Fri, Oct 9th - 11:20AM
Religious Progressives Abet Dictatorial Agendas
It could be argued that the United States of America holds an unique
position in the world in that for the most part the nation's
sociopolitical system attempts to balance the competing needs of both
the group and the individual. This impressive feat is accomplished in
part as a result of distinctive foundations such as a constitutional
framework of government and the underlying moral assumptions shared by
various interpretations of the Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition.
Without these restraints, eventually this way of life so easily taken
for granted would collapse in favor of tyranny or anarchy with it
becoming increasingly difficult to tell such extremities apart.
Startlingly, one does not have to expend too much time and effort to
find influential voices advocating for the abolition of these
safeguards. Often such thinkers do so from a perspective claiming to
be religions in terms of its motivating orientation or at least on
behalf of organizations having accumulated a significant percentage of
the largess upon which they operate by appealing to that particular
underlying behavioral motivation.
For example, in the 12/30/12 edition of the New York Times, Georgetown
University Professor of Constitutional Law Louis Michael Seidman
published an essay titled “Let's Give Up On The Constitution”. In this
analysis, an intellectual employed by a prominent Roman Catholic
institution advocates abolishing the document upon which the foundations
of the governing structures of the Republic rest because of the
numerous instances throughout American history in which adherence to the
strictures of the document proved too burdensome and in which deviation
from proved the expeditious thing to do. Examples cited include
Justice Robert Jackson's admission that the decision handed down in
“Brown vs. Board of Education” was based on moral and political
necessity rather than any explicitly constitutional provision and
Franklin Roosevelt's presupposition that the Constitution was a
declaration of aspirations rather than binding possibilities.
Louis Seidman remarks with the condescension endemic to the professorial
class, “In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to
take seriously the claim of the Constitution's defenders that we would
be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature... Our sometimes flagrant
disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism;
on the contrary, it has helped to grow and prosper.”
The Americans of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry interred during
World Wat II might argue otherwise. Therefore, invoking Roosevelt's
admonition that the Constitution is only a set of suggestions rather
than an obligation might not be that good of an idea after all.
In the remainder of his analysis, Professor Seidman attempts to assure
the reader that what ensures the continuation of America's fundamental
liberties and semi-functioning government (at least in comparison to
what prevails in most other parts of the world) is not some piece of
paper that would literally disintegrate if not kept under the strictest
climate-controlled conditions. Rather, the proverbial American way of
life is continued by what Professor Seidman categorizes as “entrenched
institutions and habits of thought and, most important, that sense that
we are one nation and work out our differences.”
But without paper the Constitution to keep competing and disparate
interests and factions in check within a clearly delineated framework,
would what we enjoy as Americans endure for very long? As examples of
what he suggests as viable political regimes that provide civilized
structures without relying upon a formalized written constitution are
the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
But while these countries might hold hours of endless fascination of the
setting of many a BBC drama or picture postcards, are either really a
place the average American would really want to live? To put it
bluntly, the population of New Zealand is about as white as the sheep
for which that pastured land is famous. Would that country be able to
survive and endure if its population were as varied as the United States
with sizable hordes refusing to abide by the values that make a viable
society possible?
In terms of the diversity we are obligated to applaud as nothing but
positive or face accusations of assorted thought crimes, the United
Kingdom might be more akin to its sibling society in the United States.
However, in many profound ways, in this regard Great Britain is nothing
to be proud of or desire to emulate.
There swarms from the Third World, like plagues of grasshoppers, eagerly
consume the sustenance that is provided like none other. And like
these ravenous insects, significant percentages of these migrants would
rather destroy than preserve the bounty set before them.
For example, in Britain, instead of exhibiting a little respect and
gratitude for being extended the privilege of even being allowed to
reside in such a land to begin with, one Islamist of African origins
murdered a member of that nation's military along the roadside and then
proudly documented the act by testifying to the atrocity in a video
while still soaked in the blood of his victim. Elsewhere in that same
country, others sharing in this same particular so-called religion
expect their hosts to accommodate their alien peculiarities rather than
for the newcomers to tone these down as any polite guest might.. For
example, a number practicing polygamy demanded that each wife be allowed
entrance into the country where she is in turn granted additional
welfare benefits for each new whelp she continues to push out at a rate
that would probably exhaust a tribblbe (the fuzzy aliens from the
original Star Trek that Bones McCoy pointed out were born pregnant).
In both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, those daring to articulate
perspectives against this sort of cultural subversion could be charged
with assorted thought crimes on the grounds of racial or ethnic
disparagement. That is because, unlike in America, the United Kingdom
and New Zealand have not enshrined freedom of expression as a
fundamental right in a constitution, the very thing Professor Seidman
cavalierly suggests we abolish in favor of a proposed brave new world.
In his proposal, Professor Seidman even goes out of his way to address
concerns raised by those shocked by what it is their discernment warns
he is suggesting. He assures, “This is not to say that we should
disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion,
equal protection of the laws and ... against governmental deprivations
of life, liberty, and property are important, whether or not they are in
the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out
of respect, not obligation.”
But if these are not protected by a constitution that exists somewhat to
an extent beyond the whims of ordinary politics and expediency, who is
to say such niceties should not be abolished or withheld from
non-compliant segments of the population when doing so would be
convenient. For example, is gay marriage any longer a “right” should
fifty-one percent in a plebiscite or whatever other methods are utilized
to determine these kinds of questions in a world where nothing is any
longer set in concrete?
Professor Seidman continues, “Nor should we have a debate about, for
instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress
should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled,
even if not in exactly the way we favor.” Once more, who is to say?
If there is no Constitution, by what authority does one impose the
perspective that such things are hereby settled? You can no longer
point to an article, section, or clause of the Constitution and say,
“Look. It says so right there.”
Professor Seidman's gentlemanly view of society might be barely
functional in a world where most of the population adhere roughly to a
similar set of values. However, such a Western world in general and an
America in particular sadly no longer exists.
There is now within our midst sizable Islamic populations that not only
demand their right to practice their barbarous customs but also demand
that the rest of us surrender to them as well or face overwhelming
violence. And this is not the only movement seeking to remake America
and to eliminate what little remains of that distinct way of life and
cultural perspective.
For instance, no longer is it enough to allow those that derive their
deepest carnal pleasures in ways most would be shocked by or not find so
appealing to so do so off on their own. Now, under threat of financial
ruination, we are forced to render compelled approval in ways that
violate our own convictions and sensibilities.
According to assorted accounts, Christian bakers have been forced to
provide cakes for gay weddings when there were no doubt numerous others
willing to provide such culinary services. Elsewhere, young girls have
been forced to look on in horror in the locker or restroom as the person
undressing there before them turns out that at the most basic level is
still a man no matter how vehemently they attempt to deny nature's
manifest construction.
Given that Professor Seidman is a professor of Constitutional Law, one
would think that in calling for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution
that he was essentially derailing his own gravy train as Georgetown
University professors probably pull in a hefty salary and are esteemed
as part of the nation's intellectual elite.
But even if scholarship in traditional constitutional studies were to
become an extinct discipline, those such as Professor Seidman convined
they are so much better than the rest of us will still think it will be
their place to tell the rest of us what to do. However, it will simply
no longer be from the standpoint of a traditional understanding of
morality. This is evidenced by the “New Social Contract” called for by
Evangelical Christian Progressive Jim Wallis.
In classical democratic theory, in a social contract both parties agree
to fulfill a delineated number of obligations in order to receive a
desired benefit. This is done from a perspective of self-interest as
much or maybe even more so than to meet the desires or needs of the
other party.
For example, no matter how much they claim otherwise and might even
pitch in during a time of crisis, the generic big box retailer or even
the so-called “mom and pop” shop down the street really don't care one
way or the other whether your nutritional needs are being met. What
they really care about and might even be willing to go out of their way
to see that your dietary inclinations are satisfied fot is if you are
willing to relent to the agreed upon price for the desired commodity.
Something similar could be said of the individuals and institutions
involved in the so-called social contract. Under that theory, if
parties feel that the terms are not being met, individuals are free to
look elsewhere for the purposes of finding their fulfillment. For
example, in a constitutional republic, individuals are free to change
church affiliations or their religion entirely. In terms of government,
citizens are theoretically free to either change their leaders through
periodic elections or the parameters of governing structures through the
amendment process.
Such is not necessarily the case regarding the idea of a covenant. For
unlike the idea of a contract, the notion of a covenant often does not
possess the same degree of personal self-interest. Covenant carries
with it the idea of being imposed upon the individual from without by a
greater power irrespective of the desire of the individual or that the
individual is expected to fulfill certain obligations without
expectations of benefit in return.
For example, a number of such covenants are detailed in the pages of the
Bible. Foremost among these ranks the covenants between God and the
Nation of Israel as promised to the Patriarch Abraham. Although he and
his descendants were blessed as a result especially when by living in
accordance with these stipulations, it was God that sought this people
ought and laid out the terms with little room for negotiation.
But probably the kind of covenant most are most familiar with is none
other than marriage. Though marriage is usually entered into
voluntarily by the involved parties, in a context that honors the
institution properly, it can only be exited under the strictest of
conditions that would leave the party initially guilty of violating the
binding terms profoundly sanctioned often to the verge of ruination.
The notion of contract provides for a way out even if there is a penalty
for invoking this particular provision.
In January 2013, planetary elites met at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland. One of the sessions convened was titled “The Moral
Economy: From Social Contract To Social Covenant”. The purpose of the
undertaking was to establish a framework that would foster “(1) the
dignity of the human person, (2) the importance of the common good,
which transcends individual interests, and (3) the need for stewardship
of the planet and prosperity.”
What's so wrong with any of that, one might easily ask? After all, each
of these things sounds noble almost to the point of being
inspirational. The problem arises in regards as to how these are
defined and who does the defining.
For example, one of the issues harped about the most by a variety of
leftists ranging from the filthy slobs of the Occupy Movement all the
way to Pope Francis is the need for income redistribution. So what if
the technocrats overseeing the implementation of the social covenant
decide to tackle that particular economic perplexity?
Most people are disturbed by the idea of their fellow man languishing in
the deprivations of overwhelming poverty. But what if the overlords of
the New Social Covenant decide that the way to address that is not by
sustained acts of ongoing charity but rather through the forced
confiscation of what you have earned with the seized resources
supposedly directed towards those that really did not earn it but in
reality much of it squandered by those administering such an
unprecedented global effort. After all, the Pope has all that art work
to upkeep there in the Vatican and assorted U.N. Functionaries like
nothing better than to gather at posh resorts in the Swiss Alps or the
French seaside to denounce reliance of the middle class upon automobiles
while these elites fritter from conference to conference around the
globe in private jets.
Those unable to expand their imaginations beyond the relatively
comfortable reality that we at the moment are blessed to enjoy counter
that should some sort of global authority move to seize what we have
(beyond of course the increasingly exorbitant tax rates) concerned
citizens can use their freedoms of speech and assembly to petition for
the redress of their grievances and to raise overall awareness about
policies that have expanded beyond the bounds of propriety. But does
one need to be reminded that one of the very first liberties and
freedoms curtailed by the social engineers of the technocratic elite is
the very freedom of expression that was part of the Constitution that
was abandoned earlier in this exposition as part of the reactionary past
that was hindering the further development of the human species and
society?
In this pending new world order, the law will not be the only social
institution manipulating and conditioning the inmates of the planetary
panopticon from exercising what at one time were categorized as
individual rights. For religion in general and what passes for
Christianity in particular will be invoked in pursuit of this agenda.
The foundation of this perspective can be discerned in an editorial
published in the July/August 2014 issue of Christianity Today titled,
“It's about the common good, not just the individual good.” According
to the piece, the basis of America is not the individual or even the
family as the union of two distinct individuals and the children that
might result from such couplings but rather the COMMUNITY.
But if it is the larger group that is imbued with those restrictions
upon concentrations of authority known as rights, what will protect the
individual when the individual is viewed as nothing more than a
malfunctioning cog in the machine or diseased cell in the larger social
organism that must be eliminated or his flourishing curtailed over
justifications no greater than the COMMUNITY has declared thusly? The
Christianity Today article, in particular, briefly examines the
implications of this in regards to children. Unfortunately, however,
this analysis is disturbingly superficial and shortsighted.
The Christianity Today article quotes favorably of a Robert Putnam (the
same sociologist that categorizes you as some sort of deviant if you
bowl by yourself) at Georgetown University, “Kids from working-class
homes used to be 'our kids' he said, Now they are other people's kids,
and we expect other people to solve their problems. But young people
are our future. Their problems are ours.”
The Christianity Today editorial realized that the remarks were speaking
to the matter of inequality. In other words, the increasingly leftist
Evangelical mouthpiece apparently has little problem in attempting to
shame and manipulate you into forking over increasing percentages of
what you have earned and saved. “What, you don't support the
progressive income and inheritance taxes? Why do you hate children and
refuse to do your part to usher in the revolutionary utopia?”
One would hope that the current editors of that particular publication
would retain enough of its founders' intellectual heritage to realize
that there exists more to life than merely the physical building blocks.
As the such, the phrase “our kids” when spoken in reference to any
youngsters other than those you might share with your respective spouse
or have adopted as one's own ought to send chills down the spine of any
reflective discerning individual.
For if children are to be seen as “our children” in terms of being the
children of a respective COMMUNITY apart from a few basic needs such as
minimal food, shelter, and maybe healthcare, what is to prevent
governing authorities from intervening to dictate what you can and
cannot teach in terms of religious doctrine and morality? For example,
do you believe that belief in Jesus Christ as the only Begotten Son of
God and member of the Trinity is the one true faith?
Well, in the New World Order where the good and preferences of the group
come before those of the individual, such an outdated understanding of
the ultimate cannot be allowed even if you are an otherwise peaceful
individual with no intentions of harming anyone in a traditional sense
of that concept. For the assumption that a source of authority exists
outside the uniformity of the group consensus is the seed from which all
conflict generates forth.
The First Amendment is not the only one of the derided and denigrated
constitutional liberties endangered by those out to impose the
fundamental transformation of America advocated by President Obama and
embraced by certain radicals in the name of errant theology. For if the
First Amendment is the constitutional provision upon which our
foundational liberties rest, then the Second Amendment is the
constitutional provision that attempts to make sure that the robust
liberties elaborated in the First Amendment continue to endure. For
despite what even the National Rifle Association has been intimidated
into repeating, the Second Amendment is about far more that guaranteeing
the right to hunt and participate in shooting sports.
Rather, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to recognize and
enshrine the idea that each citizen has a role to play in protecting
life, liberty, and property against threats to these precious
commodities originating from both within and without the borders of the
United States. And yes, as the very last resort after all other
alternatives have been exhausted, that may mean solemnly with
deliberation and reluctance taking up arms against whatever form the
threat may take on the most regrettable of occasions.
But even more importantly, it is the Second rather than the First
Amendment that actually serves as a barometer of the health of liberty
and freedom throughout this land. For without a government and civil
society that respects the right to keep and bear arms arms as described
in the Second Amendment, the seemingly loftier protections of conviction
and expression will not endure much longer. That is because a country
or regime that refused to acknowledge the right to protect oneself will
eventually not tolerate the right to think for oneself or in a manner
not as directed by those holding power.
Even those claiming to view God as the highest authority cannot resist
the temptation of the continuing centralization of power. This is
evidenced in two 2013 issues of the Christian Century.
The editorial titled “Terror and Guns” examined the issue by comparing
the three that lost their lives in the Boston Marathon Bombing to three
that lost their lives that same day in acts of gun violence elsewhere
across the nation. From that the editorial made the claim that 30,000
Americans are killed by guns each year compared to the seventeen
Americans that lost their lives to acts of terrorism in 2012.
If such statistics are trustworthy, that certainly causes one to pause.
But instead of making the case that the extensive national security and
surveillance apparatus that these sorts of left-leaning publications
condemn when applied to subversives of assorted revolutionary or radical
perspectives be abolished, it is insinuated that a similarly heavy hand
should be applied to the matter of gun crimes and even firearms
ownership. The Christian Century writes, “Terrorist threats demand
vigilance, and the government has responded by creating an extensive
security and intelligence capability...Why can't the nation display the
same kind of resolve when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of
the wrong people?”
As evidence of this lamentation, editors of Christian Century write, “In
the case of the Senate gun control bill, a majority of senators voted
to strengthen background checks in people purchasing guns, but the 54-46
vote did not attain the 60 votes required in the Senate. Something is
wrong with a process by which a minority can derail legislation that is
supported by 90% of Americans.”
Apparently the editors could not leave their analysis at that. These
propagandists continued, “Many of the votes against background checks
were cast by senators from small or sparsely populated states. Based on
population the vote of a senator from Wyoming has 66 times more value
than that of a senator from California. This kind of disparity in
political power is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”
From that editorial, one would initially assume in terms of the issue
emphasized on the surface that the concern would be a vast comprehensive
national surveillance system that would determine who would be denied
access to firearms. However, just as insidious is an underlying
contempt for the structures of the Republic as envisioned by the framers
of the Constitution.
For the United States of America does not consist solely of “We the
people” merely as a singular mass or collective of individuals. Just as
intrinsic to the understanding of this particular nation is “We the
people” construed as fifty distinct jurisdictional entities known as
states. From that particular vantage point, each of these is to be
viewed as equal to the others in terms of the voice granted in the
second body of the national legislature in determining the direction in
terms of law and policy that will guide the nation as a comprehensive
totality.
From the statement in the Christian Century commentary complaining that
the political weight of a Wyoming senator is skewered in that
jurisdiction's favor over that of California with its vastly larger
population, the logic would conclude that right and wrong are determined
by nothing more than majority opinion. So if we are to apply that
principle in regards to the regulation of firearms, the shouldn't the
good liberals at propaganda outfits such as the Christian Century allow
the principle to be applied to other cultural issues nearly as
contentious as those surrounding the Second Amendment?
For example, if most Americans were asked what they really believed
without fear of retaliation on the part of the Thought Police, most
would probably admit that they are not all that hip to the idea of gay
marriage and certainly not open to the idea of transgenders especially
men claiming that they are women as evidenced by their external
endowments legally allowed to go into a public restroom where they can
in close proximity to actual women and vulnerable children engage in
some of life's most personal biological function as well as possibly
seek these individuals out as victims to satisfy the most base of carnal
impulses.
If a few senators can disrupt the will of the people in regards to one
area of life, why should a few jurists not even as directly accountable
to the electorate as these disputed legislators be allowed to impose a
perspective at even greater odds with decency and common sense. For is
not the chanted slogan of the ethical Thunder Dome in which the nearly
constant social conflict takes place that there are no absolutes?
As interesting is how the appeal to traditional moral authority is only
valid when it can be buttressed to support the preferred sensibilities
of the prevailing elites. This was quite evident in a second Christian
Century editorial published about a similar topic on 2/6/13 titled “Of
Guns and Neighbors.”
The thesis of that broadside contends that individual rights are
curtailed by the good of one's neighbor in Christian understanding. The
editorial states, “In the biblical perspective, social issues are
always framed primarily as questions of obligation, not of individual
rights: not 'What do I get to do?' but 'What do we owe to God and
neighbor?'.”
The editorial demonstrates how this reasoning is applied to the firearms
debate by quoting Deuteronomy 22:8. The text reads, “When you build a
new home, you shall make a parapet for your roof; otherwise you might
have bloodguilt on your house , if anyone should fall from it.”
So what other nuggets of jurisprudence derived from the Book of
Deuteronomy interpreted through the prism of the principle that “social
issues are always framed primarily as questions of obligation, not of
individual rights...” is the Christian Century editorial board going to
come out in favor of? No doubt this propaganda rag of mainline
Protestantism of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church, USA variety has
come out in full blown support of gay marriage.
Without question, it cannot be denied that the Old Testament legal books
such as Deuteronomy explicitly opposed the homosexual lifestyle and by
extension the agenda advocated by those most enthusiastically mired in
these particular behaviors. Given the ethical standard called for by
the Christian Century, is the publication now required to withdraw any
support it might have articulated in favor of gay marriage? The
editorial titled “Of Guns and Neighbors” just said ethics and morality
are not determined by what we get out of something but rather upon what
we owe our neighbor and, even more importantly, God.
As such, if it can be deduced from these texts that God does not endorse
unrestricted access to firearms (something that is not clearly spelled
out in the texts), shouldn't we at least admit that the only
relationship with physical pleasure being one of the foundational
cornerstones that God looks favorably upon without condemnation or
criticism is monogamous heterosexual marriage? Those claiming otherwise
have ignored the explicit directives of the Biblical text to such an
extent that we might as well toss it aside entirely in regards to other
issues regarding assorted ideologues desire to render behavioral,
legislative, or policy pronouncements.
It is often assumed in Christian circles that the greatest threat to
human liberty are often those that categorize themselves as atheist or
agnostic in that their hostility towards God is outward and explicit.
However, as has been emphasized in this analysis particularly in regards
to the movement to either eliminate or comprehensively alter the
understanding of America's most basic constitutional liberties, there
are a number of voices claiming to be religious in nature utilizing the
beliefs and principles derived from such for the purposes of
manipulating those open to the perspectives of this particular social
sphere into surrendering the sorts of protections not easily recoverable
once they have been surrendered.
By Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
