Pro sports in America are dying in front of our very eyes. This will be a story taught in business schools across America for decades to come. The story is about how to kill a multibillion-dollar empire overnight with just your big mouth.
It’s about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
It’s about the massive disconnect between sports stars and their customers — the people who pay their grossly inflated and obscene salaries.
You are killing yourselves. It’s clearly suicide. Stop talking politics. You’re going to be playing in front of empty stands forever.
I warned you weeks ago your ratings would plummet — just as they did when Colin Kaepernick kneeled. I was right. NBA playoff ratings are down dramatically, falling 35 percent from 16 percent last year. But they’re down much worse from five years ago. Soon your ratings will plummet even further.
The more you scream about the Black Lives Matter movement and “social justice,” the more fans will tune out. Soon, your apparel and memorabilia will stop selling. You’ve made a tragic mistake and miscalculation.
Before I get to the reason pro athletes should keep politics away from their sports, let me ask LeBron James and his NBA pals a few very important questions.
LeBron, how come you never said a word, let alone threatened to end the season, over black-on-black violence in big cities across the USA? Thousands of black young men are dying on the streets of inner cities. Why don’t you care?
LeBron, how about Chicago? Why doesn’t it bother you that 50 to 100 innocent citizens are being shot there nearly every weekend? The victims are virtually 100 percent black. Why isn’t that worth a boycott?
LeBron, how about the innocent little black children murdered in gang shootings in big cities across America? It happens every day. Why doesn’t that bother you?
LeBron, how about the millions of black babies aborted? Why not cancel the NBA season for that? Why doesn’t that bother you?
LeBron, has any sports league EVER stopped playing or postponed playoff games for a hero cop murdered, or a hero soldier murdered? That’s not important to you?
LeBron, did you or your NBA pals stop playing to honor the black retired police captain in St. Louis killed by a thug during riots?
LeBron, did the NBA or any other sports league postpone games or threaten to end the season when a sniper murdered five Dallas cops in one day? Why didn’t that bother any pro athletes?
LeBron, did you or any pro athletes demand games be stopped for the little boy shot in the head and murdered two weeks ago? He happened to be white. The man accused of murdering him happens to be black. That has to be one of the most shocking crimes in recent American history. Who kills a smiling, happy 5-year-old on his bicycle, execution-style? But I never heard a peep from one NBA player. Why? You didn’t notice?
Is the execution of a 5-year-old less important to you than a white cop killing or wounding a black criminal who has a long criminal record and refuses to obey orders from a police officer? Really?
LeBron, isn’t it strange that neither you nor your NBA pals ever gave a damn about human rights violations in China? There are billions of dollars to be made looking the other way, while communist China abuses, arrests, tortures, and murders its own citizens. China is said to have concentration camps for Muslims. But you know that, right? Obviously, none of that is a problem for NBA players if billions of dollars are at stake.
Do you see where I’m going, LeBron? You and your pals in the NBA, MLB, NFL, and NHL seem a tad hypocritical. You don’t notice when cops are shot or killed. You don’t notice the black genocide going on in America’s cities. You don’t notice the young black children killed in gang shootings. Or the millions of aborted black babies.
You don’t seem to notice the black crime perpetrated upon white citizens. I think that’s important, too, don’t you? I think it’s fair game. I think we need a national discussion and debate. I think it’s a two-way street.
By the way, LeBron, if you feel so strongly about ending the season for a bad guy who wanted to kill cops with a knife, what’s stopping you? You should go home. Let other players, who want to play, play.
And I have the perfect idea for the NFL players thinking of forfeiting a game this season in “honor” of Jacob Blake, the career criminal accused of sexual assault, who fought officers and threatened to kill them with a knife. If that person is worth taking a stand over, then I think they should quit football. Become a full-time social justice warrior. It doesn’t pay $5 million to $10 million per year. You’ll make about $25,000 a year. How’s that sound? Are you willing to give up football to fight for social justice full time? I didn’t think so.
So, forgive me if all of your customers aren’t on your team on this one.
LeBron, my advice is simple: SHUT UP! You’re alienating your customers. You’re offending your customers — you know, the ones who pay the grossly inflated and obscene prices for game tickets, parking, food, and sports apparel.
Sports and politics don’t mix. We tune in to the games to get away from politics. Keep violating that rule and there will be no fans left to pay your grossly inflated and obscene salaries.
LeBron, pull back from the ledge. Because this is suicide.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah is known as “the weeping prophet.” He was a citizen of a nation that had ascended to the pinnacle of world power. That nation had set the world’s standards for economic, civil, military, and political successes. These accomplishments were not approached by any other nation until Columbus discovered America in 1492 and the United States of America declared her God-given sovereignty in 1776.
But Jeremiah uttered an anguished cry, “Oh that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (9:1) and “Let my eyes flow down with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people has been crushed with a mighty blow, with a sorely infected wound” (14:17).
The prophet sorrowed because his nation had dissolved into anarchy. The Rule of Law that once assured peace, safety, and successes had been replaced. The prophet was perplexed by this catastrophic change in his nation’s direction. “I have listened and heard, they have spoken what is not right; No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’” (8:6) and again “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (10:23).
Jeremiah walked his city looking at the corrupt culture. No doubt he shook his head and asked “What IS happening to my country?!” He mourned, “We waited for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
With one brief word the Prophet summarizes the culture of a nation in crisis—“Terror”!
Rule of Law in America?
This highlights a historical constant—when a nation dissolves the Rule of Law that sets boundaries and regulates behavior, then that nation’s foundation begins to crack, crumble and collapse. It does not matter how strong the military is. It does not matter how weak the enemy is. It does not matter how vibrant the economy is. If God is denied and the Rule of Law is ignored, catastrophe is certain.
This truth has been recognized. Perhaps one of the more recent comments, “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” (President Ronald Reagan August 23, 1984).
Another truism states, “A nation without God is a God-less nation.”
The truth of history repeatedly validates that when a nation turns away from God and refuses to restrict the immorality of its population, then evil rules and national collapse is near. Such a message was sent to the World Empire of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). That nation repented and was spared collapse until it turned away from God’s Rule of Law and refused to repent. It was then destroyed.
This historical constant applies to modern America. This is not just a boring historical fact to be welcomed by a “ho-hum” sigh. This is our present reality. The United States of America is experiencing Jeremiah’s desperation, “We waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
The added stress is the fact that many appear to have surrendered to this cultural anarchy. Night after night people are attacked, kicked to the streets, victims of arson and anarchy. The law officers are resigning. Many are surrendering to the anarchists. Now the protestors are marching into the suburbs demanding the houses be given to them. “Racism” and “reparations” are used to justify the vilest acts of inhumanity.
Two Revolutions Compared
But…this situation in the United States of America is not new. It is only a repeat of the historical constant that lawlessness destroys peace and a lawless culture does not bring personal freedom but a total national collapse.
The late 1700’s provides us with an amazing lesson validating our point. Two revolutions marked that era but each was diametrically opposed to the other. One based its foundation on the Rule of Law that comes from “the Creator” (God Almighty). The other based its foundation on the Rule of Law that is established by “Man’s Reason and Enlightenment” without God Almighty. It is this choice that America faces in 2020—which Rule of Law will our nation choose to follow?
Consider the foundation of each of these nations.
We first consider France 1789 the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” was composed. This claimed to be a document safeguarding the basic charters of human liberties. Its 17 articles, adopted between August 20 and August 26, 1789, by France’s National Assembly, served as the preamble to the Constitution of 1791. The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), these rights were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). This document inspired the French Revolution. The vague terms were used to disguised a malevolent goal—yes property, liberty, and personal rights were stated BUT they would be defined far differently than the general population understood. Yes “oppression” was to be resisted BUT ONLY as defined by the elite. The general attitude of the anarchists implementing this Declaration is well voiced by a politician in recent weeks who said, “Yes everyone should have a choice in wearing face masks as long as they make the RIGHT choice.”
It is significant to note the sources of the Declaration included the major thinkers of the French Enlightenment, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.
This Revolution was founded on a God-less basis and subsequent actions were God-less tyranny, evil, murders, arson, confiscation of private property, and the total destruction of a nation.
The second revolution to be considered was that in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [July 1776] where The Declaration of Independence was composed and ratified. In total contrast to the French the Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence).
The contrast between The United States of America and France is stark. In fact, it is actually SHOCKING. One places trust and confidence in the protection of the Almighty Creator. The other exalts human reasoning and man’s “enlightened” freedom from religious obligations.
The greatest contrast is found in the consequent history of each nation. The USA soared to success and world influence. The economy, military, and culture of American became the envy of the world. The jurisprudence governing our civility made “true justice” a reality. France devolved further into anarchy. Historians identify the period of time (June 1793-July 1794) following France’s “Declaration of Man” as “The Terror.”
Even the blind can see this frightening contrast.
An explanation of France’s acceptance of anarchy that led to its collapse is suggested by this historian. “It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have had a revolution—not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. They were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.” (PARIS IN THE TERROR, June 1793-July 1794. Stanley Loomis. J. B. Lippincott Company. Philadelphia and New York,1964. Page 12).
Culture cannot cancel history! The “cancel culture” is another point of absurdity that should be discussed but I do not have time to address it here. But I simply note the absolute fact that the prevailing pressure and riotous actions of today’s blasphemous culture CANNOT cancel the historical constant!
There is an idiom stating that one “cannot whistle past the graveyard.” This idiomatic phrase describes the attempt of one to stay cheerful in a dire situation. One thus described is going forward into a situation and ignoring a certain hazard. Even if the hazard is recognized the fool proceeds hoping for a good outcome. Those thus described enter a situation with little or no understanding of the possible consequences.
This is where the United States of America is in 2020. We are at a crossroad with a choice to follow the historical precedent that made our nation great or to choose the historical folly of Revolutionary France.
There is much more to say about this choice and its ramifications for modern America.
I close with a reference to another historical event that chronicles the collapse of a great nation into anarchy’s chaos. Hosea 4 addresses Israel’s surrender of allegiance to God’s Rule of Law and her acceptance of anarchy’s terror.
“Listen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel, for the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, because there is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of God in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, and also the fish of the sea disappear” (1-3).
Unspeakable catastrophe results when there is “no knowledge of God in the land.” There is violence, immorality, lawlessness, and disrespect for the governing legal officers. The entire scene is sadly summarized “bloodshed follows bloodshed.”
What is the answer? It is either follow man’s arrogance or submit to God’s sovereignty. One way brings “terror” and the other brings tranquility.
Hosea’s message highlights these primary points…
Truth and mercy are attributes and virtues of humanity only IF the population follows God’s Rule of Law.
Truth implies uprightness in speech and behavior. True integrity in character and conduct is possible only IF the Law of the Almighty God is permitted to transform one’s thoughts and actions.
Mercy combined with truth makes a man kind as well as honest, benevolent as well as upright. These blessings are possible only IF one submits to the Almighty God. When man rejects God’s Law and chooses anarchy, he will NEVER find kindness, honesty, benevolence and integrity. Those involved in today’s riots illustrate this truth and they join the anarchists of the French Revolution.
The knowledge of God is the only cure for the problems of society today. The cure cannot be legislated. The cure cannot be coerced by an angry mob violence. And, the cure cannot be achieved by the culture of cancelation of things that are offensive to a minority.
If we know God to be a God of truth, we will cultivate truth in our hearts, express it with our lips, and practice it in our lives.
If we know God as a God of mercy, who has shown boundless mercy to us in pardoning our multiplied and aggravated offences, we will imitate that mercy in our relations to our fellow-man.
The Prophet’s point was clear—violence, bloodshed, and anarchy result because the nation did not know God. This point was further stressed in chapter 4:
Verse 6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” Destruction is coming because knowledge was rejected. The people knew God but refused to obey God. Verse 7, “The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame.” The degree and examples of sin multiplied greatly. Verse 8, “They feed on the sin of My people and direct their desire toward their iniquity.” The impact of the general sinning increased the intensity and shocking nature of sin in society. Verse 10, “They will eat, but not have enough; they will play the harlot, but not increase, because they have stopped giving heed to the Lord.” There is no satisfying the anarchist’s appetite. Anarchy cannot be placated. You cannot appease terrorists. Verse 19, “And they will be ashamed.” The finality of a nation that has turned from God and chosen anarchy is sorrowfully recorded for history to hold.
The United States of America was founded upon principles taught by the Almighty Jehovah God of the Bible. If we reject that we are one nation under God’s sovereignty, we face destruction. Jeremiah 20:4, “(T)hus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am going to make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends’.”
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
These are all qualities that a Totalitarian State demand and will definitely punish non-compliance. Just search Communist China and read the interesting evolution of Mao’s China with the ordinances controlling approved clothing so that all would wear exactly the same thing. In the early 90’s I met a person who has been a very good friend for decades. He began business in the newly CIS by bartering and trading with westerners who were coming into the CIS. He said that his greatest success was trading USSR memorabilia for blue jeans! He said that no one in the former USSR could get blue jeans as they were a dictate from the State that depicted the degeneracy of the west.
The historical surrender of personal rights and individual freedoms is a fascinating study of human behavior. It is amazingly simple to get an entire population group to surrender individualism because they want to become an accepted part of the “blob.” Those who do not conform are treated horribly, cussed constantly and pressured to break their resistance. Total compliance results in a robotic population who is easily controlled for the State’s Elite. There is ALWAYS a small group in control. There is NEVER total equality and egalitarianism regardless of the persuasive propaganda!
The United States of America is about to cross the threshold where personal rights, individualism and true liberty will be left behind. We, as a nation, are on the cusp of Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD. This book was written in 1931. I read it in high school in 1970. It once seemed a cleaver Science Fiction theme. However, now its cleverness is in its troubling prescience.
With these points in mind, look carefully at our current society. When mandatory face masks were first suggested many sounded alarms and the issue died down. But then even though the hospitalizations and deaths of COVID-19 dramatically decreased, we were told the infections were really the major threat. Once again mandatory face masks were introduced and slowly, little-by-little cities and states began to issue mandatory face masks ordinances. President Trump has stubbornly refused to issue a national ordinance and I hope he remains stubbornly opposed but he is dealing with unbelievable pressures to do otherwise.
In regard to the face mask issue many naively say, “What’s the BIG problem? It’s only a face mask? Just go along with the State because it is looking out for YOUR best interests.”
We are now told when to wear face masks and how to wear face masks. Individualism is threatened and incredible pressure is focused toward those who do not wear a face mask even in the “optional” locations. Individualism is thus crushed! Now there is a fervid discussion about the color that is best, the model that is best. Some are even suggesting that the Federal State dictate the color, model, and all elements associated with the face mask. If this is allowed to happen, then citizens will be punished for wearing any face mask that is different. Individualism will thus be erased!
The problem IS the State! True history is inerrant. True history documents the subtle and slow surrender of individualism and personal rights and absorption into a totalitarian system where the individual has absolutely no choice—all morality is determined; all clothing is determined; all religion is determined; all dietary menus are determined. It begins slow and subtle but the end is surrender of all control!
God warns us, “The prudent sees the evil and hides himself, but the naive go on, and are punished for it (Proverbs 22:3).
So here is where we are on July 30, 2020…Americans have been incessantly propagandized for months being told that face masks are essential to “flattening the curve.” We were told that wearing these for two-weeks will show a dramatic decline in infections.” In some locations face masks have been work well past the “two-week” period. Just how verifiable is this face mask theory? The infections are rising greater than before the face mask ordinance! So the narrative has to change… “we won’t know the impact for several more weeks but face masks are still required ”!
But today another element is injected into the “preventive” narrative…“If you have goggles or an eye shield, you should use it,” Fauci, 79, the top US infectious disease expert, told ABC News Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton on Wednesday. When asked if eye protection will become a formal recommendation at some point, he said, “It might, if you really want perfect protection of the mucosal surfaces.” (New York Post, “Fauci urges Americans to wear goggles for added COVID-19 protection”)
Rod Serling and his writers of The Twilight Zone anticipated the horrors of mandated conformity and the surrender of personal rights and individualism. Go online and watch these two poignant episodes and keep in mind the “face-masks and eye-goggles”! “Eye Of The Beholder” and “Number 12 Looks Just Like You”
So America, as you put on your face mask to go to the store put on your shopping list to buy some eye goggles. I am not sure what model, color or any other aspect of the goggles you should wear. But, as our nation marches into totalitarian control by the State we will all be goose-stepping with face masks and eye goggles!
The most amazing footnote that history will record…the World Power was conquered by face masks and eye goggles!
“Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (Psalm 2:1-4).
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
The 1619 Project, sponsored by the New York Times, is a series of essays and multimedia creations designed to “reframe American history” by claiming America’s founding is based on racism and slavery instead of freedom and liberty. The chief writer for the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, calls white people “savages” “bloodsuckers” and “murderers” who used Christianity as an excuse to enslave different peoples of the world. Her vitriol, which seems to know no bounds, is now being picked up by many others who are concerned about slavery in America’s history.
A slave is considered to be a person owned by another, without rights, and—like property—to be used and disposed of in whatever way the owner may wish. 1The Encyclopedia of Religion defines slavery as “[A] social and industrial system in which the person and labor of one individual may be disposed of as the property of another.” 2
Setting aside Hannah-Jones’ ignorant vilification of “white people” as the sole perpetrators of this institution, as well as her abysmal lack of knowledge of American history, what is particularly concerning here is that she assails the Bible in her diatribes as somehow teaching the practice of chattel slavery.
What Does the Bible Actually Teach Regarding Slavery?
Moses writes by inspiration that are human beings are created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Of all the philosophies of the world, this Divine assertion alone gives all men and women equal dignity. All persons are equal in value to one another. Life itself is a gift of God.
Placing man in the Garden of Eden, God ordered him to “dress the garden and keep it” as well as to “eat of the fruit” which he gathered (Gen. 2:15). These commands imply freedom as well as the right to property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built into the very foundations of the created order.
From these simple premises it is easy to see that God never intended one human being to be the property of another. However, as is the case with polygamy which departed from the marriage institution that God created (Gen. 2:24)— mankind departed sharply from God’s design.
Separated from God men have concocted many schemes which ignore these plain biblical ideals, particularly regarding the value of human life. Aristotle, for example, developed the theory that some persons were servile by their very nature. 3 The school of philosophy known as Stoicism later considered slavery as a mere accident of fortune and therefore it was not a just cause about which one could complain.
The ancient world was actually steeped in slavery, whether it be the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman world—all practiced slavery. As Everett Ferguson writes, “Slavery was pervasive in ancient civilization.” Thomas C. Edwards, in his superb commentary on the book of 1 Corinthians, notes that the practice of slavery actually sprang from a rejection of God’s Word regarding the dignity of man. “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious preeminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius …” 4 It was the devaluing of human life that brought about slavery.
1 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1462. 2 Ed. Vergilius Ferm, p. 714. 3 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 854 4 Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 182.
Slavery was almost universally practiced in all cultures during Old Testament times. Men and women were enslaved by capture in war (1 Sam. 4:9) or by purchase (Gen. 17:12-13, 27). The Law allowed Hebrews to purchase slaves from foreigners at home or abroad (Lev. 25:44ff). Children born “into the house” of slave-parents were evidently called “house-born slaves” (Gen. 17:12-13).
Interestingly, slavery could be entered by other methods as well. God legislated that if a convicted thief could not make “restitution” and pay his damages and/or fines, money could be raised for this purpose by selling him as a slave (Ex. 22:3). This law showed that slavery involved the production or labor of a person was considered to be his property, which now became the property of the one wronged.
The insolvent debtor, as well as his family, became enslaved to the creditor (2 Kings 4:1). It was also possible for one to sell himself and his labor to escape poverty (Lev. 25:39-43).
However, there are some important considerations that the Old Testament includes. First, in the case of the insolvent debtor, he was not to be treated as a chattel slave, but as a “hired servant” and to be released at the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years on the Jewish calendar) (Lev. 25:39-43). The person who purchased him was instructed “not to rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.”
Second, to abduct a person and to reduce a stolen person to slavery was punishable by death (Ex. 21:16). Third, to murder a slave was punishable by death (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 24:17,22). The reason for this is once again because of the intrinsic value of a human being. Fourth, the enslaved debtor was to be released after six years (Ex. 21:2). There was no lifetime enslavement.
God, in the Old Testament, taking men where they were, regulated the practice of slavery and softened the edge of it. Contrast that with Roman law whereby a slave is not considered a person.
Old Testament scholar K.A. Kitchen summarizes the spirit of the Old Testament.
Generally, a more humane spirit breathes through the OT laws and customs on slavery, as illustrated by the repeated injunctions in God’s name not to rule over a brother Israelite harshly (e.g. Lev. 25:43,46,53,55; Dt. 15:14ff). Even when Hebrew law and custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the law codes of Babylon or Assyria.5
5 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1464.
The New Testament
When asked about marriage, our Lord refers questioners back to the beginning and God’s initial intention with the sacred institution (Matt. 19:3-9). In similar fashion the New Testament elevates the dignity of man (Jas. 3:9) by carrying him back to God’s created order. The beautiful principles of Christianity, influencing cultures one heart at a time, eventually eradicated the practice of slavery by re-asserting the value of human beings.
It is important to see however, that New Testament teaching did not smash with a sledge-hammer one single social institution that had imbedded itself in society. Instead, the doctrine of Christ works as a leaven in the soul of individuals, nations, and cultures. Slavery was one of those institutions.
This explains why the inspired apostles, when discussing the the question of slavery, not only advise masters and slaves how to behave in their particular life-situations, but address themselves to the deep antagonisms in the social world. This will be brought out below.
A cursory reading of the NT might cause one to think that sometimes the apostles seem to sanction slavery; at other times to proclaim its abolition—in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female; all are one man in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).
But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before. For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.6
What about those deep antagonisms that exist in all societies between different peoples? Paul’s overall theme in teaching is summarized in 1 Corinthians 7:10-24 which might be entitled, Live in Harmony with One Another. Like several NT passages in which slaves and masters are addressed, and who were part of local congregations to which the apostles ministered 7 some of the Corinthians were slaves and some were slave-owners. How did God counsel them?
“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Were you called being a slave? Care not for it [that is, do not be overly concerned with your social condition. Your calling in Christ ECLIPSES this consideration]. Even if you can be free, use it rather …” (7:20-21).
The phrase “use it rather” following “even if you can be free” has been variously interpreted. It is either interpreted as (1) “… use your freedom,” or, (2) “use slavery …” Many modern commentators, and even the translators of the NIV, consider the phrase to be saying, “if you can gain your freedom, do so” –opting for the first alternative.
But it seems out of character with the theme of the entire section which is to Live in Harmony—even in challenging situations. Further, the next line in the passage (v. 22) begins with the word “for”—which is explanatory of that which has just been said. “FOR, he that was called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord’s freedman …” That explanation does not follow if Paul has just said, “if you can become free, do so.”
As John Peter Lange points out in his classic commentary, the “whole drift of the argument is—to make men content with their lot …” 8 That being the case, the translation is, “but even though you may be made free, use your servitude rather [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein].”
6 Edwards, p. 186 7 See Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18ff. 8 Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 10, p. 153.
In any case, the main point should not be lost on us. The important thing is to serve God “and the slave should not worry unduly about the fact that he is a slave. If God has called him as a slave, He will give him grace to live as a slave.” 9
F.W. Grosheide understands the verse as simply saying, Use your vocation—whether slave or free. 10 The entire argument of Paul is that the over-riding concern for the Christian is that of spiritual blessings “in Christ”, and this outweighs all other concerns—including slavery! The dominant factor is being a Christian.
How does this fit within the current context of so many churches and Christians all at once becoming extremely exercised about black slavery in history, or stirred to the point of anger about discrimination in the Jim Crow era? How does Paul’s advice comport with emotionally driven screeds today that demand a removal of a Christians’ name from Christian college buildings because those preachers lived during the segregation era but did not stomp it out with vengeance?
An interesting New Testament episode involves the runaway slave Onesimus. Paul met him while a prisoner in Rome (circa 63-64 A.D.), converted him to Christ, and sent him back to his owner, Philemon, a Christian man who lived in Colossae. A cover letter was sent with the returned slave (Col. 4:7,9). It is the book of Philemon.
In it Paul admonishes Philemon to “receive him back” and treat him no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. “Not now as a slave, but more than slave, a brother beloved specially to me, but how much more unto you, both in the flesh and in the Lord?” (16) It is noteworthy that Paul does not command Philemon to “free him” but appeals to him on the basis of brotherhood. It is also worth mentioning that Paul actually sent Onesimus back to his slave master.
Once again, Christianity revolutionizes and changes the world, but not by pouring out into the streets, holding a nation hostage with violence and smashing its cultural symbols. It does so with the teaching of the peace of Jesus Christ.
John Peter Lange summarizes the entire disposition of biblical Christianity to slavery. Christ and his followers “assailed no existing social institutions from without—marriages, callings, and conditions were to remain as they were.” Christianity wrought “from within” a “sanctifying and ennobling” influence over individual character.
Biblical principles “employed the existing bonds of society as conductors through which to diffuse its saving power—sanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives, children through parents, and parents through children; and even servants through masters and masters through servants.”
Further, as seen above, Christianity aims at the preservation of peace in a society—as far as possible—in consistency with being faithful to God (See Rom. 12:17-21). Christ wants us to “ignore outward distinctions—counting outward distinctions as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state.” How our society needs this lesson! What a difference this would make to the writers of the New York Times and the 1619 Project!
9 Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Corinthians, p. 113. 10 NICNT, 1 Corinthians, p. 170.
Christ’s teachings “begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill.” Not only so, but the Lord Jesus “reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and all alike obligated.”
Finally, the Bible places “all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to sub-serve, and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good.” 11
The gospel brings to mankind a belief and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Faithfulness is commanded which involves the improvement of one’s character which in turn improves the conditions of society. When people place the glory of God foremost, not only is slavery eradicated as a social condition, but it is seen to be a very little thing in the ultimate scheme of things. It is past time for people to come to Christ and lift themselves above the grievances of slavery past or racism present.
Steele begins with personal experiences of segregation in the 1950’s wherein “white supremacy” was the norm and moves the reader through the current morass wherein “white guilt” now controls the narrative in America. “White guilt” is Steele’s characterization of the primary cultural concept that has been absorbed by the majority population. This was because of historical wrongs to black America, such as slavery and segregation.
Steele uses the term “disassociation” to explain how “white guilt” continues to drive the political and cultural agenda in the western world. By “disassociation” Steele references the continuing effort of white America to distance themselves from the racism of America’s past. Everything from public policy to collegiate admissions to housing and social behavior has been dictated by this disassociation or “white guilt.” Unfortunately, explains Steele, this is a complete hijacking of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.
Eisenhower, Clinton, and Johnson
Steele begins his diagnosis with the observation that President Bill Clinton politically survived his sexual immorality with Monica Lewinsky. But that sexual scandal would have destroyed the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. On the other hand, the rumor was that Eisenhower used the “n word” in referring to blacks; but Bill Clinton would never have survived had he done that.
So what changed? Morality has become relativistic in America– but “there is no moral relativism around racism, no sophisticated public sentiment that recasts racism as a mere quirk of character” (p. 5). Even the hint of “racism” is enough to destroy one’s career. Steele finds the answer to all of this in Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Two years before Johnson launched the Great Society he stated in the famous Harvard University speech, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others.’”
Johnson’s Great Society, however, has had a deleterious if not disastrous effect upon the culture of America. It has embedded the assumption that though there may have been racism against blacks in the past, the white culture continues to be racist and operates upon that reality. Everything occurring now in America is seen by the main stream culture as through this prism.
Effects of the Great Society
What are some of the effects of this assumption? First, responsibility has been removed from black America. Johnson’s “Great Society was … a redistribution plan for responsibility by which he asked white America to assume considerable responsibility for black achievement” (p. 53). At the same time white America lost its moral authority “to enforce a single standard of responsibility for everyone because—by its own admission—it had not treated everyone the same.”
In slavery, blacks were not free, “but they were not entirely responsible for their lives” (p. 46). The Great Society ingrained this same principle into the black community—no responsibility. We are witnessing the results of this on the streets of America today.
Blacks have little or no responsibility to do well in school. Since African-Americans have been victims of injustice in the past, our standards are lowered in academia to accommodate minority achievement. We have included all manner of gimcrack educational ideas, the ‘beauty’ of which was that they always promised to let us achieve great things by demanding less of our students and of ourselves.
We talked of ‘black ways of knowing,’ which, of course, effectively gave all black teachers a kind of racial teaching credential that whites could never have. We devalued rigorous academic work by insisting that black students learned ‘experientially’ and ‘intuitively,’ and by arguing that ‘street knowledge’ was often more valuable than ‘book’ knowledge. There were certainly exceptions to all of this, people who worked earnestly with their students and taught substantive classes. But these serious people found themselves in an atmosphere of black excuse-making and incompetence … (119-20).
Another obvious result of the Great Society is that the concept of diversity is paramount above all other considerations. Campuses, government jobs and private places of business must tout “diversity” or be accused of racism. Diversity has become the god in America, effecting even Supreme Court decisions. Steele offers the landmark University of Michigan Affirmative Action case (2003) as an example. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s majority opinion has some “odd reasoning,” to say the least.
O’Conner borrowed “pseudoscientific doublespeak”—“learning outcomes,” “soft variables,” “selection index,” “nuanced judgments,” “critical mass,” and “holistic reading”—O’Conner piles one social science banality on top of another, hoping against hope that we buy her tall tale of ‘diversity’ as so ‘compelling’ a state interest that it justifies racial preferences. Her opaque language is a textbook illustration of George Orwell’s famous critique of political language as words used to ‘obscure’ and hide reality rather than to illuminate it (p. 127-28).
In turn, the god of “diversity” has birthed an entire “quota” system—spoken or unspoken—for almost every system in America, whether it be in education, job markets, and personal associations. African-Americans must be included, regardless of real achievement.
As an illustration of how strong this mantra is, Steele asks us to consider the fact that the very “possibility of racism” is enough to overturn science. DNA testing meant less in the O.J. Simpson case than did the possibility that Mark Fuhrman, one of the investigators in the O.J. Simpson case, had used “racist” terminology to refer to blacks. DNA and science, which should be an open and shut case, was thrown out due to racism.
Ethnic studies in schools is another form “disassociation.” Steele gives a personal illustration from a collegiate campus that included obvious sub-standard literature studies for students simply because the authors were black. He comments that “inclusion” has now become a literary value all its own.
Poverty itself is seen unrelated to personal dysfunction of those who suffer it. Once again, the removal of responsibility. This, in turn, has brought about the “treatment” by government “interventions” and more redistribution of money—of which we can never have enough. “With this ‘blameless’ poverty (poverty that never ‘blames the victim’), the government can be responsible for poverty even as it lacks authority over it.”
Steele explains how this has brought on big government. “So ‘blameless’ poverty is not more than a white ingenuity which allows institutions to steal responsibility for a problem they lack the authority even to honestly define” (p. 122).
In the end, white America is always trying to “prove a negative.” Prove they are not “racist”—which is the given assumption of our culture. But proving a negative is never possible. White America might elect the first black president in Barack Obama, they may have submitted to racial preferences in hiring and admissions for fifty years, they may have financially supported LBJ’s Great Society to the tune of billions of dollars—but that is never enough.
Now our culture is bombarded with efforts to dismantle America entirely. The newly proposed bill sponsored by Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts is a case in point. These Democrat women unveiled this week the BREATHE ACT which de-funds the Police, abolishes surveillance tactics which they say “disproportionately” targets minority communities, ending asset forfeiture, repeal laws that criminalize illegal immigration, encourages states to actually close down detention facilities, and eliminate gang databases while forgiving all fees and surcharges within the justice system.
The bill also demands reparations for mass incarcerations for blacks who have been “caught up in the War on Drugs” or been the victims of police violence and it eliminates federal programs and agencies used to finance ICE.
This is tantamount to a country with no borders, no responsibility required by its minority citizens, and no enforcement mechanism when laws are broken. The only reason such proposals has any legs is due to what Shelby Steele correctly calls “White Guilt.” It is a concept that will completely destroy the fabric of America.
In 1962, James D. Bales, Christian researcher and teacher at Harding University in Searcy, AR warned that “Open and hidden communists are endeavoring to use racial problems as a means of dividing our country and making and using for their own purposes those who are blind enough to form temporary alliances with them” (Communism: Its Faith and Fallacies). We are seeing this played out in America right now.
This is precisely the case with the #Black Lives Matter movement that has gained steam since the death of George Floyd. #BLM is not about real justice in America, but about “fundamentally transforming” our country into a Third World godless socialist nation. Their own website champions the homosexual agenda, the end of the nuclear family as described by the Bible, “queer affirming,” “globalism”, and “transgender affirming.”
The entire network of the #BLM, including BLM @ School (BLMS), co-signed by self-described communist Bill Ayers as well as communist-sympathizer Opal Temeti, co-founder of #BLM movement, is thoroughly anti-Christian in every sense of the phrase.
First, BLM was founded upon a grand lie.
Their website states the BLM “began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism.” The catalyst for their movement came in the “death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman.” Jesus
“A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism.”
However, the facts show that, no matter how loudly the black communities may yell about the deaths of these two young men, both were criminal in their behavior and their deaths occurred while they were violently attacking another person. But both of these incidences are cited as justification for the belief in “state-sanctioned violence” against blacks.
One should immediately question the basis for the broadcast statement that there is “state-sanctioned violence” against blacks. Neither of these cases are representative of “state-sanctioned violence.” BLM wants to engage minorities in blind anger without looking at the simple thing called “facts.” Appeal to race alone—and that itself is racist in orientation.
Second, the principles of BLM are imbued with anti-Christian and anti-family hate.
The basic guiding principles of the BLM website is not simply about “anti-Blackness” but has a large block of material dedicated to eradicating the biblical teaching regarding the family. For example, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that have collective care for one another, especially our children …”
Note carefully—it is the entire Western culture of the nuclear family that is under assault. The “nuclear family”—Mom, Dad, and the kids—or, “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:6) is despised and rejected just as is Jesus Christ who founded that nuclear family. This was established in “the beginning” by God (Matt. 19:4).
Further, the New Testament teaches that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). But BLM despises this order established by God and which was engrained in our Western culture. “We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.” “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church …” (Eph. 5:23) is ANATHEMA to BLM.
Not only so, but “we are a queer-affirming network” boasts BLM. “When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual…” Instead, they wish for “transgender brothers and sisters to participate.”
This is the liberation of which BLM continually speaks—liberation from God’s Word in all forms. For those who are not so blinded by the Satanic-oriented agenda of BLM, they can see that the black family has all but disappeared in society—a large majority of black homes in America are already rearing children without any present biological fathers. This is what they wish for all of society. “Collective villages,” as they put it.
“Misogyny” also makes the list of sins that BLM wishes to eradicate—hate against women. Perhaps BLM look no further than the violent, misogynistic, hate-filled lyrics of Black rap music that fills the ears of high school students for an example of “misogyny.”
Third, BLM’s Agenda is to brainwash children with these same goals in the public schools.
Like Stalin’s forcible education of all Soviet children in the doctrine of atheism and anti-capitalism, the affiliate organization to BLM, BLM @ Schools (BLMS) has already been endorsed by the National Education Association. The union’s EDJustice website gives us a glimpse of what is coming this fall to public education.
“How to talk to young children about the Black Lives Matter Guiding Principles” is one document which encourages educators to teach Marxist ideals such as “intersectionality” and “transgenderism” (Lius Miguel, BLM Wants to Get into Schools. Here’s What They Plan To Teach). This curriculum is written by BLM activist Lalena Garcia, a self-described “queer kindergarten teacher.”
Once again, homosexual families as designed by Barack Obama leads the way. “There are lots of kinds of families; what makes a family is that it’s people who take care of each other; those people might be related, or maybe they choose to be family together and take care of each other,” reads one document.
BLMS, like its parent, BLM, “defines” the black family as “creates space that is family friendly and free from patriarchal practices.” Once more, the father as the head of the home is the “patriarchal practice” that is targeted for extinction.
As Miguel observes regarding Lalena Garcia of BLMS, the entire BLM smorgasbord is “pure social-justice word salad: pseudo-scientific-sounding psychobabble meant to dress up Marxist tyranny and make it palatable to minorities. An actual read-through and meditation on what Black Lives Matter believes should be enough to convince most people that their ideology is poison for black lives and all lives.”
First century Israel was a mixing pot of a variety of cultures. Ever since the fourth century B.C. the nation had been engulfed by Hellenization brought about by the Macedonian general, Alexander the Great. This western culture was completely different from the Asian world.
One of the most shocking elements of that Greek culture was the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem where athletes would perform in the nude. “So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to Gentile custom … They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.” So wrote the Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:14-15).
Then in 63 B.C. the Roman general Pompey took over the old Seleucid Empire of Syria. He defeated the forces of Antioch and stormed down toward Jerusalem. Thus began the turbulent rule of Rome over Judea.
The Romans appointed John Hyrcanus II as High Priest—a sacrilege to the Old Testament that mandated a son of Aaron to be priest for life. They also confirmed Antipater, an Idumean, to be the royal official representing Rome. It was his son, Herod the Great, who killed all the babes of Bethlehem at the birth of Christ.
With an Idumean line of kings ruling over the nation and its lands; and Hellenization of customs, language, habits, foods, and entertainment; and Rome overseeing the entire with its standing army stationed throughout Israel, which was deeply resented by the Jews; the stage was set for a huge conflict of cultures.
The chaos that ensued is well-known. Wracked by differences so wide as to never hope for healing, the Jews themselves were practically exterminated by Rome at the holocaust of 70 A.D. Rome was tired of the constant inner struggles and civil unrest that seemed to be the hallmark of Israel.
America Rick Santorum, former candidate for president of the United States, related that his grandfather came from Fascist Italy to come to America to work in the coalmines of western Pennsylvania. Like most immigrants, he believed in the American ideal; that all men were created equal.
However, Santorum warns, “as a result of multicultural relativism, we fear seeing the American aspiration eroded, our common purpose lost, and the ‘re-appearing of tyranny and oppression’ that is not only poised against us abroad but is also pointing its dagger at us here at home.”
The real culprit here is the philosophy of multiculturalism. It threatens to destroy our once solid nation, just as it did Israel of old.
“The Master Principle” of our nation, as Dan Smoot wrote in 1994, is Christianity. The organic documents of our government—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are based upon its presuppositions. Assimilation to these fundamental principles proved to be the glue that held diverse peoples and groups together.
Multiculturalism, however, which is being drummed into our students from elementary school through collegiate training, seeks to dissolve this glue by its flagrant teaching of relativism.
Charles A. Tesconi, dean of the College of Education at the University of Vermont, relates the following. “As a descriptor, multiculturalism points to a condition of numerous life-styles, values, and belief systems. By treating diverse cultural groups and ways of life as equally legitimate, by teaching about them in positive ways, legitimizing differences through various education policies and practices, self-understanding, self-esteem, intergroup understanding and harmony, and equal opportunity are promoted.”
As Alex Newman and Samuel Blumenfeld remark here, this “multicultural education embraces much more than mere cultural pluralism or ethnic diversity. It legitimizes different lifestyles and values systems, thereby legitimizing moral diversity—which is simply moral anarchy” (Crimes of the Educators, p. 229).
The concept of moral diversity “directly contradicts the biblical concept of moral absolutes based on the Ten Commandments, on which this nation was founded.”
As Newman and Blumenfeld state above, multiculturalism has led to anarchy. Lawlessness. And this itself, as if it is a legitimate philosophy, is being peddled in the university classroom. Liberal professorships across academia have routinely churned out young radical revolutionaries ready to revamp America.
Dr. Nathan Jun, for example, professor of Philosophy at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, TX, has specialized in Anarchist Studies. He has published numerous articles in Anarchist journals. Anarchist Studies, Radical Philosophy Review, and The Journal of Political Ideologies included among them. He is author of Anarchy and Political Modernity (2011).
He has written that “classical anarchism is arguably the first political postmodernism.” Postmodernism, of course, completely severs the concept of values and morality from any eternal standard. Nothing is right; nothing is wrong.
If one thinks this is simply an esoteric academic teaching that has no relevance to the current troubled America, Dr. Jun’s Facebook page features an “Abolish the Police” poster.
Christopher F. Rufo, a contributing editor of City Journal, writes that “The latest call to action from some criminal-justice activists: ‘Abolish the Police.’” Advocates and activists press not just to reform the police, but to do away with it altogether. It is a “concrete policy goal” of anarchists that has infected mainstream American radicals from Seattle to Boston.
“Police abolitionists believe that they stand at the vanguard of a new idea, but this strain of thought dates to the eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that stripping away the corruptions of civilization would liberate the goodness of man.”
This, of course, is nonsense. As Jun himself demonstrates, when anyone, even with legitimate questions on his Facebook thread asks why, in these days of violence, should we “abolish the police,” he tells them to “F____ off.” So much for “liberating the goodness of man.”
We have seemingly heard more how racist is white America within the last decade than ever before. The British Academy Awards this year featured Joaquin Phoenix lecturing the film industry for its “systemic racism.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a “pastoral letter” in 2018 which indicts the entire western culture for being racist at a “systemic” level.
What exactly is systemic racism? According to theconversation.com, which published the article regarding Joaquin Phoenix, “systemic” or “institutional” racism refers to how “ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.” These “systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems,” such as education and hiring practices.
What proofs are normally offered that white America is “systemically racist?” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offers frontlines four primary facts which supposedly support the conclusion. First, unemployment rates for African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are considerably higher than the national average.
Second, in the United States, the “median wealth” for white households is ten times greater than for black households, and eight times greater than for Hispanic households. Three, minority home ownership rates lag behind their white counterparts. Four, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are “disproportionately affected through every stage of the criminal justice system.”
The socialist-inspired conclusion that the bishops wish one to draw is the assumption that disparities result because foul-play must be involved. People of color suffer injustices from “white society.” But differences among peoples and subcultures as a possible cause is never considered—that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. No discussion ever occurs on whether or not minority subcultures actually value different ideas. No examination of personal choices; no study of what minority cultures may be infusing into its own people; no time pondering divergent habits or values that may be ingrained in minority populations—simply announce that America is a “racist” society—systemically so.
What about other statistics which show disparity? For example, out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40 percent. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent; among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent; but among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent.
What about abortion? In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times than for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. Fatherless homes rank as a continuing problem, particularly among minority communities where male children growing up without fathers severs a child from male leadership outside of teenage gang memberships.
Is this to say that minorities have an immoral DNA? No. But it does show that those communities that are more totally dependent upon the government through systems of welfare have a deteriorating moral standard. That’s the nature of government dependency. Witness the Indian reservations wherein every single social malady skyrockets compared to the wider culture. Abortion, suicide, alcoholism, joblessness, fatherless homes and drug abuse are common problems associated with Indian reservations.
The point is simply this; in statistics that are measurable minority communities indicate that they have a different value system. Their moral standards have been corroded. And unless we can face these hard facts there is no hope for America.
Communist strategy has always been to exploit the natural fissures of society. Chiang Kai-shek, president of the Republic of China who passed in 1975, contended with communism for over thirty years. His first-hand observation was that the communist strategy is “always to analyze a country’s social structure before infiltrating it. They not only explore and exploit, but also create professional, regional, and religious contradictions. Then in the midst of the confusion, they win the masses over by disseminating propaganda about class struggle and establishing party cells among them.” Drive wedges into the natural divisions of society.
Vladimir Lenin stated in 1921 that it is “possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only by exerting the utmost effort, and by being thorough, careful, attentive and skillful in taking advantage of various kinds of fissures, even the smallest ones, on the part of the enemy …” That which naturally commended itself to communist infiltration was the racial divide in America.
Little wonder that the Roman Catholic bishops are now led by Marxist-oriented Pope Francis. It is also no coincidence that in seeking to establish “systemic racism” in America theconversation.com (cited above) leads with a quote from communist “Black Power” militant Stokely Carmichael to accentuate racism in America. Carmichael, originally from Trinidad, became interested in High School in studying the work of none other than Karl Marx from which he became an immediate militant demonstrating against the House Committee on Un-American Activities that had been exposing communists in America.
No need today for exposure of communist militants working “behind-the-scenes.” Saboteurs of our culture work in high places such as the former Obama Administration; the Vatican; and various professorships in academia. Therefore, we will increasingly hear how “systemic” our racism has been. It is past time to question their assumptions.
In spite of the many challenges in defining “religion” versus “irreligion”, or even “atheism” as opposed to “theism,” multiple studies indicate that Americans are becoming increasingly non-religious—even atheistic–in their orientation. Why is this? In part, it is doubtless due to the fact that socialism has become the state-sponsored creed not only taught in public schools and universities, but practiced by both major political parties. The philosophy of Socialism itself is rooted in atheistic assumptions, offering an alternative view of man, the family, society, sin, and the role of government.
Second, how is the socialistic system atheistic? Engels argued that the “idea of God” resulted from fallacious reasoning by early man when he observed natural phenomena. “…the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces … out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive god of the monotheistic religion.” This is a concept still maintained by socialists.
Again, Engels theorizes that the Idea of God is a “reflection of the mind of men.” “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginning of history, it was the forces of nature which were at first so reflected.”
Spargo and Arner suggest that, “Primitive man began to think and talk about himself and his environment. The world seemed full of mystery. How could he hunt in a dream when his friends swore that he had not moved? The echo and the shadow puzzled him. The mighty forces of nature awed him. There must be a power greater than himself, and since he could not think of forces as impersonal, he imputed personality to that power. There must be a spirit apart from the body or he could not hunt in is dreams. Thus were evolved the ideas of anthropomorphic gods, spirits, and ghosts.” “…a stage earlier than … even the lowest modern savages …”
What About These Socialistic Assertions?
First, if these things be true, then origin of religion not explained on basis of economic system. Therefore, the economic interpretation of history cannot account for religion which has been one of the most powerful forces in history. Engels himself even agreed to this. “It would surely be pedantic to try and find economic causes for all this primitive nonsense.”
Thus, according to one of the founders of modern-day socialism, it was not until after religion had arisen as a reflection of natural forces in men’s minds, that the social and evolutionary forces began to act and the “changing economic system” forged it differently. The philosophy of communism falls on its own sword here, for not everything can be explained on the basis of economics.
Second, there is no historical PROOF of any of these assertions suggesting that polytheism (belief in many gods) preceded monotheism (belief in one god). Assumption is a long way from proof. Actually, that is also the unfounded position of a growing number of so-called biblical scholars who begin their studies on this assumption. In point of fact, the opposite is true.
When men are not hypnotized by the hypothesis of evolution which demands that historical facts be arranged in such a way as to fit the hypothesis, they realize that the further back into any culture they go the fewer gods that culture has. William W.F. Petrie, in The Religion of Ancient Egypt, “What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first state traceable in theology … Wherever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find that it results from combinations of monotheism …”
Professor Stephen Langdon studied Sumerian and Semitic religion. “Monotheism preceded polytheism and belief in good and evil spirits” (Semitic Mythology, 1931). Herbert Farmer, who was a Gifford Lecturer, stated that with but few exceptions the evidences show that “the most primitive levels of human life which we can reach by the soundest ethnological methods reveal a belief in one supreme deity or High God …” Many other unbiased scholars could be noted.
Third, deception is “built into” the socialistic system. How so? Setting aside the foolish assumption that early man was simply a dumb brute who could not discern his dreams from reality, Spargo & Arner argue at length that they are not “atheists.” But before the page is turned in the book they argue that God is a “construct of the human mind”; that religion itself is “man’s attempt to put himself into harmonious relation with, and to discover the meaning of the universe.”
Deceptively adept again, they rush to say that “The Marxian theory does not deny that men may have benefitted by seeking an interpretation of the universe, or that the quest for such an interpretation is compatible with rational conduct … Marx could not ignore such an important and universal phenomenon as religion” (p. 79-80).
It appears that these socialists believe that we are still “dumb brutes” who cannot reason. The question is not whether anyone believes that “religious belief” itself has played a part in men’s lives or in civilization—but is there any ultimate reality behind this belief in God?? To this question they answer “No.” This is atheism. When they confess that one’s beliefs has been a “force” in human history, that is a far cry from confessing whether or not there is any reality at the base of those beliefs.
As Americans plunge increasingly into a socialistic state, we are fed more and more lies by communistic masters. This is the very nature of socialism. This is one major reason why atheism and irreligion grow in America.