Connection between religion and civilizational survival

Thirty some years ago I acquired a computer game called Civilization.  It was the global version of Sim City where you started as an aboriginal and gradually developed your tribe, region, and entire civilization.  Growth and success involved trading with neighboring tribes, inventions, exploration, and one odd component I really didn’t see a legitimate purpose for at the time:  religion.  To be successful in the game, to advance your civilization, there needed to be some measure of religion.  I never progressed much in the game because I didn’t understand and thus ignored that civilizational advancement prerequisite built into that game.

Fast forward to today.  I just completed a book called “How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is dying too)” by David P. Goldman.  For internet junkies, Goldman wrote for First Things under the name of Spengler until early 2011.

Goldman explains that civilizations die because they  cease believing in a reason to perpetuate their existence.  As their belief in the future dies, they lose hope.  As their birthrate and thus their populations decline they lose influence in their region or in the world, and are eventually overrun by more motivated, enthusiastic thronging hoards, however civilized or uncivilized they may be. He developed convincing cause and effect evidence that the lack of religion creates this sense of purposelessness and hopelessness of a culture or nation.

He asserts that the current decline of Europe is due primarily to the decline of Christianity.  And the decline of Christianity in Europe, he demonstrates, is due to an inseparable alliance of Christianity to the political systems of their  nations rather than coming from the bottom up through spiritual belief and motivation of individuals within those nations.  This creates the situation where if the nation suffers difficulty for any reason, be it war, a bad economy, famine, the faith of the people suffers equally.  The nation is the god as much as the religion’s god.  This reasoning sounds circular because it is; because religion and state are bound together so tightly.  In recent centuries individuals in those nations, for the most part, lacked the deep and personal religious belief  that is held in other parts of the world, especially by most in the United States.

Goldman makes a convincing case for the connection of cultural spiritual vitality with birth rate.  Where spiritual vitality is strong, birthrates are higher.  Where spiritual vitality is lacking, birthrates are lower.  Birthrates of native Europeans are below the level of sustainability.  The higher the level of education and social and economic attainment, the birthrate and the level of spirituality are both lower.  This runs true across all national lines except when governments intervene to limit child-bearing, as in China.

The case of Islam is interesting, because popular wisdom tells us that the birthrate among Muslims in Islamic nations is high.  Goldman has discovered demographic trends that indicate younger Muslims are not maintaining the birthrates of their parents.  This indicates a longer term, 20+ year trend of Muslim birthrates declining to levels approaching barely sustainable levels, and declining further thereafter.  Goldman believes these rates will continue to fall because Islam will prove to be a failed religion.  Why?  First, because Islam is an unadaptable religion (actually a “political ideology.”)  Second, for the same reasons that Europe's religion is failing.  From its inception, Islam has been an authoritarian, top down religion.  It is a political religion that demands submission, whether one actually believes the religion or not.  And whether people are outwardly religious or not, they will not have the motivation to reproduce if their reason for existence and hope for the future is lacking because of their own spiritual deficiencies.

Europe’s Christianity of the past several centuries has been nationalistic, top down, not from the heart and soul.  Likewise, the recent return to Islamic fundamentalism results in a top down imposition of that faith on its people.  The heart and soul of most Muslims will not be in it.  Their spirit, confidence, and hope for the future will die along with their birthrates and civilizations.  That is the view of Goldman.

However, as Goldman further points out, Islam will not go away quietly.  As it realizes its decline and death are on the horizon, like a wounded animal, it will violently lash out.  Which it is certainly doing today.  There is a realization among some of its mullahs that the Islamic-driven culture is in desperate straits.  And out of desperation, they are doing desperate acts.

The problem is compounded further for the west because not only is this what typical wounded and dying civilizations usually do, but the historic, fundamentalist behavior taught, promoted, and practiced by Islam demands the type of supremacist, warring aggression as part of their ideology.   Consequently we should expect a uniquely motivated hoard of roaring banshees emanating from Islamic cultures, both foreign and domestic, in the coming years unlike that experienced in centuries.

Why progressives call Islamic resurgence “the Arab Spring”

Volatile events in the Middle East this past year have been called “the Arab Spring.”  Called that by whom?  Mostly by progressives and their mainstream media mouthpiece.

Why would such events be called by such a cheery sounding, flowers and butterflies name?  Those of us who understand the resurgent, orthodox character of Islam understand this to be the roiling in of a new Middle East dark ages that is likely to boil into a supremacist, fascist Caliphate and become an even greater threat to our only real ally, Israel and to international stability.

What do our progressive enabler-allies of Islam see?

They see masses of people having an opportunity to express and govern themselves through their faith.  They equate the Islamic faith with any other faith.  Big mistake. They see the shackles of decades of restraint on the practice of this political faith finally being removed.  They see young people expressing themselves like they couldn’t before.  They assume that removing government constraints in the Middle East will result in the same kind of democracy we have in the United States.

They value the illusion of freedom and democracy ahead of the reality of political Islam.  They are ignorant of the historic predisposition of Muslim hoards:  Chaos, violent supremacism, intolerance, conquest.   They failed to appreciate the necessity of the authoritarian forms of government that were essential to maintain order where those who would spread chaos are so many, so willing, and so motivated.

To borrow a line from Obama’s pal, the Rev. Wright:   “The chickens are coming home to roost.”  The atheist, agnostic, lapsed Christian, religio-phobic progressive elite in Washington DC wouldn’t recognize the Christian foundation necessary to sustain a democracy if they tripped over it and fell on their face in it.  They believe the Islamic roots of the Middle East Arab Spring will sustain democracy.   They are absolute ignorant fools.  Rather the proverbial camel will pass through the eye of a needle.

Here is to a new year of enhanced chaos, bloodshed, and destabilization in the Middle East, thanks to the ignorant progressive enablers in the West.

What very well could happen in 2012…

Very few of us believe there will be a December 12, 2012, Mayan calendar end of the world debacle.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other events that can keep us on the edge of our seats in front of the computer watching Drudge, Atlas Shrugs, GBTV, Town Hall, Newsmax and your other favorite current affairs web sites.

Let’s take a look at what might happen at home and around the world.  I will list what I we might expect in three probability categories:

• Very likely
• Fairly good chance
• Maybe but not likely

Here they are.

Very Likely:

Mitt Romney will be elected president.  Urban riots will follow in several cities.

Obama will make himself look as much like a conservative as he can possibly stand to attempt to win the election. This will be his Islamic taqiyya demonstration.

One or more Euro-zone nations will undergo a sovereign default

The political power of the Muslim Brotherhood that represents fundamentalist Islam will continue to sweep through countries of the Middle East increasing the threat to Israel and  the oil markets.

The “occupy movement” will resume in the Spring.  The national guard will be called out  in at least one location.

The unemployment rate will go back up to above 9%.

Food prices will inflate by at least 10% while the price of many manufactured products  will decline

Some experts will label our economic condition a “deflation.”

Fairly good chance:

Unemployment rate will go above 10%

There will be widespread rioting in several Eurozone cities.

We will have QE 3 to counter the perceived deflation.

Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities

The price of gasoline will exceed $4/gal.

Maybe, but not likely:

Widespread rioting in several American cities during the summer

Unemployment will fall  below 7%

Unemployment will exceed 11%

Obama will be re-elected

The DOW will hit 14,000

The price of gasoline will exceed $5/gal.

What do you think?  What have I missed?

 

Delayed reaction to over-stimulating our economy…

Some folks, including myself, are wondering why our economy isn’t yet experiencing run-away inflation, given all the billions of dollars created to stimulate ourselves out of our economic malaise.

One reader correctly reminded me that the government thrives on inflation, but cannot accomplish everything it sets out to do, as much as it tries to stimulate us back into inflation through its persistent draconian measures.

I suggest that there are unanticipated delayed reactions that result from government intervention and “tweaking.”  Stimulus is provided in the form of very low interest rates and pumping several hundred billion into the money supply.  No response.  Interest rates are lowered again, this time to near zero and additional hundreds of billions are pumped into our money supply.  Still no response.  But an unseen tension is building in the economic system and in our psyches until ***POW*** all the built up fiscal tension finally takes hold and swerves our economy into places never anticipated (by government) and never intended to go creating never intended cataclysmic consequences.

This “over-steering” of our economy by an overly-paternalistic and impatient federal government reminds me of over-steering a semi-trailer truck on an icy highway at high speed.  The driver is the hyper-involved federal government.  The truck is our economy.  The motorists on the near side of the median are the rest of us.  Take a look at what the unintended consequence of over-meddling can be…

Oh, and the motorists delayed expletives will be ours as well.

The driver of the speeding, careening, out-of-control truck is our government, the truck is our economy, and the traffic is the rest of us.

Nice, but insidious–Part 1

I often hear defenders of Islam speak about “the wonderful Muslims next door  who were the nicest people they have ever known.”

I hear expressions of the highest regard when friends describe the homosexuals in their church who are the most polite, creative, and Christ-like people they ever met, contrasting them with the impolite straight boors who are the “typical” Christians.

During WWII there were thousands of Americans who expressed appreciation for the wonderful Nazi’s who helped their neighbors and invited children in the neighborhood to their Nazi youth camps to help them grow up to be fine young adults.

And I don’t doubt that more than a few parents have shown appreciation to the kindness of men (coaches, priests, teachers, day care workers, ministers) who shower super-attentive “loving attention” on their children.

These are all instances of our gullibility.   Too often we are taken in by remarkably kind, helpful, polite behaviors that are merely a pretentious front for gross immorality or evil.

The “Muslim next door” often privately contributes to Jihadi organizations, learns or teaches anti-Semitic lessons, or promotes seditious activities all the while being the “good neighbor.”

The polite, artistically gifted homosexual is likely an influence on others to follow his lifestyle choice, failing to understand that we all have immoral predispositions that we struggle to control.

The wonderful Nazi “helping our kids” was training them to infiltrate and overthrow our government.

The “super-attentive” men turn out to be some of the most prolific child predators.

Kindness, attentiveness, helpfulness, and politeness are all very good things.   But they are not better than sound morality.  All too often these “very good things” overshadow underlying immoral or evil intentions or actions.  We too often hold kindness and politeness above the higher values of traditional morality.  Granted, traditional morality is out of style today.  The ten commandments, God’s feelings about the sanctity of life and marriage, and his revulsion toward sexual perversion are thought of as oppressive, quaint relics of an outmoded culture.  We act as if three thousand years of sound Biblical admonition is suddenly without merit.  We have lost our perspective of what is most important.  We have lost our desire and ability to discern one good above another. 

Or more accurately, we have lost our desire to discern  good from evil.

The next time you hear someone praise or swoon over the superficial behaviors of a person you know to be involved in or promoting perpetual immorality or evil, think twice about what is most important – about what are the most valuable attributes of that person.  Judge not, you say?  We are always judging.  We often commit errors in judgment when we respect a person on the basis of their politeness rather than on the more significant basis of their character and morality.   Be careful how you judge. 

We all judge.  We need to judge the right things.

Nice, but insidious–Part II

Of all the places where the value of morality should rise above the pretentions of outward behavior is The Church.

I have the least respect for churches and priests who grant communion to those individuals who are known to be involved in continuing and unrepentant sin.

I have the greatest respect for churches and priests who refuse communion to such individuals.

Individuals who are given a wink and a nod are often the most popular, hold the highest positions, and are the largest contributors to the church. Sometimes not.  Sometimes they are given a pass out of a misplaced compassion, or just an outright failure of church leaders to maintain Biblical standards – usually because of a low view of Scripture. 

These leaders exhibit a liberal tolerance that make Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear more orthodox than their supposed “orthodox” liberal mainline church.

This indifference to the ongoing, unrepentant immoral practices of church teachers, leaders or recipients of the Eucharist demeans the sacrament and blasphemes the God represented.   The “niceness” or the “wealth” of or “compassion” toward the unrepentant sinner ought not to be the highest standard for eligibility of these blessings or positions.  The entire premise of Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran and other church services is repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and the taking of the blood and body of Christ (transsubstantiated or symbolic) to fortify us to become more Christ like.  

Without the repentance, the very first step, there should be no participation with Christ.

A further problem arises when the Church no longer believes that certain behaviors are sin.  Some churches don’t believe that the continuing practice of homosexuality is sin or that homosexual union is sin.  Or, as I recently experienced at a local Episcopal Church, their belief is that individuals are free to believe whatever they want to believe about the Eucharist, and I suppose, about what sin really is.  Sin can be whatever the individual wants it to be – or not.  The church no longer has reliable, definable doctrine; all doctrine lies with the individual however far his definition of morality falls from traditional Scriptural morality.  This is like the heart patient in line at the cafeteria who chooses a full helping of cholesterol in lieu of the green beans while his family depends on his continued health for their well-being.  

These churches undermine the credibility of the entirety of Scripture with this gross reinterpretation of hundreds of years of faith and practice.

This is an insidious practice of "faith."

Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered! - only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord.

Jeremiah 7:8-11

Sermons missing from our churches…

A friend and I were discussing what is missing in most of our churches – and why we are both having difficulty finding a church that is politically incorrect enough to tell the truth and discuss the topics that are too offensive to be acceptable by many congregations. 

We want to learn about the topics our churches refuse to discuss.  So we decided to start our own Bible study group to explore the Biblical basis of these topics.

Here is our preliminary list of sermons missing from our churches – I am certain many other topics will come to mind:

1. Fiscal conservative/Cultural conservative:  Fiscal doesn’t work without the cultural – The Biblical roots of fiscal conservatism and why they are essential.

2. Social gospel versus personal gospel:  The differences.  The consequences of each.  The Biblical foundation for one; the Biblical fabrication for the other.  The views of John MacArthur (promotes personal gospel) vs. the views of Jim Wallis (promotes collective/social gospel).

3. Why the churches ignore the Islamic threat to our culture, government, religion, and freedom.  The cults of cultural diversity and moral relativism.  Focus on misapplied portions of Scripture dealing with not judging, turning cheeks, and acceptance of perpetual sinners, blasphemers and those who vow to eradicate the infidel.  Shake off the dust of your sandals and go to the next house.

4. Homosexuality.  How outmoded and intolerant the Bible really is.  NOT!  Humans have many predispositions offensive to God.  Why are some singled out for special protection in our culture?  The “sin” lobbies.

5. The Old Testament origins of Islamic ideology and other anti-God belief systems. The distortions of the Old Testament by Islam.

All of these would make great blog topics.  Some already have.  But all would also make excellent sermon topics but I know of no churches that touch them.  I wonder why?  Let me guess:  They may be controversial and cause dissention.  They may lose members and revenue.  The truth be damned.

Ron Paul: Run from him as fast as you can!

Ron Paul went on an irresponsibly wild squeal today, accusing Michelle Bachman of hating Muslims and accusing Rick Santorum of hating gays and Muslims.

If this is how he distinguishes nuances of foreign policy and social issues, Ron Paul is way out of touch and has no legitimate claim to any public position except maybe dog catcher.

Ron Paul is dangerously ignorant about Islam and the more than obvious threat both violent and stealth Islamic Jihad pose to our nation and the west.  Calling anyone “hateful” toward individuals because they reveal the truth about an evil ideology is a thoughtless, ignorant, bigoted accusation and is acting like a bull in a China shop.  Bachman does not “hate” Muslims.  She is appropriately very concerned about Islam.  Paul is playing the game of demonizing the messenger out of his ignorance of the message.  Shame on him.

Part two:  Gays.  Santorum does not “hate” gays.  He hates the clear fact that our nation is in moral decline.  What has been called grave sin for centuries is now a protected “right” that we not only have to respect but give special privilege to.   Homosexuality is not the only perverse behavior that has come out of the closet.  Abortion, higher divorce rates, rampant pornography, child molestation are all behaviors that are more commonplace and worthy of disdain.    I would not be surprised isf Ron Paul  found delight in ridiculing those of us who hate divorce and child molestation – or even child molesters themselves.  What Ron, you love child molesters?  Sheesh!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-on-michele-bachmann-she-hates-muslims/

I missed the obvious about liberal denominations…

During my recent hunt for a new church home, I missed a couple of major characteristics about liberal denominations:  Even the more conservative churches within their respective liberal denominations maintain form over substance, and they didn’t turn “liberal” overnight.  Not even in the past 2 or 3 decades.  They are liberal because they started liberal.   They started liberal by their initial disagreement with the main body they broke away from.  These comments are based on recent experiences in mainline Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches.  Using the Episcopal church as an example, the Church of England (Anglican Church) broke from the orthodox Catholic Church.  The Episcopal’s roots were in rebellion from the rules of the Catholic Church.  Their roadside signs today say “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.”  And that is much more than a catch phrase.  That is the present day manifestation of the sincere invitation offered  to those who were thrown out of or threatened with execution by the Catholic Church at the churches beginnings.

The Episcopal Church for decades has been a place where those who have been shunned in other denominations feel more welcomed.  This is all well and good and very Christian sounding.  The problem comes about when so many “outcasts” are attracted to a particular liberal church that it becomes dominated by them.  The doubters and rebels against orthodox doctrine and Bible teaching not only begin occupying most of the pews, but they begin occupying leadership and teaching positions.  They become first tolerated, then respected, and later dominant in denominational seminaries.  Soon the church becomes all form and little substance.  And they continue to attract like minded people.

At the same time, the orthodox folks in those churches are leaving in droves, either forming new more conservative spin-off denominations of a similar form, but with substance, or becoming involved in a different denomination altogether.  The liberal churches are the ones whose membership is declining most rapidly.

The churches that are growing most rapidly, oddly to some, are the ones that are considered “cults” by the mainline churches:  Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.   Neither of these churches can be labeled as liberal or conservative in the sense of conservative meaning “orthodox.”  Both are unorthodox as all heck, but they are conservative insofar as a literal interpretation of their versions of Scripture and demands made of their followers.  They both also have aggressive evangelizing programs at the core of their doctrine.   Jehovah’s Witnesses, even more than Mormons, have deliberatively separated themselves from our culture in a number of ways.  Members of both of these denominations are known, perhaps more than those of any other denomination, for their high regard for moral principles associated with traditional Bible teaching.

The charismatic Assembly of God Churches are also among the fastest growing.  They, too, maintain a more literal (fundamental) interpretation of Scripture, and in their own way also have greater expectation of their members.

Many churches change to adapt to changing culture and reap the consequences.  But Christianity does not change.  It values a constant morality that transcends culture.  As church growth and decline data testify, those churches that maintain the truth and spirit of Scripture will prevail while those that don’t will change and die along with the decadent culture that they chose to follow.  Until the last 50 years or so the church has seen its mission as leading and transforming the culture.  More recently most churches have relinquished that mission and have settled for being  led and transformed by the culture.

A lesson on faithfulness…

My recent experience in a “conservative” church  in a “conservative” diocese within a very liberal denomination taught me a lesson.  See previous post, HERE.

I should have expected this after I was informed by various members that the church has no established doctrine in many areas.  You are free to believe what you want to believe about any number of spiritual matters.  For example, when asked whether the “host”, the bread and wine at the Lord’s supper, is considered the body and blood of Christ as Catholics and conservative Lutherans believe, the answer was “ you can believe whatever you want it to be; we have no specific doctrine on that.”  Well, that spirit of “tolerance” didn’t stop there.

Apparently the church has no position on homosexuality, gay marriage, or Islamic supremacism either, given that a church-sanctioned regularly scheduled Bible teacher proclaims that the Bible does not really teach that homosexuality is sin and that the US, not Islamic ideology, may very well be to blame for Islamic terror against us.

One lesson learned is this:  A conservative church is a very relative thing.  Conservative relative to what?  Conservative relative to its very liberal denomination?  Or conservative relative to the average church?  These can be two entirely different levels of “conservative.”  As it turns out, this church is conservative relative to a very liberal denomination.  It is NOT conservative relative to other churches.

A second lesson learned is this:  A church which considers itself conservative or orthodox will not be for long if it gives free reign to the teachers it sanctions within its walls.  Allowing an” anything goes” permissiveness just because a teacher may be an ex-pastor or decent Bible teacher is opening the door to the teaching of heretical doctrine.  This is especially troubling when teaching in one area of established Bible interpretation is so far “out there” that it casts doubt not only on the integrity of the Bible teacher, but, if believed, on the reliability of other essential areas of Bible interpretation.  An unorthodox teacher creates a very slippery slope of trust in the Bible.

This gives me a renewed appreciation for truly conservative churches that require all who take communion to profess belief in the doctrines of that church.  With that standard, sound teaching is more assured and the long trek toward a liberalizing, watered-down, meaningless faith will not be allowed to begin. 

A permissive, uber-tolerance regarding Christian doctrine may enhance the self-esteem and good feelings of many church goers.  But it does little for our Christian faith.  In fact, such tolerance of “a diversity of beliefs” within a church body eventually leaves a gaping hole where shared doctrinal beliefs were the norm.  What is left is fellowship.  Not the spiritual fellowship that has been the a significant purpose of the church, but the same kind of fellowship that can be experienced at a bar, nightclub, bowling alley, symphony concert or Elk’s Lodge.  If a church is no longer where faith in a common, shared doctrine can be relied upon, then private, individual worship can logically and successfully substitute for a church. 

It is no wonder that membership in this denomination is falling more rapidly than most.

2000 Years of Getting it Wrong…

I finally found a church I could live with.  It is a compromise.  It is a conservative congregation with a conservative pastor in a conservative diocese within a liberal  denomination.  The liberal denomination part is the compromise.  But the locals seem to have themselves pretty well isolated from the national denomination on key doctrine as well as finances.

So I began attending a Bible study at this church.  On my first visit with the group I was introduced to the study leader, a semi-retired pastor, not a member of this church.  My first impressions were that he was a good teacher, a good communicator, a good discussion facilitator, knew his Bible well and gave a good first impression that he was solid in his interpretation of the Bible. 

On my second visit the topics of homosexuality and abortion came up.  Boy, was I in for a surprise.  The study leader, I’ll call him Hank, asserted that if it wasn’t for right wing politics, homosexuality and abortion would not be issues in the church.  Huh?  That’s right.  The ordination of openly practicing gay priests, the blessing of gay marriage, and the support of abortions (he says “who really knows when the fetus is a child?”) would not be divisive issues if the right didn’t bring attention to them.  Hank claims that the Bible does not prohibit any of these actions nor call them sin.  He believes they are made up issues of the right for political power and for political purposes.

In this man’s opinion these practices have always been part of the church, but it is right wing politics that has raised the level of awareness and made them into divisive issues.  Apparently it matters not to this man that these practices, when subjected to the full counsel of Scripture, are sin.  No, it doesn’t matter to him because he denies that the Bible teaches that these behaviors are sin.

Apparently he believes the orthodox interpretation of Scripture has been wrong for 2000 years regarding these issues.

I suggested to him that blaming the right for “divisiveness” because they raised these issues is like blaming America for Islamic attacks against us.  His reply:  “Maybe America IS to blame.”  I reminded him that Islam has practiced an aggressive, supremacist, warring ideology antithetical to individual liberty well before the United States was around to blame.

Well, thank God for the right, then.  Apparently without the influence of the right, the church would have apostatized and self-destructed long ago.   Is “the right” the only influence for morality?  Do those not of “the right” prefer amorality?  It almost seems the case with Hank.

Hank has demonstrated to me that he believes as long as sin is unnamed, it is not a problem.  Nobody notices – nobody cares.   Don’t sin.  We’re all cool with that.  But as soon as someone gives sin a specific name, like “abortion”, or sanctioning homosexuality, or ordaining gay marriage, it is trouble-making by reactionary right-wingers creating new doctrine.

Hank and those of like mind would probably not have much trouble with pedophilia or rape.  Those who bring such problems to the church’s attention will probably be accused of being divisive right wingers looking for power. 

If Hank is so far off base on these 2000 year-old orthodox teachings of Scripture, how can any of his other Bible interpretations be trusted?  Apparently he is attracted to teaching at this church because it is thought of as being part of a liberal national denomination ripe for his views.  He is in a position to sway members of this, thus far conservative, church to his liberal, unorthodox ideals.  I have to wonder under what authority is he sanctioned  to promote his unorthodox beliefs at this “conservative church.”

I thank God this man is NOT a member of this church.  It is bad enough I need to run as far away from his Bible study as I possibly can.  I hope I don’t have to leave a church that my wife and I finally felt good about attending together.

This experience reinforces in my own mind the extent of compromise churches have made over the last several decades to survive.  Some promote themselves through a “feel good” shallow gospel, some promote themselves through entertaining their flock, while still others profess a “believe whatever you want to believe” doctrine.  Rare and mocked is the church that teaches a solid, Bible-based morality and promotes the clear historical teachings of Scripture as a light to transform not just fallen individuals but also to stand against a corrupt and corrupting culture.

One of the better Christmas stories…

I love history when it is retold in the current vernacular.  And here is an excellent rendition of the story of St. Nick, the pugilist from the past, by Ann Barnhardt.

Santa Claus: Bishop and Pugilist for Christ

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - December 6, AD 2011 6:42 PM MST

Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas, who died on December 6, AD 343. Saint Nicholas is well-known by his Dutch moniker, "Santa Claus". Don't be fooled by the crass, commercialized image. Saint Nicholas was a stone-cold butt-kicker for Christ and His Church.

Early in the Fourth Century, there was a terrible heresy in the Church put forth by a very persuasive man named Arius. Arius contended that Christ was not fully divine, but a creature, created by the Father. This heresy was threatening to schism the Church. (Back then everyone understood this to be totally and completely evil and thus unacceptable - the Church is ONE. Christ has ONE Bride, not a harem. There is ONE Truth. Not multiple "truths". As soon as you start saying that there are "multiple truths", what you have done is denied Truth Itself, of which there is only ONE.) So, the First Council of Nicea was called in AD 325 to hash this out and put the Arian heresy down once and for all.

Arius was at the Council, of course, and was called upon to defend his position on the inferiority of Christ. Being a bishop, Nikolaos of Myra (in present-day Turkey) was naturally in attendance. Arius' nonsensical, destructive and insulting lying contentions about Our Lord became too much for Bishop Nikolaos, who stood up and proceeded to haul off and go all Manny Pacquiao on Arius with a left jab directly to Arius' piehole.

Everyone was alarmed by Bishop Nikolaos' violent outburst, and he was immediately summarily stripped of his bishopric. In those days, the two things that designated a man a Christian bishop were a personal copy of the Gospels and a pallium, which is like a stole. Now you may taken aback by the "personal copy of the Gospels" thing. Well, of course! How could a bishop NOT have the Gospels? But you must remember that the printing press wasn't invented until AD 1439. Before that, if you wanted a book, it had to be written out BY HAND. And what were you going to write on? Try vellum. Every piece of vellum had to be harvested from an animal and made. So you see, for a man to have a personal copy of any written text was a HUGE, and frankly EXPENSIVE, deal. So, poor Nikolaos was stripped of his Gospel and his pallium AND thrown in the hoosegow.

Now here is where it gets really good.

While Nikolaos was in the clink, he received a visit from both Our Lord and the Virgin Mary. Jesus asked Nikolaos, "Why are you here?" And Nikolaos replied, "Because I love You, my Lord and my God."

At this, Jesus then presented Nikolaos with his copy of the Gospels, and Mary put his pallium back on him, thus restoring his rank as a bishop. When Nikolaos was discovered sitting calmly in his cell, still under guard, with his Gospel and his pallium, which the other bishops had locked away themselves far from Niklaos' prison cell, Nikolaos was released, welcomed back by his brother bishops, and rejoined the Council. The heresy of Arianism was struck down once and for all, and the Nicene Creed (which we still recite today) was authored. The anti-Arian part is this:

". . . Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, (And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ)
Fílium Dei Unigénitum, (the only begotten Son of God)
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. (And born of the Father, before all ages.)
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, (God of God: Light of Light:)
Deum verum de Deo vero, (true God of true God)
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: (Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father)
Per quem ómnia facta sunt." (by Whom all things were made.)

Bishop Nikolaos (left) in righteous anger borne from intense charity for mankind which sprang from his intense love of God, delivering a powerful left jab to a rather terrified-looking Arius, who totally had it coming.
DOWN. GOES. ARIUS! DOWN. GOES. ARIUS!

I post this because it speaks directly to our question of love and defense of Truth and defense of those we love. Arius was attacking Christ and His Church with his heresy just as viciously as if he had been leading an army - and Nikolaos stepped into the breach to defend his Beloved. PHYSICALLY. The reason Nikolaos stepped in was because Arius was attacking CHRIST, and His Bride, the Church, which is made up of Niklaos' fellow human beings - whose immortal souls were being put at risk by Arius. We are in no way taught by Christ to stand by and watch as our loved ones are attacked. The miracle in Nikolaos' cell is proof of this. Nikolaos did the right thing by going all Pacquiao on Arius and dropping him on his heretical keister before God and everyone.

"Why are you here?"

"Because I love You, my Lord and my God."

Go Santa.

A Season to Celebrate our Culture…

When we speak of defending our “culture” or if we speak of “culture wars”, what do we really mean by that?  What represents our culture more than anything else?

President Obama certainly does not understand the concept at all because he has spent his life either outside of our culture or soaking up the influence of those who despise it.  He declared that we are not a Christian nation at all.  We are one of the largest Muslim nations, he said.

To me, one of things that represents and celebrates our culture, even more than the 4th of July, is Christmas.  The 4th of July celebrates our nation.  Thanksgiving celebrates our beginnings.  Christmas celebrates our essence.   This “essence” is why a friend of mine ultimately rejected a lasting relationship with a Jehovah’s Witness sweetheart in college.  Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas.  That non-practice took away too much of the essence of our culture for my friend to feel “like home.”  It wasn’t as much a religious thing as it was a cultural thing.

Christmas represents the high reverent celebration of what formed, guides, and protects this nation.  Despite the harangues of progressives and their atheist allies, we have strong and undeniable Christian roots.  And, though weakened by the god of cultural diversity and tolerance of immorality and competing ideologies, Christianity remains the predominant, strong fabric our society. 

Most of our parents and grandparents were influenced and comforted by Christianity more than any other religion or ideology.  Most of us have warm memories of mystery and family and giving from childhood through our child raising years through the experience of dozens of years of celebrating Christmas.  Mystery manifests itself in Divine grace God bestowed on our nation and families depicted in the spirit of Christmas.   Family represents the unity and love shared by those closest to us in the spirit of Christmas.  Giving is the generosity that families, churches, and average Americans have shown though our nation’s history mirroring the spirit of Christmas.

And the deepest of our cultural roots in Christmas is the miracle of the gift of life given by our Savior, Jesus Christ and the hope for the future He brings to us all.  The best way to fight the battles that rage against our culture is to return to our heritage – to our faith in the miracle of Christ and the spirit of Christmas.  May this season bring this kind of renewal to all Americans.

May you have a Merry, Spirit-filled and renewing Christmas.

The remaining choices…

Now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the race, who do we have left?

We still have Obama, the neo-Muslim, anti-Semite, Marxist in populist, entitlement-promoter’s clothing who favors enlarging government over the private sector, and who is a huge fan of income redistribution.

And who are the strongest challengers?

Mitt Romney, whose strengths include a presidential persona, a strong business background, his promotion of states rights, his sound moral character, and his articulate communication.  His liabilities include his failure to relate Islam with Jihadists, his flip-flop stance on health care and abortion, and his inability or unwillingness to generate excitement which is the flip side of his presidential persona.

Newt Gingrich is the best debater, and may be the more conservative among the two (Romney and Gingrich) who have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination – but not conservative enough for many.  His liabilities include his moral character and several flip flop events involving his characterization of Paul Ryan’s plan as “social engineering” and several other very unconservative remarks that he has since repented for.  I am also learning that he has a dismally deficient understanding of the nature of orthodox Islam.

Ron Paul is the most libertarian of the bunch, promoting the audit, if not the abolition of the Federal Reserve and reversion to some form of hard currency.  His liabilities include a foreign policy that resembles Obama’s with regard to his belief that US foreign policy incites the Islamic world against us and that we should immediately withdraw our military forces and our influence from predominantly Islamic nations.  I agree with doing this, but for entirely different reasons.  Paul’s attitude is an iteration of Obama’s “Blame America First” campaign which ignores the 1,400 year long orthodox Islamic ideology of supremacist conquest.

The remainder of the field has even less chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.  Of the remainder, Rick Santorum has the best understanding of the Islamic threat along with sound and consistent conservative positions.  Without consideration of electability, he best represents my views among those remaining in the field.

To recap, Romney and Gingrich both have been accused of being flip-floppy, although both have plausible reasons for denial.  I formerly thought Gingrich had the best understanding of the Islamic ideology.  However, after reviewing his website the other day, he, too, believes we are merely “engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims…”   A small minority of Muslim? A small minority of Muslims?  He has GOT to be kidding, or at least woefully ill-informed.

Ron Paul has been in Congress about as long as Gingrich, but has been in the margins while Gingrich has been much more influential.  And Paul’s foreign policy beliefs are little different from Obama’s:  Blame America First – we are the first cause of Islamic violence against us.

Going with the one who appears “most moral” is not necessarily the best approach – look at Jimmy Carter, the very Christian Southern Baptist.

I am torn at the moment between Romney and Gingrich.  However, I give a slight edge to Romney  because he is much more the outsider, has more private sector experience, and is the better role model for human behavior.

One last controversial thought:  Anyone who votes against Romney primarily because he is a Mormon is strongly partial to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is [ignorantly] intolerant of those who differ.  Guess what word that last phrase is a definition of?

Moderate Muslims: “Non-practicing” Muslims who defend and promote Islam

The guest article below is an exceptional portrayal of the real Islam by a former Muslim.  He cuts through all the politically correct “Islam is Peace” deception and ignorance and describes the truth about the “moderate Muslim” juxtaposed against the truth about Islam.  This description parallels what I have been saying that even holding to just the culture of Islam, even if not to the entire ideology, is enough to garner deception and support for Islam among moderates.  An eye opener.

Introduction from Bill Warner of “Political Islam” web site:

Counter Sharia/Islam articles are produced by the dozen each day, but this one by a former Muslim is a cut above. I rarely reprint an article, but this one is worth the effort. (All emphasis is mine.)

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/02/non-muslim-muslims-and-the-jihad-against-the-west/

The article:

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:

Islamic Fundamentalism.

Islamic Extremism.

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamofascism.

Islamonazism.

Political Islam.

Bin Ladenism.

Radical Islam.

Militant Islam.

Islamism.

Jihadism.

We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.

And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.

The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.

And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.

Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.

I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.

While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.

And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.

Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.

The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.

We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.

Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.

I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.

Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.

We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.

So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.

In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

Potential for massive inflation winning over potential for deflation

Up until the past week I was torn between the probability of the US economy heading into deflation or heading into significant inflation.  Experts such as Harry Dent in his recent new book “The Great Crash Ahead” gave a sound argument for deflation in the coming decade.  However, with all due respect to Harry, I don’t think he considered that the scale of perpetual “quantitative easing” (aka printing hundreds of billions of dollars out of nothing) – to not only prop up our own US banks, but to prop up banks around the world -would reach the level it has.

The Euro’s crash appeared imminent to many, perhaps within days.  With the interconnectedness of international banking, the risk of the failure of the Euro has the additional risk of crashing banks not only throughout Europe, but in the US as well.  Earlier this week the US Fed took the unprecedented action of providing US dollars in exchange for risky Euro’s to avert Euro Armageddon and the likely follow-on world banking Armageddon.  More details of this move by the Fed and other banking systems are given HERE.

This action is seen by some experts as the Fed embarking on “perpetual quantitative easing.”  Never mind QE 3 or QE 4.   We now have QE infinity.

This puts a whole new twist on Dent’s predictions.  The clearer direction at this point is significant inflation. 

The following are several resources I have reviewed to come to these revised conclusions:

Perpetual Q.E. Without The Billboard, Hyper Monetary Inflation

Currency Wars, a highly rated new book on Amazon

The Great Supercycle

When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany

This last book explains why a government in debt up to its eyeballs prefers wealth-stealing inflation over deflation:

The Inflation Deception: Six Ways Government Tricks Us...and Seven Ways to Stop It!