Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
The notion that God and Country might be a valid motive for any action is tied up in the two ideas of National Existence, and National Purpose. Nationhood is rooted in distinct People-hood, which is rooted in distinct Person-hood, and that is what is explored here. The question to keep in mind as you read on is whether or not we are a distinct people with some common grounding and purpose. Not so much what that grounding or purpose might be so much as whether one exists at all. A simple yes or no question: do we hold to any common grounding and purpose for being, or are we more or less randomly oriented.
The history of Western Civilization is peppered with dangerous times when men willingly left the safety of home, family and community, took up arms and stood up for, in their own words,
What does that mean, and what do those two very different things have to do with each other? We all have, somewhere in the back of our minds, varying concepts of this theoretical principle called
If men of principle were to rigidly adhere to this principle, then men of principle could either stand up for God, or for Country, but not for both. Perhaps we need to look more closely at this principle before we may fully understand these historic events of the past, and the motivations behind large numbers of principled men being perfectly willing to sacrifice, even die, for God and Country, simultaneously.
There is an Ecclesial (or religious) aspect, and a Civil (or political) aspect to the Separation principle. By New Testament times, the Jews and the Christians were increasingly recognizing and respecting the differences between civil authority and religious authority. Civil rulers had increasing authority over physical man, where religious authority was weakening, and religious rulers had increasing authority over spiritual man, where civil authority was weakening. Death sentences, for instance, eventually could be delivered only by civil authority and not by religious authority.
This natural, practical, real-world separation recognizes the difference between the temporal (i.e., temporary, terrestrial, civil) authority, and the religious canon (i.e., permanent, Heavenly, ecclesial) authority. This separation is strictly limited to authority and enforcement. Within a distinct culture, or people, secular man, even one in authority, is not free from ecclesial law. Neither is religious man, even one in authority, free from civil law.
Violence, social upheaval and even revolution occurred whenever civil authority imposed upon the people requirements directly opposed to religious requirements, practices and beliefs. Which happened quite often, as the Holy Land was ruled first by polytheistic Greeks, and then by polytheistic Romans. Civil rulers periodically stepped over the line imposing religious requirements on peoples wholly committed to the worship one God and Him only. The results were never good.
A child reared in a home in which he knows that he is loved unconditionally establishes within himself a solid ground of being that enables him to function confidently through life. In a similar manner, as a mature Christian comes to recognize that charity is, literally, love perfected, which is to say, the love of God, he gains spiritual confidence. Charity – best exemplified by the perfect love of God for man – is a form of love that is unearned, undeserved, unreserved, unconditional and unending. It is the love that steps over the bounds of familial love, erotic love and romantic love and leads a man to decisive love, meaning, absolute and undemanding commitment for life to his wife, for instance. None of us mere mortals can achieve it perfectly, but the mature Christian can consciously receive it, from God. Once recognized, this form of Heavenly love establishes within the Christian a Divine Ground of Being that will see him through trials, and enable him to stand up for God and country, so long as his country is seen to be in alignment with God.
The phrase God and Country might have been nearly meaningless in New Testament times. Israel was a people, and a nation, and the Chosen of God. To stand up for Israel was to stand up for God; to stand up for God was to stand up for Israel. It was simple then; time has made things more complex. History marches on.
It is important to note this major difference between The World, and The Church: The Truth that the Church proclaims is, at once:
The Church protects and professes no secrets; there is no elite or special group to whom the Truth has been revealed, and no person or group that has exclusive access to it. The Church safeguards the Truth, and passes it on, not in private, but just as publicly as possible. It is called Public Revelation for a very good reason. The world and science and technology changes, but Public Revelation does not ever change. Keeping it public and keeping it unchanged is Job One for the Church. Revealed Truth cannot be modified to suit the changing conditions of the world or the whims of societies or elites; hence the need for some real-world, practical application of the Separation principle.
Roman Catholic consecrated religious and ordained priests and bishops are prohibited from holding civil political office, elected or otherwise, without first receiving specific dispensation from Rome to do so. Shepherding souls toward God and legislating/adjudicating/enforcing civil law are seen to be in potential conflict of interest. Since the Church stands so firmly on the principle of freedom of religion she opposes even opportunities for temptation of civil authority to impose religious requirements upon the masses. In the ideal reciprocal situation, strictly civil authority should, through legislation, adjudication and enforcement, respect, allow and not hinder the religious requirements, practices and beliefs of the people. Achieving everlasting life is a strictly voluntary thing that cannot be legislated. The voluntary goal of achieving everlasting life, and the voluntary actions necessary to achieving that goal, should never be interfered with by any civil authority. In fact, they should be encouraged.
The fact that religion should be restricted and off-limits for civil authority does not mean that rulers and elected representatives should not openly practice, encourage and strengthen religion, within reason. In the ideal situation, civil law is established and strengthened to be representative of the motives of the people under the civil law. The very notion of Representative Government means that the civil rulers represent the overwhelming religion, culture and tradition of the people they represent. This is what we call ethos, the overwhelming sense of right and wrong of the people; or, the collective conscience, if you will. Civil law should never oppose ethos. Whenever it does, it may be seen to be unrepresentative law.
Nor does Separation mean that temporal rulers are somehow freed from religious requirements in their personal lives. An historical pivotal point was reached In the 11th century dispute between emperors and popes regarding who was to select or approve the bishops of the Church. Pope Gregory excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Edward IV over this issue. This was a quite serious – spiritually fatal, in fact – imposition of an ecclesial penalty. Edward IV made quite a long and arduous journey to spend three days outside Gregory’s door, on his knees in sackcloth and ashes, barefoot, in the wintertime, before finally receiving absolution.
We can argue today about whether Edward’s motivation was spiritual or political, but the event accentuated the historic line drawn between ecclesial and civil authority. In all likelihood, Edward could have had Gregory’s physical head cut off. In a similar manner, Gregory could have had Edward’s immortal soul cut off. The most important lesson from the event, however, is that an Emperor cannot rule the Church, and a Pope cannot rule a worldly Empire. The whole, sole reason for the existence today of the Vatican is the need for the Pope to be free from subservience to any worldly monarch.
In pre-Reformation Europe, when the foe was the Viking, or the Mongol, or the Moslem, or any of numerous barbarians, when secular leaders called men to arms, they rose for God and Country. There was but one God, although many countries; they were united by their common faith.
Whatever else he might have been, Martin Luther was, most certainly, a world-shaking, pre-Marxian Revolutionary, as his own recorded words reveal. In written and spoken word, his violent rhetoric was aimed against authority - all authority – the authority of princes, and the authority of the Church. Even as he railed from the Catholic pulpit against the successors of Peter and the Apostles as “hobgoblins of the devil” and called for them to be “wiped from the face of the Earth”, he railed against secular government and its legitimate authority, informing the peasants that they had “ample reason to break forth with the flail and the club.” Authority was the enemy. “Among Christians there ought not to be and there cannot be any authority. But they are all at the same time subject one to another.” was his pet doctrine. That doctrine was synonymous with pure anarchy and lawlessness.
In his “gospel of freedom” the masses were introduced to miss-applied Scriptural interpretations calling for “equality” among the classes and a more equal “distribution” of private property. Luther attacked both the Emperor and the Pope with incendiary rhetoric. When he realized that his invented doctrine of Sola Scriptura had taken hold of the peasants to such a degree that they were doing their own Scripture interpretation and no longer listening to his interpretations, which is what he really wanted them to do, he began to be alarmed at what he had wrought, but it was too late. His fiery German rhetoric brought about the 1525 “Peasants’ War” in the opening round of the European bloodletting that would come to be known as the Reformation.
Peasant fanatics, Munzer in the lead, drew up a twelve article “Manifesto” using Luther’s Scriptural miss-interpretations, added onto by their own interpretations, to justify the revolt. They even produced Scripture miss-interpretations to justify their declared hunting and fishing and land usage rights. Led by Munzer, they sought to be in complete and absolute control, to overthrow the whole existing legitimate political and social structure, to establish a perfect social order in which there were to be no rulers, no subjects, no rich, no poor, no cities or commerce, but all would live in primitive simplicity and perfect equality. Sound familiar? Munzer and his captains who led the insurgent troops appealed to “Luther’s gospel” and quoted his writings as they began spreading terror and violence all across Germany. An alarmed Luther, too late, wrote his “An Exhortation to Peace” and sought to calm things down, but the peasants were doing their own interpretation, and the cat was out of the bag, so to speak. He became afraid for his own safety, as everyone was.
When the peasants would no longer listen to him and no longer recognized in him any special authority, he turned on them. He clamored for the princes to turn out in force to exterminate all who had taken up the sword against them. During this period he wrote his “Against the Murderous and Rapacious Hordes of the Peasants.” Munzer and the peasants were cut down by the tens of thousands. At the end of it all, Luther stood with little or nothing behind him and his self-declared war with all authority. He had previously attacked Emperor and princes just as ferociously as he had attacked Pope and bishops, and with whatever peasants left alive alienated from him by his treachery, he stood with no real allies in his self-proclaimed revolt. So, he did yet another about-face for political reasons, and promoted Erastrianism – the legal establishment of state supremacy over ecclesial matters.
Thus, as history records, along with his inventions of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Sola Fidei (Faith Alone) and the notion of the universal priesthood (We Are All Priests), we see that Martin Luther invented a radical combination of Church and state. With the first inauguration of a typical State Church came the problem similar to the one Luther had with the peasants: once the state had power over ecclesial matters, it no longer needed to listen to Luther. It took him a little longer to realize it, but once the state has authority over the Church, it becomes a church, small-c, owned and operated by the state. Still, Luther needed some strong ally to survive at all, and so we have the old maxim of the Lutheran creed, Cujus region, ejus rligio (Whoever’s reign, his religion.) A citizen’s religion became a matter of civil law. “He who owns the country owns the Church, and he that makes your laws for you has the right to make your religion for you.” In the instance of Pfalz, the religion of the people was changed four times in eighty years because of this new Lutheran principle.
Princes rallied to Luther’s cause in the main because of the ability to greatly increase their own holdings in land, buildings and wealth at the expense of the Church. If a prince could prevail in his territory, he could become vastly more wealthy than he was previously. There were numerous huge cathedrals, monasteries, convents and lands, to be plundered or to be confiscated intact. Greed can be a great motivator. As a direct result, we had the Reformation, which might have been more appropriately named Western Civilization’s first World War. Catholic and Protestant princes spent some 10 years skirmishing, intriguing and lining up for battle, another 13 years in continuous battle, followed by the Church’s far too late efforts at ecclesial defense through the Jesuits and the Council of Trent, followed by more battles, all culminating in one last struggle for Christian unity in the Thirty Years war, which ended in shear exhaustion for both sides, stalemate, and a permanently divided Europe.
There was no winner. Everybody lost. That there were excesses and sins in the Church and in the state is without question; there always was, and there always will be. Reform was needed, but this was not any Reformation. It was an unmitigated disaster for Western Civilization. Christian unity, focus and common vision was destroyed in Europe.
The worst product of the Reformation was the movement away from rationalism toward blind acceptance of questionable interpretations of text and spurious new doctrines. It was all done in the name of invented, stirred-up and increasingly rabid anti-doctrine, or anti-Church sentiment. Just as soon as the revolution started, it ceased being a “Lutheran” thing as new interpretations sprang up, and Protestants warred against Protestants just as fiercely as they warred against Catholics. The only thing that kept it from descending into an every-man-for-himself interpretation fragmentation was the new maxim: Whoever’s reign, his religion, which meant an interpretation different from that of your current sovereign prince could get your head cut off.
Luther incited the masses and started the revolt, but it was the dark genius of Calvin that moved men to absolute, blind hatred of the Roman Catholic Church and all things Catholic. Once the secular rulers, the princes, were motivated by Luther’s rhetoric, and by their own personal greed, to lead rather than to put down the insurrections, events became unstoppable. Princes, Dukes, Barons and Kings eyed not only their own, but their neighbor’s Church property, available for the plucking. If one of them saw, in a neighboring territory, a particularly rich cathedral, or a vast monastery with vineyards and rich farmlands attached, all he had to do to justify his actions was to adopt one of the new and different Scripture interpretations to seize it by force of arms, and expand his personal empire. It didn’t matter whether the rich target was on territory that currently belonged to a Protestant prince or a Catholic prince.
What emerged from the embers of this great war in Europe was, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, and the four main branches of Protestantism: Lutheran; the Calvinist – Zwinglian movement that called itself Reformed; Baptist; and Anglican. It’s a wonder there were not more. By what some historians have called a political accident, England’s Henry VIII had broken with Rome, adopted the new Protestant dictum, Whoever’s reign, his religion, declared himself head of the church in England (Anglican) and thus the senseless war had jumped across the Channel to engulf the British Isles.
It may be argued that Protestantism would have been crushed entirely by the Catholic princes and their forces if not for two major events:
Many are not aware of just how close Europe came to being completely conquered by Islam, or even that this major conflict was going on at the same time as the Reformation. Those who marched against Islam in Europe did so for God and Country, and they were all singing from the same hymnal, as it were. Those who marched against Catholicism, and against other variants of Protestantism, did so for God and Country, but in variant interpretational forms. “Country” was pretty clear, although borders were changing significantly. But, in England, when the forces of the King rose for God and Country they rose for the Church of Henry, and those who opposed them rose for the same God the rest of the world had always recognized as the Christian God. But who proclaimed and pronounced His doctrines, His revealed, certain and unchangeable truths? Men rallied to the Church of Luther, the Church of Calvin, and – worst of all – princes rose in response to the call from the Church of Personal Enrichment and Acquisition – the Church of Greed.
This alienation and bitterness laid the groundwork for the advances of humanism and atheism, and the horrors of the French Revolution, which would be as much anti-religion as it was anti-aristocrat. Men were learning to question religious interpretation, religion itself, and to despise rulers and the upper class as religious hypocrites. It was clear and obvious that princes had adopted new Christian Gospels out of pure personal convenience and opportunity. Everyone firmly proclaimed a “true” Gospel; who could know what the true Gospel was? Their very ground of being was shaken.
There was no principle of separation of Church and state here; quite the opposite. Under the new Protestantism, there was a combination of Church and state. Only the Catholic princes continued to listen to Rome in ecclesial matters, but even many of them enforced Catholicism upon their subjects, as if forcing someone into a religious practice or pretense could save his soul. Of course, at least some of this was due to the fact that, during those troubled times, anyone of a different faith could potentially be a mortal enemy of the state.
The Pilgrims carried the European Protestantism with them into the New World. They were at least partially motivated in their daring journey by avoiding religious persecution by other Protestants: Anglicans. As the original Colonies were established, they each followed the European pattern and established into law official state religions, as enumerated in the National Existence page, these were mostly Church of England, with two Congregational (branched from Calvinistic Presbyterianism), one Baptist, one Quaker and one Catholic. As explained in more detail at that link, two developments made America unique among Christian nations; one was positive, the other negative.
The only non-representative and non-accountable branch of American government, the Supreme Court, and the politically appointed lower court system, have been systematically and relentlessly religiously cleansing the American public square ever since Everson. This represents a direct and antagonistic confrontation between the ever increasingly secularized government of the people and the overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian guiding ethos of the American people.
Of the two great American political Parties, the Democrat Party may be seen to consistently support the precedent of Everson, to appoint and support secularist or atheist justices and judges to the bench, to block and oppose nominations of devout Christians to the bench, and to support the open secularization – religious cleansing – of the American public square. Go to the Church & State in Art page for images of the Ten Commandments carved into the very doors of the Supreme Court building for clear examples of the sort of public displays that today abhor the Democrats and the Court to the point of removing from the bench judges with the Judeo-Christian audacity of displaying those same Ten Commandments anywhere near public property.
It is to our everlasting credit, and to the glory of God, that Americans still respond to the call and stand up for God and country, recognizing that we remain an overwhelmingly Christian nation, whether the courts and the Democrats like it or not.
The Communist will never stand up for God and country; indeed he will stand up in direct opposition to both. In the Marxist view, of course, the theoretical “principle” of separation of Church and state reaches its apex: Marx denied the existence of God, and he sought the violent elimination of the state. So, in Communism, there is no standing up for God and country, for there is no God, and the aim is to eliminate all countries.
Marx referred to religion – all religion – as the opiate of the masses and sought to instill in children a set of “ethical” rules for the benefit of the collective. He sought to abolish the family, to abolish countries and nationality, religion, morality, private property, - the list is endless. Read the details at the link supplied above. Read The Communist Manifesto; you won’t believe it. The whole thing was and is nothing but a sham ideology designed solely to get someone who is not in power into power. The true Communist, if it were possible for such a creature to exist, would be without a god, without property, without a country, without parents or a family, with no attachment to anyone, with no love of children, absolutely dependent upon The Party, incapable of doing anything on his own, with no purpose for being. What can we say about this?
Anyone – past, present or future – who ideologically or philosophically buys into Marxism is (or was, or will be) monumentally, hopelessly, and irretrievably stupid.
Nevertheless, lots and lots of Americans in high places embrace and promote the notions of Marx, and it is difficult or impossible to know with certainty whether they are stupid or evil. Education is a form of brain-washing, and contemporary American academia is awash with professors who are, essentially, Communist. That Marxism is an un-American activity is a gross understatement. It seeks the end of national borders, which means the end of American sovereignty. It seeks the end of all nations, which means the end of the nation of America. It seeks the end of government, which means the end of our Constitution and all representative, legislated law. It seeks the end of private property, which means the end of our homes, and everything else we own. It seeks the end of the family, which means the end of all of our familial ties. It seeks the end of all religion, which means the end of all of our Churches and Synagogues.
It just doesn’t get any more anti-American and anti-God than this. The purpose for being, for the Marxist, is to achieve Marx’s silly utopian pipe dream of a perfect, Earthly, classless, government-less, property-less one world society, where everybody will just naturally get along.
If there is one, most important Marxist purpose for being that must precede everything else in achieving the ultimate goal, it is this:
To destroy any existing Divine Ground of Being in the people.
Islam is, all at the same time, a religion, a political ideology and a system of civil law and legal jurisprudence. In the ideal situation, the Moslem would not stand up for God and country because, like Marxism, Islam aims at the end of countries. To the Moslem, there is only God. In the real world situation, however, Islam has been beaten back, in prior wars, into countries with borders, like everyone else. The ultimate goal of Islam is to achieve world domination through the building up of a world encompassing Caliphate in submission to Islam. You can see some details regarding the guiding ethos of Islam in the Islam and the Jews page.
There are five (5) traditional authoritative Islamic schools of jurisprudence. All five of them call for the conversion, domination or destruction of all non-Moslem nations, peoples and societies on Earth, and the development of the Umma or ultimate one world state of Islam. Which, in the practical world, is almost as nonsensical as Marxism.
The greatest danger posed by Marxism against America involves the sinister would-be dictators who hide behind popular Marxist sloganeering while they plot the assumption of power, by violence if necessary. Marxism’s “godless” nature attracts the most immoral, treacherous and ruthless characters around as allies to the would-be dictator. It draws to itself the godless, and the anti-God, like a big immoral magnet.
I submit that Islam is far more dangerous to America, at least at the moment. At the link above and in several other pages and articles I have spoken at length of the sworn intentions of Islam toward America, and every other non-Islamic nation. The difference is, where Marxism is pure ideology, Islam is ideology, law, and – most important – religion that calls its disciples to action through what the disciples consider to be holy Scripture, dictated to Mohammed directly by God.
The completely immoral atheist is dangerous because you don’t know what he might do. However, the absolute fanatic atheist who might do something self-sacrificial, for “The Party” or “The Leader” is a very rare bird. The immoral man is almost always too self-centered for that. That may not be said for the religious man. It doesn’t matter that Islam is a sham religion; untold millions of disciples believe that it is not a sham religion. Within a religion the size of Islam, there will always, always, be some significant numbers of devotees ready and willing to do precisely what the Scripture of the religion says for them to do. Devotees of Islam have proven again and again and again, in America and all over the world that they are quite willing to die while killing infidels in the service of the words of the Koran.
As I have said in the National Existence page, the Amerrican People-hood page and elsewhere, Islam is, of its very nature, anti-American. I submit that the practice of Islam is an un-American activity. The fact that the First Amendment establishes freedom of religion in America does nothing to change that fact; the practice of Islam is still an un-American activity. In fact, it is an anti-American activity. Back in the Outlaw Sharia article I recommended outlawing Islamic Sharia, which is the social and civil law bound into Islam. It is a legal system – not a religion, although it is bound up in a religion – that insists, by law, on the destruction of the United States of America.
Islam is, of course, a combination of Church and state, it is completely intolerant of any other Church, and it is completely intolerant of any other state. Islam contains within itself both civil and ecclesial law; indeed, they are one and the same. The Koranic guiding ethos of Islam calls disciples to work in whatever way they can to reform the law, reform the culture and reform the political system in favor of achieving the end goal of a one world state in submission under Islam. The Islamic purpose for being involves our legal, cultural and political destruction, along with our religious conversion, subjugation, or death. As long as those words are in the Koran, someone who actually believes that they are the word of God is going to obey them.
How violently anti-American can an ideology publicly proclaim itself to be without being recognized as a mortal enemy of America?
As we saw in the National Existence page, President Jefferson spent American tax dollars to build a Catholic Church and supply a priest for some Indians; the Founders (signers of the Declaration) were all Protestants except for two Catholics and one Jew; the first established State religions were all Protestant denominations and one Catholic one, the overwhelming population was (and remains) Christian. It seems reasonable to assume that the founders intended to encourage freedom among the variations of Judeo-Christian faiths more particularly than any others. We are, after all, a Christian nation, despite how many contemporary Democrats hate to even hear that phrase.
It’s hard to imagine that the Founders (or contemporary Americans) would seek to encourage, promote or even tolerate “religions” such as Satanism or Wicca that involve such things as animal torture and desecration of Christian sites and Churches, or religions that involve human sacrifice, or cannibalism. Now, there are any numbers of religions that do not violate any representative civil law that derives from the Judeo-Christian ethos. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto-ism, all, and more, are the sorts of religions that should be tolerated in a free society. They seem to be fully able to adapt to our laws and our moral norms, to be good neighbors, and they do not seek to do us any harm. In my opinion, only Judeo-Christian variations should be encouraged by the state, since they will reinforce the existing national guiding ethos.
Islam, however, openly seeks our national and religious destruction. All you have to do is read Koran to see that this statement is true. Islam, like Marxism, is a cancer on the psyche of the human race. Recognizing the threat is not enough. If we don’t actually do something concrete about it, Islam will eventually destroy us all.The real problem is motivational. However falsely it may be based, the onslaught of Islam moves under the impetus of a strong, solid, religious Divine Ground of Being. At this particular point in history, what is left of the uniquely American religious Divine Ground of Being is under continuous public, private and legal attack by the secularizing influences of the “sophisticated” intellectual elites of the courts, the SLIMC1 , academia and the Democrat Party.
In the Left-Right continuum of American politics, the Left-most positions represent Marxism, and the Right-most positions represent anti-Marxism. Many Lefties will falsely claim that the Right-most positions represent Nazism-Fascism; but as we have seen in the Marxism page, Hitler was a Marxist, and in American politics, that makes the Nazi a Leftist. The Right opposes Nazism, Fascism, Communism and all forms of Marxism. The straw hero image of the Leftist being the lonely brave opponents of Nazism is nothing but a Marxist myth, which was originally invented and developed by Stalin and Hitler together.
It is readily apparent to the most casual observer that the Democrat Party is the Left-most major political Party in America. It is also the Party most opposed to the very notion that we are a Christian people, and that America is a Christian nation. You can look at their public, political words to see that this is true; that’s how they run for office and how they present themselves to the public.
Some on the Left demonize Christianity by pointing to it’s “bloody history” and claiming that it is the source and cause of the worst wars and the worst atrocity, and they tout atheism as the altruistic, moral savior from the bloodthirsty “immorality” of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As much as I hate to pop this happy little bubble, I must point out that Joseph Stalin was an atheist. Adolph Hitler was an atheist. Mao Tse Tung was an atheist. The bloodiest butchers in all of human history came into being in the twentieth century, and all were born not of religion, but the open rejection and repudiation of religion, by atheistic dictators bent on open military conquest. We have before us the exposed record of atheistic societies to be openly compared to Christian societies, and it is the atheistic ones that come down as absolutely amoral. Nevertheless, Democrats still demonize Christianity as evil, with one sole exception: I speak of their disgustingly condescending approach to the religious believers among our black minority, whom the Dems approvingly pat on the head and smile upon.
They will openly attack and sic the IRS on any Catholic, Orthodox or main-stream Protestant Church, or any Synagogue, that in any way makes an un-complimentary statement about them or their positions or their Party. But they will suddenly turn religious when they hold virtual political rallies inside black Churches to augment their White Sugar Daddy image and convince the “disenfranchised” that their legislation and pork-barrel politics will perpetually grant them continuously growing unearned entitlements. Because this puts them at odds with the opposition, the opposition is seen, in black eyes, to be anti-black. Double whammy. Marxists are never happier than when any group can be made to feel outraged and alienated from the larger culture. Discord and strife is good. It would serve the Party interests best if American blacks never fully assimilated into the larger American culture. The Democrats love their dependents. I mean minorities.
It’s the same with the homosexual community. It’s hard to believe we even have an open, proud “homosexual community,” but we do, not due to our normal national representation, but due to our atheist and proactively secularist court system and the Democratic Party, both of which oppose, and even deny the existence of our Judeo-Christian national ethos. In the atheistic court view and the Party view, it is immoral to state that homosexuality is disordered or that sodomy is a sin. In fact, because I just said what I said, someone might swear out a political correctness warrant and call the political correctness police and have me legally dragged off to a Maoist reeducation camp. I mean rehab.Lefties, homos and SLIMC1 commentators will publicly cry on each other’s shoulders and seek redress from the atheistic courts against the horrible Religious Right Wingnuts, because, Heavens to Betsy, why, they can’t help it, because, you see, they were born that way and they have no choice. Bull crap. I offer as proof that being born homosexual is false the fact that so many of them have been cured, and so many go back and forth between periods of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Show me the empirical evidence that refutes that statement and I’ll disavow it. Nobody has to participate in perverted sexual practices any more than anyone has to participate in any other illicit sexual practices, any more than anyone has to participate in normal and perfectly licit sexual practices. Are we to believe that all fornicators, all adulterers, all habitual jerk-offs and all Clintons are just born that way and can’t possibly control themselves? If not, then, why do all homosexuals, and they alone, get a pass? Who do they think they are, Billary Clinton?
A cursory examination of the abortion situation in America will show that no voter, no legislator and no executive had anything to do with the “Constitutional” protections on the completely unregulated multi-billion dollar abortion industry in America. It is absolutely unrepresentative law, established by the court and ferociously defended by the Democrat Party. In point of fact, in establishing this unrepresentative “law,” the court arbitrarily dismantled and invalidated representative, legislated law all across the land, in total disregard of the will of the people, the Congress and the President. So much for the “balance of power” between the three branches of our government. And so much for representative government itself.
The whole abortion Constitutional issue points up the fact that the Congress and the Executive branches are too weak, or too dim, or too dumb to properly do their jobs and represent us. The atheistic Court has proved that it can make law on its own, and damn the people, and damn the Congress, and damn the President. The other two branches of government might just as well retire, go home and take up knitting, for all the good they’re doing us.
Of course, the preponderant Democrat position on border security is that we have entirely too much of it. This figures, since Marxism aims at an ultimate goal of no borders and no sovereignty. This is a clearly anti-American national existence position. The term illegal alien is a term foreign to the Democrat ear and tongue. They use various terms including words like “immigrant” and “worker” and so forth, but never the actual term illegal alien, which is what we’re talking about here. Most of them have backgrounds in law, but they cannot properly interpret the word illegal. These illegal aliens are not immigrants; they have filed no immigration papers anywhere. You can call them undocumented workers all day long, but the fact of the matter is we don’t know what the Hell they are, except that they are here illegally and that they are aliens. There’s nothing tough about this.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone crossing our borders, in either direction, so long as they do so in compliance with the laws of both countries. This means producing, as required, passports, visas, immigration papers, worker permits, or whatever. Lots of people do it every single day. The Left hates these absolutely normal, common, legal restrictions, because the Left hates borders, and the Left hates nations. We are an immigrant nation, granted. But those immigrants came here legally, to become part of America. Lefties cry that there are more legal restrictions now than there were then – so what? If the same restrictions would have existed back then, our grandparents would have obeyed them back then. You will have a hard time finding a nation with absolutely open borders in the world today, especially after Islam’s cross-border terror demonstrations. Try going from here to, say, Switzerland, without passport or visa, without saying a word to the USA or to Switzerland ahead of time, and just watch what happens.
Just about every pre-Socialist preparatory program recommended by Marx and Engles in the Communist Manifesto is championed by the Democrats, from demonizing Capitalism, to controlling markets, to abolishing eternal truths, to progressive taxes, to state-controlled education, to Socialized medicine, etc., etc., etc. None of these programs may be found in any of America’s founding or foundational documents; they all have their original roots in the Communist Manifesto. A classic example is presented by the state of our public, i.e., state or Party, school system. Under Democrat impetus sex education has increasingly preempted classical education subjects in the pretended interest of the “need” to teach the people’s children the mechanics of safe fornication, protected sodomy and responsible promiscuity. Statistics of venereal infection and illicit pregnancy among American children directly parallel the advance of this Democrat inspired state education effort. Obviously what is being taught is not safe, not protected and not responsible.
In direct response to this blatant attack on both morals and on classical education, conservatives have pushed for chastity training to be included in the curricula, to howls of opposition from the anti-Christians, the atheists, the homo-Nazis and the Democrats. “Now,” say the opponents of chastity training, “the reality is that chastity training doesn’t work.” Well, no shuckin’, Sherlock. They don’t even see that sex education doesn’t work either, except to do precisely the opposite of what it was falsely advertised to do. I submit that no variety of sex education, including chastity training, has any proper place in any public school system. A public school is supposed to classically educate children, not re-moralize them. A major part of the reason for the dismal failure of American public schools to actually classically educate American children involves the time, material, effort and tax dollars expended on teaching them, essentially, different ways to screw. Who the Hell do these people think they are?Then we have the Democrat position on the war, which is, to contribute as much as possible to a defeat. They want us to cut and run; what they say is redeploy, but what that means is cut and run. They want to leave the field to the enemy, who will proclaim victory, and rightly so, because it will be a victory, just as they planned it. They play the SLIMC1 and the Democrats like a fiddle, to turn the tide of the voters toward the Democrat Party and ultimate military victory for them, and loss for America. The Party and the SLIMC1 expend huge amounts of energy demonizing the President, calling him a liar, even seeking his impeachment.
There is nothing new here, and by now we should all realize it. They’ve done it before, and Vietnam was not the first time. During the Civil War, they similarly demonized President Lincoln, calling him all the names they currently call Bush, including liar. They sought to cut off funds for the war, and they sought to end it immediately, which would have meant a separate USA and a separate CSA, and the continuance of slavery, which they were in favor of and fought for from the start. They even tried to impeach Lincoln. There is nothing new under the sun.
They seek to “educate” us and lift us to their pseudo-sophisticated level that is capable of renouncing our Christian national heritage in favor of, if not atheism, then a bland, compromise, combination, general religiosity with carefully politically-corrected all inclusive prayer, pious facial expressions and hand holding, including the active homos and other obstinate unrepentant sinners. Any major public prayer, when legally allowed at all, must include various pagan representations, including especially the UN re-invigorated recognition of the Earth goddess Gaia. It’s politically correct. It’s inclusive. To speak or be or pray otherwise would be exclusive, and that’s always bad, because it doesn’t direct us toward a more politically correct one world general religiosity.
President Kennedy, a Dem, was put to the un-Constitutional religious test during his campaign for President, and he failed the test. Like a good Dem, he promised to put his Catholic beliefs aside for the “higher purposes” of governing. Like his fellow Party members, he only pretended at his religion. Putting your religion and your religious morality aside is strictly against the religion of every practicing Christian and Jew. There is nothing in Catholic belief that would have harmed America; it’s all very public and quite open, and anyone and everyone can look at every bit of it.
When all religions are equally valid, then no religion is valid; when anything at all is moral, then morality itself will have died. But the Democrats insist on the acceptability only of either atheism, or a bland combination of every belief-system in existence, bar none. Remember this, the next time you see some “all inclusive” prayer service that is supposed to be an American national event: The First Commandment beginning is
We are required by our faith to pray to Him and to Him only. To Americans, there is no other. Only unbelievers, weak believers and those who are faking it can pray to alien gods or combinations of them, whether devoutly or just for the cameras. Democrats, of course, can do it with alacrity. Rock stars can sing unto Krishna or whoever, and the UN can bow their heads toward Gaia or whatever; but real Christians and Jews cannot do that without committing grave sin. Toleration and respect for other religions does not require participation in their practices, liturgy, prayers or hymns.The Democrat Party’s guiding ethos and purpose for being is alien to us and hostile to the American ideal. It is the ethos of BMDFP10 and Karl Marx.
Currently, things are not much better on the Republican side of the street; but they are better. There is no really good candidate in sight, although all the pretty poor ones still look better than the Dems. The problem, as I see it, is this:
This means that now, and always, there will always be more liberal candidates than conservative ones, in any political Party. Those of us who are so often disgusted with our government, which, I think, is most of us, are never or rarely going to see what we might call an excellent slate of conservative candidates from which to choose. Even the Republican candidates will tend to be more liberal than the people as a whole.
It’s so tiresome to continuously choose the least bad from among a slate of bad candidates. Reagan was rare in the extreme. Current Republican candidates are typically weak or waffling on one or more social issues, although they might be fiscally conservative. They will be on the wrong side (or waffling) in their support of sodomy, or abortion, or border control, or even our national nature as a Christian people. Saying that they are all better than Democrats might be true, but it isn’t saying much.The typical Republican responses to downright stupid Leftist political attacks from the Dems and from the SLIMC1 range from weak to non-existent, especially from the office of the President. Why he and they do not sally forth and lay about with a political battle axe we may never know. They just stand there and take it, right between the eyes, without ever going on the attack, on issue after issue in which it would be so incredibly easy for them to publicly and politically prevail. Heavy sigh.
God help us all.
The two highest callings any young man can respond to are to enter the religious order, and to enter the military order. When we speak of martyrdom and of military heroics, we are often speaking, kind-of sort-of, of the same thing. Martyrdom is especially singled out from other forms of heroism as involving death due specifically to religious faith, or defense of faith, or refusal to renounce faith.
The horrible and yet beautiful story in 2 Maccabees 7 illustrates full, true martyrdom in the classic sense. Seven brothers and their mother were, one by one, horribly mutilated and tortured in order to get them to violate a simple and seemingly not so important dietary point in the Mosaic Law – to eat unclean food – and they all knowingly refused to do it, under pain of torture and death. They would not violate even this one Law, and as a direct result, they each, one at a time, suffered horrors unimaginable today, and they all died - willingly. They knew that their suffering, like this world, was temporary, and that their Heavenly reward was eternal. Antiochus, their tormentor and executioner, knew only this temporary world, and satiated his morbid appetites here in this world, as do all unbelievers and persecutors of God, and eventually, we may assume, went to an entirely different eternal reward.
It was the repeated, crystal clear public martyrdom of consecrated nuns that eventually silenced the bloodthirsty howling mobs of France and moved Madam Guillotine quietly off to mothballs in the French Revolution. Perfectly innocent nuns who refused to renounce the Church and their faith were roughly maltreated and fed, one by one, into the guillotine, while singing hymns and psalms unto God, with crystal clear unwavering voices, until the blade fell. One after another, after another, after another, until they were all beheaded. Before the last one went, the whole mob was silenced, sickened and slowly dispersed by what they had wrought, and even spiritually moved by this unwavering public display of courage, faith and martyrdom. The horrors of the citizen’s court very quietly ended, right then.
The soft, sweet voice of a solitary nun singing unto God may be the most soul stirring sound on Earth. It may sound like one voice to us, but the whole Community that has gone before her is singing with her.
The story of Maximilian Colby was somewhat different. One of some 20,000 Catholic priests and religious sent to The Camps in the Nazi persecution, he singled himself out for certain death, so that another might live. This was an example of true, perfect charity – the giving of something expecting nothing whatsoever in return from the recipient. Fr. Colby gave his Earthly life so that a father might live and one day be able to raise his children.
These are just a few examples; history is loaded with examples of people who died heroically for their religion. What about those who die heroically for their country? Leftists will offer the testimony that no country is worth fighting for or dieing for; but then, Leftists are Marxists, and Marxists seek the end of countries, which makes their testimony immediately suspect.
”For God and Country” is probably the chief motivator for young men to enter the military order. Especially in time of national peril, but even in peaceful times, men raised in traditional families are raised with a sense of duty, to God, to family, to community and to country. So, to this day, many join the military out of a sense of national duty; they feel that they are supposed to serve at least one military hitch. The Left is always trying to weaken or destroy this sense of duty, and the larger attachment to tradition.
God and Country is what primarily moves men to raise their hands, take the oath and put on the uniform. But God and Country is not usually what makes them do what most of us recognize as self-sacrificial or heroic deeds on the battlefield. Maybe sometimes, but not usually. It needs a little explaining.
Taking the oath and putting on the uniform is only the beginning of military life. Intense, rigorous military training involves not only individual physical and mental discipline, but group physical and mental discipline. It not only molds individual military strength, but emphasizes the Corps, the Unit, the Company, the Platoon, the Squad, the Team and the Buddy. The process of becoming an effective individual warrior necessarily involves the process of bonding into a warrior brotherhood. Living, training, eating, training, sleeping, training, and being continually vexed and tested within a tight, closed military community builds strong unit cohesiveness, which is the most vitally important ingredient of any effective military unit.
The strength of the brotherly bond between members of a well trained and/or battle hardened military unit must be experienced to be fully understood; it cannot be explained, because words cannot do it justice. God and Country may move men to enter the military order; but that is not usually what makes some of them do the incredible things that history records. Fear precedes battle. When the action begins, the training kicks in, and the fear moves into the background. And the training that takes control is a corporate thing. Thoughts of God and Country are not in the forefront of thought when the fit hits the shan; most usually things are happening much too fast. It is the Corps; or the Unit; or the guy standing next to the hero that is the motivator of the self sacrificial act. It is the community; it is the brotherhood.That’s also why so many veterans never forget their service, their unit, their officers or their buddies. I wish I could tell you that the military order might be one quarter, or one tenth, or one one-hundredth as holy or as religious as is the religious order, but I cannot, because it is not. Not even close. And, I think we all know that there is some percentage of all military units that is foul mouthed and given to immorality on leave or pass. Even so, I think it needs to be stated that the military, on average, is a whole lot more religious, basically decent and clean-mouthed than Hollywood consistently projects it to be. Whenever you’re watching a relatively recent vintage war movie, remember that Hollywood is, in general, just as deeply Marxist as is the SLIMC1 .
If we are ever going to move forward to a better place than where we are, we need to first take stock of precisely where we are. If we are ever to move toward any sort of perceivable ultimate destiny, then we need to take stock of precisely what kind of people we are. The question before us is this: Are we really a distinct and somehow distinguishable people? Or, are we a fuzzy, all inclusive, super-tolerant, non-judgmental, anything-goes kind of people? Do we have any common moral standard at all by which we live, and if we do, then what is its name?
I submit for your consideration the statement that the United States of America is a Christian nation. If you disagree with that statement, then, formulate your own equally well based statement regarding just exactly what we are. Consider our history, consider our founding documents, consider our current population make-up, and describe exactly what kind of a country America is if it is not Christian.
I submit for your consideration the statement that America’s entire court system is overwhelmingly atheistic, anti-Christian and purposely acts as a proactively secularizing influence on American society. And that if any part of this statement is not true then America’s entire court system certainly has a very funny way of showing it.
I submit for your consideration the statement that the Democrat Party in general and every single Democrat candidate for President in particular denies (or opposes and seeks to change) the notion that America is a Christian nation, and politically champions movements roundly condemned by Christianity, including abortion on demand and open public faggotry. Which are just some of the planks in their Party platform; these are the kind of things that they stand for, and what they are about.
We have come to the place where openly saying that something immoral is immoral, is itself immoral. Our guiding ethos is being turned upside down. There is nothing difficult about any of these issues; they are all pretty much black and white. Granted, Republican candidates just stand around with their thumbs up their butts and don’t even seem to recognize these challenges to our American nature. And, granted, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch just stand around with their thumbs up their butts and just let the Judicial Branch just do whatever the Hell it wants to do in an even greater challenge to the continuance of our unique American nature. But somebody has got to do something.The opposition to God and Country seeks the end of Country and denies the existence of God, and drives us toward godlessness, or ungodliness. The goal of eliminating nations and governments comes out of the silly pipe dreams of the likes of Munzer and Marx for creating worldly yet perfect utopian one world society. The popular denial of God concept comes out of the pseudo-sophisticated, puffed up, conceited and self-adulating conviction of TTRSTF4 : a faith-based belief that there is no such thing as the ephemeral, there exists only the material. (A poem is an ephemeral thing that may only be recognized and appreciated by another ephemeral thing: a human mind. “Science” claims that poems and minds will eventually be shown to have material explanations, and that may be so.)
Pure “material science” claims, unscientifically and without evidence, that matter is all that exists, and that there is an exclusively material explanation for everything, eventually to be found by science. That all the complexities we see came about by random accidents of matter encountering matter. We ask them to prove it, or to prove that God does not exist, and when they do not, we claim that they hold to these theories by faith alone, since they have no material proof of them. They respond that “we cannot prove a negative, and it is unreasonable for you to ask us to prove that something does not exist.” Very well; I shall offer them a positive statement regarding something material, and we shall see if they can use a purely material argument to refute a positive.
I submit that God exists, and my proof that God exists is, in a word, existence. The fact that stuff exists proves the existence of God, because anything created requires the preexistence of a Creator. Show me an independently verifiable, purely empirical and strictly material explanation for the existence of matter and I will disavow my statement.
Democrats and Leftists will emulate the models of Citizen Robespierre and Stalin and Hitler and Mao, and stand up for godlessness, and for Der Staadt, or The Party, or The Global Village, or The Leader. Moslems may be absolutely depended upon to stand up for Allah, and for the achievement of Umma, the One World Islamic Caliphate. But let’s be clear about it: if the United States of America does not successfully stand up For God and Country, the very notion of standing up For God and Country will die, for there is no other Christian nation in sight ready, willing or able to do that. Look around.
The voter – the American sovereign citizen – is the only real hope for America, which is the last hope for the continuance of Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization. If there are enough American citizens left who still have a strong, solid, Divine Ground of Being then things will start to turn around. If not, then, perhaps America no longer deserves to remain in national existence. The people will decide, and, through their votes, they will get the government and future they deserve. His will be done.
Give glory to God, and pray for our country.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Monday, January 07, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Thu Oct 09 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and nothing else.
These are the pages that explore the dichotomy between what Benjamin Franklin called "our American religion," which is General Christianity, and waging war.
Necessity of War pages
Whether man wants war or not, it is best to be prepared for war so long as evil exists, and evil will exist until Christ comes again. Even Heaven itself was not free of war.
Unavoidable existence of evil and the periodic Necessary War. So long as evil exists, necessary war will be fought, lest the Church and "Good" be extinguished on earth.
The Necessity of War: Is there such a thing? Do we ever need war? The Thinking Catholic looks at the seemingly perpetual argument over the very Necessity of War.
America's Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw. Since Korea, top-level American war strategy has been terribly flawed. (Note well that the Korean "war" is not even over with, and we are still there, at this late date.)
The Bush War Doctrine Revisited: a fresh look at our horrible situation. A reproduction of the "Bush War Doctrine Revisited" article and discussion points by David Yerushalmi; there is much food for thought here.
For God and Country – More Thoughts on America, and on National Existence. For God and Country: Comparisons of martyrdom and heroism, Sovereign Nationhood Vs. Internationalism, distinct people-hood Vs. the Global Village, and Godliness Vs. godlessness.
How Cronkite and the SLIMC lost the Vietnam War for America. With the whole SLIMC overwhelmingly Marxist, the Reds couldn't possibly loose politically and publicly that which they couldn't posssibly win militarily in the Vietnam war.
The End Game; Marxism & Islam join hands beneath the smoke of world chaos. This could be the end game, it could be the beginning of World War Three, or, just another global depression.
World Revolution returns with a vengeance: the rebirth of Marxism. Marxist world revolution returns, and faces far less opposition than in 1848 or the period between the Great Wars.
Again, it's Israel up against what appears to be the whole pea-picking world. Weak lip-service and pretty speeches aside, America is Israel's only real ally. And, as war is imposed upon her again, even many Americans are lukewarm in their support. Why?
The latest Israeli conflict is little different from all the previous ones. The first Israeli conflict with her neighbors, and every one since then, has been a simple matter of self defense.
From 1768 through 1776 the Brits vainly attempted gun control in the Colonies. The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
American Military Assault Weapons originally intended in the 2nd Amendment. To miss the point of the 2nd Amendment is to miss the point of the whole Constitution.
CCW Entrapment discusses the legal dangers of legal carrying. George Zimmerman is a victim of CCW Entrapment and Sponsored Racial Polarization.
Thoughts in remembrance of 09/11/2001, five years later. The changing shape of the war, the changing shape of the enemy.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the