Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 38

Notre Dame Philosophy Professor Reflects the Zeitgeist

The love of a mother is no more or less important than the love of a father. We all know this. But then, in general, mothers should be under no greater burden than fathers to abandon their callings for the sake of their children. The asymmetry in our responses to working mothers and fathers, then, suggests that other factors are in play. In an evangelical protestant context, the context I have in view here, there is good reason to suspect that these other factors include a tendency to devalue the gifts and contributions of women particularly in positions of teaching and leadership

Michael Rea
Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

The above is culled from here,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rea/mothers-in-ministry_b_8760590.html

Why, instead of the conclusion that Dr. Rea draws in his last sentence above, don’t we conclude that the reason Evangelical Protestants don’t want women in social order leadership is,

1.) The Scriptures forbid it.

2.) We so value women and their role in hearth and home that we don’t want to treat them like roses used as kindling to start a fire by turning them into ecclesiastical versions of “Rosie the Riverter?”

It is a fallacy to think that all because women are not treated like men therefore women are devalued in their gifts and contributions.

3.) We understand and affirm that men and women were not created to be interchangeable cogs as if both sexes were created to do the same thing.

Overall I would say it is Dr. Rea, and people like him, who are devaluing the gifts and contributions of women. It is people like Dr. Rea who are taking from children their Mothers who are to be the leaders and teachers of the most impressionable in our social order.

As a young lady, stay at home Mom, friend of mind said, in discussion about this article,

“With ‘men’ like Dr. Rea, who needs women to run for church office? We already have them!”

(And believe me when I tell you that this young lady, I’m quoting above, could run circles around any three Woman Pastors combined, you might want to name, in terms of giftedness in leadership and teaching.)

Finally, note the methodological way that the Left works here. Suggesting that men and women are interchangeable is put into such noble and glowing words and sentiments, while at the same time, the idea that women are distinct from men is made to look cruel and mean. The appeal to emotion is made with the consequence that the rational is bypassed. This is a common methodological tool of the unholy Left.

Walsh on the Deconstruction of the Family

The attack on normative heterosexuality — led by male homosexuals and lesbians, and invariably disguised as a movement for ‘rights,’ piggybacking on the civil rights movement of the 1960’s — is fundamental to the success of Critical Theory, which went straight at the hardest target (and yet, in many ways, the softest) first. The reason was simple: If a wedge could be a driven between men and women, if the nuclear family could be cracked, if women could be convinced to fear and hate men, to see them as unnecessary for their happiness or survival — if men could be made biologically redundant — then that political party that had adopted Critical Theory could make single women one of their strongest voting blocs.

And so Eve was offered the apple: In exchange for rejecting a ‘traditional’ sex role of supposed subservience and dependency (slavery, really), she would become more like a man in her sexual appetites and practices (this was so called ‘freedom’), and she would be liberated from the burdens of motherhood via widespread contraception, abortion on demand, and the erasure of the ‘stigma’ of single motherhood (should it come to that) or spinsterhood. Backed by the force of government’s fist, she would compete with men for jobs, high salaries, and social status, all the while retaining all her rights of womanhood. the only thing she had to do was help destroy the social order.

The results has been entirely predictable: masculinized women, feminized men, falling rates of childbirth in the Western world, and the creation of a technocratic political class that can type but do little real work in the traditional sense. Co-educational college campuses have quickly mutated from sexually segregated living quarters to co-ed dorms to the ‘hook up culture’ depicted by novelist Tom Wolfe in I am Charlotte Simmons to a newly puritanical and explicitly anti-male ‘rape culture’ hysteria, in which sexual commissars promulgate step-by-step rules for sexual encounters and often dispense completely with due process when adjudicating complaints from female students.

Crucially, at every step of the way, ‘change,’ from the old norms was being offered as ‘improvement’ or ‘liberation’ — more fulfillment, more pleasure, more experience. And yet, with each step, things got worse — for women. Eve’s bite of the apple sent humanity forth from the Garden, sadder but wiser. Today’s transgressive Western woman is merely sadder and often ends her life completely alone, a truly satanic outcome. G. K. Chesterton’s parable of the fence comes to mind, in the ‘The Drift from Domesticity,’ in The Thing (1929):

In the manner of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which probably will be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law, let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this, let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

A splendid example of Chesterton’s Fence was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, championed by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will non inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area,” said the Massachusetts Senator. “In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Half a century on, those predictions have proved dramatically wrong: the question is whether Kennedy and his fellow leftists knew quite well at the time that there forecasts were bogus — although (as someone or other famously said) what difference, at this point, does it make?

In the same way, much of contemporary, ‘reform’ is marked by impatience, ridicule, and haste, cloaked in ‘compassion,’ or bureaucratic ‘comprehensivity,’ disguised as ‘rights’ prised out of the Constitution with a crowbar and an ice pick, and delivered with a cocksure snort of derision against any who would demur.

Michael Walsh
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace; The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West — pg. 88 – 89

Marinov’s Malapropism

Considering the mass shooting by a Muslim gun owner: The liberals say that we can’t blame all Muslims, but we surely can blame all gun-owners – & ban guns. The conservatives say that we can’t blame all gun-owners but we surely can blame all Muslims – & ban all refugees.
Each side says the other side is schizophrenic & hypocritical. And each side wants to give more power to the Federal government to deal collectively with a group for the crimes of one person.

While I mourn the loss of life, I can’t but notice God’s irony to both camps.

~Bojidar Marinov

1.) All because liberals say things doesn’t mean that liberals are making sense. To not note that is more than unfortunate.

2.) How does it follow that gun owners are to blame when terrorists use guns to murder people?

3.) The shootings happened in a “gun free zone,” where guns were banned. How did that ban work?

4.) Actually the liberal says we can’t blame any Muslims since to blame any Muslim would be “racist.”

5.) I see a great deal of torpid in this camp but I see no irony in the least.

6.) Where are the Conservatives that say we can blame all Muslims? What the Conservative actually says is that we have a Muslim problem that warrants us to conclude that Islam is not a faith system that can co-exist within Western civilization. How many shootings have to occur before Mr. Marinov gives up on his open borders fantasy?

7.) Of course we can’t blame all gun owners. How can a gun owner in Longtown, SC be blamed for a Muslim nutcase killing 14 people who were occupying a gun free zone?

8.) The fact that Liberals insist that conservatives are shizophrenic & hypocritical doesn’t mean they are schizophrenic & hypocritical.

9.) Conservatives do not desire to give more power to the Federal Government. Mr. Marinov seems to forget that one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is “to provide for the common defense.” Protecting the citizenry for enemies, foreign and domestic is part of the oath that many Federal officials take. Mr. Marinov is just in error on this matter and his error is in service of his errant desire for open borders.

10.) The only irony in any of this is Mr. Marinov’s ability to find irony where it does not exist.

14 Dead in San Bernardino ask, “Do you still think Open Borders is a good idea”

Given the murders in San Bernardino yesterday by husband and wife Muslims (Tashfeen Mali being a first generation Immigrant and her husband Syed Farook being a second generation Muslim immigrant) now is a good time to re-examine the whole open borders issue that many Christians leaders are now supporting and who are telling the Christian rank and file that they must support in the context of endless immigration.

We should note again that support for untrammeled Immigration and Open Borders is driven by,

1.) The desire to have a conviction that has been deemed fashionable and praiseworthy.

2.) The desire of the Chamber of Commerce to have the cheapest possible labor; damn the consequences to anything like a National culture.

3.) The desire of the Democratic party to increase its voter base.

4.) The desire of the Republican party to enrich itself by doing the bidding and reaping the rewards of the donor class.

5.) The desire of many Churches to be nicer than God.

6.) A mistaken understanding on the part of many Christians, as informed by their mistaken leadership, that the Scripture requires us to commit ethnocide out of love for the stranger and the alien.

7.) The desire of the Elites to forever end the influence of Biblical Christianity forever in this country.

8.) The desire of the Elites to create a “have vs. have not” social order with themselves as part of the have class.

9.) A mistaken thinking on the part of many well intentioned though delusional Christians that somehow connects more aliens, foreigners and strangers here with the idea that more people will be then converted.

10.) The desire of the NWO types to make a cafe colored melange out of the whole world with the thinking that the New World Order Man will complete the New World Order attempt at rebuilding a New World Order Babel that is one race, one religion and one culture.

11.) The desire by Statists to keep the nation so balkanized that there will forever be a need for the Federals to provide the muscle to keep the peace between warring interests. Immigration of diversity is job security for Statists.

People like Joel McDurmon and Bojidar Marinov need to re-examine the positions on open borders for which they’ve been thumping. Clearly after 14 more deaths (we are not counting the 13 deaths inflicted by Major Nidal Hasan or the 3 more by the Tsarnaev brothers) there is a need to admit that the ideas that these men are supporting are just not valid. (Of course, those policies were neither ever Biblical.) The whole idea, floated by Mr. Marinov, that if Muslims were here it would make converting them easier is seen as past dubious.

It is interesting that Dr. R. J. Rushdoony at one time flirted with the same kind of thinking. According to one of his colleagues, Dr. Ian Hodge, Dr. Rushdoony first went onto the Indian reservations thinking that if he could learn to evangelize those far away from any semblance of Christianity, he would find it easier when he came back into civilization. Hodge went on to say that Hodge knew “of no evidence that he (Rushdoony) was successful in this.” Surely we must ask ourselves that if even the most zealous of Christians, like RJR, found it difficult to evangelize in a non Western context what makes us think we will be wildly successful with evangelizing transplanted Muslims? This isn’t a lack of confidence in the power of the Gospel. This is a steely eyed look at the fact that the kind of immigration that men like Dr. McDurmon and Mr. Marinov champion is a kind of immigration that gets people killed as San Bernardino testifies.

There is another category also we must speak to and examine. There are just scads of Evangelical Pastors who say things like, “Love requires us to let the alien and stranger live here.” Ask yourself Pastors, are the dead 14 in San Bernardino feeling your love now? There are scads of Evangelical Pastors who suggest that taking a hard stand against Immigration from third world countries is a sign of “racism.” Let me ask you Pastor, even if your charge of racism is true (and it isn’t) which would you rather be guilty of; racism or murder? Thinking that allowing Third Worlders here so that we can convert them is like insisting that we should hire members of the Manson family to do our babysitting as a means of giving them the Gospel and converting them. After all, not all Manson family members were involved in cutting open Sharon Tate.

One more thing. This whole ignoramus fallacy that “diversity is our strength” has got to go because such thinking is getting people murdered. Those 14 dead people in San Bernardino represent diversity. Those 13 people murdered by Hasan represent diversity. The five serviceman murdered by Mohammad Abdulazeez in Chattanooga represent diversity. The 264 people terrorized in Boston by the Tsarnaev Brothers represent diversity. The Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo (Both Muslim) represent diversity. All this damn diversity is getting real live people murdered. Any open borders policy that would allow for this kind of thing to continue is just mindless insanity dressed up as sophisticated exegesis. Keep in mind folks that the goal of all this diversity is to create a need for the Federal Government. When a nation is as balkanized as this one is becoming via different people groups and different religions the only way the peace can be kept is by the FEDS providing muscle to keep the peace (see #11 above).

As an aside let us note that when the Islamic sympathetic Commander in Chief heard about this shooting all he could call for was an assault on 2nd amendment rights. Not a word about banning third worlders from this country. Apparently he is too busy reciting his mantra, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Examining Dr. McDurmon and American Vision on Immigration

There simply is no biblical reason to refuse legitimate refugees. The Bible is clear that national borders should be open to all peaceful and law abiding individuals. Further, when we properly understand the meaning of the Bible’s teachings on immigrants, we will understand that to loathe refugees is to loathe ourselves and our own nation.

Dr. Joel McDurmon
American Vision

1.) First we would note that Dr. McDurmon confuses the issue somewhat by conflating the categories of “refugee” and “immigrants.” A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country, while an immigrant is someone who chooses to resettle to another country. There is a third category of “asylee” that is part of the conversation. These distinctions are important in this kind of conversation for without them it makes it even more difficult to make progress in the conversation.

2.) Dr. McDurmon makes this assertion in the face of what many have styled as “civilizational Jihad.” The recent deceased Muammar Gaddafi, noted,

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Consistent with Gaddafi’s observation, authors Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi in their book, “Modern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,” call Muslim immigration to the West a “modern day Trojan Horse.” They go on to note that,“Mohammed himself proclaimed that migration is jihad,” and provides a flourish with. “from the Islamic jurisprudence view the immigration of the Muslims to the West is to be regarded as the most important step on the ladder for achieving the establishment of an Islamic state in the West. This is the primary objective of Islamic Mission in the West.”

Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders again echoes the above sentiments by noting that, “gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal systems, or what is termed ‘Isalmisation’ of our democratic societies by the vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into our Western way of life.”

Ann Corcoran in her book, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” writes Hijara means migration and, according to Islam’s doctrine and its quietly acknowledged organizational strategies, the goal of migration, today is not peaceful assimilation to the political system and mores of the host country. Instead, the goal is jihad by non-violent means known as civilizational jihad or Islamization.

Would Dr. McDurmon have us believe that God would be pleased with embracing a immigration pattern, the soul intent of which is squashing what little remains of Biblical Christianity, by a Muslim immigration horde intended to be used as a hammer of submission to obliterate the Christian remnant in the West and all this to the end of the Humanist attempt to establish a New World Order?

3.) Next we would note that Dr. McDurmon is just wrong in this assertion above, as OT Scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier points out ,

“The very positive statements about the treatment of strangers in the Bible, some of which were already quoted, show compassion for the alien in ancient Israel. The defenders of illegal aliens point to these passages as the rationale for rewriting current laws. The problem is that they make a simplistic correlation between the ancient Israelite social law and the modern situation as if the Bible was addressing the same problem. Three important questions must be raised before one attempts to apply Israelite law to the modern situation: 1) Was there such a thing as territorial sovereignty in the second millennium B.C. when these laws originated; 2) Within that socio-legal setting, what was a “stranger” or “sojourner;” and 3) How does one obtain this status?”

The fact of the matter is that McDurmon has likewise rushed passed these distinctions just as he rushed by the distinctions between “refugee” and “immigrant.” McDurmon completely disregards the distinction between the differing words in the OT translated as differing times as “stranger,” “foreigner,” “alien,” and “sojourner.” This is a significant error and reveals a certain sloppiness on Dr. McDurmon’s part.

In point of fact, as Ehud Would has written, putting the strongest contradiction possible to Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote,

“In biblical law foreign races were permitted to enter the border only under patronage and direct legal oversight of a native. Whether ambassadors, contracted laborers, or slaves, they were forbade from owning land, ascending to any positions of political power, forbidden to marry members of the nation, and weren’t allowed to lend to natives at interest (though natives could do so toward them). Nor could aliens conscript natives to perpetual slavery, but natives could buy chattel slaves so long as they were of other peoples. And any of foreign breed who would not consent to these terms for entry of Israel’s border was regarded a hostile invader and subject to forcible expulsion as in the cases of the mass deportations under Ezra and Nehemiah.”

Dr. James Hoffmeier, unlike Dr. McDurmon in the opening quote, pays close attention to the different OT Hebrew words that are so significant in this discussion, and confirms much of Ehud Would’s observation immediately above,

“The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters, “there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the gerwere not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.”

4,) Another problem with Dr. McDurmon’s quote above is that Dr. McDurmon is calling for the State to have charity but as Dr. R. J. Rushdoony notes, “the state has no part in charity; the scripture never says that the state is to administer it. ” Rushdoony, in the same lecture, “Justice and World Law,” offers about this issue of immigration, “first of all they [illegal immigrants] have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.” From this quote we see that Dr. Rushdoony also disagrees with Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote.

In conclusion it is interesting that seemingly all of Institutional Christendom is insisting that civilizational Jihad must be embraced, and that the West must embrace its death by commandment of God. Whether it is the long acknowledged Left like the “Sojourners” organization or whether it is the Cultural Marxist Churches, or whether it is organizations like Lutheran World Relief or Catholic Relief Services or any number of other Denominational organizations what Christian laity are almost universally being told is that that if they don’t support the dissolution of themselves in their undoubted catholic Christian faith and as a people and they don’t love Jesus and are guilty of Racism. This call to accept civilizational jihad now even comes from those organizations that heretofore were considered “conservative” such as American Vision.

Christians need to be assured that they can oppose immigration and still be considered Christ honoring. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon the West today can happen in the context of obeying the 1st commandment, the 5th commandment, and the 8th commandment. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the admonition of the necessity to provide for one’s own household. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the same kind of love for our people that we find St. Paul expressing in Romans 9:3. In point of fact, I would insist that opposing the kind of immigration that is being foisted on the West today is the duty of every Christ loving Christian.

“