Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Certain points in human history are pivotal, and decisive. America,
and perhaps the world, have reached such a point. It is decision time.
Is it to be the Way the Truth and the Life, or is it to be randomness,
pointlessness and oblivion? What does that even mean? Do we know, any
more, what the Way the Truth and the Life are? It might be time to refresh our memories.
In days of old, God's first chosen people, Israel, were ruled by judges, whose mission it was to make sure the people correctly followed the law of God. Judges were committed to studying, understanding and correctly passing on the law; thus the people were ruled by the rule of law rather than the rule of mere men. There were multiple tribes and there were multiple judges. But some of the judges and many of the people were falling away from love of God and the spirit of the law, and they were seduced by the worldly distractions of pleasure, riches, power, pomp and circumstance. Even the sons of Samuel, who were judges, fell victim to bribery at the expense of truth and justice.
We all know - or should know - what happened next.
Thus it came to be that the rule of law began to be replaced by the
rule of man. Because God gave man free will, and intended for man to
make use of his free will, out of respect for man and his free will, God
allowed man to make such decisions and suffer such consequences. There
followed Saul, and David, and Solomon. There was good in each, and
there was bad in each, but the important thing is this: it was a very significant turning point.
From the appointment of the first king, there began a growing emphasis
on worldly attentions, and a lessening of emphasis on the will of God.
From that day on, until the founding of America, the entire history
of the world ever increasingly involved conquest, rule by might,
cruelty, injustice, slavery, and a rigid, fixed, permanent class division
between nobility and serf, and the increasing ability of the few to use
the many to their own advantage. All of this was in opposition to the
way the truth and the life. It was all predicted in 1 Samuel 8 above.
All of that began to change
with the founding of America. The first Pilgrims, and all of the
original Colonies, all involved people coming here to avoid religious
persecution by theocratic rulers. What they were looking for was
religious freedom; in order to establish it, for themselves only, they
established new theocratic governments, Christian denomination
by Christian denomination. It was the only way they knew to keep any
other denomination from being legally imposed over them. The original
official American Colonial Christian religions are listed below.
While the Colonists differed in their specific Christian theological
interpretations, which flowed forth from the First Tablet Commandments,
they were all in total agreement on their morality, which flowed forth
from the Second Tablet Commandments. This Christian moral code - based
on the law of God - formed the basis of civil law in the American
Colonies. These are the Commandments of God that describe how man is to
treat his fellow man. This is the moral law.
It is a vitally important yet generally overlooked fact that the early Colonialists, even in their new self-created Christian theocratic Colonies, did not impose their chosen religion upon the population or force everyone to worship a certain way. Religious toleration was the order of the day. Religious intolerance of the British and European states was the most important factor that they fled when they came here; it was the reason the Pilgrims sailed, and it was the main reason for the Colonies coming into being.
Other Europeans who wanted to
come to the new Colonies but could not afford the passage wanted to sign
contracts in-debting themselves to Colonialists, committing themselves
to periods of indentured servitude to the family or patron who
paid their way over. The Catholics in Maryland, and the Quakers in
Pennsylvania, etc., could not always find willing servants of the same
faith to come over and help work the land or other growing businesses,
and so they willingly paid the fare of immigrants of other faiths. They
took them in, sheltered, fed and clothed them, in return for (usually)
seven years of servitude, after which they were free of the debt.
Thus it came to be that the Catholics in Maryland, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc., were eventually
outnumbered, Colony by Colony, by voting citizens of other
denominations of Christianity. The Colonies were still officially
Christian theocracies, but the official Christian denominations had
become voting minorities in each Colony, and people worshiped in many
divergent Christian Churches everywhere, without hindrance. While they
still differed in theological interpretation, they all held to the same
moral code, which formed their strong American Judeo-Christian Ethos, and the universally accepted basis for all civil law.
The matter of rule by a King remained. The Colonists had gotten out from under the religious intolerance of European kings which sprang from Luther's dictum Cujus region, ejus rligio (Whoever’s reign, his religion.) It was this new Protestant dictum that kicked off the horrible wars of the Reformation, and the new radical combination of Church and State that took over all of Europe. These fiercely theocratic kingdoms were precisely what the Pilgrims had fled, and what the early Colonists fled. (We talked about this in For God and Country.)
King George of England, who claimed sovereignty over the Colonies, insisted upon imposing his rule in them, and upon collecting increasing taxes from them, because - well, because he was the King. It was his due. The American Revolutionary War and its aftermath was one of history's most important decisive turning-point events; it was, potentially, the beginning of the end of rule by kings. Two great earth-shaking documents were produced; one before the war - the document that started the Revolutionary war, the Declaration of Independence, and one after the final victory, the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.
We have spoken of these two documents in Foundational Principles and in Constitutional Principles. Here, we will only address one aspect of the American Founding Principles from the Declaration, and it is:
This seemingly insignificant, throw-away line was and is of the most profound importance, to kings, and to subjects of kings. To nobility and to serfs. To aristocrats and to working men. To farmers and to hired hands. To Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Judges and Justices, Governors, Mayors, Legislators at all levels, Councils, Sheriffs, soldiers and citizens.
What this line meant then, and what it means today, is that all men stand equal before the law. No one is above the law. No one. President and citizen stand as equals before the bench. We are a nation of laws, not merely of men. The law is the ruler; we have no king; we have no ruler. We have the law, and it is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That, and that alone, is the supreme law of the land, no inferior laws may contradict it, and no other law from any source whatsoever may be superimposed over it.
We will have no kings. We are a nation of laws.
America is the first classless nation, since the rule of Saul.
The inspired brilliance of the Framers cannot be overstated; I truly believe they were inspired by God. The Colonies would not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, and one of the most important was the right to freedom of religion, which they addressed in the First Amendment, as follows:
Congress, who held sole authority to make new law, could never establish any official state religion, nor could they restrict the free exercise of religion. Thus, at the federal level, there could never be any official state religion, and the state could never dictate or impose any religion upon the people.
Now, by this time, all of the individual states already enjoyed freedom of religion, even though they each had an official state (Colonial) religion established in law. We have already spoken of the reason these Colonial theocracies were established; it was for religious freedom. Now, with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, everyone saw the wisdom of the First Amendment religious clause. Each state began a "disestablishment" program to repeal existing religious establishment laws at the state level, and to include the same religious prohibition in their state Constitutions. The eventual result was that every state in America had a similar statement or amendment prohibiting an official state religion, and allowing for free exercise.
We had a good beginning of returning our major focus to God, and concentrating less on the world. The Founders and the Framers were humbled to their knees by the overall beauty of what they had collectively designed. The new government was designed and constrained to be representative of the people, with governmental authority and power specifically limited and enumerated. The Constitution provided the makeup of the government, and its rules of operation. The whole of it, the whole design, was to enhance human liberty and free the human soul. To make the citizen the sovereign, in the final analysis. The citizen hires, and fires, even the President.
But such liberty carries with it both a blessing and a curse. Wherever man has free will, he is free to choose wrongly, and to be led astray; the world is still ruled by the evil one. Temptations abound, falsehood is everywhere.
The Founders and the Framers, and the first administrations of the American government, just about all of whom were really statesmen before they were politicians, had a good foundation in Scripture and in history. They also stood on the shoulders of the greats of Western Civilization while trying to develop something new. They used Socratic, Platonic and Aristotelian discipline in seeking to arrive at ultimate truth. This meant that they appealed to ethos, pathos and logic, all in their proper order and with proper limitations. That is how they argued and decided issues of contention, and that is how they legislated, executed and adjudicated new law.
But Lucifer had planted seeds of deceit and deception in the Garden. It may be argued that they were watered by the likes of Luther and Munzer, and that they were fertilized by the likes of Machiavelli, Hegel and Marx. It may also be argued that they are nearing harvest by the likes of Comrade Obama, the Democrat Party, the New World Order and the House of Islam.
Earlier we spoke of the Aristotelian science of rhetoric, which made proper use of ethos, pathos and logos. All of that is now radically distorted on the Left side of the street.
If we look solely, for the moment, at the Democrat Party, we see a twisted view of America, her founding and her Constitution.
The "ethos" of the Democrat Party is most certainly not the ethos of the Founders, Framers and the overwhelming majority of the current citizenry. It is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, protective of pornography, hostile to Christian religion, hostile to the family, hostile to private property, seeking redistribution of property, driving toward the collective, and in general following Marx's Communist Manifesto to a T. On the Left, there is no ethos; there is only an anti-ethos.
What about pathos? The sympathies of the Democrats are both twisted and misplaced. Truth itself is twisted to invent classes where classes do not exist, in order to jinn up undeserved sympathies. It began with "organized" labor, in which workers were alienated from their own employers and made to feel exploited, instead of employed, with a gigantic social wedge driven between them. They did the same thing with the sexes, and with the races, and with the LGBT "communities," and with doctors and insurance providers, and with corporations and consumers, - the list is endless. Worst of all is the poor versus everyone else. The rich are blamed for the poor being poor, and every effort is bent to alienate the rich from everyone else, unless the rich man is a Democrat or a political supporter.
That leaves logos, or logic. This is where truth is twisted to the breaking point. Reality is redefined, and the false redefinitions are incorporated into public education. The biggest redefinition in play here is the one that redefines American equality before the law to become equality of - a long and eternally growing list of things. Income. Savings. Property. Social status. Education. Housing. Food. Medicine. Medical treatment. Clothing. The list is endless; but that's not the only point.
Before Marxian-Democrat redefinition of rights, the Constitution guaranteed American citizens legal rights to:
There are more, but these represent the heart of the Bill of Rights. As you can see, they are all protections of the citizen against the encroachment of the government on individual liberty. The citizen rights set forth in the American Constitution are, first of all,
But the Marxian-Democrat rights imagined into being are not possible to fulfill, and therefore impractical, and therefore, illogical.
It may have begun with FDR's famous (of infamous) Four Freedoms, which included two impossible human rights: freedom from want, and freedom from fear. There is no way to fully satisfy these "rights" of all citizens. The government would break itself trying to satisfy these impossible to satisfy rights. But, the Four Freedoms were only the beginning; they led to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a whole new universe of illogical impossibilities. Here's what we said about some of them in the political ideologies page:
But it's worse than even the quote above, because rights above are granted to everyone. That is to say, everyone has a right to everything listed. And more. It just goes on and on with these people. Modern "Social Justice" demands that everyone has a right to a job, a right to an "adequate" pay, a right to "decent" housing, a right to "complete" health care, and so forth.
If every single one of us demanded such rights, who would be left to supply them? No one. We would be left with a world full of benefit recipients, and a world devoid of people to provide the benefits.
The very idea of equality of stuff, born of the Marxian program of Redistribution of Wealth, is, first of all,
Socialism, which is to say, the Democrat Party agenda, is nothing but a gigantic Ponzi Scheme. It pays benefits taken from a decreasing population of tax payers to an increasing population of recipients, until eventually the whole population is on the recipient end, and there are no more tax payers. At which point the system collapses upon itself.
So the Democrat program fails the Aristotelian approach on all counts: it has no guiding ethos at all, it has a misguided, impractical and downright stupid sense of pathos, and it is so illogical as to be demented.
But it is even worse than that. The Democrats are not stupid. It is a trick; they are laying a trap. See the Refuting Marx page for the specifics of the game they are playing. The News Media is in on it. Machiavelli first laid out the plan, Hegel improved on it and Marx boxed it all up in his Communist Manifesto. It's all a game to get someone who is not in power into power, displacing whoever is in power at the moment. That's what it's really all about.
In our current case, it means displacing our Constitution and instituting a pure dictatorship.
You don't want to believe that the Democrat Party is anti-American, but it is. You don't want to believe that the News Media is equally anti-American, but it is. Nobody wants to entertain the notion that a president of the USA could be an anti-American, but he is.
He was raised in a world of equal parts of Marxism, Islam, anti-Colonialism and anti-Americanism. His chief mentor was Frank Marshal Davis; do you think Frank Marshal Davis was not anti-American? His longest tenured Pastor was Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Do you think Reverend Wright and his church are somehow not anti-American? He got his political start in the home of the infamous anti-American terrorist and bomber Bill Ayers; do you think Bill Ayers is not anti-American?
You would be hard pressed to list any public statements our current President made that were not outright lies. You would be hard pressed to name any appointment he made to any office who was not some variety of anti-American. His first secretary of state, Madam Hillary, wrote her thesis on her hero, Saul Alinksky. Do you think Saul Alinsky was not an anti-American?
If you don't know about Saul Alinsky and his radical agenda, here it is in a nutshell:
His second secretary of state was John Kerry, who, as a private citizen, illegally met and "negotiated" with the leaders of the Viet Cong Party in Paris, while we were still at war with them.
The real question should be, especially after studying his own written and spoken words, why on earth would you ever think that Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, would not be an anti-American?
Now, with the Boston Marathon bombings, our attention turns again to Islam. We don't think about Islam much, until it kills some more of us. Islam is, after all, a totally foreign ideology / religion / way of life. It is interesting to note how the News Media instantly, right off the bat, publicly hoped that the perpetrator(s) was (were) white, conservative and male, because if any person of color were involved, it would be a "setback for the whole Liberal agenda."
Always, the Democrats and their propaganda wing, the News Media, point to Right Wing Extremists with every new terror event, which is, of course, the exact opposite of what history shows us. Such violence just about always comes from the Left. It's what they do.
If you didn't think of Moslems, who would you first think of?
I remember the film Casablanca, and the scene in which Rick (Humphrey Bogart) shoots Major Strasser (Conrade Veidt.) After the police arrive, Captain Renault (Claude Rains) orders them to:
Going strictly by American history involving bombing, murder, terrorism, assassination, secret subversive organizations and so forth, in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, I know who my usual suspects would be.
Where was Bill Ayers?
Where was Bernadine Dohrn?
Where was Kathy Boudin?
They have all done this sort of thing before; they are all just as anti-American as the current administration, the Democrat Party and the News Media. They all prove the fact that being a member of an anti-American terrorist organization, committing terrorist acts involving bombs and murder is a good thing, a resume enhancement, a step in the right direction, if you want to become an American Ivy league university Professor.
American Ivy League universities are loaded down with anti-American professors. Teaching subjects like medicine, engineering, etc., are secondary objectives in American academia; the primary objective involves feeding the anti-American animus. That is their main mission.
But, this time, it again turned out to be a Moslem thing. Surprise. This time the perpetrators were of Russian extraction, and the Moslem connection involved Chechnya, a state or province or whatever that has warred on-and-off with larger Russia, with horrible atrocities committed on both sides. As usual, larger Islam is defended by the Democrats and the News Media.
What's the connection between our Left and Islam? Anti-Americanism.
And everyone, including even conservatives, dances around lesser Islamic connections, such as, Al Queda, or any other organized terror group. The overriding assumption remains that larger Islam is a "religion of peace," which it is not and has never been, throughout its entire history. It is an ideology of conquest and war. See the Refuting Mohammed page.
Yet, the terrorism "experts" diligently track relationships and connections, however tenuous, between disparate Islamic groups, to see whether it is an isolated incident, or a larger terror plot. Well, here's a news flash: Islam itself is a larger terror plot.
There is one and only one connection between all the various Islamic factions aligned against us, and it is the Koran. The link between the Chechen version of the world Caliphate, and the "12th Imam" version of the world Caliphate, and Al Queda, and Major Nidal Hasan, and the Moslem Brotherhood, and Lee Boyd Malvo, and CAIR, etc., etc., etc., is the Koran.
There is not one thing any of these terrorists or terrorist organizations have said or done that they were not commanded to do by the Koran. Islam is the enemy. It is just so glaringly obvious that I cannot understand why more people don't see it. Perhaps we have been "educated" into sheer suicidal stupidity.
Thomas Jefferson knew that Islam was the mortal enemy of all of Christendom, and all of Western Civilization, and all of the non-Islamic world, and he knew it way back in the 18th century, for heaven's sake. Don't look now, but it is the 21st century, and we are in need of learning this terrible lesson all over again. Jefferson was so alarmed by what he learned of Islam that he personally published and distributed an English translation of the Koran, as a warning to all who spoke English, about what these people intended to do to us.
Are we all deaf, dumb and blind?
Are we now so semi-literate that we cannot read with understanding?
Sometimes I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life. Please God and live forever.
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
Date: Sun Apr 21 15:54:33 2013
Location: Gwynn's Island, VA, USA
Vic: As always, I love what you have said here -just noticed a few language errors that you might want to remedy :
1) ...the Declaration of Independence, and one after the final victory, the Constitution of the United States and it's [Should be 'its' - no apostrophe] Bill of Rights.
2) Ivy not Ivey League & same paragraph 'academia' (the 'e' is missing)[I think I am right although when I read the difference between 'Moslem' and 'Muslim', I am all for 'Moslem'!]
Don't expect to see this in the comments, but I did want to tell you that I have been waiting for your take on this since even unfolded last week. I only wish we could open more eyes! I think you are right: Perhaps we have been "educated" into sheer suicidal stupidity.
Highest regards, Sue
Date: Sun Apr 21 18:10:50 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you so much; I have corrected the errors.
Lots of people don't like my use of the word Moslem, among others of my stubborn linguistic oddities. I wrote the Ethics of Language page to answer some of those criticisms.
Date: Sun Apr 21 16:03:43 2013
Location: Gwynn's Island, VA, USA
One other thing: did I understand you to say the the 'evil one' rules the world? I don't think I ever heard anyone offer that idea before, have I?
Date: Sun Apr 21 18:21:18 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
You probably have heard it somewhere before. I mentioned it most recently in Truth Versus Agenda. But where the notion comes from is from the Bible, in Revelations 12:7-9:
Note that Satan was thrown down to earth, not to hell.
In Luke 10:18 we have the Lord's own words:
Matthew 4:9 and Luke 4:7 speak of Satan's temptation of the Lord after His fast in the desert, offering Him all the kingdoms of the world, which had been given into his hand, if only the Lord would bow down and worship him.
Satan does indeed rule the world.
Date: Mon Apr 23 23:21:14 2013
What you say about Islam and the holy Qur'an is not correct. What you are describing it radical Jihad, not Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.
Date: Tue Apr 22 06:49:03 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
What I say here is quite correct. There is no such thing as radical Jihad. There is only Jihad, which is an important, integral part of Islam. Jihad is mentioned at least 41 times in the Koran. And, Islam is most certainly not a religion of peace. Besides the Koran, actual history itself proves the militaristic, warlike nature of Islam.
Jihad is an important and required duty of all Moslems.
There are different kinds of Jihad, but the most frequently referred to and the most frequently applied kind of Jihad involves violence or actual war. The Holy War aspect of Jihad outweighs both non-violent Koranic references and non-violent historical events.
The inner or "greater" Jihad is the inner struggle to submit oneself totally to God. The outer or "lesser" Jihad is the external struggle to spread Islam all over the world.
There are peaceful forms of outer Jihad; there is Jihad by debate or argumentation, and there is a "Jihad of the pen." But the peaceful uses of Jihad are and always have been vastly outnumbered by the violent uses called for in the Koran. When all other forms of outer Jihad fail, the disciple is called to at least support, if not actually perform, violent Jihad against unbelievers.
And they always do.
That's just the way it is.
Date: Wed Apr 24 07:32:23 2013
We are supposed to be a pluralistic society. It is our diversity that made us into a great nation. You are always attacking anyone who supports any part of what Marx taught, and all Muslims, because of what you think they think. How can we have freedom of speech and press if we cannot first have freedom of thought? Almost all Muslims are decent people why can you not see that and accept it? This is narrow mindedness. When we are welcoming to everyone, without exception, we will begin to eliminate war. We should be increasing diversity, not restricting it.
Date: Wed Apr 24 08:52:09 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again.
Pluralism and diversity is not what made us into a great nation. It was a homogeneity of guiding ethos that did that. An increasing heterogeneity can only be destructive of any culture. There is nothing wrong with diversity of race, ethnic origin or foreign traditions. But what you are talking about is diversity of guiding ethos, and even purpose for being. As much as I hate to pop your happy balloon, let me recommend that you turn down any dinner invitation you receive from any tribe of cannibals.
First, re Marx, the central theme in Marxism is the elimination of private property and the program of redistribution, right? Anyone who subscribes to a program of redistribution opposes the Constitution (Amendment 4; Amendment 14), i.e., the Constitutional right to private property. I submit that opposing the Constitution is opposing America, as Constituted, particularly if the person ever took and oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. (At least it says so.)
Second, re Islam, and all those peaceful Moslems: I am reminded of the old Western movies in which the wagon train was nervous about Indians lurking about, and the warning "It's when you don't see 'em that they're there", and "It's the one you don't see who will get you." I see all those peaceful Moslems, and they make me quite nervous. As I said, when push comes to shove, they will at least support, if not actively participate in, violent Jihad against unbelievers.
How's that purely academic, completely impractical and downright stupid program of Celebrating Diversity working out for Boston these days?
Date: Tue Oct 14 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.
The Truth Pages
Highlighting the inconvenient, uncomfortable and alienating absolute divisiveness of Truth. We either stand in Truth, or we do not. Truth is simple black and white. There are no shades of grey. You will either align yourself with the ruler of the world, or with the Creator of the world, Who is Truth Himself.
The Politics versus Truth dichotomy conundrum. Even knowing how vehemently both Establishment Political Parties hate the Constitution, it's still shocking how openly they oppose that which they have all sworn to uphold.
Questioning Truth: "There is no absolute truth", say the Enlightened Elite. Questioning Truth itself has been the pop-culture wave since the 1960s. Loss of faith in man's ability to even identify reality is the real source of all the social chaos.
When Worldly Authority meets Truth, it is Decision Time. When Just Authority meets Truth there is harmony; when Unjust Authority meets Truth, there is a Contest.
Truth is the only thing we can Unite on. Yet Real Truth Divides. Truth Divides, because Truth Hurts. Any "Truth" that indiscriminately Unites is a False Truth.
Regarding the SLIMC Vs. the Truth. Regarding the SLIMC (Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex) and its treatment of the Truth.
Returning America to her original consecration; the Way the Truth and the Life. Is it to be the Way the Truth and the Life, or is it to be randomness, pointlessness and oblivion?
The Truth about Islam, finally, in a homily at Mass. You never hear the unvarnished truth about Islam, or other evils, from Catholic clerics. Maybe that's finally changing.
Truth Denial: Über-elitist, high intellectual, super sophisticated Stupidity. Evil = Falsehood; the opposite of Truth. It is not possible to oppose reality and not be stupid.
How Truth Hurts, when it smacks us in the face. But if Truth hurts, it also saves, and makes us free (John 8:23)
Truth versus Agenda addresses the simplest of problems greatly complexified. Truth versus Agenda examines the contest between reality and its opposition.
Truth Versus Evil sums up this whole Website in one concise sermon. Truth versus Evil, or, The Kingdom versus The World, describes the contest. Do we really recognize the contestants?
Absolute Truth, as The Winning Political Force to be Reckoned With. The 2016 Candidate who stands in Truth rather than whatever various audiences want to hear will beat everyone, severely.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the