What’s So Great About Christianity?

 

For some strange reason, there is a concerted effort underway to teach our nation hostility to religion, particularly Christianity, the very basis upon which Western Civilization was founded. Our children are taught little about the Bible, Christian history, nor religion’s actual role in shaping the values and precepts of Western Republicanism and political freedoms. Without Christianity, the USA could not exist.

 

It seems silly to me that some people mistakenly believe Christianity brought on the “Dark Ages”, the fall of civilization from the classical age of Greece and Rome, rather than Rome’s decadence. “Renaissance” and “Enlightenment” have become meaningless terms. Yet Christian values and institutions are the very root of Western civilization’s organization now taken for granted by the west.

 

Our old testament God, a universal foundation figure of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three most influential religions of all time, introduced a new concept, freedom of conscience, free will. In the Garden, Adam and Eve exercised and paid the price for their will versus God’s. At the same time, God is elevated above any human desires occupying a universal heavenly realm, omnipotent but tender and loving.

 

Christianity teaches man exists in two realms, one earthly, one heavenly. Though Christians have dissimilar duties within these two, the ultimate devotion is to the heavenly thus limiting the political authority of our leaders to the temporal and secular. From this idea comes the foundations of limited government; there are some things even elected governments may not control.

 

Our system and constitution dictate that governments are necessarily limited to roles ensuring safety and security but not granted powers to the extent that they intrude upon the private rights of citizens to life, liberty, and pursuits of individual happiness. When intrusions exceed the publics’ interests, tyranny exists and the people have the right to oppose and replace it. Fortunately, free states may elect new representatives to change the course of their governments. Captive states such as the Socialist, Communist, Muslim, and pretenders to democracy cannot.

 

It is important to recognize the self-imposed separations of the Christian church and Western government arose and has operated since the beginnings of Christianity. The asinine rhetoric of atheists such as Dawkins that insist separation precludes all references to God is absurd and clearly at odds with individual consciences. Our society and laws do not overlap jurisdictions in such a manner as does Islam where we see women punished for the mere instance of conversation with a man or executed for refusal to wear mandated garb.

 

Our founders were modern thinkers that understood religious tolerance must exist to preclude the very abuses Christianity is falsely accused of today. Tolerance accepts disagreement allowing others their erroneous ways. Was it not true in the US, such as Dawkins could not exist. In fact it is the atheist who is intolerant.

 

The genius of our founders’ freedom of conscience kept Government out of the business of religion until modern times. Even Jefferson argued, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” Why then should we try to insulate governments from morality, all of which arises from religion?

 

Factually, morality is necessary for a free society to succeed. No amount of laws can protect people from the amoral thief or murderer but can only punish evil doers. Law reflects societies existing sentiments.

 

Courts today interpret separation to mean religion has no place in the public arena. Morality should not be permitted to shape our laws. Now freedom of expression has become freedom from expression emptying the public discourse of morality so secularists (Socialists) can monopolize conversation with their own views. The first such decision rendered by Hugo Black in the late 40’s came only 30 years after the first acceptance of socialism worldwide, ten years after FDR’s revolution.

 

In the 1890’s Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed all America’s varied Christian sects preached a common morality based upon the Laws of God and termed religion America’s first political institution. Today, socialists make religious believers 2^nd class citizens distorting the idea of separation promoting social peace and justice into one promoting politically correct injustices and amoral behaviors. Recovering the true sense would greatly benefit both our nation and Western Civilization. There can be no morality outside the concept of God, only ethics which are malleable by the will of men.

 

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, Mo. 04/07/09

 

Liberals in the Woods Date: Monday, December 03, 2001 3:54 PM Liberals Whining in the Woods Deep neo-thinkers have long contemplated the following problem: If a liberal is lost in the woods and nobody is there to hear him whine, is there any noise? Which brings up three related questions: Why is the liberal lost in the forest in the first place,? Why doesn't anyone hear him? And why can't he hear himself? A well known and widely quoted metaphysician named Murphy, perhaps the same Murphy who formulated Murphy's Laws, arrived at an answer to the first question: why is the liberal lost in the forest? According to Murphy: liberals are perpetually lost, anyway. Even more significant, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Since their moral compasses are broken, with their eyes fixated on castles in the air and their ears seduced by Bolshevik sirens, they are incapable of finding their own way without governmental intervention. As Murphy's First Law states, "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong." Murphy tells us the Liberal Addendum to his First Law states: for liberals everything must go wrong and (A2) everything must go wrong ever more rapidly. Therefore, it is no wonder liberals are lost in the woods. As the Romans would say, it is their "modus operandi". As for the second question, why no one hears liberal whining in the forest, empirical investigations provide some clues. As everyone knows, the liberals and their environmentalist siegfriends have driven the workers of the forest -- formerly known as "loggers" -- out of the woods. To save old-growth trees and spotted owls, the liberals have eradicated the logger in most parts of the north and west. Furthermore, derelict trees saved by liberal agitation are of no help. After all, trees, having no ears, cannot detect the shrill whine nor the muffled whimper of the lost liberal. The spotted owls, who actually favored logging camps for their nests, are nowhere to be found. Perhaps they have departed to Canada or Siberia. Why then, you might ask, aren't the Boy Scouts around to hear the distress of the lost liberal. But the Boy Scouts, persecuted by liberal attorney's and stalked by the National Man-Boy Love Association, are now too busy defending themselves in court to visit the woods. No longer are they free to roam the forest in search of errant liberals. Sly observers of the modern forest might then ask about the local pot growers. Wouldn't they hear the liberal and come to his rescue? But no, they are likely too busy listening for the rotor blades of the "war on drugs" helicopters. Well, what about other mythical creatures of the forest? Art Bell and his listeners might wonder why Big Foot doesn't hear the whining of the lost liberal. Wouldn't this shy creature, with his super-sensitive hearing, be able to detect the muffled cries, the self-aggrandized sobs? Alas, Big Foot also smells the liberal long before he ever hears him -- and runs in the opposite direction as fast as his big feet can carry him. Lastly, why doesn't the liberal hear himself? We could turn to the North American Underground School of Reactionary Metaphysicians, which secretly formulated the First Law of Feminism: "A feminist is a woman trapped in a woman's body -- who is screaming to get out." Although this same school erroneously postulated that liberals are hive animals with a shared consciousness, the Underground School was confirmed the first to realize that liberals are always found in a state of constant denial. As all liberal complaints are directed outward, the organ of self-responsibility becomes seriously atrophied resulting in internal collapse. Usually, a mini-black hole forms in the cerebral cortex resulting in every tidbit of common sense or useful knowledge in the proximity of the frontal lobes to be sucked away into infinity. At the same time, since politically correct rant and neo-Freudian psychobabble is known to possess special anti-matter and anti-intelligence properties, the hideous stuff of liberalism itself is nearly always regurgitated in reaction. This convoluted process results in the liberal's whining not being heard by the liberal as actual pitiful bleating, but rather, is mistaken as a mighty and righteous roar of their own making. Where the most of us might hear but a pathetic cry, the liberal only hears the promise of utopia. In other words, he hears nothing at all. So then, if nobody hears the whimpering of the lost liberal we come to the crux of the question: is there actually any noise? The answer is, "Yes, there is noise". You see, there are still hunters in the forest. They are probably right wing, but undoubtedly armed. Through their telescopic sights, the hunters may see the whining liberal long before they hear a thing; and because their HMO's are probably lamentably poor, due to the increasing socialization of medicine, the hunters may well have uncorrected stigmatism and may well mistake whimpering liberals for deer. So you see, unfortunately, there may well be the sound of rifle fire. And what is the moral of this deep neo-philosophical story which itself has become lost in the woods? A non-conservative middle-of-the-road Republican might offer that hunters should get their eyes checked once a year. But the real moral is that, strangely enough, bad eyes together with a steady trigger finger aren't always such a bad combination for solving some of life's deeper metaphysical questions. My thanks to Grover Norquist. In further commentary, please note that almost all leftist nonsense, empty rhetoric, and philosophical garbage descends directly from Marxist arguments, not from anything intelligent. It is also unfortunate but none the less true that Islamist Fascists and Terrorists share affinity for Marxist rhetoric because they both desire nothing less than total domination of the world and their own political control of all society. PLB The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO

 

A former leader of a radical Islamic organization told Congress extreme Muslims are motivated by an ideology similar to Marxism and that Islamism has much in common with the former Soviet Union.

Maajid Nawaz, a native of England and once prominent figure in the London-based extremist group Hizb ut-Tharir, testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the root cause of Islamic terrorism was its fanatical ideology, not poverty or discrimination.

“There is a common misconception on the left in the UK that only grievances can lead to Islamism,” he said.

Nawaz drew parallels between socialist Marxism and Islamism, contending that both movements see everything as a global ideological power struggle. He said Islamists wished for the world to be ruled under a single caliphate state, “like the Soviet bloc.”

“There will always be a conflict between Islamism and capitalism, just as there was once conflict between communism and capitalism,” he said.

This runs counter to the opinion held by many liberals that Islamic extremism is a theocratic product of the far-right.

A problem with the West’s approach to terrorism, according to Nawaz, was that many viewed Muslim terrorism as a problem with the religion of Islam rather than a result of the political ideology of Islamism.

Nawaz had been involved with Hizb ut-Tharir since he was 16 when he was arrested in Egypt in 2002 for his membership in the organization. Amnesty International offered to assist him legally, which led him to revise his conceptions of the West. Upon returning to London, he renounced his former extremism and is now a director at the Quilliam Foundation, a British think tank dedicated to countering Islamism.

Dr. Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, echoed Nawaz, saying that Islamism had far more to do with politics than religion.

“The ideology that motivates these terrorists today has very little to do with the religion of Islam. It’s the difference between a religion and a radical ideology,” he said.

There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, although only a small percentage is believed to be Islamist. These extremists have been moving west, however, with recent Muslim immigrations into Europe.

Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said while Britain has a more vibrant Muslim community, American Muslims are more likely to be radicalized. Most Islamic organizations in the United States – such as the Council on American Islamic Relations – have ties to an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood which promotes an Islamist ideology.

“I’m worried about raising my children in this country because I don’t know where to send them to teach them Islam. I’d have to teach them at home,” she said.

Matt Purple :: Townhall.com :: Former Islamic Extremist: Radical Islam Similar to Marxism, Soviet Union