790s? The answer is evident when we look at America’s failure to concentrate the affections of its citizens as Washington believed it should. In other words we have lost a common central cultural vision (worldview) held by the Founders and the great majority of America’s citizens up until the mid-twentieth century.

This common cultural vision was biblical Christianity. Of course those imbued with modern sensibilities dominated by a humanistic worldview will scoff at this suggestion and point to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. However, it is important to understand that the United States is not a nation that attempts to impose Christianity on all of its citizens, but rather it is a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles that form the nation’s central cultural vision. Americans can worship anyway they please or choose to not believe in a divine creator altogether. This is what the Founders meant by “…the free exercise of religion,” but freedom of religion does not mean we abandon the central cultural vision upon which the nation was founded.

To understand why American culture is in decline, one must understand the larger picture as to why cultures in general decline and ultimately fail over time. First, a culture declines and ultimately fails as it loses it cohesiveness or unity. Washington recognized this and made it the central theme of his farewell address. Second, even if a culture maintains unity and cohesiveness, its worldview must over the long term be based on truth. Again, Washington’s words point to the importance of truth in a nation’s central cultural vision.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a particular structure, reason, and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Now, who is this God in whom the Founders believed? Is He some “generic, one-size-fits-all, and all religions lead to the same God” variety? No! The Founders’ God is the God of the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians as revealed in the Bible. From these beliefs arose the power of Christian teaching over private conscience that made possible an American democratic society that is unrivaled in the history of the world.

In twenty-first century America, a majority of its citizens still hold the biblical worldview, but most of the leadership of American institutions have abandoned it for the humanistic worldview. For America to survive, we must once again “concentrate our affections” and restore unity under the central cultural vision of the Founders.

Larry G. Johnson