Liberty versus Marxism and Islam: the epic contest of this historic era.

Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, March 15, 2011
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

On the surface it might appear that Marxism and Islam are vastly different ideologies of social control. Marxism appears to be an atheistic approach to a planned and controlled economy, while Islam appears to be a religious approach to a subdued and dominated citizenry. Beneath the shallow exterior façade, however, we see that Marxism and Islam, both, are deceptive and treacherous paths to absolute dictatorship, of use to the most devious, ruthless and murderous politicians and would-be leaders among men.

We have shown elsewhere on this Website that Islam is a false religion; an ideology of ruthless conquest and domination masquerading as a religion of peace. Similarly, we have shown elsewhere on this Website that Marxism is a false socio/economic theory; a systematic method for ascension from obscurity to dictatorship, masquerading as a worker-friendly socio-economic political philosophy.

I submit for your consideration the argument that Marxism and Islam, both, in their very foundational philosophies, violate and directly oppose the Constitution of the United States of America. Both Marxism and Islam, in order to increase themselves in America, or even in the world, must act against America’s founding principles and existing rule of law; i.e., they are un-American. Indeed, they are anti-American, and they both seek the ultimate destruction of America as it is and has been constituted and known.

That is why I wrote the Outlaw Marxism page on this site, and that is why I wrote the Outlaw Islam page on this site. America should consider herself in a condition of both cold and hot war with these two deceptive and treacherous ideologies that are and have been long at war with America, and that are absolutely committed to the ultimate destruction of constitutional America.

Marxist and Islamic opposition to our Constitution is so complete and thoroughgoing that to document it all here would turn this short article into a fair sized book. There is a need, therefore, to limit the scope of my argument in order to limit the number of words needed. As partial evidence for my argument, let us look at just one small part of our Constitution – the First Amendment – and look at how Marxism and Islam treat just one small part of that one small Amendment: freedom of and from religion. Here is the First Amendment:

U.S. Constitution; Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The “establishment” clause and the “free exercise” clause were included by the framers specifically to prevent the new American federal government from imposing any new religion upon any of the thirteen sovereign colonies, each of which was already legally established as a denomination-specific Christian theocracy. They each fully intended to remain free to practice their own Christian denomination. So, American freedom of religion, in the first instance, referred to freedom of Christian religions. At that time, all of post-Reformation Europe had descended into fiercely enforced theocratic nations. Fiercely imposed theocracy was one of the very things the first colonists came to America to escape. Jefferson, ever the advocate of free will, and thus, liberty, opposed theocracy even at the colony level, including in his own colony.

So it might be beneficial to look at what Marxism says, and has done, about freedom of religion, and at what Islam says, and has done, about freedom of religion.

What does Marxism have to say about American freedom of religion, just as one small part of the American Constitution? Marx, who became the darling of Western intellectual elites, openly despised religion. He said, in the Communist Manifesto, that when the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity, and that Christianity, in turn, “succumbed” in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas. Right. Well, in the hearts, minds and souls of elitist pseudo-sophisticates, it did indeed. (See the Enlightenment and Scientism page on this site.) Marx goes on, in his Manifesto, to say that “Law, morality, religion, are to him (the worker) so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.” Marx’s goal was to inspire class warfare, and the first classes he intended to set against each other were employees versus employers. The demonizing of religion was just one of many tools Marx would use, as he set about “educating” the employee about his own exploitation by his employer.

Marx said that “Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.”, and that “Religion is the opium of the masses.”, and that “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Clearly then, the founder of Marxism not only rejected, but opposed religion, standing on what was and is taken by his disciples and followers to be purely enlightened and intellectual ground. God does not exist, because Marx, the enlightened man, knew that God did not exist. (See the Faith Versus Atheism page in this site.)

This should not be a surprise to anyone who has objectively studied Marx. Karl Marx was clearly a Machiavellian man, which is to say, a man of treachery and deception, always with a hidden agenda, a man for whom The Ends Justify The Means, always. The evil Machiavelli’s famous formula for an unknown, a nobody, achieving total dictatorship was simple:

1. Cause and bring about unrest, instability, economic break-down, civil war, chaos and anarchy, through the use of treachery, deception, false information and secret agent-provocateurs sent out among the masses to cause a thousand kinds of trouble.
2. Make the people desperate and clamoring for food, for order, for protection from anarchists, and for a hero to stop all the chaos.
3. Ride in with organized military force, killing even his own agents, and restore order, to the welcoming shouts of the masses, and thereby become absolute dictator of an adoring people.

Karl Marx was early on a disciple of Hegel, as his Communist Manifesto clearly shows. The Hegelian Dialectic Had the same goal as Machiavelli’s ruthless plan, but Hegel’s strategy involved taking in smaller nibbles what Machiavelli would take in a single bite. (Read about the Hegelian Dialectic in the World Revolution Returns page on this site.) Using the Hegelian strategy, Marxism has made inroads, trained or sent agent-provocateurs, and recruited “useful idiots” in nations all over the world. For Marxism, instability is always good; world instability is better still. When your neighbors are unstable, your house, too, becomes less stable.

Chaos begets more chaos, and erratic changes in government beget more changes in government. Note well that Lenin did not immediately topple the sitting government in Russia; someone else did that for him. Similarly, Hitler did not immediately topple the sitting government in Germany; someone else did that for him. When a government becomes so unstable as to be replaced, each successive replacement government is, at least for a short time, far more vulnerable to being forcibly taken over than was the previous one. The first toppling of a long-held and well established government is always the most difficult to achieve. The second or third is always easier for the ruthless Marxist. Famous Marxists have always said that they planned for America to “fall like a plum” into the hands of Marxism.

All of these stratagems require, of course, the abandoning of God and His law, and the abandoning of anything like Western morality. Only then can Marxist agent-provocateurs and useful-idiots sow their seeds of class warfare, and seeds of discontent with sitting governments, and with the status-quo. American “Progressives,” beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and really getting going under Woodrow Wilson, took their name from the “progressive” income tax recommended by Marx in his Communist Manifesto as one of the many, many Hegelian paths to instability leading to dictatorship. “Redistribution” as a path to feigned equality was touted as the new “morality” or moral norm to replace the Judao-Chrisitan Ethos of Western culture, since enlightened man knew that there was no God.

All of this advanced under the administrations of Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Carter, the Presidents Clinton, and it went on super-steroids under Obama. Under these administrations “public” education, which, like the progressive income tax, was born of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, became American society’s foremost sower of seeds of class warfare, and of discontent with the sitting government and the status-quo. You can read elsewhere in this site about the Marxist work of such American public “education experts” as Dewey, Fromm and Maslow. The results are with us now. Look around at young people coming out of public schools. The two chief descriptors may be instability and inability.

Today we have a major political Party dominated by Marxist ideology, and we have a sitting President who is quite clearly a Marxist, as is shown by his own written and spoken words. He calls himself a Christian for purely political reasons, but if pressed he will not – he cannot – clearly and correctly state a personal creed that is in any way compatible with any flavor of Christianity, without the use of a prepared speech and a teleprompter. Indeed, most of his public comments about the practice and the practitioners of Christianity have been negative. If he is demonstrably a devout Marxist, then it is fair to assume that he is a devout atheist.

Obama, like most academics, and like most of the Democrat Party, and like the SLIMC, and like most “sophisticated” elitists everywhere, is a very proactive Secularist, who looks down his condescending snotty nose at all believing Christians and Jews whom he holds in contempt. Through education and through law, and through adjudication via Marxist-appointed judges and Justices, Marxism seeks to impose Secularismupon the masses, or to at least instill a sense of religious indifferentism in place of any true faith in God.

What does Islam have to say about American freedom of religion, just as one small part of the American Constitution? Well, the answer you will hear depends on whether Moslem you ask that question is standing in Dar Al-Harb (the House Of War,) Dar Al-Sulh (the House of Temporary Truce,) or Dar Al-Islam (the House of Submission,) as described in the Islam Way page on this site. Islam itself is absolutely intolerant of any notion of freedom of religion, and thus of constitutional America. Islam insists upon the continual drive toward Ummah, or the one-world “nation” under complete submission to Islam. Current Islamic jurisprudence insists upon the continual drive to expand dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-harb, until no religion exists in the entire world except Islam.

Mohammed, the man, was held in low regard by his fellow Arabs for various reasons until after the events of his founding of Islam. He was of low skills and low social status; he had once fled in battle, thereby marking himself as a coward; he married an elderly wealthy widow to gain monetary security, rather than marrying young child-bearing, labor capable wives, like all of his contemporaries.

In his late thirties, Mohammed spent some time in the caves around mount Hira, and it is there, about AD 640, at about the age of 40, that he claimed to have been visited by an angel in a dream, and given revelation regarding the nature of God, and a call to prophesy. Over the next three years or so, he kept quiet about it, speaking of it only to his wife and a very few close relatives. Over this period of time the dream became more detailed and embellished, and his wife increasingly encouraged him to act on it. His close followers, few though they were, took to either memorizing or writing down whatever he said, believing it to be potential prophesy. At some point in time these memories and notes would be gathered together into the beginnings of the Koran, but at first, they existed merely as notes on scraps of whatever material could be written on, and as memorized and recited Arabic verses.

Much of his later success was at least in part due to his mastery of the Arab language. Those of us (certainly including me) who find the Koran tedious, contradictory and even nonsensical need to recognize something of purely linguistic importance to readers. Arab readers are moved more by the eloquent phraseology, the turn of the word, and the written form; more so than logic, chronological sequence or even actual content. The Koran puts style above composition. I do not understand this because I do not understand Arabic; I simply have to take the word of more learned men of good principle. It may be that Arabs are somehow not oriented toward logical thought, as we recognize it. I cannot read many Koranic verses in a row without getting logically off track, because there is no steady chronological or logical progression for very long. At any rate, Arabs are greatly moved by the “beauty” of the Koran. I don’t see how it could make any logical sense to anyone. But then, I am not an Arab.

Encouraged by his wife and his few other disciples, Mohammed went public and took his prophetic message to Mecca. At that time, it was a relatively simple message, but it would become ever increasingly more complex and contradictory. At the beginning of his teaching, it consisted mainly of these few principles:

• All the images and idols in the Kabaa were false deities, merely trinkets of wood and stone, and the worship of them was a sin.
• There is only one God, the creator of heaven, earth and men, and his name is Allah.
• He – Mohammed – was Allah’s prophet and messenger to men.
• All deities and all religions other than this one were false.

These were pagan men of the desert, long accustomed to worship of the Moon god and of the multiple lesser deities set up at the Kabaa, to special feasts and seasons, including the month of Ramadan, which began on the ninth month on the first appearance of a sliver of moon after the new moon. They considered the Kabaa to be a holy site and this upstart Mohammed to be on the verge of sacrilege. They were long accustomed to the Haj, the pagan pilgrimage, to bow to a black stone (probably a meteorite,) to go around it seven times and then kiss it, and then to run one mile to the dry well at Wadi Mina to throw stones at the devil.

Very conveniently, Mohammed began encountering more revelations from Allah which made it possible to alleviate this situation in Mecca via theological compromise. He again spoke to the leaders of Mecca and told them that the three particularly popular Kabaa deities, the moon god’s three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were actual devine beings, fully capable of interceding with Allah on behalf of believers. As negotiations continued, Mohammed, theoretically, received another revelation:

Do not revile the idols which they invoke besides Allah, lest in their ignorance they revile Allah with rancor. Thus have we made the actions of all men seem pleasing to themselves. To their lord they shall return, and we will declare to them all that they have done.

The Mecca leaders had more worldly compromises in mind, in the form of trade negations, since Mohammed was a very successful trader, having taken over the business activities of his rich and elderly wife. Mohammed would not compromise on business; he was a good businessman and he intended to prosper in his business dealings. Well, the Mecca leaders would not compromise on theology, and Mohammed would not compromise on business matters, and so the “persecution” – if you can call it that – of Mohammed in Mecca began. His preaching of an ultimate judgment of sinners was taken to be a near seditious attempt at undermining the way of life in Mecca, which depended upon pagan pilgrims for economic well being. His call to accept him as the one and only messenger of God was seen as an arrogant attempt at gaining the upper hand over his betters. Mohammed was scorned as a former camel driver, former shepherd, of low lineage, who had run away from a battle, who married into relative wealth rather than earned it.

Mohammed received increasing numbers of revelations in Mecca, and he turned increasingly to strangers to preach his message, and many strangers passed through Mecca, including many Christians and Jews. He told his followers to not argue with the “People of the Book,” but to say that we believe in the Revelation that has come down to us and in that which came down to them. At that time Mohammed allowed for the possibility that Jews and Christians could attain salvation. He taught that any who believe in God and work righteousness shall have their ultimate reward with the Lord, and on them there would be no fear, nor should they grieve. Obviously, this would not be the last “revelation” to Mohammed concerning the Christians and the Jews; later, Mohammed would condemn them completely.

Mohammed’s uncle died, and shortly thereafter his wife died. His protection in Mecca depended almost entirely upon the clan of his now dead uncle, and so Mohammed eventually left with his entourage for Hathrib, which would renamed the “city of the prophet,” Medinet el Nebi, which would later be shortened to Medina. There was a large colony of Jews there, and a large colony of Christians. He was under the protection of converts to his religion there, and the birth of Islam is measured from the day he arrived in Hathrib: September 24, 622 AD. That is when Mohammed received the revelations instructing him to make war on Mecca. Mohammed produced and the Medina tribal chiefs agreed to the “Constitution of Medina” regulating relations among the clans, stating that disputes would be submitted to “Mohammed the Prophet.” The Jews were not signators, but they were mentioned as one of the groups subject to the constitution provisions.

Mohammed unleashed raids against caravans going in and out of Mecca, and his continuing “revelations” promised booty and slaves to his warriors, and heaven if they were slain in battle. In short order, Islam became an absolute theocracy and Mohammed became the absolute ruler in Medina, and brutality became the order of the day. Absolute submission was demanded, and received. The Meaning of Islamic iman, or person of faith is one who has had a complete change of identity, in that he no longer belongs to his clan or his tribe but to the Islamic Ummah under protection of Allah and his prophet Mohammed. Any who made this conversion and then changed their minds about it thereby doomed themselves.

On Mohammed’s orders, a Jewish merchant named Abu Rafi was murdered in his sleep; one of 27 known Jews murdered on Mohammed’s order. He had done nothing; he was just a prosperous merchant. After prolonged unsuccessful attempts to convert the Jews, his attitude toward them became one of implacable hostility. Over time, seemingly minor disagreements with his “prophesy” from any quarter were magnified in the mind of Mohammed, eventually to turn him to rage. History records that during this period when Islam was being established and gaining ground, there was a sudden “disappearance” of whole Jewish communities all over Arabia. This was almost certainly due to acts of genocide committed by Moslems.

Mohammed attacked Banu Qurayzah, the last Jewish tribe in Medina, ostensibly because he sensed disloyalty in them. The men were ordered to convert; those who refused were beheaded on the spot; some 900 were beheaded. Torches had to be lit so that they could all be beheaded in the same day, in front of their wives and children, who where then raped and taken as slaves. Mohammed’s revelations got harsher and harsher toward unbelievers. “Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire.” Others were to be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off.” For the captured infidel, in this world, “we have prepared chains, yokes and blazing fire.” In the hereafter, “as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and they skins too, will be melted … And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.”

Previous teachings were abrogated regarding Mohammed’s own personal behavior. Previously, in Mecca, he had taught about the great temptations that would work to enslave men:

• The passion for women.
• The desire for male children.
• The thirst for gold and silver.
• Spirited horses, and the possession of cattle and land.
• All the pleasures of life.

Where does that leave freedom of religion and constitutional America today, in the face of modern variants of Marxism and modern variants of Islam?

Marxism has never changed it’s basic, foundational revolutionary nature, only its tactics. All of history’s great Marxist rulers were of a deceptive, treacherous Machiavellian nature. As it was in the beginning, so it is today. Marxism falsely claims to seek equality among men through redistribution of wealth, and fairness, and perfection in government, while in actual fact Marxism is a path of deception by which evil men may ascend to dictatorship.

The old Hegelian Dialiectic was updated by the Cloward-Piven strategy by which multiple avenues of potential chaos could be opened up simultaneously, all contributing to eventual systematic failure of family, culture, tradition, and establishment institutions of all kinds. Marxism has invaded, co-opted or invented all sorts of seemingly catastrophic large-scope emergencies for the people to get upset about, from climate-change hysteria, to pollution hysteria, to lack of recycling hysteria, to “renewable” resource crisis hysteria, to anti-Wall street hysteria, to anti-big business hysteria, to HIV-AIDS hysteria, to anti-defense contractor hysteria, to anti-Republican hysteria, to anti-Bush hysteria, and on, and on, and on. The goal has not changed. The goal is to change whatever is to something else. That’s it. Marxism opposes whatever is.

Islam has never changed it’s commitment to continue the march to Ummah. In World War II Islam aligned with the Nazi-Fascist branch of Marxism because of it’s treatment of the Jews. Even though the Nazis considered the Moslems to be inferior in every regard, particularly in their race, they found Islam, and oil, to be of value in their own battle to conquer and subdue Western culture. For both Marxism and Islam, the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” takes on special meaning.

Islam in turn has become Machiavellian in nature, although we might wonder whether Mohammed or Maciavelli was the greater at treachery and deception. In dar al-harb, where we infidels live, Moslems are the most peaceful, wonderful, loving examples of people to be found in the Islamic faith. Until they gain a little more population and a little more power. The Islamic attitude changes, radically and brutally, when and where Islam is in control. Moslems could probably teach something to followers of the Cloward-Piven strategy. How many times have you heard one of them say that Islam is a religion of peace?

The final goal of the true drivers of Marxism, and the final goal of the true drivers of Islam, are precisely the same: Borderless, nation-less, one world global government, which is to say, a world dictatorship. The highest ranking Marxists in the world, and the highest ranking Moslems in the world, are alike in this: They don’t particularly give a damn whether the final force that achieves world victory is Marxist or it is Islamic. They will easily pretend to be either Marxist or Moslem, as opportunity dictates, so long as they get to be the one who drives the world bus. The banner on the world bus can be changed quickly and easily. The people of the world will be kept in line by a combination of their own stupidity and a program of terror. It’s been done before, many times, on a smaller scale.

Both Marxism and Islam seek to gain ground through chaos; the more chaos and economic failure, the better. Increasing chaos leads inevitably to opportunity. That opportunity is what Obama is preparing for. Who knows what sort of agent-provocateurs he has placed in the highest military and intelligence ranks, and other critical places. That’s why Obama would benefit from a $20 per gallon price of gasoline. That’s why he would benefit from American economic collapse. That’s why he would benefit from severe depression, and even anarchy. That’s why he would benefit even from catastrophic terrorist attack. He would benefit from anarchy, revolution, multi-way revolution, even civil war. I submit that there is no terrible event you could imagine, from which a high-level Marxist or Moslem would not find opportunity, provided he survived it.

That’s the real problem

It’s the true nature of Marxism and it’s the true nature of Islam.

I just thought you ought to know.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Wed Mar 16 21:32:14 2011
From: Jenny and Tes
Email:
Location:
Comment:

”The goal is to change whatever is to something else. That’s it. Marxism opposes whatever is.”

That is a very glib and superficial damning description of the entire work of Marx. You use it to instill Marxist conspiracy theories into every program you oppose, and you oppose so many programs that you identify yourself as opposed to any human progress out of the dark ages. Your other pages show you to be a racist, a homophobe and a chauvinist. We suppose you would blame Marx for the end of slavery, the social acceptance of gays and lesbians, and the advancement of women’s rights. You even find and polish excuses to oppose specific religions, and you call yourself a conservative American. You and Bible-thumpers like you pose more of an ongoing danger to liberty than Marx or Muhammed.

Date: Thu Mar 17 05:58:16 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jenny and Tes:

What I oppose is untruth, not programs. These days, any time I am called a racist or a homophobe or a male chauvinist pig I take it to mean that I’m on the right track and accomplishing something. At least I’m stirring thought on important topics.

I blame America, not Marx, for ending Slavery; look at history. Lenin invented the concentration camps, Stalin expanded them and Hitler perfected them, along with other forms of slave labor. Don’t look now, but they were all Marxists of varying spot and stripe. If you look into the professional, money-making “leadership” and the great movers and shakers within the current promotion of minority rights, specific racial rights, gay and lesbian rights, women’s rights, and a host of other such movements, you will find an overwhelming preponderance of men and women of the Left, not the Right. The movements have been co-opted by Marxism. It’s the same with animal rights, whale rights, tree rights, recycling rights and whatever rights. Increasing class warfare, internal strife and animosity is the name of the game for Marxism, and if Marxism can’t find such a movement to take advantage of, it will invent one from scratch.

I am happy to thump my Bible; I consider it a much, much better activity than thumping either a Communist Manifesto or a Koran. Note well that the real Manifesto-thumpers and the real Koran-thumpers, in the end, will not grant you the same liberty that us Bible-thumpers will guarantee you.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue May 03 23:14:22 2011
From: Abdul-Qawi
Email:
Location: Dearborn USA
Comment:

When you speak Islam, you know nothing. You don’t know. Other things I don’t know but what you say is not true. Islam is peace. When you defile the truth about the Prophet you defile the Prophet. You say he ordinary man like Machiavelli and he lie. You lie. You damn yourself and others by this great lie. Islam is peace and Allah is merciful.

Date: Wed May 04 07:20:37 20l11
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Abdul-Qawi:

Balderdash. (That’s an American word; it means the same thing as Bull Feathers.) Like Marxism, Islam is a very tricky ideology rather than a religion. It obviously has tricked you, like many millions of others, into believing it is divinely inspired religious revelation. “The Prophet” directed his disciples to make continuous war against all unbelievers until the entire world was in submission to Islam, and that, my dear Abdul-Qawi, is a call to war, not peace.

First, Mohammed claimed to have had a single vision, or visitation, or revelation; and that single incident became more embellished, elaborate and detailed in the telling of it over the years, until he met the first resistance to his claims in Mecca. Then, suddenly, and quite conveniently, he began to have more “revelations” that always provided convenient new grounds on which to counter or compromise with whatever resistance he was encountering at the moment.

That pattern of behavior increased with success, to the point that he was receiving daily, sometimes hourly “revelations” convenient to settle such mundane, every-day problems as petty arguments between his wives. He was no prophet; he was a very tricky fellow, just as evil, deceptive and treacherous as Machiavelli. He was a con-man, and his disciples were either terrorized into obedience, or they were fools, useful idiots little different than most of the followers of Marxism.

Islam is a “religion” of war, not peace, and Allah is only merciful in Dar-al-Islam; in Dar-al-Harb, where I live, Allah is cruel in the extreme, and you know it.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Fri May 06 08:49:21 2011
From: Gabe
Email: No
Location: No
Comment:

Vic –

You are just as bad as the worst of the Muslims because you can’t see the forest for the trees. Your faith has put blinders on you and you cannot see the big picture. EVERYTHING you see is colored by your Catholic faith. You will never understand the other until you learn to put your faith aside and try to see without your Catholic blinders. You cannot judge any other human or group until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Date: Fri May 06 09:19:37 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Gabe:

I will not be secularized, i.e., cleansed of my religion, just to satisfy the wishes of those who stand outside my faith. From my point of view, walking in my own shoes as I do, self-secularized people are the ones who wear the blinders, for they cannot even properly tell right from wrong, or even know their own proper purpose for being. Having put your own faith aside, what drives you? What directs your judgment, your ability to make good decisions in life, and even in normal day to day activities?

I am a Roman Catholic. Putting my faith aside is against my religion. Putting my faith aside for any purpose whatsoever is against my religion. Putting my faith aside in any environment, in any company, or in any situation, or for any length of time, for even an instant, is against my religion. I will not do it.

The vast overwhelming majority of the population of the United States openly profess that they are Christians or Jews, and they therefore follow, with varying degrees of correctness, the ancient Judao-Chrisitan Ethos of Western Civilization, and that is how they guide their lives, raise their children, develop and exercise good judgment and hope to obtain good ultimate judgment themselves.

Now we may argue about how well the majority may practice their religion and follow its teaching, principles and precepts, and we may ultimately agree that there is a great degree of Judao-Christian “sin” going on in America. However, try to consider the worst things that have happened in America, and the best, and try to judge whether the bad things might have come about by citizens putting their religion aside, or by standing in their faith. Similarly, might the good things have come about due to citizens standing in their faith, or disregarding it.

Consider various different legislated laws in America, and how they might have come about, considering the publicly professed faith of nearly all American legislators. Laws that you consider being good laws and those that you consider to be bad laws – did faith have to be followed, or disregarded, in order to legislate and pass those laws? Did the legislators still profess the same faith after as before? Why?

Finally, consider what America might look like if everyone in America put their faith aside permanently. If putting faith aside is a good thing to do, then it logically follows that it should be done permanently. What, then, would guide America? Marxism? Tree worship? What?

What, exactly, would give us a national sense of direction and purpose?

Think about it.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Jul 23 15:11:48 2011
From: hexenomega
Email:
Location: England
Comment:

Actually, this guy is so correct in his interpretation that its unreal, I feel exactly the same way, maybe your criticisms underlie the fact that you know he is right, deep down in your souls, its not nice to have been fooled to such a degree, and I’m not even catholic, but I love God, that’s my religion, so, read the piece again, and this time, think about what he tells you.

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.