Christianity and the Constitution

There are five great religions Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. Buddhism doesn’t believe in God, Hinduism believes in many gods, and the remaining three believe in one God and share some common beliefs. Of course Judaism and Islam are dedicated to the “law” primarily on diet and circumcision but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, and even on the law. Christians share many of the ethical principles of Judaism and Islam but are very divergent on doctrine and ritual as well as the law. Christians do not ritually circumcise, do not follow the dietary laws, and they practice baptism. While it is politically correct to lump these religions together, Islam stands alone. It is intolerant, its ethical principles are oriented to Muslims , while the Koran is filled with exhortations to violence against infidels and reduces women to little more than chattel. Therefore, any moral or ethical influence on the founding of America is from Christianity or to be precise Judeo-Christian principles and not Islam.

Is America a country founded on Christian Principles? What is it that sets the United States apart from other countries? It is argued that the founding fathers were not Christians but Humanists and Deists and therefore the country was founded on Humanists ideals and not Christian Principles. Of course this argument rests on the assumption that those principles differ from each other, but I don’t think so. In fact I argue they are the same at the philosophical level because Humanism is rooted in Greek and Roman philosophy as well as literature and that literature was written by men who were influenced by Christianity. Therefore, to argue that the founding fathers were humanists doesn’t remove the Christian influence on them and their thinking, but what is “Humanism”?

Humanism
There are many definitions of Humanism but of these the two that seem apropos are “Christian Humanism” and “Modern Humanism.” Modern Humanism rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily on science, democracy, and human compassion. Modern Humanism is both secular and religious in origin. Christian Humanism is a philosophy advocating self-fulfillment within the framework of Christian principles, but devoid of the supernatural elements found in Christian doctrine. Therefore, Humanism and Christian principles are intertwined and to reject one in favor of the other is not possible since they are two sides of the same coin.

Christian Principles
Separating Christian Principles from Christian Doctrine is very difficult, especially in terms of governance, but these appear to apply.

1. Political leaders should make peace and justice a top priority but recognize that force may be necessary as a last resort – “blessed are the peacemakers”.
2. All are equal under the law – “love thy neighbor as thy self”.
3. Freedom of Speech – “the truth shall make you free”
4 Freedom of Religion –“… that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone…”
5. Political leaders should come from the people – “But select capable men from all the people …”
6. Separation of powers – “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure”

Many Christians argue that the very foundation of America is based on Christianity and therefore America is a “Christian Nation” while the secularists argue that America is based on Humanist principles and there is no evidence of any religious influence in the Constitution. The Humanists base their argument on the lack of any direct reference to the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or any religious reference. Those who believe the Constitution reflects Christian Theology cite the reference to a “Creator” exception for Sunday and the overall tenor of the document and background of the framers. Thus the conflict is born. From the decades following the signing of the Constitution we find this conflict unresolved and unresolvable because no one knows what drove the framers to write what they did or what they believed. The mountain of documents following the framing is irrelevant because they are after the fact. Being a “Deist” does not mean the person is an atheist and the failure to include specific Christian references in the Constitution does not mean they were not a driving force or that they were not incorporated indirectly.

Christian Principles and the Constitution

If there is any core principle that influenced the founding fathers it is the people in power are the servants of all. Governments from the time of tribal leaders to the time of Kings rested on power and the exercise of that power by individuals. Power once given or seized elevated those in power over those whom they governed and thus you had the divine right of kings – even in those Christian Countries called Christendom– but it was the founding fathers of America who realized the flaw in vesting individuals with power over others. It was the founding fathers who realized that vesting power in fallible human beings was something that had to be done but had to be controlled.

These were people who believers or not were very familiar with the Bible and in Mark 10:43 they found Christ saying “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant -- for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve”. This idea that the powerful are servants was further elaborated in Luke 22:27 “Who is greater, the one at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table ? But I am among you as one who serves”. On this basis – a Christian Principle – those in whom power is vested are servants to those who gave them power and to insure the leaders served the people the founding fathers incorporated into the Constitution the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. This was to ensure those in power remained as servants to the people and did not oppress those who put them into power.

But perhaps the first example of the Christian influence on the founding fathers is in the opening of the Declaration of Independence which declares that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal …” But when Jefferson wrote these words equality was not self evident at all and in fact the exact opposite was true. Inequality was all about but Jefferson was declaring that all people are “moral” equals and that one life and one person is no greater or less than that of any other. This principle is stated in Matthew 19:19 where we find “love thy neighbor as thy self” or in Galatians 3:28 where we find “There is neither Jew nor Greek , there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. Jefferson was acknowledging that his life had no greater value than that of a laborer in the streets. Because all men are equal in the eyes of God, then no man has the right to rule over another without his consent. Among the rights was the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that to secure these rights Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

While it may be true that the founding fathers were more deists and humanists than Christian they were nevertheless familiar with the Bible and with Judeo- Christian teachings and believed that legitimacy is derived from God and not from man. Thus our rights became “unalienable” because they come from God (the Creator) and not from the people who govern.

The situation is a little murkier when we come to religious freedom. In Ezra 7:24 we find that the government is forbidden to interfere with the worship of God or at least with any organization or group that worships God. But in typical fashion we find further on in Ezra 7:26 that those who do not follow the law of God or the land shall be punished by death, banishment, or prison. While the Bible does offer the Ten Commandments as a basis for conduct and these commandments are honored by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they also direct that you cannot worship idols, other gods, and that “you shall have no other God before Me” Certainly the founding fathers were familiar with the Bible but they were also familiar with history. The very first settlers in America were Christians escaping persecution from other Christians but once established in the New World they immediately set about setting up their own form of religious persecution. Therefore, I believe that while the guarantee of religious freedom was based on the Bible it also reflected the sad history of religious persecution rooted in the Bible. Thus the founding fathers intended to keep religion out of the government and used the Bible’s demands for worship as the basis for incorporating that restriction. At a stroke the founding fathers eliminated apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy from government involvement, thus allowing atheism, paganism, and all other religions to exist under the Constitution. In this instance I think the Bible and the Ten Commandments was seen as a threat to the future of the Republic because history reflected that government mandated religious practice had a bloody past. Therefore, government and religion were separated even though Christianity was the prevalent religion. This is certainly an example of how the Bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs influenced the framing of the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our freedom because it permits us to speak out against the government as well as any idea, law, group, or person within the confines of libel. In John 8:32 we find “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Of course truth is one of those terms that can be perceived but if that perception is false or harms the individual that person is protected by libel laws which are addressed in Exodus 2:1-7 where we find commandment nine “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. But there are other parts of the Constitution that reflect Christian thinking and morality. In Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution we find the following “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him…” This clearly reflects a theistic view of the authors. This theistic view has been reflected in various court cases regarding Sunday laws and is another example of religious (Christian) influence on the Constitution.

Christianity and America

While the Constitution clearly reflects the Judeo- Christian ideas and principles which were known by the founding fathers, the American Spirit – that which sets America apart from other nations is also reflected in the Bible. Perhaps the greatest thing that sets America apart is the “melting pot”. Anyone from anywhere can come to America and become an American and be seen by other Americans as being an American – one of us. This concept is rare and is the root of many problems in the world today, but this view of the universality of people is shown in Acts 10:34-35 where we find “At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” This attitude is reflective of the American spirit of equality and is reflected in our foreign policy.

America has fought two world wars and has fought in many foreign lands but has rebuilt these lands. Unlike other major powers like Rome, Egypt, and the European colonial powers America has rebuilt these war torn lands and withdrawn usually leaving the defeated in better condition than they were previously. This attitude and approach is very unique but reflects the Christian teachings of Jesus (Matthew 22:39) where we find the following “…Thou shalt love they neighbor as thy self”. But this idea is also found in Luke 2:27-31 "But, I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” These ideas and principles form the very foundation of the American Spirit.

Influence of Islam
Because Islam acknowledges the Ten Commandments, Moses, Jesus, and Mary there is a feeling among some that these three religions share morality and ethics and are thus alike. This is totally false relative to Islam. The Koran is filled with hate and exhortations to violence. Even a quick review of the Koran shows that a Muslim cannot continue to call himself Muslim if they tolerate anyone who is not Muslim. In fact they are instructed to kill all infidels. Sura 9:5 says “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war”. For the people who resist Islam – meaning all non-Muslims—the Koran instructs Muslims in Sura 5:33 “Their punishment is execution or crucifixion or cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides or to be exiled from the land”. This is merely a small sample of the violence that permeates the Koran. This “Holy” text is filled with exhortations to kill all infidels. Based on the Koran itself a person cannot be “moderate” and still be Muslim because anyone who even considers a non-Muslim as a friend or ally is not Muslim but has become heretic and apostate. Therefore, to view Islam as even remotely similar to Judaism or Christianity is to not understand the Koran or the morality of Islam.
Conclusion

Some reject the idea that the Constitution is based on (Judeo) Christian Principles because the founding fathers were Humanists and Deists and well that might be but some were Christian and it seems clear that whether they were actual Christians without doubt they were familiar with Christian Principles, the Bible, and most of all history. What we find is that many concepts found in the Bible have been incorporated into the Constitution. But the founding fathers knowing the abuses and evil that had been practiced in the past in the name of Christ were careful to separate these religious laws and directives from the government of the United States. It is my opinion that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles with some being incorporated while others were deliberately rejected. It also seems clear that from the very outset there was a conflict between those who felt America was a Christian Nation built on the Bible and those who felt America was a Humanist and secular country independent of any religion or religious influence. This battle rages on and will probably never be resolved because it seems to be based entirely on interpretation and opinion. But in the book “God is Not One” we find “The case for Christianity’s preeminence is compelling. The number one best seller is the Bible, is the scripture of American politics, widely quoted in inaugural addresses and on the floor of the House and Senate. And the overwhelming majority of US Citizens call themselves Christians as has every President since Washington”. I conclude and it is my opinion that America is a Christian Nation built on Christian ideals and principles.

Royce Callaway


Sources:
King James Bible
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
What’s So Great About America – Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity – Dinesh D’Souza
What is Humanism – Frederick Edwords
God Is Not One – Stephen Prothero
The Holy Koran
Various Internet Queries

Do Atheists Fear God?

It seems that in all of the discussions regarding religion and atheism the focus has been on the defense of God and why do otherwise rational people believe in a supreme being. When challenged the atheists simply state that they are intelligent people who believe in science and would believe in God once His existence was verified by science. But what is not explored is why do these atheists go to such lengths in attacking those who believe in God? Why are they so determined to stamp out God? If God is only a figment of man’s imagination then what possible harm can come to an atheist if others persist in this “God Delusion” as stated by Richard Dawkins? Is it possible that these atheists really fear God and are compelled to erase Him because they are afraid that they – like most of mankind – cannot meet the standard of conduct established by God?

The belief in a supreme being seems to have always been inherent in man because there is evidence that even Neanderthals had some recognition of life after death and of course the Ancient Egyptian’s entire society seems to have been centered on the afterlife. But while the majority of ancient men believed in a supreme power, not all did and in fact history shows us that the atheists have always been with us. We find in the writings of Greece that Epicurus stated his goal was to “get rid of the gods, the immortal soul, and man’s longing for immortality.” This would appear to be the precise goal of atheists today. But Lucretius opposes the gods because “ the burdens they impose in the form of duty and responsibility are too heavy”. But Epicurus goes further and states that the gods seek to enforce “their” rules on man which creates anxiety in men because they threaten to punish us both in this life and in the next. So the obvious conclusion is that these early atheists simply chose to deny the existence of divine power because of their fear of that power. If the gods didn’t exist then they would not have to worry about their conduct but were free to do as they pleased. When you examine the writings of the current crop of atheists this seems to be their motivation as well.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel perhaps best describes the atheist’s point of view when he confessed that he had a fear of religion itself. He stated that “I want atheism to be true. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God – I don’t want there to be a God – I don’t want the universe to be like that.” ‘But perhaps the real motivation for atheists is the exhilaration that they feel once they are free from the encumbrance of God. Karen Armstrong in her book “A History of God” sums up this feeling of freedom that atheists enjoy in her statement:

It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.

But not all atheists see the denial of God as liberating and exhilarating; for example Karl Marx described religion as the “opiate of the people” meaning that religion was the drug they used to numb themselves from the misery they found in their lives. The French atheist Michael Onfray speaking in a similar vein said “God is a fiction invented by men so as not to confront the reality of their condition”. But some are just cynical about God and James Haught sees religion as a vehicle where the religious leaders reap personal benefit when he wrote “... churches and holy men reap earnings and exalted status from the supernaturalism they administer to their followers”.

It should be noted that all of these denials of God start with what appears to be two premises; the existence of God must be proven by science, and; God and religion are simply wishful thinking invented by men to avoid accepting the futility of their existence. This is an interesting point because these same atheists accept many scientific theories without proof, so they have a double standard when it comes to God, therefore, this argument of theirs can simply be ignored because the existence of God is as self-evident as many of their unproven theories. So the crux of their opposition seems to be God, the soul, and life after death is simply the wishful thinking of the gullible who are afraid of death. This is a very interesting point but if man’s wish fulfillment caused him to invent heaven then why would he invent Hell? If man invented God then why is God such a terrifying force with such strict standards? Even the gods of the ancients were terrifying and vengeful so if man invented them why didn’t he invent gods that were more friendly and less demanding?

This raises the question of what benefits do atheists gain from not just denying the existence of God but from their determination to stamp out any belief in a supreme being. Superficially it appears that the atheists are Darwinian converts who wish to convert the religious to Darwinism. The similarity to this motivation to missionaries attempting to convert ignorant natives seems to be lost on them – except for the ignorant natives’ part. The reality is that Darwinism is really just a primitive form of religion similar in nature to the primitive religions of ancient man. In effect Darwinism is the law of the jungle, the world of tooth and claw, a religion that assigns man no purpose other than the animal objective of reproduction and survival. Even the Darwinists admit that Darwinism can be summed up in the phrase “survival of the fittest”. So this new religion of Darwinism draws a very negative picture of mans existence and purpose, similar to other religions but without any promise of redemption, forgiveness, or a “do over”. The fact is that atheism is a dismal ideology and any benefit to be reaped from it appears to be the ability to act without fear of retribution.

This lack of fear of retribution may be the major, if not the only, benefit of atheism. In a world without God, man is free to do as he chooses and this is liberating and exhilarating to the atheist. They are free from the constraints of religion and in their eyes they are free to practice virtue, charity, and brotherhood. Of course any priest or pastor could tell these liberated atheists that these are the central themes of Christianity. So it appears that the only benefits to be gained from atheism are those offered by religion. Perhaps they need remedial Sunday School.

Richard Dawkins, The Man of Faith

The Atheists are leading a virulent attack on religion, especially Christianity and in its place they substitute science, particularly Darwin. In fact these secularists actually call themselves “Darwinists” and place Evolution in the center of their new religion, and religion is what it is because their science is based on faith just as that old time religion that they are attacking is based on faith. In fact these Atheists who believe in science have built their new religion on two cornerstones – Evolution and the Big Bang – and each of these requires a leap of faith just as great as any other religion.

The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, the exact month and day is as yet unknown. According to the Big Bang model the universe began as an extremely dense and hot state of pulsating energy which suffered a sudden inflation leading to the expansion of energy and space which is still going on. Precisely how much space existed prior to this expansion is unknown although it must have existed – even in a miniscule form for this bundle of cosmic energy to exist. Where this energy came from is unknown but it can only have two possibilities – it was always there or it appeared spontaneously. If it was always there then what caused it to suddenly explode and expand into the known universe? If it suddenly appeared, what were the conditions to cause it to appear and then explode? In the latter case was space always there but empty? Did this singularity also create space? Of course it is stated that this singularity had infinite density which means mass and mass requires space in which to exist so we can conclude that the initial singularity existed in space or that space must have been created prior to the introduction of this bundle of energy.

Obviously the entire Big Bang Theory is much more complicated but complication doesn’t add any substance because it still leaves these questions unanswered. Stephen Hawking and others have postulated the “Big Crunch” meaning that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting down to a singularity and this may be an eternal cycle. Of course then that poses the question of what happens to Space. Will the current universe which is measured in light years contract and disappear or merely contract to the point where all of the mass/energy in the universe is once again squashed together until the temperature and energy becomes so great that it once again explodes and expands into a new universe. All very interesting stuff but where did this little bundle of mass energy come from in the first place? What created it and what caused it to expand? Science can explain and describe everything that happened within microseconds of this initial Big Bang – what they can’t explain is what initiated it and where all of this energy came from. This question is left unanswered because all of the equations work so science has faith that they understand how the universe was created --- and accept the fact that it was an accident or just a random event, but under no circumstance was God involved because they don't believe in God. A careful reading of Genesis seems to pretty well describe the Big Bang.

The second foundation stone of Atheism is Evolution. The logical flaws of Evolution and the failure of paleontology to meet the criteria needed for proof established by Darwin are well know just as the failure to explain the Cambrian explosion of life is glossed over, but undaunted the Atheists with Richard Dawkins in the forefront continue their war against God. The real conundrum for these Darwinists is “why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seem unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” By this they are referencing the universal belief by humans in a God or some cosmic force. Even biologists like Dawkins say there must be some natural and evolutionary explanation for the universality and persistence of religious belief.

In the Dawkins view humans are descended from some primordial molecule that evolved into pond scum and through the intervention of arbitrary mutations over billions of years evolved into apes,who in turn became humans, who became enlightened biologists like Dawkins. Thus humans are simply arbitrary products of reproducing organisms without purpose, past, or future – a pointless existence, unless you accept that the point of their existence is to demonstrate the very futility of their existence. On the other hand, those people who suffer the scorn of the Darwinists believe we are the products of a good and powerful God who has placed us above all other life forms and has created us as his companions and who has given us purpose and direction in this life and in future lives.

Given these two positions and given that Evolution favors those who are best adapted to their environment, which of these two groups seems best able to survive? Which of these two groups is flourishing and has flourished since man was placed on the Earth? The reality is that these Atheists are actually a pathetically small group – admittedly they seem to flourish in academia and scientific circles, but within the population as a whole they represent a minority. In fact it is one of those supreme ironies that some scientists who believe in Evolution attend church regularly and profess a belief in God.

The logical conclusion is that a belief in God is built into mankind and that this belief has been to our evolutionary advantage. That faith based science is really just another manifestation of this evolutionary trait and people like Dawkins believe just as strongly in their religion as those do who believe in God.

The Resurrection and Life After Death

Life after death has always been a controversial topic and it doesn’t show any indication of being resolved anytime soon. Atheists and by implication evolutionists believe that life on Earth is a random event driven various magical processes like mutation and accidental combinations. For these people death is the end, the body dies, the ego vanishes, and the body rots. This means life has no purpose, no objective, and no motivation to live a moral and just life. Not very inspiring but nevertheless a belief held by many people. However, there are those who truly believe in life after death, that each person has a soul that survives physical death, and that rewards and punishments exist for each soul in the afterlife. Recently, various people, some being scientists, have studied “near death experiences” and have arrived at the conclusion that there is indeed an existence after clinical death. This belief in an after life is widespread and goes back even beyond recorded history and the concept of reincarnation was part of early Christian belief. With the canonization of the Bible, various beliefs were eliminated and reincarnation was one of them. Apparently, the resurrection of Jesus was felt to be sufficient proof of life after death, but of course this presupposes that the resurrection did in fact occur as described.

There is no doubt that Jesus was a real person and contemporary writings state that he was crucified. Of course the only other details are provided by the Bible and not any independent source. According to the Bible, Jesus was not only crucified but that he predicted his death and his resurrection. Witnesses, quoted in the Bible, state that he was crucified and a Roman soldier pierced his side with a lance. It is also noted that he asked for and was given “gall” which has been described as being various things ranging from vinegar to a soporific. It is also worth noting that the number of witnesses was small, so there was no large crowd. Pilate demanded proof that Jesus was dead and posted a guard at his tomb to insure the body was not taken.

At this point the story takes on a very bizarre twist because Jesus was declared dead and buried but after three days the tomb was found open, the shroud intact, and the body of Jesus missing. How the stone sealing the tomb got moved is said to have been accomplished by “angels”, but the Essenes were known to have referred to various members as angels so these mortal angels are probably the ones who opened the tomb, but what about Jesus? We can consider several possibilities. First, that some one other than Jesus was crucified. While this is possible it seems rather farfetched because Jesus was kept under guard and substituting a volunteer would have been exceedingly difficult. Secondly, Jesus was in fact executed and the body taken away and hidden. The ten subsequent sightings of Jesus in the flesh would then have been the imposter. This is possible but would have been hard to accomplish because the witnesses knew Jesus very well and would have been able to spot someone pretending to be Jesus. The third alternative and most probable is that the “cup of gall” was in fact a soporific, the lance wound superficial (and premeditated), and Jesus was revived and spirited away.

Of course the fourth alternative is that Jesus did in fact die and was in fact resurrected in the flesh and carried bodily to heaven. This view of the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity and was probably easier to accept when “heaven” was viewed as a physical place located “up there”. But given what we know about the universe today, heaven as a physical place is much harder to accept and thus we are still left with the body of Jesus and the question that if we die and live eternally after death, where is Jesus today?

There are several things that raise questions regarding this entire story. First, crucifixion was not a punishment handed out to everyone but was generally reserved for enemies of Rome. Pilate, resisted punishing Jesus and was coerced into it by the Sanhedrin, so it is possible that he imposed the crucifixion penalty in order to pacify the Jews, but what about the thieves? Was thievery a crime against Rome? A more plausible explanation is that Pilate did in fact see Jesus as a rebel leader and an enemy of Rome and that the thieves were in fact also rebels. This would then explain why Pilate demanded proof Jesus was dead and why a Roman guard was posted at the grave site. But what happened to these guards? How long were they there? If they were still there three days later, why didn’t they see the tombstone move, the grave open, and Jesus walk out? Most likely the soldiers were already gone – if they were there at all. The entire description of the resurrection lies in the Bible and the only independent accounts merely note that Jesus was crucified. It would seem even today, that if a criminal was executed, certified dead, buried, and then was resurrected, it would be headline news, yet no Roman source even mentions that Jesus was seen alive after his death or that even he was believed to have escaped death.

Jesus was seen in the flesh ten times after his death and urged his disciples to touch him – indicating that he was in fact alive, warm, in the flesh, and not a ghost. This seems like incontrovertible proof that if this did in fact happen, Jesus did in fact not die on the cross. The Bible is not a very reliable source of information because it was canonized in the fourth century and was heavily edited. Therefore, the entire resurrection story remains unproven and relies on faith, not facts. But the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is rather suspect doesn’t make eternal life false. Indeed, the disciples were simple uneducated men who may have had a difficult time grasping eternal life or life after death without some sort of proof, which Jesus may have arranged.

While the Bible stories may be more fiction than fact, the reality is that life after death has been an aspect of religion since the advent of man. Recent studies indicate that there does appear to be eternal life and that our physical bodies are mere shells for the people we really are. We do indeed move from a physical to spiritual state and back again. We may not be resurrected in the physical body but we do continue in spirit until we choose to manifest yet again on this physical plane.

Are Liberals Literate

Is it my imagination or has the Political Left gone completely crazy? I read books, think about what they say, then comment, but from my recent observations this is not how the Political Left operates. It seems that they look at the author and then dismiss the book as trash without ever actually reading it, if you doubt this look at the reviews on Amazon. You will notice that any book written by any known Conservative like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, or Bernard Goldberg is automatically trashed. Even books written by recognized authorities but whose contents do not follow the revealed wisdom of the left, are also dismissed as trash by Liberal reviewers who did not actually read the book. Apparently Liberals know how to write but have not mastered the art of reading and certainly have not mastered the art of critical thinking.

Another example of the inability of the Political Left to grasp or even understand an alternative point of view is their attitude about Fox News. Ask any of the Political Left if they watch Fox News and their automatic response – once they have caught their breath and wiped the froth from their mouth – is of course not!! It is simply a Conservative Propaganda machine whose motto of “Fair and Balanced” is a joke. Apparently, these same people view NBC, CBS, PBS, and ABC as voices that provide the only real truth about those idiots in the White House. What is really interesting is that you never see any real Conservative voice on any of these networks, whereas, Fox makes a real effort to give the Political Left a voice. However, most of the more radical lefties won’t appear on Fox News – why is that? The only logical conclusion is that they and their political beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny.

In fact on close examination it seems that the Political Left is short on facts and long on beliefs, it is sort of a faith based political party bordering on a religion. For example, the current flap over Global Warming is being pushed very heavily by the Liberals, ignoring the positions of real Climatologists and their facts. They confuse the undisputed event – Global Warming – with the very disputed cause – Human activity. Then the Liberals rage on and on about Evolution and the Yahoos who insist on viewing this as a Theory rather than a fact. Any one who questions Evolution as a fact is immediately labeled a “Creationist” and relegated to the nether world ignoramus, in spite of the growing evidence that Evolution as described is not totally accurate. Clearly it is OK to believe in Evolution because this means you have “faith” in science but not OK to doubt it because this means you have placed your faith in religion, God, or even in some agnostic system requiring empirical proof.

This contempt for empirical data seems to lie at the very heart of Faith Based Liberalism. Rachel Carson wrote a book titled “Silent Spring” that postulated that the widespread use of DDT was killing the environment. Carson had no credentials and her book and its conclusions were later to proven to be totally false – in effect a hoax, but that book drove the banning of DDT – worldwide. J. Gordon Edwards a Professor of Biology at San Jose State would actually eat spoonfuls of DDT to prove it was not harmful to humans much less animals. In spite of all of the empirical evidence to the contrary DDT remains banned and is costing millions of people their lives due to the resurgence of Malaria, which was almost wiped out from the usage of DDT. Liberals distrust facts and empirical evidence that challenges any of their beliefs. In effect the Liberal establishment places their faith in the unsupported conclusions of a woman dying of cancer who arbitrarily blamed her cancer on DDT to the scientific evidence indicating she didn’t know what she was talking about. To the Liberal mind – people are less important than the environment.

Perhaps a more recent egregious example of Liberalism at work is the recent case of the three Duke University Lacrosse Players, who were accused of raping a black – exotic dancer. Even in the face of documented evidence that cast doubt on this accusation from the very outset, eighty eight Professors (Liberals and Marxists) held public lynching of these young men’s reputations. Those professional racists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, raced to site to mug before the TV cameras and accuse the failure to immediately put these boys into jail as an example of the rampant racism prevalent at Duke University. As we now know these boys were totally innocent and falsely accused and their crime was being white and their greatest was having rich parents. Now that these young men have been declared innocent Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have vanished from the scene, never offering any apology, or retracting any of their accusations. The Liberal Professors who raced to condemn these young men without a trial and in the face of evidence that they were falsely accused, have yet to offer any apology. The reality is that the Political Left relies entirely on emotion and a belief system that Western Civilization, White People, the Military, Christianity, and above all Conservatives are evil and any evidence to the contrary is simply ignored because Liberals have Faith in the essential rightness of their position and reject any fact that doesn’t support their beliefs.

Islam, Christianity, and Paganism

Recently some idiotic politician in Washington State elected to ban Easter, Easter Eggs, and the Easter Bunny on the basis of “separation of Church and State”. It isn’t enough that the Constitution doesn’t actually state that there should be such a separation but that it merely precludes the government from establishing a state religion. But the complete ignorance of this politician regarding the origin of many of our holidays is truly breathtaking. Easter is word derived from ancient Persian for the goddess Ishtar (Aphrodite, Isis, Venus) who is the goddess of fertility. The Egg and the Rabbit are symbols of fertility as well.

The Jews celebrate Passover at Easter Time and the Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and neither of these are relatively serious if not downright grim. Those Pagans however, were celebrating Spring and the rebirth of nature at roughly the same time, so those clever early Christians who were desperately trying to sell their religion to those fun loving Pagans simply tacked the resurrection to the Pagan Holiday. The result of this gives us the rather weird combination of Jesus, Passover, and Easter Eggs which are laid by the Easter Bunny. Then of course we have Christmas which is celebrated as the birth of Jesus, who was born during the summer, but those fun loving pagans in Rome celebrated the Saturnalia starting December 25th so once again the Christians tacked Jesus on to a Pagan Festival that everyone loved, once again making Christianity very marketable. Then we have Mayday where all of those young virgins dance around the May Pole (I leave the symbolism of THAT to you).

The point is that Christianity seems to incorporate some things which are not truly Christian in origin but nevertheless are viewed as Christian. Well it seems that Islam also includes some things not originally included in Islam and one of these is the veil or Burqua. This is not included in the Qur’an which only admonishes women to cover their bosom, but it comes from Zoroastrianism and was later adopted by the Persians. It is not Islamic in origin and many Muslim women do not practice it. However, a woman is suing the government because a Judge dismissed her case because she had her face completely covered with her Burqua. The basis of her suit is that this was a violation of her freedom of religion. Then we see Christian women being forced to cover their heads “as required by Islam” when in fact no such requirement exists within the Qur’an. This is tantamount to suing the government to restore the Easter Bunny because it is Christian. Jesus and Mohammed both must be shaking their heads.

Then we have the issue of circumcision. The Jews and the Muslims, practice circumcision, but the (European) Christians do not. However, it is common in many primitive societies to circumcise boys as a coming of age ceremony. The ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision as a coming of age ceremony usually about the age of 14. Undoubtedly this practice was adopted by the Jews and later by the Muslims. However, circumcision is directed in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:10-14) but is not mentioned in the Qur’an, yet Muslims practice circumcision as a coming of age ceremony. So this is another example of a Pagan practice being incorporated into a religious practice.

The real point here is that no organized religion is totally pure but it incorporates things from outside the original religious teachings. Christianity has gone through a reformation and the result has been many variations of Christianity. Based on these variations, Christendom has established the concept of “Freedom of Religion” and this permits anyone to worship (or not worship) God(s) in any way they choose. It is worth noting that this concept of religious freedom does not exist in Islam. In Saudi Arabia it is a serious crime to even own a Bible and a capital crime to proselytize. Islamic countries do not permit most of the freedoms associated with a free society. In fact it is virtually impossible to separate Islam from the government in most Islamic countries because the concept of a separation between the state and religion doesn’t exist. This makes the lawsuit regarding the wearing of the Burqua supremely ironic because it is driven by a woman who would deny freedom of religion to others while demanding it for herself. If it was a Christian woman in an Islamic Country she would be forbidden to wear a Crucifix while being required to wear a veil even though it was against her religion. Toleration is not a hallmark of Islam.

Notes on Anti-Americanism

So the world is anti-America(n) and has been that way since the beginning of what? The War in Iraq? WWII ? WWI? Korea? Try forever!. Presumably this is some sort of a newsflash to our friends in the left wing media or perhaps it is just stating the obvious with a sense of discovery, but think about it. The people who came to America couldn't stand the oppression, classism, and intrusive governments of Europe initially and now these governments are everywhere. The people who remained were either afraid to leave or liked the status quo. Those that left were doomed to failure because they gave up security, relatives, and civilization, but damn their eyes they succeeded. Worse, they became rich in the process, established a meritocracy, and looked to the future with the expectation that everything would get better and better. A foolish expectation from a bunch of unrefined, uncultured, yahoo's, but once again they confounded their European cousins.

The Europeans then as now, look backward and dwell on their past rather than looking forward to the future. They regard themselves as cultured and refined and view every broken down building and infernal cobblestone as having historical significance. They view their government as responsible for their well being. Contrast that to America where everyone is entitled to "the pursuit of happiness". The distinction is sharp-- here each person is personally responsible for their happiness and well being while Europeans depend on their governments. Americans work while Europeans relax as they sink into oblivion and sap their governments revenues in welfare programs, while Americans spend money like there is no tomorrow. The relationship between work and wealth is largely lost on our detractors who take a very narrow view of the world. We send money in great gobs to other countries while the Europeans send as little as possible. We are actually more internationalist than they are but they prate and prance and wave their multi-lingual abilities about as an example of their "internationalism" while accusing Americans as being ignorant mono-lingual isolationist, arrogant boors. Our mono-lingual status being cited as an example of our arrogance. What is missed is that they are multi-lingual because each little country has their own language and they communicate in American English because they are too arrogant to communicate in other languages if they can avoid it. Try getting a Frenchman to speak German or English. So their view of "internationalism" is really very narrow and they devote little time or attention to the plagues and problems of the world other than to talk about it. So there is widespread anti-American attitudes and the question is why? It seems obvious to me, we are rich, powerful, and successful. We dominate the worlds of sports, business, technology, economics, science and politics. We practically own the Nobel Academy. Everyone wants us to fail just because we are so successful. It is a classic case of tearing someone down in order to raise yourself up. The very measure of our success is in the universality of English as a language. This in particular drives the French nuts because the Lingua franca of the world has ceased to be French and has become English, worse English words are creeping into the French Language so they have established a "language police", without recognizing the hilarity and futility of it. Europeans are pure blood while Americans are mongrels and our language isn't pure but a polyglot of words that we fold into our everyday use with gay abandon, words like Sushi, `elan, patio, burrito, Tsunami, Karma, etc. Americans cannot be distinguished by appearance because we come in all sizes, flavors, and colors. We speak all languages, including English. We accept everyone and expect everyone to carry their own weight and the vast majority do, this is what makes us strong and successful to the chagrin of our European cousins, who accept no one. You could live in France for 30 years, change citizenship, and still not be "French" -- only in America is it possible to become a real "American" Only the Brits accept us -- admittedly with a little jealousy -- but they are staunch allies. But what of the rest of world?America bestrides the world like a colossus and we are viewed as neo-colonists, arrogant, and evil but the average American doesn't know why. We like everyone else want to be liked but we really miss the point. We are conquering the world without intending to because we bring the idea of self-determination, freedom, and our open culture, which the Europeans view as "non-culture". We are capitalists in a world of socialists, but our real crime is the crime of self-determination. Americans are free to be Muslim but they are also free to be Christian. The Muslims are not attacking India and Hindu's because the Hindu's are not everywhere on the planet via satellite. Also the Hindu's aren't any better off than the Muslims, but Americans are rich -- very rich and Christian. Worse, we are also free and it is this freedom that is a threat. Islam makes no distinction between God and State. Islam is where Christianity was in 1500, they are 500 years behind the times. We are in a life and death struggle with Islam and getting very little help from Europe. The Europeans are jealous of our success and feel we need a comeuppance, the Muslims simply want to destroy us for our evil ways and the Europeans fully intend to standby while that happens. What they don’t realize is that the only thing that stands between them and a second dark age is the United States.

What's the solution? Keep working, keep being successful, and keep our Army strong because that is all that stands between us and barbarism. The Europeans don’t see this because they still believe that if they don’t fight they will be safe. They have fallen into the fallacious thinking that peace is the absence of war. This mistake is something that every power hungry barbarian has relied on since the beginning of time. What the Europeans fail to realize is that none of them have ever successfully waged a war or a peace. Since the Roman Empire, only America has been able to achieve victory on the battlefield and whether we will be able to maintain it is very problematic.