Obamagnosis August 15, 2012
Posted by Daniel Downs in moral law, moral relativism, natural law, politics.add a comment
by Prof. Paul Eidelberg
A Muslim extremist shoots up a U.S. military base and it’s called “workplace violence.” It’s called “workplace violence” by those suffering from an extreme case of “agnosis,” a mental or moral inability to recognize certain human acts as downright evil. Since this ignorance is quite prevalent in the pronouncements and policies of the Obama Administration, we may reasonably say his Administration is suffering from “Obamagnosis.” Let’s see where this agnosis leads us, beginning on the surface and proceeding step-by-step to the underlying and insidious cause of this mental and moral disorder.
If a Muslim employee of the House of Representatives or of the Senate—or better yet, of the White House—was to shoot up some Representatives or some Senators or members of the President’s staff—Aha! This would be nothing more than “workplace violence” or manifestations of Obamagnosis! Now let’s probe more deeply.
Obamagnosis is not merely a diagnosis of the flawed human being in the White House. Since many millions of Americans voted for this man in the 2008 presidential election, Obamagnosis describes a malady of national scope and significance. These Americans voted for this man even though he displayed not only unparalleled political ignorance and inexperience, but also utter contempt for what Americans represent as a nation but also the price Americans have paid in blood and treasure defending freedom and human dignity against Nazi and Soviet tyranny.
Even while campaigning for the Presidency, this man had the audacity as well as the mental vacuity or agnosis to disparage America’s most revered foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution. Despite his agnosis, which is unparalleled in the history of democratic politics, many millions of Americans dignified this stranger with their votes. What a travesty of American Exceptionalism! But what is the root cause of this decadence, of this sickness unto death called “Obamagnosis”?
To begin with, we must ask, “Who are the educators of the many millions of Americans who have been rendered so morally and intellectually vacuous by Obamagnosis that a Muslim terrorist attack on a U.S. military base can be called “working place violence” without causing a national uproar? Can it be the legions of academics who, for more than 100 years, have dominated American colleges and universities? Or am I am painting with too broad a brush?
I know it’s not de rigueur to name names, but America’s existential situation compels me to do so. The academics I am alluding to comprise the multitude of “post-American” intellectuals who, influenced by the crypto-Marxism and historical relativism exemplified in the 1913 publications of Charles Beard and Carl Becker—the former on the Constitution, the latter on the Declaration—rendered those once venerable foundational documents of the American Republic intellectually obsolete. Indeed, decade after decade they have been relegated to the trash heap of history. As a consequence, the political and spiritual ideas articulated in these documents were degraded or were nothing to be very proud of let alone worth fighting and dying for. Today they no longer incite in countless Americans the moral sense and integrity to identify and candidly denounce America’s evil and existential enemy—the military ideology that precipitated that Muslim’s terrorist attack on a U.S. military base.
Now let us focus on the crypto-Marxism of Charles Beard’s Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This book has had so many printings since 1913 that it has become a veritable icon for tens of thousands of American educators—and not only historians and political scientists—who reduce the ideas and statesmanship of America’s Founding Fathers to their economic interests. This crude and simplistic crypto-Marxism took academia by storm. Indeed, it is still cited uncritically by scholars. It seems never to have occurred to these patriotic intellectuals that they were impugning the integrity of America’s greatest statesmen—which does not mean that these extraordinary statesmen should be lionized (but what shall we then say of today’s politicians?).
In any event, given the two pervasive and related academic doctrines of crypto-Marxism and historical relativism, I must say in all candor that “higher education” has corrupted generations of American college and university students. And since moral relativism is evident at all levels of American education—most conspicuously in the social sciences and humanities—I contend that this doctrine, more than any other single factor (such as money, skin color, or the ineptitude of John McCain), that enabled Obama to win majority of the votes in the 2008 presidential election.
Now, since Americans influenced by moral relativism must be deemed either ignorant or dismissive of the universalism and trans-historical validity of the principles of America’s Declaration of Independence, is it not obvious that what is primarily responsible for this widespread ignorance and indifference is academia?
Viewed in this unconventional way, Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election should be understood as an “electoral” victory of the cynical and degrading doctrine of moral relativism over its opponent, the magnificent universalism of the Declaration articulated in that document’s humble appreciation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Nor is this all.
Know well that in the eighteenth century, both in Europe and America, educated people regarded the Laws of Nature as the “Moral Law.” What the Declaration calls the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” may rightly be construed as the American abbreviation of the Seven Noahide Laws of universal morality. This is evident in the writings of some of the Declaration’s most learned signatories such as James Wilson and John Adams. These men, like the Continental Congress that promulgated the Declaration of Independence, were averse to Jefferson’s omission of the name of God and Divine Providence in his initial draft of that document.
Finally, contrary to academic opinion—even of scholars of the Straussian school of political science—the natural-cum-moral law doctrine of the Declaration of Independence is rooted not in the political philosophy of John Locke but in the Seven Noahide Laws of the Torah. This may be may confirmed in the writings of Locke’s acquaintance, the greatest Hebraist of the eighteenth century, John Selden, at least one of whose lengthy volumes on the Talmud was in Locke’s libarary.*
Summing up, Obamagnosis represents a denial of the natural-cum-moral law. It is precisely this denial that underlies the moral or mental disorder that impels those infected by Obamagnosis—a sickness unto death—to call a Muslim’s shooting up of an U.S. military base “workplace violence.”
Prof. Paul Eidelberg is President of The Israel-America Renaissance Institute. His most recent book is The Theo-Political Foundations of American Exceptionalism.
A New Victim of Gay Sexual Politics, Evangelical Lutheran Church August 22, 2009
Posted by Daniel Downs in Bible, church, culture war, faith, gay politics, immorality, Jesus Christ, moral law, news, politics, religion, secularism, sex, tolerance.add a comment
The Washington Times recently reported that a majority of leaders in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently voted to change church law to permit non-celibate gays into the sacred office of the clergy. At the same time, a majority of church leaders changed denominational law to recognize same-sex common law marriage (but by other terminology).
According to the report, “The resolution on clergy, easily the most controversial, passed by 559 ‘yes’ votes (55.3 percent) to 451 ‘no’ votes (44.6 percent). It committed the ELCA to open its clergy ranks to people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”
The vote allowing congregations to ‘”recognize, support and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships,” passed by 619 ‘yes’ (60.6 percent) to 402 ‘no’ votes (39.3 percent) was less controversial than allowing non-celibate gays to represent the church and Christ.
The report noted two responses these developments: Those who believe it will result in many people leaving the church and those who believe it will result in significant church growth. One member of the Metropolitan New York Synod said her gays were the reason her congregation was growing. Leaders of representing most American and foreign synods voiced strong disapproval of these decisions because of their opposition to the teaching of the church.
As with other mainline denominations, the democratic politics and secularly defined social relevance appears to be the most important factors in these decisions.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in American cannot be charge with religious fundamentalism. They have tossed the fundamentals out. The most important fundamental is abiding under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. As recorded in the book of Revelation, the risen Christ told the churches in Asia Minor that he hated the sexually immoral politics and practices that were being spread by the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, who was likely one of their leaders in Thyatira. Like the Laodiceans, they can only be charged with being faithful secular fundamentalists.
The still popular song lyric sung by Jackie DeShannon expresses the religious sentiment of modern sexual politics, “all we need now is love … sweet [tolerant] love” not holiness and truth.
The problem with all of this is not whether the church will grow, or split, or gain social relevance. After this testing of faithfulness, the problem will be when and how the Lord will come and fight against the immoral and their supporters. As Christ promised the Pergamum church, he will come and fight against them with the sword of His mouth. If that means anything like his warning to the unrepenting Jezebel, they and their loving supporters will receive the same judgment that the members of the tolerantly immoral cities of Sodom and Gomorrah received.
Those who do not like a God who actually judges and punishes moral crime (sin, immortality) hate the rule of law and especially moral law.
Source:
A New Year’s Revolutionary Thought January 1, 2009
Posted by Daniel Downs in covenant, God, justice, life, moral law, New Year's Day, politics, secularism.1 comment so far
Many Americans celebrate the beginning of the New Year with either friends or family. Whether it is at Times Square, at home, or at a local church, Americans enjoy the fellowship of others. That is what life is all about. Severance of good relationships is death. Good relationships are the meaning of life.
Yet, it is doubtful that American consider New Year’s Day a celebration of life. It is a time to party. It may be another good opportunity to thank God for the good that is past and petitioning heaven for another healthy and prosperous year. That is providing last year was in fact a healthy or prosperous one. It is likely that either at the beginning of this New Year many will be partying to forget the effects of the economic recessing that has many depressed or they are seeking God’s help to overcome the same. The current crisis is good reason to take time to make some thoughtful resolutions. I would hope the partiers wait until after the hang over is over.
When surveying the events of the past year, I’m of the opinion that the escalation of crises points to a deeper problem than mere economics. Prior to 2008, America experienced devastating terrorist attack on 9/11 followed by Katrina that was followed by famine, floods, more hurricanes, tornado in New York city, outrageous gas prices, significant increase in the cost of living without matching increases of income, which was followed many bank and money market failures. Prior to the 20th century and the rise of secularism, Americans would have viewed these events as God’s judgment. Not necessarily because they believed God was being mean bully, but rather because the divine justice is part of an intelligent design. If you sow corn, you get more corn. When you injustice, you reap more injustice. When push leaders of other nations like Israel to commit injustice, you reap similar devastation. If you kill the unborn and lobby other government to legitimate similar injustices oversees, you reap more death and injustice.
Even Thomas Jefferson said as much. He warned fellow Virginians about God’s justice for the continued enslavement of the black people. The Civil War and the violent Civil Rights war vindicated him.
I think it would revolutionary for a majority of Americans to recommit to God both their lives and their nation’s future to His providential wisdom, to His mighty protection, His Supreme justice, as did the Congress who wrote the final version of the Declaration of Independence. However, living out that type of covenant presumes a partnership based on mutual trust but not equal authority. The Creator is the highest authority and moral law is the highest law. Of course, the member of the First Continental Congress didn’t actually separate God, religion and government. They separated church authority from political authority. No atheistic and secular obsession with the separation of religion from state existed. Oddly enough, they knew about evolution long before Darwin did. Evolutionists have no real proof that God didn’t create life, which means there is no legitimate reason allow secularist to separate all Americans from their national covenant with God.
I believe American life and culture would be revolutionized if most were to return to honoring God by living according to the moral law and not just by living it but by applying to politics, economics, business, and every aspect of life.
I think it would also be revolutionary for husbands and wives to renew their covenantal vows on New Years Day. What could be better than recommitting to living a mutually beneficial life together. Physics and biology teach that that’s what the chromosomal dance of new life is all about. Every atomic particle, every molecule, and every family member working for common good is the real meaning of life.
It is even a perfect time to call, write, or spend some time with those childhood friends with whom you made a life-long pact of brotherhood (blood brothers or sisters).
It may all begin by meaning what you say, but just saying “Happy New Year” doesn’t really mean anything unless everyone works at making it so throughout the year.
Now that’s a revolutionary thought.
Catholics for Pro-Choice, A Model of Anti-Christ Christianity October 31, 2008
Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Catholics, Chrisitanity, covenant, Declaration of Independence, faith, freedom, God, hate crime, immorality, justice, moral law, relationships, right to life, secularism, tolerance.add a comment
Catholic for Pro-Choice is a perfect example of anti-Catholics who pretend to be Catholic or anti-Christ Christians pretending to follow Christ. The shining model of this is possibly the anti-Christ Catholic Christian and retired leader of Catholic for Pro-Choice Frances Kissling.
Before I show why Kissling fits the above descriptions, let me first clarify what that description means. Abortion represents many things. To some, it means eradicating the results of sexual immorality. Of course, many women get abortions because of financial reasons, or rape, or incest, or because of a genuine threat to life. It should be pointed out that date rape is not necessarily cold-blooded violence. I suspect that it is more often a hot-blooded one fraught with sexual foreplay resulting in supposedly unwed sex. If ladies allow their gents to get their hormones in an uproar, they shouldn’t call it rape; it should be defined as stupid on their part.
Anyway, others define abortion in terms of legal rights.
The Supreme Court–not Congress–decreed that women had the right to kill their unborn by defining their unborn as merely a body part and supposedly as a privacy right guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why secularist pagans, who pretend to be Christians, strongly advocate for abortion-on-demand. Like those pretending to honor the faith, the Supreme Court justices pretended to uphold and advance Constitutional and fundamental law rights. However, the Constitution gives no right to kill anyone, not those developing in the womb nor those outside the womb. The law demands anyone who threatens their own life to be forceful detained and monitored to prevent self-harm. So then, how is it that the law supposed guarantees the right to kill parts of oneself? No law legitimately can. Those justices should have been either impeached or debarred.
So should the ACLU lawyers and all others who defend such violation of the Constitutional and human rights as defined in our nation’s legal history, starting with common law and the Declaration of Independence. British and early American common law held abortion as a crime. The Declaration’s affirmation of life an unalterable right should make it evident to all that secular pagans and their defense of abortion as a heinous crime against humanity, against nature, and against the Supreme Judge of the world.
Okay, I moved off track a little here. Let’s get back to my definition of support for abortion by so-called Christians as being anti-Christ Christianity besides being anti-American and anti-Constitutional.
Christianity is neither secular nor liberal. Followers of the biblical Christ (not the politicized Christ) deny following Christ as mere religion. They define Christianity according to the logic of relationship. Relationship structures the beginning and end of biblical Christianity. The structure is enfleshed by reasoned doctrines, forms and styles of worship, institutional governance, economics, social work or missions, and the like. The bedrock of Christianity is therefore revelation. Revelation is processed relationship and experience validated and explained by the historical record of prior relational experience initiated by God. This is biblical history and the meaning of faith. Reason is involved in working out the faith-based covenantal relationship, which is also an reaffirmation of life lived by moral and related law.
Immorality, as defined biblically, is sexual crime or sin. Abortion is a moral crime. It is part of the secular agenda that became fully evident is the 1870s. It was part of the anti-Christian secularists attempt to remove all religious influence from American government through a strict wall of Separation of Church and State amendment to the first amendment to the Constitution. They failed as they did in 1791, according to law professor Philip Hamburger. Nevertheless, abortion is a means of promoting immorality and population control through the false promise of no consequence, legal or otherwise.
As I have argued in previous posts, immorality is explicitly opposed in the Bible as moral. All forms of immorality are crimes against the Creator and covenant keeping God. To intentionally kill an unborn child is to violate God’s law in human nature. To kill without just cause like self-defense (self-preservation) is murder. “Thou shall not murder” is one of the Ten Commandments anti-religion, anti-God, and anti-Christ secular pagans despise for obvious reason. They equally despise the Declaration of Independence because the Congress of 1776 made the United States of America a nation covenanted with God, which professors of politics and constitutional history like Donald Lutz has reluctantly admitted.
Moreover, the biblically defined law of life is as eternally inherent in redemption as the right to life is in American law. Freedom requires both, and the right to life is of necessity a priori.
The crime of abortion destroys it all, and the end result is death in all of its nasty forms including dead bodies, dead relationships exasperated by guilt and shame, dead feelings of loss, betrayal and alienation, bondage within and the tyranny of lies, deception, and power lust realized too late without. For some, life itself becomes a kind of hellish prison. Others become conscienceless souls no different than those who have committed acts of terrorism and like evils. Even worse, are all of the medical and legal professionals–helping professions–who pontificate over the multi-billion dollar enterprise of abortion like Planned Parenthood, ACLU, corporate media, Catholics for Pro-Choice, etc.
Retired Catholics for Pro-Choice leader, Frances Kissling, zealously propagates all of the above. So does all other anti-Christ Christians and unpretentious secular pagans. Her advocacy of abortion not only opposes Catholic Church doctrine but also divine law prohibiting all immorality and unjustified killing.
Abortion is also a frontal attack on true justice. True justice does not tolerate moral or any other crime. Justice does not merely forgive crime and neither does God. Jesus’ death is the full satisfaction of divine justice for all of our moral crimes against God and nature. That is not transferable to societal law as some presume. It is not transferable because societal justice cannot legitimately tolerate moral or political crime either. When government ceases to consistently punish such crime, it has ceases to fulfill its primary obligation to law abiding members of society. That is when evil prevails eventually resulting in societal destruction.
Any so-called Christian that defies the law of God and the teaching of Christ are wolves in sheep clothing. Their advocacy of what God and Christ hate like immorality and murder (shedding innocence blood) is proof that they are false prophets and followers of anti-Christ’s ruler.
Legitimate church leaders should not tolerate or wait to appropriately and biblically deal with such charlatans. How else will the faithful of Christ and the world see that the kingdom of God is what the Church is all about as opposed to contemporary theological and political correctness.
An election addendum: What does Catholics for Pro-Choice have in common with Senator Barak Obama? Both have the financial backing of billionaire George Soros, who–among leading Congressional Democrats and others–is funding the division of the Church of Christ. The chapter 2 of the book of Revelation presents God’s response to a promoter of immorality in the early Church, and the author of Proverbs chapter 6 gave us insight into God’s perspective of those who cause division among His people. I looked up the Hebrew and Greek words translated as hate and found that they mean hate as commonly understood. So then is it wrong for the Supreme Judge of the world to hate moral crime? Should American elect, support, or tolerate those who support and defend what God hates?
Keep Jerusalem United
The State of America 