The Principles & Ideas Of Deism

One of the perplexities of philosophical and religious research is that it can be easy to misconstrue the personalities and movements one is attempting to study through the prism of one's own respective worldview. This tendency, if one is not careful to adjust for it, can be compounded when decades and even centuries separate those seeking to understand the past and those events, personalities, or ideas one is attempting to learn more about. This is especially true if the undertaking is of a more casual nature.

Often with the passage of such considerable lengths of time, entire ways of conceptualizing and categorizing the universe can come into existence, gain in popularity, and then recede from prominence long before an individual seeking to know more about them even comes into existence. One such system the contemporary enthusiast of the past might stumble upon is Deism. And if one is not cautious in the encounter, one could easily come away thinking that little of consequence separates this seemingly antiquarian perspective from more orthodox or Biblical expressions of Christianity. To get a better grasp on this worldview that one is not very likely to encounter from the standpoint of meeting in the flesh a professed adherent of it, it would perhaps be best to first examine the background of the world giving rise to Deism, to elaborate upon a number of basic Deistic beliefs so that they might be easier to spot if encountered in today's world under another name, and the divergent paths Deism took in the respective cultural settings in which the viewpoint manifested itself.

Contrary to popular conception, religion in some form or the other is one of the primary motivating forces of history. It is just that at times either man as an overall social organism is either moving towards or away from a particular understanding of this particular epistemological structure. As such, it might be best to think of Deism as a path away from one way of comprehending the world toward another or as a kind of inn or tavern at which a great epoch stopped to catch its breath as the popular perception looked back towards what it once professed but was not quite fully ready to openly embrace the outright or deliberately conscientious secularism set out before it.

Christians weary of the cultural rot brought about by the licentiousness and the permissiveness resulting from an expansive secularism that keeps claiming additional areas of life and endeavor as part of its purview might long for a time when there was little formally delineating religious authority and the administrative reach of the kingdom or the state. However, such romantics might think differently had they been alive during the waning years of the Middle Ages or even in lands where certain brands of Protestantism held sway or were struggling to establish themselves. For even though it was an era where courageous believers lived and died for their convictions, it was also an age where in pursuit of an idealized Christian order less than Christian means were at times utilized in the attempt to realize a theonomically proper milieu.

The episode that in many ways broke the camel's back of a political system not recognizing the distinction between the life of the mind and that of socioal obligation was the Thirty Years War. Fought between 1618 and 1648, the Thirty Years War was a conflict waged across significant portions of Europe that was sparked as a result of not only a complex series of international alliances and rival monarchs jockeying for position but also intense animosities as to which side professed the superior form of Christianity. Of the war, Glenn Sunshine writes in Why You Think The Way You Do: The Story Of Western Worldviews From Rome To Home, "To this day, the Thirty Years' War is still remembered in Germany as the most devastating war ever fought there (including World Wars I and II). Almost every territorial unit within the Holy Roman Empire lost 30% or more of its population...people were exhausted by the war (107-108)."

Such hardship and desolation would naturally cause the educated of a reflective inclination to stop and ponder. Was such a price really worth it to see that one form of the Christian faith prevailed over another where those beaten on the battlefield were not necessarily convinced of the matter in the depths of the heart? And was such a God requiring His followers to spread His truth in such a manner to such an extent in order to prove their devotion to Him really all that worthy of devotion? More importantly, was such a God the God that actually existed?

The Thirty Years' War was not the only development going on in Europe in the middle centuries of that particular millennium to shake the continent’s foundations of establishmentarian Christian orthodoxy. After all, it was not like the vast swaths of humanity had not had an acquaintance with suffering. With an average life expectancy of about 35 years and conditions such as malnutrition and disease quite common, part of the allure of the Church that allowed the institution to acquire and maintain a pervasive influence for so long was no doubt the promise of a blissful afterlife for its members in good standing.

For around the same era in which the unity and hegemony of so-called Christendom was beginning to be rest asunder, a number of other cultural forces were at play that would forever alter what has come to be categorized as the Western tradition. For better or worse, the prevailing orientation throughout much of the Middle Ages up until the cusp of the Modern Era was markedly other worldly in terms of its underlying nature. The importance of the material and physical aspects of reality were downplayed. Starting with the Renaissance where European scholars became reacquainted with the Greek and Roman literary works of classical antiquity, focus began to subtly shift away from God to a more earthly emphasis as embodied by those pagan empires that have now swayed the imagination for numerous centuries.

It could be argued that such a corrective was not without benefits when kept in check by Christian presuppositions. Francis Schaeffer writes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture , "The men of the Reformation did learn from the new knowledge and attitudes brought forth by the Renaissance. A critical outlook, for example, toward what had previously been accepted without question was helpful (81)."

For example, early practitioners of science often undertook their research and studies with motivations that could broadly be categorized as Christians. These natural philosophers realized that, though marred by sin, the created world still possessed a degree of worth as the handiwork of God. As itself a form of revelation in accord with Psalm 19:1 that assures that the heavens declare the glory of God, it was hoped that learning about such natural phenomena would assist mortal man in the attempt to think God’s thoughts after Him. Often in today’s climate of censorial secularism, such religious motivations of a traditional nature longing to better understand the material universe are conveniently overlooked or deliberately downplayed. However, they were confirmed by some of the foremost scientific minds of the twentieth century such as Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenhiemer who both admitted that Christianity was the “mother of science” even if neither of these men were themselves professed believers in Jesus as Lord and Savior (Schaffer, 132).

It has been said that history is like a drunken man reeling his head from one wall into the next. By this, it is meant that once one extremity of thought is corrected, the seeds of the next great philosophical imbalance can often be found taking root in the very same insight or innovation dragging the culture back from the abyss of desolation. Eventually, this tendency to value observation as a source of valid knowledge would eventually come to be seen more as an end in itself rather than simply as a tool for better understanding the overarching higher truth of God’s revelation.

The approach utilized by many Christian academics up until early modern times was known as scholasticism. In the method, according to Earle E. Cairns in Christianity Through The Centuries: A History Of The Christian Church , a scholar linked an authoritative general principle to a fact and from that drew a conclusion without necessarily pursuing experimental verification rather than relying upon the reputation of the source cited to support the assertion being made (377). However, in Novum Organum , Francis Bacon popularized an alternative approach known as the inductive method where, instead of accepting a premise on the basis of the authority invoked to support it, the researcher developed a hypothesis, made observations, checked them against experimental verification, and then developed a generalized conclusion. The thing of it was not so much that this inductive method would be used to learn about the natural world and the established deductive method used in theology as the so-called Queen of the Sciences ruling atop the other fields of inquiry. Rather, Bacon called for an inversion of the intellectual order with the physical sciences assuming a position of superiority over topics deemed speculative such as religion and metaphysics along the branches on the tree of knowledge (Currid, 141).

Thus, rather than continuing to derive religious and philosophical truth from the authoritative revelation of God's Holy Word and interpreting the data collected through investigation through such a prism, these thinkers began to critique the veracity of divine writ in light of their empirical research. And their conclusions were impacted significantly by developments taking place during the Age of Exploration.

Europeans had long known of the existence of the Muslim world as evidenced by the Crusades where armies in the name of Christ and Church attempted to retake the Holy Land by force of arms and the Battle of Poitiers where Charles Martel repelled invading Islamic forces. However, it was during the Age of Exploration that Europeans were confronted in a bold new manner with the idea that entire civilizations and cultures existed beyond the frontiers of their own. And despite the vast differences between cultures separated by considerable distances, those enthused by the influx of knowledge often concluded that humanity as a whole shared a great deal in common in terms of the underlying religious nature of the species.

Herbert of Cherbury is credited as the Father of English Deism. In his work On Truth, he set down the following principles: (1.) There is one Supreme God (2.) He ought to be worshipped (3.) Virtue and piety are the chief parts of worship (4.) We are to be sorry for our sins and repent of them (5.) God dispenses rewards and punishments (Geisler, 153). On the surface, there is little on that list that the traditional Biblical Christian would disagree with and most of these principles could in fact be incorporated as part of one's own personal statement of faith or as part of a church's formalized doctrinal creed. However, as Norman Geisler points out in Christian Apologetics, Herbert of Cherbury insisted that these ideas available to all mankind through what is often referred to as natural religion were not simply a prompt to set the individual soul in search of the true and perfect salvation found only in Jesus Christ, but that these principles were enough to achieve a blissful afterlife for all of humanity. Without necessarily attacking the Bible directly, Herbert of Cherbury asserted that dogmatic accoutrements such as sacred texts, sacrifices, and miracles were not essential components of valid religious experience and knowledge.

This initial attack upon orthodox Christian theism was somewhat subtle. However, as Deism gained ground and momentum, the assaults of its exponents grew increasingly bold and blatant. For example, in The Reasonableness Of Christianity, John Locke embraced the unitarian view of God that denied the deity of Christ (Geisler, 155). Other deists such as Matthew Tindal in Christianity As Old As The Creation attempted to undermine the Christian faith by broadening the attack on the Bible itself. The perspective taken was that the revelation of nature was itself sufficient for all and that any book attempting to add to such was either redundant or in fact detracted from the sublime message of the natural world with fables and myths that either contradicted what we know by reason or addressed a time mankind had since advanced beyond.

Having summarized to an extent the background giving rise to deism, it might be best to describe somewhat broadly what a majority of deists believed. As James Sire points out in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog , an important thing to remember is that “...deism historically is not really a school of thought...These men held a number of related views, but not all held every doctrine in common (44).”

As noted in the comments regarding Herbert of Cherbury, as in the case of Christianity, Deism held that God created the universe. In so doing, deists believed that, in the spirit of the Scientific Revolution, God created the world to operate in accord with rational principles or laws. These laws were moral as well as physical and man could learn about the nature of the Creator and His intentions as thinkers reflected upon the grandeur and intricacy of the world at large.

It is after this point that Deism and traditional Christianity part ways. Influenced by the Newtonianism of the day consisting of seemingly irrefutable aphorisms such as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, deists postulated that God created a universe so perfect in its complexities of cause and effect that He did not need nor desire to intervene in the cosmos or on the behalf of its inhabitants. Detached and disinterested from the workings of creation and the machinations of those occupying it, God does not relate personally to what He has made. It also flows from this notion of an absolutarian conception of cause and effect that deists denied the possibility or necessity of miracles.

This was a polar opposite of what Christianity believed. Christianity did, indeed, share the assumption with Deism that God created the universe and established it in accord with a system of laws noted for considerable regularity. However, Biblical theism held that, in accordance with John 3:16, that not only did God so love the world but that He entered into that world physically in the person of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. And that was not a trip undertaken like some wildlife safari to enjoy a vacation among the natives. Jesus came not into the world to be ministered unto but to minister and to give His life as a ransom for many, according to Matthew 20:28. John 15:12 insists no man can possess a love greater than to lay his life down for his brother. That is exactly what the lowly Jesus did for each person and that is about as far as one can get from the God of pure reason as expounded by the Deistic intelligentsia.

Throughout history irrespective of era, one of the undeniable truths that man as a creature stained by sin recoils from is the fact that Jesus came primarily into the world to die in our place for our sins. Elaborate alternative explanations have been provided as to his significance such as the one provided in our own day by John Dominic Crossan that Jesus was actually a revolutionary out to topple the prevailing political order. And more in keeping with the theme of this analysis, Thomas Jefferson, heavily influenced by deist assumptions, edited his own version of the Bible redacting the miraculous events such as the Resurrection of the life of Christ emphasizing instead how the Galilean handyman (though no more spectacular than anyone else in terms of cosmic powers and deity) still set a sterling moral example for everyone else to follow.

Apostates across the millennia have attempted to deny mankind’s need for a savior. Those of the deist persuasion were no different. To those initially shocked by the deist claim that there are no miracles and that the fundamental nature of Jesus was really no different than the rest of us, deist’s would assure that humanity really did not need a savior after all because there is really nothing wrong with man. In his points summarizing Deism, James Sire writes, “The cosmos is understood to be in its normal state; it is not fallen or abnormal (46).” Since people are as much a part of nature as the planets themselves or physical forces such as gravity, anything we do cannot really be said to be going against our nature.

Try as sophisticates might to convince themselves and to manipulate those around them that there really is not anything flawed about the world, the human heart retains enough sensitivity to long for a better world even if the individual is not fully aware of what it will actually take for the transformation each soul longs for to come about. Thus, in the deist worldview, the shortcomings observable in the world and within the individual are the result of man failing to realize just how splendid and excellent he really is. Many of the deists borrowed or endorsed the Platonic notion that to know the right would be all that was necessary to prompt the individual to do the right.

As with nearly all other worldviews, Deism did not merely promulgate isolated notions about God and the underlying nature of the universe bearing no implications for other areas of thought and existence. Inevitably, one’s anthropology or ideas about man flow from one’s theology or what one believes about God.

Whereas Christianity believed that the primary flaw that needed to be overcome which Jesus died for was the sin nature of each individual, deists believed that, if the environment could be perfected or idealized, man would be living large and on easy street. At the heart of the conception of man held by those sympathetic to the Deistic viewpoint was the notion of progress. Similar to what would be popularized under the banner of evolution in the 19th and 20th centuries, the notion of progress expounded by thinkers such as Bacon, contended that because of the innate goodness of man and the superiority of the scientific method for acquiring knowledge, humanity was on an inevitably upward path that would only accelerate with the triumph of reason over baser instincts and superstitions (Smith, 166). Just as they had crafted entire ways in which it was claimed to know all that could be known about God apart from divine revelation, Deistic thinkers were no less ambitious in their plans for mankind.

Inspired as they were by Greek thought and myth, a number of these thinkers were drawn to the legend of Atlantis, Plato's account of an idealized kingdom believed to be beyond the Pillars of Hercules that was ultimately brought to ruin through a great cataclysm that to Christian ears rings with a number of elements similar to those in the Genesis narrative of Noah's Flood. With the discovery of the New World, the desire to reestablish this fabled utopia in either these newly discovered lands or even in the familiar environs of the European Old World were kindled afresh. Where these thinkers differed to an extent was what were the best means to such ends and what exactly would things look like once civilization had reached the metaphorical and sometimes even literal shores of this brave new world. For among the deists, these journeys began to diverge largely in relation to what the particular deist in question believed regarding traditional religious belief and the value of the individual.

For example, though he believed in a God as a first cause stripped of any Christian understanding which might have imbued that concept, Thomas Hobbes did not believe that this God had any relationship with man or nature other than getting the ball rolling. As such, man is nothing more than a composite of matter moving through time and space disconnected from any higher spiritual realm (Currid, 142). Stranded in such a reality, life in such a state of nature is (as Hobbes famously mused) nasty, brutish, and short.

The best that man can hope for is to extend that brief existence for as long as possible and to ameliorate as many of these deprivations as possible. In Leviathan, Hobbes proposed this would be best accomplished through an arrangement known as a social contract. Though most Americans look favorably upon that phraseology from the way it would be utilized by later authors to limit what the state could do in favor of the individual, in the sense used by deists inclined to look less favorably upon the role played by traditional religion, the term “social contract” was used just as much and perhaps even more so to curtail the liberties of the average subject or citizen.

In the Hobbesian understanding, for protection and the opportunity to lead a life above the level of a war of all against all, the individual swore a high degree of authoritarian allegiance to a sovereign. Though not uncharacteristic for Hobbes’ day, nearly no area of life was left untouched or unscrutinized. In the system advocated by Hobbes, the sovereign could decide which opinions would be deemed inimical to public wellbeing, who could speak before multitudes, and what books were fit to be published. No act perpetrated by the sovereign in pursuit of his duties could be considered unjust; thus the figure could theoretically rule with an impunity that would make a 20th century dictator envious.

As the Age of Enlightenment progressed, notions such as the social contract took on an increasingly democratic veneer. However, in the minds more blatantly eager to undermine God's intended order, the concept could still be invoked to curtail the liberties of the individual rather than as a tool to protect them. Another Deistic figure in the more authoritarian branch of that worldview was Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau elaborated his ideas on these concepts in a book titled, of course, The Social Contract . Whereas many thinkers of his day believed scientific advancement and increasingly sophisticated forms of social organization were the means through which man would achieve his fullest potential through unleashing the innate goodness within, Rousseau believed these accoutrements led to enslavement. Instead, man was at his most pure in a blissful state of nature. In a manner not unlike the Emergent Church theologians of our own day with their deliberate affectation of unkempt Bohemianism, Rousseau contended the path to utopia did not lie necessarily through a multilayered bureaucracy but rather through the organic voice of the community known as the general will. Once this alleged consensus that sounds quite similar to mob rule had been reached, the individual would not be allowed to disobey this authoritative voice even if that meant the force of the community compelled the individual to be free against his own will. As Francis Schaeffer observed in How Should We Then Live, “The utopianism of this concept was shown by the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, during which the purification of the general will not only meant not only the loss of freedom for the individual but the reign of the guillotine (155).” Schaeffer emphasized of Rousseau’s insistence that those failing to obey the collective wisdom should be forced to be free, “Once more a humanistic utopianism ends in tyranny...(155).”

Deists not quite as hostile towards traditional religious belief did not veer as closely towards homicidal anarchy and dictatorship. The system’s more balanced thinkers tended to promote were more grounded in protecting many of those rights that had been hard-won over the course of history rather than upending nearly every last social institution on the spot with the hopes that doing so might usher in heaven on earth. It also helped that the milieu in which such a variety of Deism did exert some influence was one in which the population was itself sufficiently grounded in the Bible and sound theology that believers would only allow things to go so far and not much further.

One figure giving inspiration to this more subtle form of Deism was none other than John Locke. In works such as The Reasonableness Of Christianity, Locke did not exhibit as much vehemence against the Christian faith as would later deists such as Rousseau or Voltaire. Nor did Locke believe as Thomas Hobbes did that a centralized sovereign ought to exercise considerable authority and curtailment in matters of religious opinion. According to Francis Schaeffer, rather than destroy an established social order and weave an entirely new fabric, Locke attempted to preserve what had been or had the potential to be right but seldom adhered to in the political order by secularizing the principles found in Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. These included inalienable rights, the separation of powers, and right of revolution or resistance to unlawful authority (109). The synthesis of Locke's own internal spiritual struggle would result in the development of a system that, when delicately and precariously balanced, rested upon the necessity of public virtue but not necessarily upon the need to bring the wrath of civil authorities down upon those that lived their lives within the parameters of a broadly Biblical morality. John Locke would go on to play a profound role in influencing the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the Declaration of Independence's phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a reflection of Locke's own emphasis on the ideals of life, liberty, and property.

In the rush to counter a secularist fanaticism bent on removing any acknowledgment of religion in American public life, for the purposes of drumming up support for assorted causes and public awareness campaigns there has been the temptation to paint a number of the Founding Fathers of the era of the American Revolution as so undeniably in the born again camp that these figures in terms of their theology and applied Christian living differed little from the rigorous independent Fundamentalism of today. The truth, as well as these men themselves, is much more complicated than that.

Probably the most undeniably deist among those honored for giving voice to a number of ideals considered intrinsically American was none other than Thomas Jefferson. Serving as a testament to Jefferson’s beliefs is the so-called “Jefferson Bible”. In this document, the Sage of Monticello retained the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus while expunging those passages pertaining to miracles such as the Resurrection of Christ. This tendency to view Jesus as nothing more than a good man was a constant throughout Jefferson’s religious life. In The Shaping Of America, John Warwick Montgomery quotes from a letter in which Jefferson gleefully predicted, “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian (53).”

Jefferson’s unconventional religious viewpoints were such a widespread concern among sincere Christians that Richard Hofstader suggests in The Paranoid Style Of American Politics that Jefferson’s ascent to high office sparked considerable alarm as to what extent the Illuminati had penetrated American society and whether or not violent upheaval like that in France could break out in the United States if vigilance was not maintained. However, even if Jefferson himself did not have a personal relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior, he did recognize the role or providence in the rise and fall of nations. Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is the following quote from his Notes On The State Of Virginia: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever (Gingrich, 46).” Other support Jefferson extended towards religion in the United States included the use of public buildings for church services, a $100 per year donation to a Catholic priest laboring among the Kaskaskia Indians, and including the Bible and Watt’s hymnal as part of the curriculum he formulated for the schools of the District of Columbia.

The next enigmatic figure in terms of religion who is beloved or at least respected by a vast majority of Americans is Benjamin Franklin. As in the case of Jefferson, the objective historian must admit that there is little conclusive proof that Franklin threw himself on the mercy of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. There were also a number of things in the life of this monumental founder that the Christian could not endorse.

To his credit, Franklin believed the following: "That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to men (Montgomery, 57).” Though Franklin's personal creed might have been a point or two above standard Deism as he at least believed God governed the world rather than relate to it through a sense of disinterested detachment, like the earlier formulations of Deism described in this analysis, the problem was not so much with what Franklin positively affirmed but rather with what he omitted.

In the friendly correspondence that developed between two giants of colonial America, revivalist George Whitefield pleaded with this renowned early American renaissance man to turn his formidable intellect to a serious consideration of the claims of Christ. But as in the case of Jefferson, one can catch glimpses of the internal struggle for Franklin's soul. For the very same statesman who observed at the Constitutional Convention that how he had grown convinced that Providence governed in the affairs of men himself never formally married the mother of his children. Franklin was also believed to have frequented the Hellfire Club, a secret society that was essentially a sex club that took particular delight in mocking traditional religion and virtue.

Devout patriots that love both God and country, though unsettled by these claims, are no doubt thinking that they will not be similarly disappointed by George Washington, the father of our country. Alas, as with these two previously mentioned Founding Luminaries, debate is no less settled regarding the first President of the United States.

To his credit, Washington was a member in good standing with the Episcopal Church. He was also said to be motivated by deep religious convictions. It was Washington that added the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential inaugural oath (Gingrich, 34). During his service in the Revolutionary War, Washington promoted a code of conduct that encouraged soldiers to attend worship services and to refrain from coarse behavior such as cursing. And Washington’s Farwell Address suggesting that the habits of morality and religion are indispensable to the continuation of a free republic is a cornerstone of American political theory and philosophy.

But as in the case of Franklin and Jefferson, things in Washington's own background prompt the Christian to pause despite all of the contributions Washington made to establish the nation on what appears to be a steady course and foundation irrespective of whether or not George Washington's name really will be heard up yonder. For you see, George Washington was a member of the Free Masons.

Some might respond such a thing is not really that big of a deal as many join that fraternal order for the purposes of networking and status, not fully comprehending what exactly the organization professes. Especially in the past, members on the lower rungs of these kinds of brotherhoods would simply remain on their periphery in order to, as is said, succeed in business without really trying since membership has often been seen as the route to enviable careers in commerce and government. However, Washington was more than a mere member.

Washington served as Master of the Alexandria, Virginia lodge in the late 1780's. In that town just outside the nation's capital, the George Washington Masonic National Memorial was erected to commemorate publicly his affiliation with the secret society. Holding such a position of honor and distinction among the organization’s ranks, Washington would have known that Free Masonry held to what John Warwick Montgomery described in The Shaping Of America as a kind of liturgical Deism (56). Like Deism, Free Masonry holds that God is the Great Architect of the universe that set up the world to run on its own without interference on His behalf to keep it going. Rather than salvation being found alone through faith in the person and work of Christ, the individual is responsible for his own spiritual advancement with each of the world's religions simply expressing its own unique set of truths and viewpoints on essentially the same cosmic deity.

Learning that the Founders they had so admired might not have had a walk as close to God as initially assumed, some Christians might be inclined to so radically separate from the federal constitutional system established in the late 1700's as to call for something entirely new all together in terms of sociopolitical organization. Such a call might be too hasty and might play more into the hands of those seeking to establish a New World Order than one might suspect. John Warwick Montgomery points out in The Shaping Of America, "The single most paradoxical aspect of American history is that though the country's Founding Fathers were Deists and not Christians, the nation got off to a Christian start nonetheless. Both the American Revolution and the founding documents arising from it turned out to be --- often in spite of the motives of their creators --- fully compatible with the historic Christian faith (57).”

In the coming years ahead, to prevent the land that we love from descending into either the abyss of anarchy or tyranny, the Christian will be required to exercise the utmost discernment. Since one of the best ways to proceed forward is to look back at from where we have come, that will require each of us to grapple with the founding of this nation as it actually was rather than how we might like it to be. The Founding Fathers were by no means perfect and a number fell short in a number of areas such as perhaps in ideas regarding the person and nature of Christ. However, what they did grant to the nation was a system that would allow for a public recognition of God while allowing the individual to work out the specifics of their respective walks with the Almighty on their own in fear and trembling.

by Frederick Meekins 

Bibliography

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through The Centuries: A History Of The Christian Church (Third Edition) . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

Currid, John D. "From the Renaissance to the Age of Naturalism." Building A Christian Worldview: Volume 1 (God, Man, and Knowledge) . Ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker (pages 138-159.) Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1986.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988.

Gingrich, Newt. Rediscovering God In America: Reflections On The Role Of Faith In Our Nation’s History And Future . Nashville: Integrity House Publishers, 2006.

Montgomery, John Warwick. The Shaping Of America . Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1976.

Schaeffer, Francis. How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture . Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1976.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog (Third Edition). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Smith, Gary Scott. "Naturalistic Humanism." Building A Christian Worldview: Volume 1 (God, Man, and Knowledge). Ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker (pages 161-181) Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1986.

Sunshine, Glenn S. Why You Think The Way You Do: The Story Of Western Worldviews From Rome To Home. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009. 

Flag Called On Christian Anti-Sports Playbook

 

A problem or concern with those the most enthusiastic about their faith in God is not that they are necessarily zealous but rather that they expect you to embrace their interpretation regarding those issues where those sincerely holding to the essentials of Christianity can view a particular moral conundrum differently. Take for example the issue of sports.

No Christian in their right mind will deny that professional athletic spectacles can potentially get out of hand to the point where those participating in them can be tempted by explicit sins such as greed, corruption, and even idolatry. However, in his essay “Professional Sports An Abomination To God”, theologian Michael Jeshurun argues that the sincere devout Christian ought not to have anything to do with sports beyond an occasional pick up game or ball toss in the backyard. In his condescension, Jeshurun provides a number of detailed reasons.

Jeshurun begins his analysis with an examination of the act of “Tebowing”. The name of the gesture is derived from Tim Tebow's practice of kneeling with head bowed in a posture of adoration following the completion of a play deemed successful on the part of the penitent supplicant.

To Jeshurun, it's not enough that a professional athlete amidst the hustle and bustle of the gridiron takes a moment to direct his thoughts as well as those with eyes upon him towards the reality of a higher overseeing power. To Jeshurun, the prayer is not complete unless the athlete enunciates a lamentation of his transgressions and heaps condemnation upon the venue in which the athlete finds himself. While he's at it, perhaps the athlete ought to rend his garments and adorn himself sackcloth and ashes. A little flagellation might also be in order. That would raise at least an eyebrow of interest in San Francisco.

Jeshurun's basic argument is that the Christian ought to avoid professional and organized athletics because sports is an idol and a work of the flesh. His first evidence raised in the attempt to prove such is Luke 16:15 proclaiming, “That which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”

Jeshurun writes, “This verse alone should settle it once and for all whether 'professional sports' is well pleasing to God or an abomination to Him.” Without additional context, that verse might not apply in every situation but more a general principle that applies when a particular activity or situation is inherently evil.

There is overlap where both God and man highly esteem certain things. For example, both God and even the unredeemed that have not succumbed to outright debauchery value a good name as counseled in Proverbs 22:1. Both God and a number of non-Christian belief systems value the married heterosexual two parent household as the foundation of a stable family.

Next, because a sizable percentage have elevated sports to an unseemly position in their lives, that does not necessarily mean that sports is inherently evil or that the Christian should not participate in them. For a number of the criticisms leveled against sports could be directed just as easily at organized religion in general and even Christianity in particular.

As a statistic, Jeshurun cites a 1983 survey that 7 out of 10 Americans watches, reads, or talks about sports every day. Another statistic from that year lamented by Jeshurun from the World Almanac and Book of Facts states that, of 2000 students polled of whom they admired most, there was not a single name on the list that was not an entertainer nor an athlete.

What is so wrong if coworkers discuss sports? Isn't that preferable to a religious war breaking out in the office? And such a topic is certainly more pleasant to discuss than either your coworker's hemorrhoids, the fact that he needs a Viagra, or that it's his wife's “cranky week” on the calendar.

As to the statistic about children, what is to be expected? They are children. Aren't their answers supposed to reek of stupidity?

Regarding these kinds of surveys, those taking them can't really win. If the respondent answers truthfully, they are reamed a new one for answering in a way that displeases either the pollster or the polemicist co-opting the researcher to make a point. If the respondent attempts to game the situation by telling the researcher what the researcher wants to hear but does not live their life in a manner reflective of the answers provided, they are reamed yet again for the transgressions of deception and hypocrisy.

Following the elaboration of this statement, Jeshurun provides a number of examples as to why he concludes that professional athletics is idolatrous. He first turns to the preeminent and learned theologian Howard Cosell.

In reflecting upon the devotion of Dallas Cowboy fans, Cosell decreed, “The Cowboys are more than a football team; they are a religion.” To show that this just wasn't a fluke on the part of a sportscaster renowned for his flair at turning a colorful phrase, Jeshurun cites an incident where 75.000 fans of the Devner Broncos showed up for a game despite a blizzard that crippled a metropolis like Denver that was no stranger to harsh wintry conditions.

What can one say? The world is full of people that don't have common sense that do plenty of things they should not that endanger their lives largely because they are told to. There are some that would risk their life and limb to go to church in foul weather when they would be better off staying at home.

For example, one particularly snowy Sunday in the mid 1980's, my unabashedly devout grandmother decided that the weather was too cold and treacherous to risk the pilgrimage through the elements to the Baptist church my grandparents attended about 15 miles away. But come perdition or high water (or on this case about five inches of snow), my grandfather insisted he just had to have his Sunday edition of the Washington Post (by that point the Washington Star had folded and most good Christian folk were still leery regarding the Washington Times at that point as “that Moonie newspaper”).

My grandmother relented to the request, thinking it would be no more than a 5 to 10 minute trip to the corner neighborhood convenience store. She waited and waited. As her mind balanced that fine line between concern and worry, she called my parents wondering where grandpop could be.

Given this was several decades ago, I don't recall precisely whether my dad set out to the corner store looking for him or that Dad himself might have been at work that day. Irrespective, the entire family spent that morning quite unsettled until grandfather returned home around 12:45 PM.

For you see, he hadn't just ventured forth to acquire a newspaper. To paraphrase the title of Bilbo Baggins' adventure, my grandfather had gone all the way to church and back again without telling anyone where he set out to which he insisted wasn't even his wife's business despite the questionable weather.

Admittedly, that anecdote veers a bit from the main point but will be tied into this exposition for a matter of emphasis. Just because it might not have been the wisest thing for my grandfather to not only drive to church in treacherous weather but also not inform my grandmother where it was that he was going, his antics did not invalidate the central claims of the Christian message and their benefit in the life of the individual when parsed in a balanced and reasoned manner. Likewise, when free individuals without direct coercion decide to pursue sports in instances when participation could be a detriment does not invalidate the legitimacy of professional athletics altogether.

Jeshurun attempts to further buttress his arguments with a number of additional criticisms that could just as easily be applied to religion. A number of these aren't even necessarily incorrect in and of themselves if looked at from a different perspective.

The first reason given by Jeshurun is that professional sports is based on greed. Jeshurun writes, “When the well known evangelist Billy Sunday turned his back ... on a baseball career in 1893, he gave ten reasons for leaving. Reason number two was 'Because it develops a spirit of jealousy and selfishness; one's whole desires are for professional success regardless of what befalls others.'.” Jeshurun continues, “As a matter of fact, sports teaches us to be happy when our opponents fail or when another player is injured so that I can be promoted to his position.”

And organized religion does not? It's just that organized religion has been better at formulating a series of pious platitudes that an individual can enunciate that mask the true intentions of the individual verbalizing them and can position the individual from the perspective of the most spiritually profound light possible.

For example, in many churches, the same handful of people hold the recognized positions of leadership for year after year, decade upon decade. For anybody new to be allowed to try there hand at anything, eventually someone has to not so much be but out to pasture but rather six feet under it. Even if the congregation is magnanimous and free of cliques, there is only so much opportunity to go around in terms of teaching positions or for talent to even be developed if there is a single Sunday school class with that either taught by the pastor or head deacon.

The next argument as to why the Christian ought not to participate in sports is because professional athletics is full of covetousness. Most Christians think of covetousness as wanting what someone else has to such an extent that one is willing to fall into explicit sin in order to obtain the obsession. Apparently Jeshurun's definition is quite a bit different.

He writes, “Covetousness is one of the definitions of modern professional sports. Loyalty to the team or country is out of the question. Unlike the true Christian who is not for sale (because Christ has already bought him) the professional sportsmen will play against his own for a price!”

That barely makes sense. Despite the easily drawn and often at times appropriate analogies, contemporary athletics are not the Roman gladiatorial spectacles or even the Thunderdome of the Mad Max series. We are not quite yet at the point where the assembled crowds chat “Two men enter. One man leaves.”

As a hardline Calvinist, Mr. Jeshurun has probably published a number of diatribes against Roman Catholicism; however, his economic vision is not that markedly different than the viewpoints expounded by Pope Francis. For both of these theologians have cloaked barely disguised anti-capitalist sentiments in the garb of other issues.

For example, an athlete owes “the team” no more loyalty than the common laborer the average employer. Like an employee, the professional athlete agrees to provide services in terms of performance in exchange for compensation for an agreed upon time.

Is what Jeshurun prefers some sort of economic feudalism? In that particular sort of system, the laborer is not allowed to ply his craft or trade in an environment where he can negotiate to obtain either the working conditions or compensation most suited to his liking. Instead, the human capital is bound to either a particular piece of land or even member of the nobility. Such can only be dissolved through extraordinary legal effort.

Equating that the labor of the athlete should not be for sale because the true Christan has already been bought by Christ doesn't even make sense. These two concepts aren't even related.

One is in the sphere of the economic. The other is in the realm of the soteriological or in relation to salvation. Should messianic metaphors be applied to other aspects of existence that the Scriptures were not intended to be applied to so literally?

For example, if Jesus is the bread of life, should we condemn those connected with the production and consumption of the more mundane conventional baked good? Likewise, since perfect love is found in Christ, should those that desire the emotional and carnal love that flows from the marital relationship with a human spouse be looked down upon in contempt?

Relatedly, Jeshurun emphasizes that “Professional sports stinks of commercialism.” Why is commercialism always spoken of as if it was a bad thing? Fundamentally, commercialism is simply the making available of products and services in exchange for currency.

Jeshurun writes, “Today, by contrast, the commercial aspect of professional sports is all pervasive...Star players are granted million dollar contracts merely for permitting a company to use their name...The names and logos of businesses appear...everywhere. The stadiums are literally plastered with advertisements.”

What in society is not? Even religion has not escaped this tendency. Granted, those such as Jeshurun certainly denounce the likes of Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren or Rick Warren. But don't the fastidious dogmaticians also commercialize in their own ultrapious manner?

For example, these critics might not take in the book sales of these headliners listed above. However, many times before their respective denunciations draw to a close, they will put out their own outstretched hand hoping you will feel guilty enough to deposit at least a financial pittance.

Christians often receive in their mailboxes --- both physical and electronic --- every week numerous direct epistolary fund raising appeals that would put them in the poor house if they complied to the extent demanded by each. Many are from large institutional ministries that would rival global corporations in terms of organization and the number of professionals on the payroll.

However, size is not always an indicator of brashness. For in many cases in terms of ego, at times it can be hard to beat the missionary letter. In these epistles often sent to nearly everyone the missionary has ever known irrespective of whether or not the aspiring itinerant has even extended the targeted common human decency or courtesy in decades, the recipient is expected to reply with a token of financial gratitude for essentially just having had their own particular culture demeaned in favor of a less developed one, had the legitimacy of their own profession of faith called into question because they themselves are not pursuing some career along the path of ministry like the missionary in question, and that this piece of dreck in the kingdom of God is being extended a privilege that they are even worthy of being permitted the opportunity to contribute to this sanctified undertaking.

Jeshurun writes, “What is it that professional sports thrives on? You guessed it --- PRIDE! 'He is the best; WE are the best; WE win the most; hit the best; run the best; the best defense; the best offense; the best goalkeeper.”

Do not professional religionists in their respective spheres strive for this as well? Does not the Christian minister strive to hone their rhetorical craft in order to gain the widest possible audience? Even among ascetics, don't those prone towards acts of humility and mortification attempt to be the best at such? Doesn't every church that forms with the exception of a congregation that sets itself up in a previously unreached area say, “Hey, we are just maybe a smidgen holier or closer to God than the church right down the street”?

Jeshurun further condemns, “Professional sports stars are frequently in the news for their moral perversions, for rape and assorted charges, for public drunkenness, for drug arrests, ugly divorces.” Sadly, how is this appreciably different than what goes on in the circles of professional religionists?

When one ponders religious figures that have fallen into carnality, one cannot help but think of the Roman Catholic molestation allegations that came out probably in the 1990's or the televangelist scandals of the 1980's. However, in profound honesty, hardline Baptist and Reformed leaders have behaved little better. Despite talking a good game, a number have comported themselves in a manner that would make the employees of the fleshpots along the Vegas strip blush.

For example, supporters were shocked to learn of R.C. Sproul Jr.'s confession that his name ranked among those exposed in the Ashley Madison data breech. However, his wandering imagination seems as quaint as Jimmy Carter's Playboy confession that he had lusted in his heart in light of the transgressions alleged regarding others.

Interestingly, these shocking transgressions don't simply transpire among those that happen to profess traditional trinitarian orthodoxy and strive to live by the moral code of spelled out in the great commandments. Rather it seems these acts of lewdness are also committed by those that profess and advocate the most thoroughgoing varieties of the faith invoked to call into question the soteriological sincerity of anyone that fails to aspire to the same level of rigorous external devotion.

For example, most are no doubt familiar with the Duggars. To this family, it simply wasn't enough for the parents to homeschool their children in order to prevent their brainwashing at the hands of secularist progressive educators. Rather, the daughters were expected to wear dungaree skirts dragging the floor while growing their hair nearly as long. And out of well over a dozen children, not a single was seemingly allowed to pursue higher education of any organized variety be it traditional secular, religious, or even apparently unaccredited correspondence training.

Yet from the news that leaked out in conjunction with the Ashley Madison data breach it was learned the one Duggar son didn't just cheat on his wife with call girls famous among enthusiasts for alternative exhibitionist entertainment commonly referred to as “porn”. He also apparently couldn't keep his hands off his prepubescent sisters.

Some might reply that the example of one individual unable to keep his most depraved inclinations in check does not refute the values stood for by the Duggar family as a whole. After all, parents are not responsible for the decisions of their adult children.

However, if one steps back for a moment in reflection, one cannot help but notice that this kind of disturbing pattern appears to be endemic among those upheld as leaders in the sorts of circles in which the Duggars operate and are extolled as the ideal family.

Amongst the homeschool movement, it is not enough for individuals and families to aspire to the Biblical ideal of reserving sex for marriage and trying to avoid particularly raunchy entertainment. One is considered not “good enough” in the eyes of God and man unless one goes all out in pursuit of an extensive list of externalities.

In particular, one is viewed as little better than a brothel whore if you are a young women or a patron of such an establishment if you are a young man if you date rather than allow your parents to select your spouse for you by the age of 25 at the latest. Anyone waiting much later than that to wed is probably some kind of homosexual and guilty of compromising the number of compliant missionaries one will likely procreate as divine breeding stock.

Of course these rules did not seem to apply for decades to Bill Gothard. Despite teaching that the married were to be viewed as superior to the single and that taught nowhere in the pages of Scripture, Gothard himself never married. And really why should he have? For along with being heralded as a superstar of the faith in the theological circles in which he operated, Gothard was regularly having any number of his base desires at least momentarily satisfied by imposing his carnal affections upon one intern after another. Just don't you dare hold hands in a darkened movie theater or kiss your gal goodnight afterwards irrespective of how many toes Gothard is alleged to have sniffed.

Other ministers insisting that hardcore fundamentalism is the only form of Christian life acceptable in the eyes of God haven't done much better in setting a good example. For example, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and the accompanying Hyles/Anderson College in some respects make Bob Jones University look like Animal House in terms of the extra-Biblical standards imposed upon those that attend. At the height of his power, Pastor Jack Hyles would call the deacons forward before the congregation to basically swear a loyalty oath expressing a willingness to die at their pastor's command.

Had these ecclesiastical functionaries fulfilled this obligation, they would have done so for someone that was probably every bit a pervert as Hugh Heffner. At least Old Heff had the decency to leave God out of his lechery. For you see, it was not enough for Pastor Hyles to get the hots for the church secretary and run off with her in a classic church adultery scandal. Instead, the horny clergyman concocted an elaborate theory that the church secretary was his true celestial companion with whom he shared a bond more profound than that which he shared with his wife. In a gesture of magnanimity not seen most likely since the early days of Mormonism, Hyles was willing to swap wives with the husband of the church secretary if the parties had been amicable to the arrangement (no doubt with a copious and enthusiastic laying on of hands as well).

It will be retorted that Jack Hyles was just a single man that went astray into these temptations following a life of dedication as a servant of the Lord in the Independent Fundamentalist movement. He cannot be scrutinized as some kind of example from which patterns or theories of prediction can be deduced.

Maybe not. Yet one cannot help but begin to speculate if something is happening here systematically when Hyle's successor and son-in-law Jack Schaap fell into a number of behaviors nearly as shocking and perhaps even more so. After all, similar moral failings are invoked by Fundamentalist pulpiteers as proof regarding the theological interpretations and ecclesiastical traditions they find distasteful such as Roman Catholicism.

Given his faults, one has to give Jack Hyles at least a bit of credit that he had the decency to prefer skirts closer to his own age or at least over the age of consent. For it seems that his son-in-law preferred to let his freak flag fly in the company of minors or around those over which he was in a position of educational authority.

The first sign something was amiss was when Schaap spoke before a solemn assembly at his church's Bible college about the importance of shaft polishing. Perhaps it must also be pointed out that for rhetorical emphasis the oration was accompanied by a gesture more suited for a bawdy Saturday night comedy club rather than a church sanctuary. For it was not that much different than what got Pee Wee Herman arrested at a porn theater in the early 1990's.

Yet it would seem that Pastor Schaap was more than a homiletical exhibitionist deriving his jollies from pulpit shenanigans. Seems that he also, like Bill Gothard, could not resist the allure of young maidens. As a result, the defrocked Schaap now sits in a prison cell for going after jail bait hook, line, and sinker.

It would be reasonable to ask what does all of that have to do with professional athletics, idolatry, and why Christians ought to have nothing to do with such pursuits? It was a detailed way of pointing out that a number of those very behaviors and depravities that Mr. Jeshurun rightfully condemns taking place in the arena of compensated sports also occur in the realm of structured spirituality (or what might more commonly be referred to as organized religion) that the dogmatically enthusiastic such as Mr. Jeshurun suggest that we not only make an important part of our lives but rather must be in explicit exclusive constant consideration of during every waking moment.

As such, if his suggestion is that as a morally concerned or ethically aware individual that we ought not have anything to do with something where a number of its foremost practitioners or adherents end up committing unseemly or even heinous acts, does that principle also apply to outwardly manifested expressions of religion as well? After all, to the individual raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord, the ensnaring temptations of sports are rather obvious to spot. It is often those in life's more explicitly spiritual arena more likely to lure even the most devout slowly into compromise and even outright doctrinal error.

Seemingly the Christian is obligated to remain part of the visible church in terms of participating in organized religion despite the numerous dangers prowling for victims in the shadowy corners. Then why can't the believer utilize a similar variety of judicious discernment in regards to professional athletics?

One ought to indeed be cautious of the extremes to which sports is taken by some in contemporary postmodern American society. However, nearly the same thing could be said of a religious devotion so encompassing so as to crowd out the other good things that the Father in Heaven has created or allowed to develop as part of His world.

By Frederick Meekins

Plague Cult Thralls Obligated To Embrace Alchemical Elixir With Revolutionary Fervor

To the dictatorial mindset bordering on the cultic, it is not enough for the tyrannized person to do as they are told.

Such souls must articulate that they rapturously agree with the imposition placed upon them or at least refrain from verbalizing their disagreement.

As proof that the House of Mouse most identifies with characters amidst its assorted franchises such as Thanos and Palpatine, Disney fiefdom ESPN suspended broadcaster Sage Steele in part for admitting that, while she dutifully acquiesced to requirements to submit to the Plague Cult elixir in order to retain the opportunity to put food on the table and a roof over he head, to demand such obedience on the part of corporate vassals is in a sense sick and scary.

Steele recanted of nothing more than what most discerning people have already thought in the following bit of rhetorical self-denunciation: “We are in the midst of an extremely challenging time...it's more critical than ever that we communicate constructively and thoughtfully.”

Until recently, one would have thought that would have included vocalizing our concerns about governments and behemoth corporations in collusion forcing individuals to alter their very biochemistry ultimately against their will.

By Frederick Meekins

Conservative Protestants & Traditionalist Catholics Find Common Cause In Opposing Statist Tyranny

 

An article published in the April 2012 issue of “In These Times” asks in its title “Will Catholic Bishops Be GOP Pawns?” and warns in the subtitle “The Church and Evangelicals are finding common ground”.

The author suggests that American Catholic leaders ought to concentrate more on promoting the cause of “economic justice” rather than upon so-called cultural issues that have been thrust to the forefront of the American civic dialog over the course of the past several decades dealing with matters such as abortion and homosexuality.

But what the author fails to realize is that, in terms of Christian doctrine, the shared stance between conservative Evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics are more clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture than something more nebulous such as “social or economic justice”.

For example, the Ten Commandments bluntly declare “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Murder is defined as the taking of an innocent human life.

Nefarious factions profiting from the practice, especially if they have seared their own consciences, might insist vociferously otherwise. But abortion is undeniably a form of murder.

Likewise, marriage is clearly defined in the pages of the Bible. The old adage derived from the Genesis account is that God did not make Adam and Steve, He made Adam and Eve.

Those preferring their Biblical exegesis with more of a distinction of solemnity are not left without textual support from the pages of Holy Writ. Mark 10:7-8 extols, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Revelation does not say man and man or wife and wife.

If there are those that prefer living this way that want to go off and shack up together, that raises a whole other interpretative argument as to what good Christians ought to do if anything. However, those deliberately deciding to go off into such sin should not expect religious and social institutions to extend the same degree of cultural blessing as to those entering into sanctified matrimonial partnership. And this applies also to heterosexual couples living together without authorization of either clergy or state.

The issue of so-called economic and social justice is not quite as clear cut. It is pretty obvious whether or not an individual has been murdered and which relationships are not homosexual. However, there are various interpretations as to which policies will be the most effective at ameliorating the suffering of the poor.

It is not so much that American Protestants or Catholics of a more individualist or free market orientation want to increase the misery of the downtrodden or fail to comprehend the suffering that can be inflicted by excessively complicated institutions. It is precisely because religionists of a more distinctively Americanist perspective do understand profoundly threats posed by behemoth bureaucracies that those of such a worldview endeavor to limit power from whatever social sphere such intrusions might originate.

One aphorism, possibly attributable to Rush Limbaugh, posits that it is easy to be charitable with other people's money. While one may earn a good reputation for being concerned for the poor when calling for increased public spending, it isn't really going to crimp the lifestyle of elites calling for it if their taxes are increased should such policy proposals and rhetorical suggestions actually be put into practice.

Most levelheaded people, no doubt even a few American Roman Catholic bishops among them, have a hard time swallowing and complying with these exhortations to give more sacrificially when those higher up the ecclesiastical flow chart can't seem to keep straight the funds on the books of the Institute For The Works Of Religion also commonly referred to as the “Vatican Bank”. It has been argued that over $100 million has been embezzled from or laundered through the institution in a variety of scandals.

So should globalist planners --- both sacred or secular --- be successful in compelling regular people to surrender more of what we own, in all likelihood it will no more go to alleviate the suffering of the downtrodden than it already does.

There are certain universal truths that transcend traditional divisions within the broader Christian faith. Those redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb irrespective of on what side of this divide they stand must prioritize what transgressions of the moral law are more egregious than others.

By Frederick Meekins

Leftwing Religionists Applaud Godless Socialism But Not enough To Surrender Money Making Racket

 

Episode 41 of the Commonweal Magazine podcast addresses the topic of “White Churches & White Supremacy”.

The discussion consists of this leftwing Catholic outfit interviewing Robert P. Jones, a Southern Baptist wracked with White guilt, about his book “White Too Long: The Legacy Of White Supremacy In Christian America".

In the discussion, it is revealed that the title is taken from a quote by writer James Baldwin.

Isn't that itself an act of cultural misappropriation?

If we are to buy into the premise that White Christians are guilty for deeds from the past deemed by Woketopians as racist on the part of organized religion, why shouldn't Baldwin and his contemporary acolytes be held responsible for the bloodshed, death, and destruction of property linked to the socialist ideology of which Baldwin was a proponent?

And if the correspondents at Commonweal and Robert P. Jones want to invoke admiration for James Baldwin in their crusade against “White Christians”, don't they owe it to their readers to explain why they are downplaying or even concealing the ultimate conclusion of Baldwin's ratiocination that the concept of God should be abandoned altogether?

If Christians are to derive their social philosophy from thinkers that deny the existence of God, why are we to side with those advocating revolutionary upheaval over those such as Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman that advocated a more individualistic approach to life?

After all, in a world without God, no set of ideas is ultimately superior to any other.

Could it be that, unlike Baldwin to the acclaim of critics, these propagandists do not have the creative wherewithal to continue their scam without what would be considered a crutch or opiate of the masses if they were being more philosophically honest about the worldview that it is that these alleged intellectuals actually profess?

By Frederick Meekins

Joint Chiefs Chairman Sides With America's Enemies

 

Chairman Of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff General Mark Milley at a congressional hearing likened studying Critical Race Theory to reading works by Marxists such as Lenin and Mao. It is one thing to know your enemy.

It is another to read and assimilate these works as a sycophantic convert as Milley has obviously become.

For if the high ranking Pentagon functionary was the objective strategist he parades himself as before the American people, he would have spent as much time warning about the concrete threat posed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter as he did the amorphous “White rage” he never bothers to define or even accurately describe.

For while he was visibly discombobulated regarding the Capitol Kerfuffle of January 6th, looting and rioting of other people’s property is not that much of a concern to him. It is claimed he verbalized the vilest of profanities (perhaps language he picked up from the leftist theoreticians with whom he seems quite enamored) when a Trump advisor observed that protests had turned American cities into war zones.

Wonder if the General would have been as dismissive if it had been the Pentagon or the officers’ club on the verge of being burned to the ground.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #133

It's been said your first murder is always the hardest. So what is to stop this level of microdictatorship every time there is a flu or disease outbreak?

Does social distancing really prevent disease? Am not really that close to that many other human beings other than immediate family yet in the past still picked up colds and such mostly likely that did not originate with them.

If we are to be subjected to public service announcements urging us not to touch our faces, how about some targeting certain demographics on the importance of wiping their rear ends properly and washing their hands afterwards?

It has been hypothesized that those that do not submit to a future coronavirus vaccine complete with bio-tracking capabilities could be prohibited from travel. But if such a vaccination really does provide immunity for those that take it, what does it matter regarding those that do not?

It has been suggested that even if risk of the Coronavirus subsided to a reasonable level, those over 55 should remain quarantined indefinitely. Will that be a personal choice or imposed by the state under threat of violence which is how any governmental edict or law is ultimately enforced? Will those with elderly in a long term care or even independent living facility be allowed to see them ever again? So would one’s 55th birthday become a ritual like the trip to Carousel in “Logan’s Run” or the episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” where a scientist had to abandon his work that would have saved his planet just because he had reached a certain age?

The remark was made on Fox News that once the initial Coronavirus lock down ends, the elderly should continue their social distancing while the rest of us move on. Wonder how long until this results in the elderly being excluded from society and then eventually eliminated preemptively against their will? The threat of this disease lurking in the background even if no one is actively suffering from it is going to be used to justify all sorts of cultural deprivations and infringements of liberties. Sort of like how those Japanese Americans had to be placed in those facilities for “their own good”. This would also be a good way to get many of the more doctrinally solid churches shuttered as well. Wonder how much property will end up being seized before it’s all over with to finance these Coronavirus relief programs.

Wonder how long, in the name of compassion of course, until the elderly are herded against their will into quarantine colonies where they will never again be allowed to see their loved ones?

So if the New York lock down applies particularly to those with underlying health issues, does that mean they are snooping through the medical files of those detained?

Cuomo says “social distancing is needed EVERYWHERE.” Does that include our bedrooms where it was once insisted what two consenting adults did was their own business?

In regards to the enforcement of social distancing decrees, are we to assume that law enforcement is so superhuman that they can estimate the difference between six feet and 5 feet 10 inches? If this is going to be the racket through which governments finance assorted plague relief efforts, the least that a citizenry subjected to such an intrusive degree of scrutiny deserves is for these assessments to be determined accurately rather than as a result of someone not having gotten their doughnut before hypoglycemia sets in.

Apparently a number of prisons are releasing convicts over fears of the Coronavirus spreading among the inmates and even to the staff. So why would it be acceptable to detain those accused of violating social distancing decrees (at this point can these even be considered actual laws) and possibly even those over 55 now daring to show their unmasked faces in public?

Ironic. The states now inclined to crack down the most vigorously against the Coronavirus in terms of imposing near police state conditions were the most lackadaisical in enforcing immigration laws that could have played a part in curtailing this plague.

It was remarked, “Tim LaHaye made millions of dollars with his 'Left Behind' series and his movies. Personally, I think that it is junk. Can it be explained to me why Tim LaHaye's prophecy works are to be condemned for a more literalistic interpretation of eschatological portions of Scripture yet this same online theologian is noticeably quiet or perhaps even accepting of Pat Robertson's prophetic announcements? Both of these ministers are Premillennial with works published teaching that the Tribulation period is to be understood as foretelling events that will take place. So why is Tim LaHaye to be condemned for having been a workman worthy of his hire? At least unlike Robertson, LaHaye's fortune would have been made for the most part from the actual selling of books and not begging for it through questionable broadcast tactics with those proceeds going in part to pay for race horses and his own private jet and Virginia Beach air landing strip. Unlike Mrs. Robertson, I bet Beverly LaHaye never had to fear being kicked to the curb in favor of a younger replacement had she been stricken with dementia.

As of late, a popular theme among Gospel Coalition type churches is that what we have does not belong to us but rather to God. Technically, that is true. However,, it is hoped that such conceptual repetition will make it easier to manipulate the pewfiller into more pliantly surrendering the targeted financial resources or even acceptance of compulsory income redistribution commonly referred to as increased taxation. But if we are to view ourselves as mere stewards rather than as owners, don’t we have an obligation to look to the needs of our own households just as rigorously so that we won’t be a burden upon God’s people.

In a prayer, a pastor lamented the divisive politics “polarizing our nation at this time.” So just how many more fundamental liberties are we obligated to surrender and compromise? Does the income that should be redistributed also include the accumulated wealth of the church and the pastor’s housing allowance? Or do the higher tax rates to be arrived at in the name of compromise just apply to the dimwitted saps filling the pews? Should the compromises also include the bill like the one being proposed in Virginia where religious schools would not be allowed to fire crossdressers? The pastor lamented that partisan politics is now linked to the message of Christianity. But wasn’t that initially the fault of progressives going out of their way to blatantly curtail the expression of religious liberty and traditional values to the extent that those holding to these could not help but come to the conclusion that the only viable alternative in this country was some degree of participation in the Republican Party?

Jim Bakker hawking 5 gallon survivalist buckets of pinto beans. No wonder some folks need so much toilet paper.

Given that Prince Charles contracted Coronavirus, wonder if his father Prince Phillip remained as keen on the prospect of plagues wiping out vast swaths of humanity.

By Frederick Meekins

Setting Ablaze Paraphernalia Of False Belief Not The Best Outreach Strategy

In a video posted on Facebook, a legalistic evangelist set a flame of a pair of Mormon ceremonial undergarments. The evangelist claimed that the action was Biblically justified.

Acts 19:18-20 reads, “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.... In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.”

From the text, readers can deduce a couple of things. To set down such a decree regarding such requires the believer to look at both the context and content of the passage. Only then can a more definitive policy be put in place.

Because of this account, those figuratively on fire for God insist taking the flame to any doctrinally dubious object is not only permissible under Scripture but actually required.

These items were not snatched by authorities out of the hands of those wanting to keep them.

Rather, it is emphasized that those bringing the occultic works forward for destruction were those once owning them that no longer wanted this dark influence in their lives.

Furthermore, what we see in the passage of Acts is an historical account of how a specific set of believers decided to implement a particular set of Christian principles.

Though in particular circumstances their example would be a noble one to emulate, the account is not presented as that of a command that must be adhered to in every circumstance where the Christian finds himself confronted by religious paraphernalia with which they are at doctrinal odds.

For others, it may simply be enough to dispose of the object if they are its owner without raising considerable hoopla or fanfare.

It is usually admonished that Christians hold to the principle that Paul is to serve as the Christian's example in terms of ministry. As such, though the customs and traditions of unbelievers troubled him, it is debatable whether or not he would be that deliberately abrasive in attempting to persuade in regards to matters of error and truth.

The approach used by Paul in dealing with competing belief systems is found in Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, the Apostle is disturbed by the amount of idolatry he sees around him in the city of Athens.

To confront this distressing situation, Paul sets out to present the saving knowledge of Christ in those places in the foremost city of the Western world whose very name is synonymous with discussion and argumentation. In verse 17, we learn that Paul did not shy away from controversy as he took the Gospel into the very hearts of Mediterranean cultural life such as the synagogues, marketplaces, and forums.

We are not privileged to have a comprehensive transcript of the exact dialog that took places in those learned circles. However, we are given a summary with quotes of what Paul talked about and the response of the Athenians to it.

Upon hearing Paul's message, a number of Epicureans and Stoics inquired, “What is this babbler trying to say?... He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” Scripture then clarifies, “They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.”

From what the Holy Spirit decided to preserve of that encounter in the pages of redemptive history, one does not get the impression that all that much time was spent criticizing (at least in a condescending way) the shortcomings of Greco-Roman mythology. Instead, the Apostle to the Gentiles emphasized the distinctive particulars of the Christian faith.

However, Paul's homiletical approach did not avoid the beliefs he hoped to persuade as to the error and insufficiency of. If anything, Paul actually utilized aspects of Classical thought to show how all truths that humans might deduce or stumble upon are ultimately God's truths.

One might dispute this from the way in which Paul began his oration before the learned gathered on the Aereopagus. Paul pronounces in Acts 17:22, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.”

From where we stand along history's unfolding drama, both the triumph of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Scientific Revolution are behind us in terms of being events that have forever altered the way entire civilizations perceive reality.

As such, to our ears, to be labeled “too superstitious” sounds almost like an insult. However, a number of other versions translate the text as Paul commenting on the religious nature of the Athenian intellectual class. Irrespective of where numerous exegetes come down on this interpretative issue, from that point forward there is virtually no debate as to the approach Paul takes.

Those whose missiological approach consists of literally setting ablaze whatever paraphernalia offends their religious sensibilities would have had Paul rip to shreds the inconsistencies and shortcomings inherent to paganism in general and polytheism in particular. There is certainly Biblical precedent for such a strategy where, in Romans 1, Paul holds nothing back regarding how forsaking worship of the one true God to worship nature rather than nature's Creator leads to the most pronounced of carnal sins.

Yet in Acts 17, the Apostle shows that the message can be tailored to fit the nature of the audience addressed. Paul went about this by pointing out the commonalities between Biblical beliefs and Greek philosophy. In terms of apologetics, this phenomena is known as a point of contact.

Paul shares in Acts 17:23, “For as I passed by ... I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown God'. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” From that point, Paul proceeded to point out other commonalities between Judeo-Christian and Greek thought.

In verse 26, Paul declares, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation...:” He emphasized that this simply wasn't the ramblings of a crazed Hebrew babbler Rather, as we are told in verse 28, “For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'.”

As such, in his conclusion Paul does not ridicule the Greeks into capitulation and compliance. Instead Paul commends what the Greeks got right in their philosophy as a reflection of the law written across the heart as spelled out in Romans 2 as to what the Greeks ought to set aside of their pre-Christian thought as they come to Jesus in repentance.

The act of setting ablaze the revered and venerated object of a faith outside the parameters of Biblical Christianity is without question a very provocative act. Even if one opposes the faith, worldview, or creed that the object represents, only the most fanatic would fail or refuse to admit how such a deed does more to alienate rather than woo those one is taking such a course of action to gain the attention of.

For example, it is doubtful many Christians are convinced to the alleged doctrinal error within their own positions of faith when ACLU lawyers descend upon nativities across America and abscond with the ceramic baby Jesus.

Often many a Scripture verse is invoked to justify all kinds of shocking actions.

For once, it would be edifying to hear a minister of solid reputation to go out on a limb emphasizing those passages extolling individual conscience and determining for oneself those things not quite so clearly spelled out in stone.

By Frederick Meekins

Dogmatic Pluralism Results In Operational Intolerance

An old adage contends that it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Something quite similar could be said regarding living by the “live and let live” philosophy espoused by many early twenty-first century relativists thinking they are too cool and hip to be stifled by any one religious creed.

In a letter to the editor regarding an 4/27/2010 USA Today article analyzing the tendency of young adults not to be devoted to a particular faith, a respondent observed this trend is the result of being more educated than previous generations and “exposed to the realities of life in the twenty-first century.”

But rather than thinking for themselves, what may be taking place among the youth such as the letter's author is their indoctrination or brainwashing by those educators the young are spending record time around.

The correspondents on this topic claim to applaud and embrace an iconoclastic eclecticism. But in reality such souls do little more than parrot the notions expounded upon and bandied about the typical college lecture hall.

The author writes, “Who seriously believes that an infinite God, who created the vast complexities of the cosmos, can be understood by finite humanity, let alone be reduced to a statement of faith that's subject to the limits of human understanding?”

Some of humanity's greatest minds actually. It's actually a concept not all that difficult to get one's mind around.

The assumption that finite man cannot fully comprehend an infinite God is (to use a much maligned term) absolutely correct. Isaiah 55:8-9 says God's thoughts are not our thoughts.

However, though we cannot fully know God, it does not follow that God cannot fully know man. Since the infinite is beyond the finite, it is not beyond the realm of the possible for the infinite to reveal of itself what it knows the finite is capable of comprehending of that which is beyond our meager understanding.

In the New Testament, God's only Begotten Son Jesus Christ took on human form by being born of a virgin so that He might dwell among us, die upon a cross for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life if we admit that we are sinners and accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation. In essence, God condescended to our level so that we might know Him.

When asked why evolution caught on as a theory of origins among the intelligentsia, a popular anecdote posits that Julian Huxley responded that Darwinism supported the sexual morays of that particular social class. Thus, all the grandiose proclamations against the dogmatism of the Almighty and the seeming existential nobility of the libertines ends up being a cover to sleep with whomever you want with the hopes of no regret the next morning.

One of the letters to the editor reads, “Beyond that is the nasty habit of many Christian fundamentalists to deny basic human rights to those who don't agree with them theologically.”

And what “basic human rights” might those be? Just about nowhere in the United States are “fundamentalist” Christians denying anyone the traditional rights such as freedoms of speech, creed or property where an ACLU media whore is not before a network news camera within a hour of such an alleged transgression transpiring.

When articulated by a progressive, the phrase “Fundamentalist Christians denying basic human rights” is actually a euphemism for daring to stand in disagreement of the trend towards sodomite matrimony or refusing to enforce preferences for certain groups simply because they are favored minorities. If anything, Christian “fundamentalists” are the ones having their “basic rights” curtailed and infringed upon here at home in America and most certainly around the world.

One cannot name a single regime around the world today where the rulers hold to an explicit traditionalist Christianity that abuses its power by persecuting its population. If anything, Christians unwilling to give up and compromise these truths that they hold dear by refusing to participate in the rejection of moral absolutes are more likely to be the ones persecuted (ironically by the ones that whine the loudest about the church's curtailment of postmodernist understandings of human liberation.

For examples, secularists and radical ecumenicalists applauded the decision on the part of the Department of Defense to disinvite Franklin Graham to the Pentagon's commemoration of the National Day of Prayer over his comments that Islam is an evil and wicked religion as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks and the treatment of woman in lands where that creed prevails.

For you see. Franklin Graham made the mistake of concluding that the First Amendment is something to live by rather than a abstraction to talk about in vague generalities. As Chesterton is credited with saying, the problem with the freedom of religion is that people end up discussing everything but religion.

It is of this fear of appearing impolite and offensively stepping on someone's toes in a manner that delicate psyches will never recover from that our society has come to such a screeching halt that it can become an act of considerable courage to simply state the obvious. And this is something the enemies of this great nation have learned readily.

For example, Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, in a 5/10/10 USA Today column titled “Graham's Anti-Mulsim Jabs Hurt Islam and America” applauded CAIR's public statement emphasizing the American value of “differing faiths united in shared support of our nation's founding principles” rather than the “message of intolerance that Graham advocates.”

But while CAIR puts forward a public face espousing tolerance and cooperation, the groups and individuals the organization supports behind the scenes advocate something else entirely. For example, CAIR has supported Islamic extremists such as Hamas who not only advocate a form of religious exclusiveness that goes far beyond anything advocated by Franklin Graham but also endorse violence against those with whom they disagree.

An old country song admonishes that you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Should Americans continue down the path imposed by cultural agnosticism, the result will not be a relaxed, easygoing paradise. Rather, the result will be the establishment of a sociopolitical milieu where the deceptive will manipulate the weak to undermine the liberty of all Americans.

By Frederick Meekins

Russell Moore's Tirade Targets Wrong Youth

 In an episode of his podcast, Russell Moore interviewed Senator Ben Sasse regarding how perpetual adolescence hurts the church.

One might immediately snap what's so wrong with that?

Nothing if by that one is referring to 25 year olds still on their parents' health insurance as authorized under Obamacare or having never worked a day in their lives by the same age.

However, that is apparently not what this phrase is referring to when articulated by certain professional religionists.

Moore states in the opening of his remarks that, no matter how hard his 16 year old lads work in their grocery store jobs, it is nothing in comparison to Sasse's own sons bailing hay and birthing cattle.

But doesn't Moore rank among this contemporary breed of Evangelical that condemns those that would retreat from concentrated areas of population, no doubt going so far as to call “racist” Whites preferring a more reclusive and less urban lifestyle?

Often what these religionists mean when they complain about “perpetual adolescence” is not being married off by the age of 23.

Perhaps Moore and Sasse's time would have been better spent condemning the perpetual welfare recipients that can't seem to keep their pants on and their legs together in terms of an unending litany of out of wedlock offspring where as in the case of potato chips many can't seem to stop at just one.

By Frederick Meekins

Democrats In Uproar Over Rightwing Conspiracy Theories No Issue With Leftist Tyranny

 

Representative Marjory Greene has been removed from her committee assignments in the House of Representatives not so much for anything that she has done but rather because of what she believed.

It was claimed that the so-called conspiracy theories she is accused of professing cannot be countenanced because of the “festering malignancy” of such ideas. Nothing similar was done to punish Raphael Warnock for questionable notions the pastor has peddled or lent support to over the years of his ministry.

For example, Warnock has downplayed the atrocities of Fidel Castro, calling the Cuban dictator’s legacy complex.

Yet it’s doubtful the Georgia radical would be that judicious in his assessment of the Trump presidency despite the administration having a significantly smaller body count in terms of citizens eliminated for merely expressing an ideology at variance with that preferred by regime functionaries.

Warnack is a bit more explicit in his admiration of the late theologian James Cone, whom Warack describes as his mentor and whom Warack eulogized at his funeral.

For those not as familiar with James Cone as they might be Fidel Castro, Cone is renowned as the developer of Black Liberation theology.

As part of that interpretative school of thought, Cone equates Whites or “Whiteness” with Satan and/or the Antichrist.

His acolytes will quibble that “Whiteness” is more about the way in which such people act rather than the people themselves.

Would a renowned theologian of the contemporary era be allowed to equate “Jewishness” or better yet “Blackishness” with the most vile works of evil and be permitted to retain their endowed chair or posh ministry position?

More importantly, if the Biden Autarchy and the regime’s legislative allies in the People’s Assembly (also known as Congress in times before the assent of one party rule seemingly intent on squelching as much dissent as possible) say nothing in condemnation it must likely mean that these powerful institutions support these forms of tyranny and oppression perceived as originating from the left side of the political spectrum.

By Frederick Meekins

Collectivist Utopians Won't Stop With Social Media Suppression

 Utopians, especially of the revolutionary variety, are never satisfied.

That is an undeniable truth of history.

One only needs to read an account of Jacobin France, Nazi Germany, Bolshevist Russia, or Maoist China to draw such a conclusion.

In the future, one must ask, will Biden's America be added to that infamous list?

It has been pointed out that one does not have an inherent constitutional right to social media.

Since those are private corporations viewed as individuals in the eyes of the law, to compel such would be to infringe upon its rights in a coercive manner.

Perhaps fair enough.

But it must be asked will the matter stop there in regards to those commodities or services that don't quite rise to the level of government but without which the individual's quality of life is profoundly hampered?

For example, most electricity is provided through what is ultimately private enterprise.

So what if in the future an electric company does not like how its commodity is being utilized in pursuit of a perfectly legal but ideologically unacceptable values or agendas such as to light a church opposed to homosexual marriage marriage or that professed the belief in Christ alone is the only path to obtain a beatific afterlife?

In the future, sophisticated computers and Artificial Intelligence will play a role in the way in which personal vehicles are piloted.

Should individuals known to express or even be suspected of harboring certain opinions have their ignition systems shut down entirely so as to inhibit their ability to travel in a manner not unlike the interlock system imposed upon drunk drivers?

Don't laugh.

It has already been proposed that those at the Capitol Kerfuffle should be placed on the don't fly list without even having been convicted of a crime.

And who before this time thought steps would be taken to silence former presidents and seated senators who did not actually call for violence but rather whose words were not those preferred by the gatekeepers of the means of communication?

By Frederick Meekins

For What Other Reasons Can Civil Society Be Suspended?

 

Across America, governments are invoking the power to essentially suspend civil society when hospitals are occupied at a predetermined numerical threshold.

So why does the same sort of emergency intervention not apply in other situations where human life is at stake?

For example, if there are a certain number of auto accidents for a particular period should most forms of vehicular travel be suspended for a spell?

Likewise, if the number of heart attacks and incidents of cardiac disease rise above a certain percentage in a jurisdiction, should most of the fast food establishments --- especially Starbucks --- in a given area be closed and supermarkets allowed only to sell an assortment of rudimentary vegetables?

If a particular number of domestic abuse incidents occurs, should liquor stores be closed until such an epidemic is gotten under control?

And if a state's adolescent obesity rates rise above a certain level, should Internet and smarthphone access be switched off in order to get the youth probably spending a considerable amount of time on these devices active outdoors?

By Frederick Meekins

Medical Profession Needs To Stay In Its Designated Lane

 

A meme of a women on a stretcher being put into an ambulance “Are You Taking Me To The Hospital?” “No ma'am. You need top medical experts. We're taking you to the comments section”.

But neither should these "experts" be allowed to run roughshod over the rights of individuals.

Also, if the non-medical laymen is to refrain from remarking on medical technicalities, how about medical professionals refrain from upending and destroying an entire social order in the name of a pestilence that while serious is likely not as deadly as propagandists have duped many into believing?

When we are told to "follow the science", what we are also being given is an overwhelming dose of philosophy and policy prescription as well.

Maybe a growing number would not be as leery of medical professionals if the rules were not changed midstream like those scenes in the Hunger Games when it appeared the characters were beginning to get the upper hand.

Might also help if those threatening harsh penalties for disobeying the rules also abided by them with their lives and livelihoods brought to the brink of destruction like nearly everybody else.

by Frederick Meekins

Have Yourself A Coronavirus Christmas

 

In “The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis, one of the hardships Narnia suffers under is that it is always winter but never Christmas. Imposed upon the realm by the White Witch, the plot point serves as a powerful symbol of the extent to which despots are willing to suppress the basic joys of existence for the purposes of advancing their own agendas at the expense of those that they conspire to rule over.

For decades now, secularists along with those thinking they know how to organize the details of your life better than you do have conspired to impose any number of policies intended to disabuse the American people of their Christmas habits and more importantly the religious source from which such traditions stem. Fortunately, the nation has yet to fully yield to this particular assault against their liberties and most have at least been alerted regarding this threat arrayed against our own underlying Western culture.

Unfortunately, the agents of tyranny are seldom discouraged. Such operatives are always eager to try new strategies in the attempt to achieve their nefarious objectives.

Often the issue and policies are formulated in the following manner. A government authority forbids the erection of Christmas decorations or the holding of a holiday celebration on public property. But take heart, the discouraged yuletide reveler is admonished, you are perfectly free to commemorate these holidays in any way that you desire in the confines of your own home with whomever it is that you please.

However, now with the Conornavirus Plague, there exists a pretext by which thoroughgoing statists are unabashed regarding the extent to which assorted government bureaucrats and agencies intend to intrude into the lives of average Americans to an even more unprecedented level.

For example, a number of jurisdictions have decreed the number of visitors that that will be allowed into your home, often limiting the number to ten guests. And what if you allow eleven to fourteen; does it somehow though off the occultc numerology or Masonic geometry?

If that means cutting off family members from the family during Thanksgiving or Christmas, then so be it. In the opening days of the New World Order or what is being called “The Great Reset”, the primary disease to be eradicated is not so much a virulent microorganism but rather the notion that you as a free individual should be able to decide for yourself the risks one is willing to take in a world fraught with any number of dangers.

Like the giddy urchins depicted in propaganda posters erected by dictatorships spanning the ideological spectrum, your joy is no longer to be derived from traditional notions of family or even personal relationships. Rather that satisfaction is to be derived from knowledge of your dutiful obedience to the regime even if that means those small pleasures that gave life much of its meaning are obliterated in pursuit of collectivist goals and agendas. After all, to paraphrase the motto of the Psi Corps from the drama “Babylon 5”, “The State is Mother. The State is Father.”

Just as bad and perhaps even worse than the state telling you how many may enter into your domicile is its functionaries telling you which otherwise perfectly legal activities you may or may not engage in while ensconced within the four walls for which you will no doubt be required to pay increasingly crippling taxes on in the years to come in order to finance economic amelioration efforts to address conditions imposed by the state to not only address the virus but also manipulate the masses into embracing extensive authoritarian intrusion into their lives.

For example, the state of California views itself as so all-pervasive that, in an act of beneficence, permission has been granted for the occupants of structures (for at this point of existential regulation can one really be considered a “home owner” any longer) and their permitted guests to engage in the basic excretory functions in the confines of the domicile's designated facilities.

In a number of microtyrannies (a phenomena I foretold the pending of over a decade ago), the assembled are forbidden from singing or chanting. But it must be asked if the phrases articulated include “Black Lives Matter” or “This is what democracy looks like” (which apparently consists now of riotous mobs looting in the streets or assorted state functionaries imposing an increasing array of arbitrary restrictions in no way authorized by legislative law) does the edict still apply? After all, one of the main lesson learned in 2020 is that the rules promulgated by the technocratic elites do not have to be obeyed when countermanding them in violent protest advances the revolutionary conception of social justice advocated by the aspiring planetary administrators.

In the attempt to make these deprivations and impositions supposedly easier to bear, propaganda disseminated through various venues assures that “We are all in this together.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For example, throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, the rallies at which Trump devotees gathered to bask in their candidates stream of consciousness orations were condemned as “super spreader events” by the most thoroughgoing adherents of Harris/Bidenism. Yet as soon as the establishment media declared victory for the Democratic ticket, these partisans and their affiliated masses swarmed into the streets ignoring most CDC decrees that have been invoked for months to keep you away from cherished loved ones, recreational pursuits, and houses of worship and are still in place to prevent you from enjoying the simple pleasures of life most fully. Perennial media whore Charles Schummer was caught with his mask down until he realized a video camera was focused on his shenanigans.

In Washington DC, residents are discouraged from traveling outside the boundaries of the federal city and those coming into the district from jurisdictions characterized by high rates of Plague are threatened with demands to quarantine. Yet Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to Biden's victory announcement in Wilmington, Delaware. This mere municipal functionary insisted such a pilgrimage was essential even though the office she holds is so insignificant that government there would probably operate more efficiently if it didn't even exist in the first place.

Relatedly, Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago invoked what listeners of “The Sean Hannity Program” might recall as the Ariana Huffington Doctrine when that perennial airhead responded as to why she was riding around in private jets when the average American was obligated to flagellate themselves over their own use of automobiles and fossil fuels in that these aircraft were going there anyway. In a voice significantly less sultry than that of the flip-flopping Grecian pundit, Lightfoot excused her own frolicking amongst the Biden throng conspicuously failing to socially distance in that these celebrations would have taken place whether or not she participated. Mind you, Lightfoot's contempt for the Almighty runs so deep that in the name of the Coronavirus dictatorship that she blocked access to church buildings and threatened to tow the vehicles of assembled parishoners.

Throughout nearly every level of government across America, pronouncements have been issued threatening punishment ranging from punitive fines to outright jail time for citizens daring to decide for themselves what otherwise perfectly legal and inherently moral activities can take place in their own homes. Yet when the elected officials that ironically rank among the most strident in insisting upon unwavering obedience within their respective police state fiefdoms are caught violating their own restrictions, the errant such as California Governor Gavin Newson seem to think a rendition of Brenda Lee's “I'm Sorry” with Covid-specific lyrics ought to be enough.

See if the articulation of such formulations of contriteness prove sufficient when law enforcement operatives are beating down your door to enforce edicts that technically don't even arise to the procedural specifics of law. These statements on the part of governors such as Gavin Newsom insinuate that the vanguards of the proletariat such as himself should be showered with celebratory gratitude for providing an incarnate example of exactly how we ought not to do in furtherance of the grand experiment of transformative revolution we now find ourselves thrust into.

This holiday season your once-vibrant elderly loved ones will slip deeper into cognitive twilight locked away in their once mentally stimulating assisted living communities now likely not much different than a cross between a prison and a loony bin. Remember that as the governors yuck it up Etruscan vomitorium style ironically maskless and shoulder to shoulder in violation of social distancing decrees with the very hierarchs of the medical establishment bent on turning the nation into a pharmaceutical police state.

By Frederick Meekins

If Vaccine As Effective As Propaganda Claims, Why Will You Need Booster?

The American people are constantly reminded by news propaganda that the nation is on the cusp of being extended the beneficence of the Coronoavirus vaccine by the technocrats that seemingly grant us permission to exist.

And now, by the way, it has been admitted that this might not be a one time deal. Those wishing to comply with the increasingly dictatorial mandates imposed upon them by their overlords might have to get a booster inoculation sometime down the road. This raises a serious question.

Much of what we have been forced to endure for nearly a year and in the months to come has been justified in the name of a looming “herd immunity”.

If that is achieved, theoretically months or years could pass with almost no one suffering from the affliction.

Thus, if the virus allegedly can only survive for a few hours on a surface, how would it be reintroduced to the human population having gone so long without opportunistic hosts other than through a deliberate release on par with an orchestrated biological attack?

By Frederick Meekins

Biden Deserves No Reprieve From Trump Social Media Offensive

 

If Trump is compelled by election results to relinquish the Oval Office, the moment he steps out of the White House he should commence tweeting and podcasting in opposition to the shortcomings of the looming Biden regime.

For there will no doubt be many.

There should be none of this “a former President remains quiet for a year” hooey.

That is nowhere required by the Constitution.

It is a mere tradition.

The Democrats are the ones that have been threatening to undo any number of traditions in what will amount to little more than a third Obama term.

For whom do you think it will be guiding a President that most days couldn’t make it from the basement up the stairs into the living room?

Do those respecting tradition conspire to pack the Supreme Court or abolish the Electoral College?

Inflicting those changes upon the nation would do more to upend America’s precarious political balance than an once-elected official returning to the status of private citizen speaking his mind ever could.

By Frederick Meekins

To What Extent Compromise?

 

One must sympathize with musician Jason Aldean for having endured one of the most horrifying sort of events imaginable in the form of the mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas on 10/1/17 during his performance at a music festival in which sixty were killed and over 400 wounded.

However, the solution he offered itself could potentially generate its own set of nightmares.

The performer lamented, “At the end of the day, we aren't Democrats or Republicans, Black or White. We are all human beings and we are Americans and it's time to start acting like it and stand together as one.”

On the surface that sounds all well and good.

But whose opinion is going to prevail when it comes to differences on profound moral and policy issues? Just what exactly is there left to compromise?

For the sake of this idealized unity, is Aldean going to surrender his no doubt significant bank account when socialists of the Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders variety in the name of economic equality?

Just how far are we to compromise for the sake of unity and oneness when the adherents of Sharia law demand displays of temptation such as concerts from which Aldean has derived his livelihood and notoriety be abolished?

At one time, such dichotomies seemed abstract and highly unlikely.

However, the question of just how far you are willing to compromise becomes shockingly relevant amidst the tyranny of cancel culture and mobs pillaging supposedly in the name of an amorphous justice the terms of which never seem to be defined.

by Frederick Meekins