Category: Culture

“So Southern belief in a Northern determination to transform the US into a consolidated nation, where the majority must always rule a central government endowed with large, indefinite implied powers, loomed as a grave threat to many Southerners’ most cherished ideals of society, of government, of life itself. When secessionists insisted that they left the Union to preserve states’ rights, they meant exactly that. In the last analysis, they seceded for an idea, the idea that they would not meekly submit to Northern rule. If they were rebels so be it. After all, it was a name their “patriot fathers bore.”

Ludwell H. Johnson
North Against South; The American Iliad — 1848-1877

People may wonder why I keep returning to this theme. I would hope that the answer is already strongly hinted at in what I said in the last post. A people’s understanding of their present is shaped by their understanding of their past. If, we as a people, continue to think of the Second War for American Independence as one in which the forces of good wore blue we will not be willing to fight for the issues that those who wore butternut and gray died for. They died fighting for Republican regionalism against the Federated Nationalism that was sought for by the army of the Potomac. We have come to the point that we must fight for Nationalism versus the New World Order that our political masters are trying to force on us. They died fighting for States Sovereignty against those who desired the sovereignty of the Nation State. We must fight for American Sovereignty against those who desire to the sovereignty of globalism. Men like R. L. Dabney and John Giradeau understood that the South was fighting for Christendom against pagan inroads. The desire not to be globalized, is much the same battle, even if people don’t understand that. If we don’t find the ability to sympathize with the Southern reasons for fighting Yankees we won’t find the ability to fight against the Internationalists.

It’s the same war folks, except that it is coming to another phase. If you believe that those toting a New World Order are the bad guys then you better realize that the Confederates are your intellectual heirs.

A Christian has the one view that social order and culture should be based on the singular one religion of Christianity. This is referred to as Christian culture. A pagan has the one view that social order and culture should be based on a plethora of faiths. This is referred to as multi-culturalism.

Note though that the second view is not more pluralistic or tolerant than the first view or to say it positively; note that the second view is just as homogeneous and intolerant as the first view. Both the first position that has the one view that social order and culture should be Christian and the second position that has the one view that social order and culture should allow for multi-faiths are both positions that are advocating one single view of the way social order and culture should be. Both views are equally non-pluralistic because the first view allows only for Christian culture and the second view allows only for polytheistic culture. The first rules out any culture that is uniquely polytheistic. The second rules out any culture that is uniquely Christian. Both views are equally intolerant because the first view will not tolerate those who want to overthrow Christian social order and culture with polytheism while the second view will not tolerate those who want to overthrow polytheistic social order and culture.

Multi-culturalism, religious pluralism, and cultural tolerance is a myth.

Over at Bayly Blog I accidentally put my foot in it — which of course is not an uncommon occurrence.

Someone took a swipe at Calvin’s treatment of Servetus and I stood up for Calvin by noting that if magistrates had stayed consistent by dealing with future Servetus’ in a similar manner we would not have arrived at the point where homosexuality is seen as normative, and we would not have arrived at the point where homosexuals are allowed to evangelize our children through the curriculum in the government schools and we would not be slaughtering 1.3 million babies every year.

Rev. Tim Bayly, for reasons known only to him, took strong exception to this comment and even after I cited the fact that all of Christian Europe was after Servetus and that the Westminster Confession article 23 requires this kind of action from the magistrate Rev. Bayly still didn’t want the discussion taking place at his blog. I suppose it is possible that Tim has some former homosexuals in his congregation and so he doesn’t want to upset them by what he views as a heavy handed approach. I guess I should say that new laws forbidding crimes wouldn’t be enforced ex post facto. Converted homosexuals are my brothers in Christ and no law passed after the fact would effect them.

Rev. Bayly seems to think my position is uncharitable and unloving. It is popular to think that way and so I don’t fault him. Rev. Bayly really needs to ask himself though if it was uncharitable and unloving of God to require capital punishment for public blasphemers in the Old Covenant and if it wasn’t then what has changed?

The reality, is that when Calvin supported the decision that the Geneva Magistrates made on Servetus it was the most loving thing he could have done. Would the Magistrates and Calvin had turned a blind eye to the teachings of Servetus it would have been like ignoring a Cancer festering in a healthy body. When Calvin supported the decisions of the Magistrates in Geneva against Servetus he at the same time supported the health of Families, Churches, and the Societal unity in Geneva. To have allowed Servetus to go unchecked would have been hatred against God and His glory and it would have been a violation of God’s law word regarding blasphemers.

We have seen where Servetus’ Unitarianism has led in our own country. What started with the theological blasphemies of Servetus, by way of a long and winding ideological path that has snaked further and further away from the old Christian paths, has led to the death of 1.3 million babies every year in this country. It has led to the feminization and homosexulization of our culture. A little leaven does indeed leaven the whole loaf.

Some will contend that it is hard hearted and mean spirited to suggest that the State should bear the sword against public Blasphemers. But let us consider again the flip side of this. If public Blasphemers and publicly expressed God haters are allowed to hold sway we must ask the question who will they exercise the use of the sword against? Our culture reveals that they will yield the sword against those that they consider involved in public blasphemy against their god or gods concept.

One of the gods of our age is the god of sex without fertility. Getting pregnant is a public blasphemy against that god. The penalty that the State makes provision for is death for the conceived child. So the sum of this is that Magistrates will always bring the sword against public blasphemy. The Geneva magistrates brought it against Servetus for publicly blaspheming God. Our current magistrates create an environment where the sword is brought against the unborn for publicly blaspheming our sex without fertility god.

It would seem to me that since the Magistrates always ends up bringing the sword against the blasphemers of some god that we should advocate for magistrates bringing the sword against those who blaspheme the God of the Bible, thus showing a tender-heartedness and love towards those who are being killed in the name of false religions and false gods.

Rev. Bayly commented that under my belief system only a handful of people would be left alive. The truth however though, is that under God’s system the land would flourish and the 1.3 million yearly aborted that Rev. Bayly cares about so deeply would be among a host of those left alive.

Well this morning, I came across the Inaugural worship service that was held in the Washington Cathedral on 21 January 2009.

A few observations,

1.) It was an 86 minute service. Inclusive of all the songs and liturgy the name of Jesus Christ was mentioned one time by Rev. Andy Stanley. I’d like to give Andy points but to be honest you don’t get any points for being part of a ecumenical service where the gods are implicitly being given equal time and equal credence.

2.)Historic Christian songs were used but none of those songs referred to Christ. In this multi-cultural age we are going to have to think long and hard about grand historic hymns that made fine singing in the context of Christendom but can be easily co-opted into being paeans of praise to a generic civil religion god and gods.

3.)The worship was led by Christian ministers, Christian Priests, Hindu leaders, Rabbis, and Muslim leaders. This was not a Christian service but a polytheistic service. All the gods are welcome as long as all the gods know their place. This underscores my constant contention that the God in our system is the State who serves as the God of the gods.

4.) The civil religion aspect of it was highlighted by patriotic songs and the constant invoking for the good of the State and its leaders. A Christian service by contrast would ask for the good of God and that the leaders might be blessed as they are faithful to God’s revealed Word.

5.) The hypocrisy was pretty thick at two points. First, when they read the Isaiah 58:6-12 passage which was used for the theme. Second, when they sang “He’s got the little bitty babies in His hands.” When you read that passage, and then combine it with the song and then when you think of the barbarity of abortion you wonder how anybody could keep a straight face.

6.) The female preacher managed to use the anti-Christ dating system of “BCE” in order to date the book of Isaiah. This is a significant attack against Christianity.

7.) The sermon done by the “lady” preacher was entirely horizontal, speaking solely about man’s duty to man. It also was laden with socialistic type themes. A great deal of blather about social justice and the brotherhood of all mankind. It was a least common denominator sermon done for a least common denominator god. It fit wonderfully into an age that is trying to build a New World Order.

Conclusions,

1.) Our official State religion is the same as Rome’s in the 1st century. We are held together by Caesar worship. We are polytheistic in the sense that the citizenry is allowed to serve any god it wants as long as its god doesn’t defy Caesar.

2.) There is little strength in the mega Churches. Rick Warren and Andy Stanley are classic examples. If they are willing to be representatives who add Jesus to the pantheon of the State gods then it is questionable where their real allegiance lie.

3.) As Christians and in Churches we need to keep praying for civil magistrates but the requests should take on a predominant theme of repentance for our “leaders.”

4.) We should understand that our leadership is God’s judgment against our sin against Him. The Church has played the harlot and so we have been given wicked men to rule over us both in our Churches and in those who fill the role of civil magistrates.

ABC Sunday News Show

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now how did we go from aiding children’s health to making sure people don’t have children in two sentences? How does making sure that people don’t have children at the same time contribute to children’s health?

Look, the State sees itself as the parent of the citizenry and as the Parent it must decide when and to when not have children, and if it decides to not have children in order to relieve the pressure on the Parent’s budget as the parent it is sovereign to make that decision.

What this boils down is that the entitlement culture cannot provide for all the illegitimate children that it creates and as such the State will take sovereign responsibility to make sure that people on the Government dole will encouraged (in due time required) to not have to many children.

Also keep in mind that it is likely that planned parenthood is going to be the beneficiary of all this family planning stimulus money.

Now, you better believe that if the birth of children is a concern to the Sovereign state because of their great cost that it won’t be long until the Sovereign state will be concerned about how much money is required in our season of dying. The generation who aborted their children for the sake of convenience are going to find itself aborted in old age for the sake of convenience. Payback is a b—-.

How many more of God’s prerogatives does the State have to try and take up before Christians begin to realize that it is idolatry not to try and check the State’s desire to be God?

These people, and the people who keep voting for them are sphincter release valves.