Templar Redux?

After reading Anders Behring Breivik's (the villain responsible for the recent massacre in Norway) so called "manifesto," Breivik and his manifesto both seem more like an extreme covert leftist trick than a document undergirding a legitimate terrorist movement. If these new "Templars" are real, their motivation is materialist and, therefore, Christian in name only.

What makes the document suspect in my eyes, is the presence of legitimate information on the destructive nature of Cultural Marxism. The document begins with Breivik admonishing his fellows to edit; add to; and freely and widely distribute his “manifesto”.

The introduction titled: “What is 'Political Correctness'?" and the following segment: “How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism” are frankly spot on. Breivik’s abbreviated history of Marxism, both economic and cultural, is very accurate, and not a little bit frightening, as what it lays out is very obviously true if you are a clear eyed observer of cultural indicators.

It is also the sort of thing a leftist would leave in so once theses Neo-Templars begin their Manchurian Candidate like attacks on defenseless targets, like the cowardly attack on the Norwegian children’s camp, the truth in the document can later be dismissed as the musings of madmen and therefore rendered forever illegitimate arguments when engaged in debate with true cultural Marxists.

The document does not give a good reason for slaughtering children in an effort to reverse the harm done by leftist radicals who have been all too successful with their experiments in social engineering. It has all the earmarks of leftists propagating the myth that conservatives are as dangerous as radical Islam and if you can tie in Christianity through associating these evil men with the Crusades, by calling themselves ‘Templars', all the better.

That was me wearing my tinfoil headgear. Let us now address the more probable, yet equally distressing actuality of what is laid out in the manifesto.

It would not surprise me if these “Neo-Templars” are indeed a legitimate movement. But let’s be clear, this is not a Christian movement. The original Templars were founded after the first Crusade and their primary function was to protect the world’s Christian pilgrims as they visited the Holy Land after Jerusalem had been liberated from Islamic invasion.

The “manifesto” gives the origin of the Neo-Templars and talks of the movements anonymous founders even mentioning their spiritual affiliations, a number of whom adopt the dubious classifications “Christian Atheist and Christian Agnostic.

Through the manifesto we learn that:

“Choosing the path of the Justiciar Knight is to walk the path in pursuit of becoming “The Perfect Knight”. Any candidate prepared to walk this road must be willing to forfeit his materialistic ambitions and embrace voluntary poverty and martyrdom.”

Very noble sounding! And not at all dissimilar to an Islamic Jihadi pledge. The Neo-Templars forfeit their materialism to fight for European materialism. Make no  mistake, God is an afterthought to these people, thrown in for the sole purpose of adding legitimacy to their claims of being modern Templars.
As Breivik rightfully points out, in his history of the original Justiciar Knights, the Templars sacrificed to “lay up treasure in Heaven” by protecting Christians from being killed by Muslims while on pilgrimage, which is exemplified by the Scripture verse:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

The Neo-Templars express the following as their guiding principles: “to protect the interests of all free, indigenous Europeans, European cultures and Christendom in general through armed struggle.”  Clearly, the Neo-Templar’s first priority is protecting the material interests of Europeans, this is often the case with irreligious conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic.

If they meant anything other than the material well being of Europe, they would not have found it necessary to list protecting the cultures second and Christendom last. No true Christian ever puts Christ last in any list of motivators.

Equally explicit is that they are not truly interested in protecting the interests of “ALL”  free indigenous Europeans. As displayed by Brevik’s willingness to take the lives of some 90 indigenous European people, no small number being children. In America at least, a Conservative’s primary material interest is life and it is the first of the unalienable rights mentioned in our Constitution as being endowed by God.

Nevertheless, the description of the the Neo-Templar movement goes on aping Islamic extremist rhetoric:

“The Order and Tribunal has concluded that any and all Europeans have not just a right, but a duty to resist through political and military means; cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and crimes committed against the indigenous peoples of Europe.”

You resist by launching your own atrocities? This sounds more akin to what is taught in the Qur’an:

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” Surah 4:95

In the Holy Bible there are no similar instructions calling Christians to fight. The manifesto continues:

“As such, any European Christian conservative can act as a Justiciar Knight. This includes Christian agnostics and Christian atheists. Although the
PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist.”

Statements like the last few, reveal the utter lack of a Christian spiritual component to the Neo-Templar movement.  However, there is a spirit driving these ersatz Templars--it just isn’t from God. The Holy Bible defines what a Christian is and is not, any other definition is human in origin and, therefore, temporal not spiritual.

One cannot be a Christian Atheist or Christian Agnostic. Nor can one be a Christian and join an organization that sanctions the actions of Breivik.

The Apostle in Romans 3:8 categorically, absolutely denies the lawfulness of doing evil, any evil, expecting that good can result from it, anyone making such claims in their actions can expect only damnation.

“And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”

These Neo-Templars make quick shrift of their ignorance of Christianity if they truly hold to what Breivik reveals in his manifesto. When they speak of Christian Atheists and Agnostics, I can only imagine that they mean secular individuals who cannot deny the practical nature of advancing the Christian ethos in an orderly society even while denying the God who inspired that ethos. Anything else would be by any interpretation patently absurd.

As Romans chapter three continues, in verses 12-16 we find an apt portrait of those who would act as Brevik acted:

“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways:” 

If this is not a leftist plot to make conservatism and Christianity look bad, then it is likely the result of, as I mentioned in my article, “Bondage of Corruption Pt. 2: American Taliban”, a case of co-opting terms.

In that  article I explain that ideas and groups like the Knights Templar can : “...manifest quite often in a twisting of terms and words. Shallow thinking coupled with what often seems disdain for the true meaning of words (or the true function of a historical group) gives rise to malformed concepts.”

Breivik and those who identify with him in co-opting the Knights Templar, in modern times, are the dangerous exemplars of a younger generation completely indifferent to the realities of what they emulate or celebrate. I am reminded of the young guys who don Guy Fawkes masks because they liked the “V for Vendetta” comic book or movie--adopting Guy Fawkes as the symbol of rebellion.

In reality, Fawkes and his confederates were tools of the Catholic Church and terrorists who plotted to kill hundreds of people (by blowing up Parliament in full session) to kill King James the I, because they opposed his making Holy Scripture available to the masses and his Protestant resistance to the papacy.

Fawkes was the ultimate manifestation of oppression and establishmentarianism.

Or leftist kids who revere Che Guevara even though he was a murderer who essentially opposed everything they love. If Che and his form of economic Marxism had prevailed, they would not have there much beloved iPods and Wii game systems.

I have received friend requests on Facebook from a great many young folks, mostly Europeans that have as their profile picture some iteration of the Crusader’s cross in the past few weeks.  It is my sincere prayer that these young folks are not aligned with Breivik’s ideology. If they are I would ask them to consider this:

The Hospitallers, the Templars and all the other Crusaders did not take vows to stay at home to kill their fellows who disagreed with their ideas of what Europe ought to be, that was not their idea of fighting for their fellow Europeans rights, culture and Christendom. They didn’t dress like trusted policemen only to open fire on defenseless children. Instead, these crusaders took the fight to the attacking enemies face wearing the cross proudly!

If you want to fight and you are in a country that is actively involved in the War on Terrorism join the military and fight. If you are a veteran, re-up! If you are in a country not actively engaged, act towards getting your government involved.

And for God’s sake, leave Christ out of this sort of foolishness. He is big enough and God enough to deal with evil on His own terms. That is what real Christian faith demands. This does not mean you cannot defend yourself when attacked, or oppose evil when need be, but you have to know that God wants you to leave children at camp having innocent fun alone.

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19

Digital Publius

A Gentle Reminder To The Obama Voter

We told you so!

How now progressives? What means that sickly pallor overwhelming your once hearty and vital visages? I miss that glazed over luster in your eyes!  Where you once stood so resolutely confident in “Change” – you Hollywooders, you leftist tycoons, now you  waiver. Do you now find your “Hope” kinked?

In truth, it was always so. All your "Hope and Change" hinged on flawed premises and false paradigms. What we on the right knew all along, you are just now beginning to realize, which is that ideology can oft times diverge sharply from stark reality.

President Obama is a hardcore liberal ideologue - and that’s all. Ideology is the sum of his Presidential being. That too has always been so! It was so when he was a community organizer; when he was a Senator on the national and state levels and when he campaigned for the office he now inhabits.

Why liberals felt the junior Senator from Illinois would make a competent Commander-in-Chief, administrator and statesman given a far left background completely bereft of commensurate experience remains God’s own mystery.

Yet, here we are! And while here we are seeing the sort of damage that can be done in a very short amount of time when competence is not considered whilst making enormous decisions like who will helm the ship of state. As a passenger on that proverbial ship, I find the naked sentimentality that led to your choice of a novice captain himself guided by foggy idealism, a poor substitute for accurate charts and a clear sky.

So, it is no small wonder that we now find ourselves dangerously off course in exceedingly dangerous waters.

Just shy of two years ago, I wrote an article wherein I expounded upon a narrative popular at the time, fueled by no less than an ex-president that anyone critical of President Obama’s policies was a plain dealing bigot. In lieu of this liberal fallacy becoming a tenet amongst more rabid Obama sycophants, I coined a new eponymous law.

 Beside Murphy’s Law, Occam’s Razor and Asimov’s Laws of Robotics I placed:

"The Obama Principle: Opposition to the policies of an African American president exists by virtue of him being an African American president."

My eponymous law may prove to lack the staying power of its aforementioned illustrious comrades. It seems that once people actually had to live with some of the President’s policies it has become okay to question the wisdom of Mr. Obama and his half-baked machinations. The actualized ones as well as the ones he proposes.

The irrational opinions the President uses to frame his political arguments have suddenly ceased to be rallying cries and have become the subject of sharp rebuke from people you would not expect, people who were, at least on the surface, supporters of Mr. Obama.

A few years ago, early Barack Obama enthusiast and supporter Warren Buffett, with blind adulation for the fresh faced candidate from Illinois, (once it was clear that Hillary was not a fait accompli) announced:



"I will be very happy if he is elected president.” 



Buffett’s comment prompted Leftist bloggers to fire off postings with titles like:



“Here's Why Warren Buffett Endorsed Obama Today: McCain Failed to Get 'Lobotomy'”

By March of 2009 things had begun to appear shaky in light of the President’s economic remedies’ lack of...Clarity. The President granted an interview to 60 Minutes where he was asked:

"Your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response,"

Kroft said to Obama.

"A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your..."

The President interrupted:

"And Warren still does support me," Obama interjected. "But I think that, understand, Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank."

Quite so! A reality that Mr. Buffett himself was beginning to remember once the dew of Obama madness began to evaporate. Nevertheless Buffett continued his role as Starbuck to Obama’s Ahab and toed the ideological line. Buffett stated in an interview on CNBC around the same time:
"I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy,"

This, even though the President had yet to offer any proof that would bolster such confidence and optimism.

Where once liberal Obama stooges immune to all semblance of reason held dogmatically to the unspoken creed that no one ought to find fault in Mr. Obama, it seems he is now becoming fair game.

Warren buffett offered a stern lesson in the idiocy of Mr. Obama’s class warfare inducing rhetoric, when he explained the economics of corporate jets and their owners Which Obama had earlier ridiculed. He completely laid open Obama’s ignorance in regards to the provisions, Mr. Obama's own stimulus plan allowed corporate assets like the much-maligned jets.



This should come as no surprise to thinking people. As a hardcore liberal ideologue, who has not produced a thing himself, the President had nothing to do with the production of the stimulus plan-- Other than desiring of course that it be a bill that would induce more Federal spending. Thus, he fell into his default mode and attacked the rich through his ill-informed  corporate jet demagoguery. He didn't know about the Corporate asset write offs in the stimulus.

The Berkshire Hathaway head honcho is not the only Obama loyalist now at least entertaining the idea the President may be well and truly insensible to economic actualities. In light of Mr. Obama’s equally careless remarks eschewing Las Vegas tourism, we find erstwhile Democrat and Obama supporter Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts veritably frothing at the mouth as he laments this Administrations mishandling of the economy, fostering a business hostile environment, paralyzing the private sector.



Wynn passionately intoned:

“I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States."

Wynn continued:

“And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime.”



Even Rap Mogul Jay Z, when asked his opinion on the criticism aimed at the President recently had to admit:

 “He's the president, it's fair.”



This is the same Jay Z, who in an interview a year and a half ago said:



“I believe the same thing about Barack that I believed at day one. What he represents is bigger than any political agenda that he can pass across the House, Senate or whatever. I think that right now he's going through a difficult period because people are putting the last eight years on his table and they're judging him by it. You can't expect a man to clean up eight years of mess in two years; it's just bad math. It's impossible.”

When one considers the latest report from the Labor Department showing unemployment at 9.2%, compared to an average unemployment rate of 5.2%, during the eight years Jay Z berated, it is “fair” indeed! The unemployment rate didn’t reach 6% until August of 2008 and it ended at 7.3% 



The unemployment rate was at 7.8% at Mr. Obama’s swearing in and it has not been that low since. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October of 2009 and since then has only been below 9% twice. 



Not to wax all wonkish, because that is not my normal style, but this is interesting data when you remember that President Obama rushed through the stimulus all the while assuring us that it would keep unemployment below 8% if acted upon swiftly! And so it was.

Reactionary politics and voting emotionally as exemplified by the 2008 election is never a good idea. Especially when it culminates in the election of so pig-headed an ideologue as our current President. That is why our Founders arranged our election cycles as they did, to allow a swift correction in government if emotionalism resulted in bad choices. The Founders insured America time to come to her senses.

George W. Bush was an ideologue; Bill Clinton was an ideologue as well and born of the same species as Obama. Yet, the leftist strain infecting Clinton is not nearly as virulent as that coursing through Mr. Obama’s fevered brain. Prompted by the Republican takeover of Congress, Mr. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and was wise enough to recognize the plans he put in motion were failing miserably. 

President Clinton was an able enough captain to see the rocks ahead. He knew he needed to change course. Mr. Clinton cooperated with the Republicans and thanks to the leadership of Newt Gingrich and the Republican’s “Contract with America,” President Clinton was then able to take credit for a healthy economy and surplus.



President Obama’s liberal sensibilities are completely clouding what little judgment he has left. Even though John Boehner, the current House Speaker, played an instrumental role in drafting the "Contract With America", this President has his jaw set and will not be moved. 



To all the liberal and independent people who now bemoan their tragic trust in an unproven commodity, heavy on the show, but otherwise insubstantial-you voted with your heart and not your brain.

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

Let that be a lesson to you!

Digital Publius

Take These "Mental" Chains From My Heart

There is a great tumult in the liberal blogosphere triggered by a pledge signed by Michele Bachmann called “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” the pledge makes this unsteady, perhaps even dubious statement:



“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

It was dumb to include that statement in the pledge, even though it may well be true--it will not help the conservative cause or make the Republican party more appealing to minorities.

Not because it may be factually in error, but because even if it were found to be accurate, most  people lack the discipline to alter their current behavior and attitude in order to correct our current state based on the possible reality that Black families were more stable under slavery.

Slavery is such a sore subject with Black folk that invoking it immediately closes minds to the rest of your message. The statement does not suggest that Black folk were better off under slavery, the statement begins:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families"

This part of the statement is completely overlooked because of the reactionary nature of the race question in America. A good example of that racial default setting is exhibited by Black folk who I know to be conservative in their sentiments and politics, who nevertheless suggest since this issue came to light that David Duke and Michelle Bachmann share common ground.

Statements like the one in the “Marriage Vow”, never work! Frankly, you have to be engaged in higher order thinking to consider such beliefs in the first place. Whether true or not, most people never ponder anything this deeply.

What is lost because of this lack of depth, in liberal and unfortunately Democrat following Black folk’s thinking, is sadly, the contemporary Black community is in such a state that one would even think to make such a historical comparison in the first place!

I made a similar statement to my former Pastor and one of the Elders of my church a few years back. I made the mistake of intimating that through the American slave trade, what man meant for evil, God used for good in that literally millions of Africans would have died in false religion if they had not been brought to America as slaves where they heard the Gospel message and were saved.

Black folks were “physically” worse off in chattel slavery, but they were in an infinitely better place spiritually. Better to die a Christian in slavery than a free man in false religion. Eternity is a heck of a lot longer than the few decades we suffer through on earth.

When I made this statement you would have thought I set a bomb off in the room from their reactions. But if you are a Christian, you have to agree!

My Pastor and the Elder, placed so much value on their blackness and maintaining a misguided moral superiority based on the premise that we as American Blacks are victims and morally superior to Whites because of our victimhood, they were blinded to the victory an unknown multitude gained through this great evil.

Even in American slavery God Himself received the increase!

It is simply a matter of pride. Not the good kind of pride, but rather the kind of pride that God condemns that we are now in bondage to. We are so bound to any scrap of an idea that makes us feel good about ourselves, that we are more than willing to believe man’s wisdom over God’s revelation if it uplifts the Black race.

In that same conversation my Pastor or the Elder, I don’t remember which at this point, made some reference to life having begun in Africa. To wit I responded: “Not according to the Bible”. The Holy Bible says that human life began in the Garden of Eden, which according to description, would have likely been in modern day Iraq, a long way from the Olduvai Gorge, even if you believe the world is different topographically after the Great Flood.



Adam and Eve in the Garden, or Homo Habilis in Tanzania? It makes us feel good as Black folk to lean towards Homo Habilis, we would rather be an extinct apeman, which man in his hubris attached the genus Homo to, as long as he is a black apeman from Africa. We came first.



Even though the Bible states a different locale and doesn’t find it the least bit necessary to comment on Adam’s race, or Christ’s for that matter. All we know about Christ’s appearance in Scripture from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, is that unlike the Hollywood depictions of Him, He was not very good looking! We know he was Jewish. God, unlike man, places zero importance on race or any other physical attribute,

God says He:



“...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” Acts 17:26

Earlier in Acts we read:



“Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.  ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:33-35

Biblically, we are all the same to God, we are all sinners. There is no moral high ground for Black people to stand on any more than there is for Whites. The Whites imported us to America, but it was Black folks doing the exporting.



Just as Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt by his own brothers, so too were Africans sold into America by theirs. Josephʼs slavery ended up being a blessing to his brothers and the people he came from. Not by wallowing in self pity or lamenting his predicament, but by being what God ordained him to be even in bitter bondage. And because of that attitude, Joseph was able to overcome dire circumstances and rise above them based on his character and faith in God. As a result, Joseph became second only to Pharaoh in Egypt.



Black folks have spent so much time looking to the modern Democrat party to be a latter day Moses, holding our hands as we wander blindly through the wilderness, we have forgotten the earlier example of Joseph who was, who he was, whether he was free or in bondage.

The biggest difference is the latter day Democrat Party/Moses simulacrum, is not doing Godʼs work. The Democrats are leaning on their own understanding and leading Black folk, as well as the nation, at large, into disaster, not the Promised Land.



All that being said, the modern conservative movement is absolutely clueless as to how it should appeal to minorities, if in fact the movement is attempting to make such an appeal.

This is primarily because  conservatives have not understood the pathology at work in the minority communities.

Conservatives underestimate the level of resistance to reason the mental pathogen leftist racism has engendered in the minority mindset. Liberals have so ginned up racial identity in the Black community and animus towards conservatism, many Black folks are truly convinced, even with nothing ever changing for the better in their communities, as conditions wax worse and worse, they should still vote Democrat.



Even though the overwhelming majority of Black folks would agree with most everything in the pledge Bachmann signed; they still give their vote to people who find those same ideas anathema!

All hope of removing the mental chains from Black folks hearts and minds which could have been accomplished if Black folks actually read the document and recognized, they shared common ground with it’s signatories, was shattered by the inclusion of the maladroit slavery analogy.



The primary reason for this ignorance on the part of conservatives, is they actually buy into the “content of character” paradigm. But Black folks are so full of identity politics as fostered by racist liberal ideology, they are unable to see the catastrophic consequences of liberal policy in their own lives. 

To the conservative this is insanity! As well it should be to any thinking person. Liberalism, however; does not exist and flourish in the mind of “thinking” people! This is why the left is so averse to any forum where their ideas are exposed to the marketplace of ideas in free exchange, especially if that market is not completely controlled by liberals.

The Bible teaches that even if certain behavior is permissible, such as having a cocktail. That permissible thing is harmful if it causes someone else to stumble. In other words, it would be imprudent to have lunch with a friend who is an alcoholic and you sit there quaffing martinis in his face knowing he has a weakness.

The idea the pledge attempted to get across with the slavery analogy may have been a good one in regards to creating a sort of jarring effect to the reader. However, that anal- ogy ultimately fails because it is a stumbling block to the segment of the population you were trying to reach.

If we as conservatives are going to win the culture war. we need to pay heed!

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16



Digital Publius

The Source of Republicanism!

In my last article “The Soul of Republicanism” two items sparked controversy in the discussions the article spawned. One being some taking umbrage at my giving praise to David Barton at the end of my article.

Apparently, there is criticism aimed at Barton’s work, accusations of misrepresentation and lying. The criticism comes most often from those who hate the very idea of our nation having Christian origins.

I was unaware of these criticisms and I will investigate them for myself! I have read enough directly from the Founders themselves -- apart from Barton’s work -- to stand behind the Christian premise.

The other item was a statement I made within the text of the article:

"However, it does not follow that because we have religious freedom in America, all faiths are equally valid, or are equally useful in determining American morality or political thought."

I was asked in a thread to clarify this statement. Before I had the chance to respond, a reader did an excellent job of explaining it for me. Mark Pepin wrote:

“I'll take a stab at it and see if Hassan and I agree. It will also be added clarification for RHS: My understanding of that statement is that the founding of this nation, being dominated by Christian thought, was intended to support the morality of the Christian religion. Not all religions have morality systems that are equal to Christianity, and therefore, not all should be favored. The fact is, many of our laws come straight from the Bible, while others are derived from Biblical thought.”

I do indeed agree – Mark gave a very good explanation of my statement. I’m afraid I originally failed if my statement was not universally understood in the context Mark affirms, I thought it was clear cut. I will however go further than Mark’s clarification since the question affords me the opportunity to so.

Truth is, there is an exclusion of any other faith besides Christianity in the founding principles used in determining our system of government. (Note that I am saying “faith,” there were civil considerations. After all, the Founders did not invent republicanism).

If you assign equal validity to the world’s various faith traditions, you effectively invalidate them all. We can all be wrong, but as they all contradict each other, logically, we cannot all be right.

I have said this before in various discussions over the years, primarily with atheists. It is impossible for man to have created God. Man does not currently, nor has he ever had, the power to create ex nihilo  “out of nothing”. Everything man has produced has a frame of reference. There could be no god concept apart from God having first revealed Himself to man.

If God revealed Himself to man it is prima facie that He did so in a particular way. It is the responsibility of man to determine the way. Creation itself is the only safe objective medium to use in determining which tradition is reliably the way God revealed Himself.

In other words, the tradition whose source makes the most accurate statements about the universe and reality is most likely the Creator of the universe. The source most adept at describing man’s nature objectively as opposed to the way man wishes to see himself, is the Creator of man.

The God of the Holy Bible expresses this in what amounts to a challenge to man and all who would espouse false beliefs. It is a recurring theme in the Holy Bible:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1

The Psalm goes on to describe the movement of the sun, declaring that only God could put such a thing in action.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: “ Romans 1:19,20

The God of the Holy Bible is saying examine the world and compare it to what I have revealed to you. Many of history’s greatest scientists understood this and expressed as much. 

In a beautiful letter to his wife Maria Christina, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Guglielmo Marconi wrote:

“I know how much you love and cherish the beautiful Nature - the expression of God’s Will - where one can find the ideal eternal values: the Truth, the Beauty and the Good (and you possess the three of them). The harmonious unity of causes and laws forms the Truth; the harmonious unity of lines, colors, sounds, and ideas forms the Beauty; while the harmony of emotions and the will forms the Good, which in being the ultimate expression of the Eternal and Supreme Creator brings man to completion and drives us to seek absolute perfection.”

He also stated:

“The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer [Creatore e Reggitore Eterno]; the more I feel that the so-called ‘science’ I am occupied with is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves.”

Physics Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias, in a statement to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 on the Big Bang Theory remarked:

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Nobel Laureate in Physics, William Phillips in a letter to T. Dimitrov May 19th, 2002; in reply to several questions as to whether he believed in the existence of God:

“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. …I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”

There can only be one truth and therefore only one good source to base our society on. The Founders understood that premise back in the 18th century. If one takes a practical look by eliminating the idealistic, when engaged in comparative theological study, you have to determine that there are many false religions in the world, but only one that lines up with reality.

Not all faiths can be equally valid because all faiths do not equally reflect reality. Why would God tell the Hebrews the earth is round and that it hangs in space, but then tell the Hindus the earth is flat and it sits on the backs of elephants standing on turtles? Why give one group the more accurate, demonstrable truth and lie to another group?

Why tell the Muslim the sun sets in a pool of mud and slime? If the Qur’an gets that wrong, if it is wrong on natural things, why should I believe what the Islamic god says about the supernatural. If Allah gives false reports about creation, and the tangible, how can I believe him when it comes to my soul and the intangible?

The wanton barbarity of those who follow the Qur’an strictly and the tragic state of affairs in Islamic nations, who base their laws on the Qur’an’s brand of morality, stand as a testament to this truth, particularly as it pertains to human rights.

Plainly, if you do not think it would be pleasant to live under Sharia, which is based on the faith of Islam, then Islam is not morally equal to the faith that served as the source of American republicanism.

If you chafe at the very idea of living under a caste system like the one India employs,  inspired by the Vedas. A system where people starve under the feet of a fat, well fed, and I might add tasty and nutritious “sacred cow”, working out karmic destiny, then Hinduism is simply not an equally valid source to structure a society around.

Nor is a lack of religious conviction a good starting point for government. One merely has to look at societies founded upon humanism and secularism to see that an atheistic perspective can be down right deadly on a massive scale.

The horrors of the French revolution; the tens of millions slaughtered by atheistic socialism in Soviet Russia; Communist China; and sundry other socialist Asian states.  Let’s not forget, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s nightmarish excesses. Even Hitler’s Nazism like the others, was based on naturalism at it’s core and the list goes on and on.

If there is a God, as it seems logical to assume, then as He says-there is also an adversary working against man. The Adversary, like man lacks the ability to create from nothing, but he is very good at inspiring man to do what is counter to man’s own well being.

It is the Adversary that inspires atheism and false religions and, therefore, the faulty human states including the ones our Founders fled.

I could site example after example! All those lands and others are hemorrhaging people and those people are coming where?  Here! Whether you accept Christianity or not; whether you find David Barton an honest broker or not. The premise of “The Soul of Republicanism” is sound and worth remembering!

Digital Publius

The Soul of Republicanism

This article sprang from a discussion I had on the conservative social network, “Freedom Torch”. I felt it necessary to expound on the very idea of conservatism and the nature of the nation our Founders established for us!

So many of the Founders thought it wise to emphasize that the birth of the United States of America would not have been possible, apart from the aid of “Divine Providence”. It seemed almost like a mania.

Even the Founders, known for holding less than orthodox views of Christian faith, acknowledged the role Providence played in establishing our Republic. In an address to the Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin asked this poignant question:

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”

At the same convention of 1787, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, offered Isaiah 33:22 as the inspiration for our redoubted triune system of government.

“For the LORD is our judge,” the (Judicial branch)
“The LORD is our lawgiver,” the (Legislative branch)
“The LORD is our king;  the (Executive branch) He will save us.”

The nature of my conversation on Freedom Torch highlighted what comes across as two camps within the conservative community. We find the secular camp: uninterested in social issues like abortion or defense of marriage. This is most often the camp Libertarians identify with, as so much (not all) of their political philosophy is derived from Ayn Rand’s Objectivism; Rand herself was an atheist. I have met a few religious Libertarians.

Not limited to Libertarians, there are also religious Republican conservatives who also argue against the prominence given to social issues. Conservatives able to compartmentalize their faith and support a candidate they think can win, even if they may not agree with that persons stance on spiritual matters like the right to life.

These are the folks that are most often likely to see the “religious right” as a detriment to the conservative movement, insisting one can’t lure Independents to our side with “all that abortion and gay marriage talk”.

Emphasizing fiscal conservatism and small government, this group vehemently opposes liberal socialistic ideas. This conservative type cares more about preserving our nation’s material standing, than conserving our entire way of life.

These conservatives speak of values and their importance, without caring from whence those values were derived. After all, the Founders fought for religious freedom, did they not? They did indeed!

However, it does not follow that because we have religious freedom in America, all faiths are equally valid, or are equally useful in determining American morality or political thought.

Again, James Madison:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

If you believe any old values will do, secular values based on naturalism or values culled from the various world religions, you really don’t grasp the soul of American republicanism. You really aren’t for conserving America in every intrinsic way!

 Our nation was not founded upon the sentiments of some generic ecumenical god, but rather the immutable God of the Holy Bible.

The second camp in modern conservatism is the one which recognizes this fact and has apprehended the simple idea that apart from the values that inspired the Constitution, it is unlikely any politician or citizen will make the right choices on any of the issues conservatives hold dear with any consistency.

In a letter to one John Murray, Jr. dated October 12, 1816, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court upheld this notion when he wrote:

“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

That type of thinking did not occur in a vacuum! The founders of this nation had no intention of constructing a secular nation based on natural law or any nebulous concept of  a God ever at the mercy of mercurial human fashion. The precepts acting as our philosophical corner stone had to be set and unchanging.

In 1777, the Continental Congress called for a day of Thanksgiving for the victory won at the battle of Saratoga:

"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received... to offer humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot our sins out of remembrance... and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"

This spirit of humility towards and reverence for the God of the Holy Bible carried on after the war as illustrated by George Washington, in a statement to all the states’ Governors in 1783:

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."

Secularists on both sides of the political aisle advance the specious notion that Holy Scripture is subjective and therefore inherently unreliable in politics. Like the Holy Bible, the Constitution is open to interpretation and the authors true intent difficult to know with objectivity. This was not the thinking of America before socialism began spreading in our country.

In “Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.” 1892, the Supreme Court stated:

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

This is not  “God” in a generic pan-religious sense! It is not the Buddha, Vishnu or Great Spirit! Nor is it Allah of Islam or any Winfreyian Celestine prophet, but rather the “Redeemer of mankind”!

Try as the secular left and right may to expunge them from public consciousness, the works of the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers, as well as the American public record are veritably toxic with statements like we find in the Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. ruling. This is so because our nation once believed truths like this:

Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: Exodus 18:19-21

I believe the majority of Americans still believe. Nonetheless, too many of us have allowed various forces to control the public's thinking. We have allowed those voices to downplay the role God should play in our everyday decision making processes.

This does not mean, as the reactionaries would assert, that the Christian church should control our public institutions. It simply means that we should think on the precepts of God when making decisions, especially political decisions effecting millions of lives in America and abroad.

What the founders knew and so many of us have forgotten, is this: If you do not base your laws and thinking upon the immutable precepts of God, as I alluded to earlier if you cannot get the basics like protecting unborn life right, how can you expect someone to be wise enough to make the proper vote on a balanced budget?

That is the reason everywhere liberalism reigns you have misery and lack. Liberals base their ideas on man’s wisdom and disregard the truth within the wisdom given us by the God of our fathers.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

All that being said, we need to keep in house debates... In house! We need a change in the White House. I admonish those of us inhabiting the right; to not do something that I myself have been guilty off.

Do not write or speak ill of the Republican candidates opposing your favorite. It is good to be passionate about your pick. Extol your candidates virtues for the entire world to hear, but let’s not do it at the expense of another candidate.

In other words, no hit pieces on the shortcomings of the various Republican candidates that can be used against them by the left if they win the nomination. Nothing fills a liberal with glee more than being able to say, “Your own side says this or that about you”.

Let the left do the dirt digging--If a candidate has bad ideas or questionable issues on our side, it’ll eventually come out.

Digital Publius

* God bless David Barton, if I had my druthers, he would be Secretary of Education for life

Whencesoever Palestine?

Show me a Palestinian and within a few generations of genealogical scrutiny, I will show you a Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, or Turk... Within the realm of times past, the historicity of Palestine, or of a Palestinian people directly linked with those who identify themselves as such contemporaneously is untenable. It is strictly a political nomenclature.

Truth be told, ontologically speaking, there was never such a thing as a Palestinian! Palestine and Palestinians were made up out of whole cloth by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian hated the Jews. He could not abide a people who refused to denounce their God and worship him and the Roman state.

Hadrian saw Judaism as a constant source of rebellion and as such, sought to erase all evidence of the faith and all those who practiced it from Judea proper and indeed the whole world.

Hadrian built a temple to worship Jupiter on the site of the second Jewish Temple, and outlawed the Jewish tradition of circumcision mandated by God. These and many other affronts sparked a bloody Jewish uprising, which lasted three years. Despite enormous Roman loses, the rebellion was finally put down following the decisive battle of the fortress at Betar.

To emphasize Hadrian’s hatred for the seed of Abraham and the God they served. Hadrian  renamed Israel Palestine after the Philistines, Israel’s ancient and most bitter enemy. The Philistines were themselves never native to Canaan, which later became Israel.

The name Philistine literally means “invader!” The people who were called Philistines by the inhabitants of Canaan were not Arab, but primarily from the Isle of Crete. Thusly, Philistines were Greeks  who conquered parts of Canaan. The Philistine people and their culture was eventually destroyed by the Assyrians.

There is no Arabic meaning for the name Philistine like we would expect to find in the Qur’an if the name had any intrinsic historical connection to Arabs, Islam or Muslims prior to 1948.

Before 1948, it was the Jews themselves who were most often referred to as Palestinians, not the Arabs who existed in small bands of nomadic Bedouins. The Holy Lands were desolate before the Jewish migration back to the land of their fathers began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Under Jewish stewardship, the land began once more to bloom.

Mark Twain in "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 described Palestine in rather bleak terms during his travels through the Holy Land:

There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely.

This was the case because the land belongs to the Seed of Abraham and no others!
The term Palestinian as it pertains to Islamic peoples is nothing more than a political construct employed by the enemies of God and Israel in the tradition of Hadrian!
Walid Shoebat, a former leader in the PLO and terrorist put it best:

As I lived in Palestine, everyone I knew could trace their heritage back to the original country their great grandparents came from. Everyone knew their origin was not from the Canaanites, but ironically, this is the kind of stuff our education in the Middle East included. The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, muslim Sherkas from Russia, muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants.

Modern day Hadrians are not limited to Gaza or the Sinai Peninsula. They can just as easily be found here in the United States in places like the liberal enclave of San Francisco, with its modern day push to ban circumcision. This action seems poised to make the City by the Bay a most unwelcome place for those who keep covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Movements like banning circumcision now slated to appear on San Francisco ballots, confirm that latter day Hadrians are still obsessed with compelling people to reject God’s covenants and show fealty to man’s wisdom while worshiping the state!

When President Obama urged Israel to move it’s borders back to the pre-Six Day War boundaries of 1967, as he did in his latest speech on the Middle East situation, he added his name to the ledger below the likes of Hadrian. This is nothing short of open defiance and a spit in the eye of the God who gave all the land to Israel – the same God who granted the courage and power to David to defy the Philistines and dispatch Goliath their champion.

It is the same as it ever was in the Holy Land. Goliath is now the collective strength of the scion of the Arab states, they may not be natural descendants, but they are spiritually modern day Philistines, standing united against the solitary Israel.   The Arab states all arrayed outside Israel’s borders, taunting them just as the Philistines of old did, shouting: “I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.”

By forwarding the idea that Israel should give away precious bargaining chips before the  diplomatic battle is even joined! President Obama, in his thoughtless hubris, fortifies Goliath’s armor against the very army of God.

By telling Israel they should concede their land to godless invaders, President Obama is also by extension defying that “tender shoot which sprang up from the stump of Jesse,” The Lord Jesus Christ!
The same God who made a covenant with Abraham and delivered his descendants from bitter bondage in Egypt and into the land of Canaan--Is the same God who will return again and rule from the very ground the President would see in the hands of God’s enemies.

There is more to standing with Israel than merely sending money and military aid. We have historically stood with Israel because, as a nation,  in our hearts we believed God – Not a generic god, but the true Covenant-making God of the Holy Bible! The One who said:

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3

Our nation’s most prosperous times, the times that made us the envy of the world came arguably during our post World War II days - days directly following our aiding in the prophetic rebirth of the land of Israel.

I fear our days will grow darker and darker as we pull away full moral support from Israel. I pray President Obama gets wisdom and that he get it soon!

And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: Daniel 2:21

I know that God sets up rulers to work His sovereign will and sometimes those rulers are fools. I stand firm in the knowledge that even through a man like Obama leads our nation, by and by, God will be glorified.

Digital Publius

Bondage of Corruption Pt. 2: American Taliban

In “Bondage of Corruption Pt. 1: Culture”; I state that in America today there is a “diversion away from the essence of things–the essence of what is good and what is intrinsically bad–and a preference for promoting the concept of the subjective over the reality of the objective.”

To that I add: This preference for the subjective over the objective, manifests quite often in a twisting of terms and words. Shallow thinking coupled with what often seems disdain for the true meaning of words, gives rise to malformed concepts.

These semantical mutations take on a life of their own when allowed to remain unchallenged. The American Taliban is just such a term and concept.

American leftist more so than any other group in our nation specialize in this sort of thing. It is one of their primary tactics, employed to stoke the emotional furnaces of liberal reactionaries and to silence, or marginalize ideological opponents.

The Tea Party forms, standing for limited government and fiscal responsibility, with constituents representing Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They hold rallies to unite people of all walks of American life in a singular cause: Reign in an out of control American government.

The left renames them “Tea baggers” a slang term for a sexual activity and paint their fellow, Americans as uneducated racists. It doesn’t matter many of the Tea Party movements most popular speakers and political figures are Black. The left “tars” them as brainwashed “Toms” and “sellouts”. The Democrat Party has a lot of experience with Tar. Unfortunately my people have a very short memory.

The left loves “diversity” but cannot abide diversity of thought! The only thing the liberal left fears and hates more than people putting aside what they “feel” in favor of thinking is Christianity!

They don’t necessarily hate religion, but they have a mad on for Christianity. It is more  fear than anger. The left only becomes angry with Christianity when those who actually believe God stand in opposition to them. The left fears people will actually begin to believe what God says.

If there is one movement above all others the Democrat Party and the liberal left exerts full power to marginalize it is Christianity. This is something I wish Black Christians could come to understand. The Democrats will come to your church to solicit your votes, but the truth is not in them.

Democrats do not go to churches teaching the full doctrine of Christ and they know the ones that do. Democrats go to churches most likely to preach social messages than theological messages.

If you go to a church where you have never heard a sermon against abortion or upholding the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. A church that seldom emphasizes sin and repentance of sin, a church that talks more about God giving you a breakthrough on your finances, than the inherent sinful nature of man, you are likely to see Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden show up.

If your church dogmatically clings to Christ being the only way to salvation, it’s not likely you will have a visitor from the Democrat party. This is why Barack Obama said:

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

This is not a Christian statement--This is the statement of an unbeliever. It is also the way the overwhelming majority of liberals think. Only Black Christians vote for Democrats in numbers and they do so by putting aside their faith.

Liberal Democrats hate statements like:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Jay said those words–John Jay, who served as President of the Continental Congress and as the first Chief Justice of the United States. (Do you think he knew what the Constitution says about church and state?) He was also the 2nd Governor of New York, who after several attempts, finally passed a law to emancipate the slaves of his state in 1799. Today he would be called a right wing fanatic!

I was called a member of the American Taliban a few weeks back by a liberal friend of mine. I mention it because it underscores the point I am trying to make. The meaning of words, the essence of things, have no meaning for liberals because they do not think. They feel!  When people begin to think they cease to be liberals.

Conservatives ask what do you think about so and so? Liberals ask how do you feel about so and so? A liberal may actually ask you what you think? But once you begin to tell them, when they respond, it’s plain they really want to know how you feel.

The word Taliban is a Pashtun word borrowed from Arabic. It literally translates as students. Students is an accurate word as the movement began with students recruited from Islamic fundamentalist madrassas (schools).

When the Taliban seized political power in Afghanistan after scores of bloody massacres, they implemented a very strict, anti-modern, interpretation of Sharia law in the regions it controlled. Here is a partial outline of what the Taliban outlawed:

“pork, pig, products made with human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. Employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls.”

There’s not a whole lot on that list I don’t personally participate in. Yet I am labeled an American Taliban. This is possible because it does not matter to a liberal what the Taliban is in reality.

The first use of the term “American Taliban” appeared with the capture of John Phillip Walker Lindh during the 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attack.
Lindh is one of the few people in the world for whom the appellation American Taliban actually applies.

Applying the term to Christians who hold to an orthodox Christian faith in America, including opposition to abortion, defending the Biblical definition of marriage and traditional Christian values, is a liberal attempt to marginalize Fundamental Christianity. The left wants very much to link and equate fundamental Christianity with the bloody excesses of fundamentalist Islam.

Employing the term American Taliban, betrays the liberals overall lack of depth and shallow thinking. People who use such terms know nothing about Christianity or Islam on a fundamental level. And frankly, they don’t care to!

Islam in America uses this lack of depth in liberals to further their agenda. Islamists in America know liberals are clueless as to what their faith teaches and they know liberals hate Christianity more than Islam.

Even though Islam is a conservative faith, (if you are gay try getting married in an Islamic state) opposed to the same kinds of things Christianity is opposed to, Muslims know, if they claim they are set upon, the left will not look too closely at their true agendas and pave the way for them to do what ever they want. Because it feels good to them.

Liberals believe if they appease Muslims they will not become fundamentalists. Liberals believe Muslims become terrorists not because the Qur’an teaches proselytizing with the sword and warfare against unbelievers, but because Muslims do not have enough social justice.

Liberals dread fundamentalist Islam and  are so reticent to offend them, they dare not call them Islamic terrorists even when they blow things up and kill people--Opting instead for meaningless terms like “man caused” disasters.

Where liberals fear fundamentalist Islam, they loathe Christianity! Even though Christians don’t make a habit of strapping Composition 4 to their bodies and don’t blow people up shouting Jesus is Lord, They still insist traditional Christian values are as big a danger as Islam. This is why they are comfortable calling fundamentalist Christians American Taliban.

The word Christian is a good one! It is my prayer more liberals come to understand what Christian truly means. The disciples of Christ were first called Christians in the  Holy Bible in the Book of Acts 11:26:

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

Fear of Christianity is demonstrated in at least two ways pertinent to this article. There is the liberal fear people will embrace the teachings of the Holy Bible and then see the foundation of liberal philosophy and Democrat's politics are inherently contrary to not only God, but the best interests of this nation.

The second type of fear is displayed in people who say they have accepted Christ. it can on occasion be found in conservatives as well. It is a fear to unabashedly identify yourself as a Christian for fear of being rejected by people.

These are the people who don’t want faith to play a roll in political debate. People who are afraid to offend others by standing beside Christ and affirming what He affirms. They want salvation and the promises of God, but they don’t want to bear the cross themselves.

Even the simple term Christian is no longer good enough, the term has to be parsed. Religion is one of the first things I look at when I acquire a new Facebook acquaintance. I am amazed at the number of people I know are Christian who leave their religious philosophy blank. How a person identifies themselves spiritually tells a lot about them. You see pseudo Christian descriptions like:

“believer in the Great I Am”  or “I am desiring to be like Christ”

(I have found this particularly true amongst academics claiming faith in Christ)
Ontologically, who is the Great I AM to you? I’ve heard Buddhists claim they desire to be like Christ! Do you desire to be like the Christ who says?:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

and

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.”  Matthew 10:32-35

Or President Obama’s Christ of the so called liberal and nebulous “Christian tradition?"  The Jesus who lives only in the liberal mind, whose followers believe you can go down a different path to reach God?

This is an important question, because the Jesus Christ who says the liberal favorite:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31

...Is the same Jesus Christ quoted above! You can’t accept the Christ of Mark 12 without the Christ of John 14 and Matthew 10! At least not if you are a Christian. It may cost you some friends and votes if you are a politician, but the truth is the truth!

Just before the verse from Acts calling Christ’s disciples Christians for the first time, we find out it was a dangerous time to be identifying yourself with Christ, there was serious persecution for believers then. This is to be expected, it is happening all over the globe even today.

I am a “fundamentalist”, I believe the whole Holy Bible and I make no apologies for it, though I will offer an apologetic of the Christian faith! Insufferably stupid liberal terms like Tea Bagger and “American Taliban” as rendered by ignorant, dull witted people, I dispassionately reject.

I prefer American Christian!

Digital Publius