Tag Archives: atheism

Bill Lockwood: Marxist Military Fires Lohmeier 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, a former instructor and fighter pilot in the US Air Force, and until this week a commanding officer of the 11th Space Warning Squadron of the US Space Force, has just been relieved of duty for privately publishing a book that “warned of the spread of Marxism and critical race theory in the military.” Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, the Space Operations commander, removed Lohmeier from his position at Colorado’s Buckley AFB due to what he called “loss of trust and ability to lead.”

Lohmeier has made public comments in a podcast about Marxist ideology in the military, namely the Critical Race Theory. This runs afoul of the Marxist-leaning administration in Washington, D.C. and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took particular offense at the remarks.

Jen Psaki, the Press Secretary for President Biden, officially, on behalf of the administration, defended the Marxist view of history and the Critical Race Theory when she publicly defended the racist “1619 Project.”

As Christopher Rufo, founder and director of Battlefront, put it, “Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy.” Apparently, it is not just “becoming” the orthodox position, it is the orthodox position.

Critical Race Theory is a re-configuring of Marxism. Karl Marx, building his system upon atheistic assumptions, constructed the political program on the “theory of class conflict” in order to create upheavals in society. These classes were the capitalists and the workers. Ensuing conflicts between them ignited the powder kegs that would shatter the status quo.

CRT is this same volatile brew of “class conflict”, but it has simply substituted race for class. This became the predominant form of Marxism beginning in the 1960’s which predominated academia.

Therefore, we hear of “white supremacy,” “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” This is all nothing less than re-formulated Marxism, or neo-Marxism.

For example, in the name of “equity,” UCLA Law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. The identical model is already being practiced in South Africa where government officials already are exterminating white Afrikaners and confiscating their farms.

That this hard-core Marxism is now the dominant working theory in the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, and even the MILITARY, is cause of major concern, to say the least.

Lohmeier

Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier’s book is entitled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military. During a podcast on May 7 Lohmeier discussed his new publication. He also reflected on what is occurring in the Armed Forces.

What you see happening in the US Military at the moment is that if you’re a conservative, then you’re lumped into a group of people who are labeled extremists, if you’re will to voice your views. And if you’re aligned on the left, then its ok to be an activist online because no one’s going to hold you accountable.

“Since taking command as a commander about 10 months ago, I saw what I consider fundamentally incompatible narratives of what America was, is and should be,” Lohmeier said. “That wasn’t just prolific in social media, or throughout the country during this past year, but is spreading throughout the United States military. And I recognized those narratives as being Marxist in nature.”

The Critical Race Theory creates an “oppressor vs. oppressive” narrative and makes “race the lens through which the world is viewed.” Further, he pointed out that this “weaponizes race dialogue to cause division and contentions hoping the people would get up one another’s necks—not unified, but divided.”

Regarding Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin himself as well as the Biden Administration, Lohmeier added, “I don’t demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member this agenda—it will divide us. It will not unify us.” Referring to Austin, he lamented that the Defense Secretary is promoting “diversity, inclusion, and equity” which is rooted in the Critical Race Theory, “which is rooted in Marxism.”

This is too straight of a dose of medicine for our politically-correct High Command in the military, and the ruling elite in Washington, D.C. Unalloyed truth stings too much and Lohmeier was relieved of duty.

Reflections

First, America is in serious trouble. When the military, once a conservative bastion, becomes a practitioner of Marxist theory, trouble will follow. The division of which Lohmeier speaks is increasingly manifested in all rungs of society. This Marxist conflict is no accident. It began in earnest during the presidency of Barack Obama, a Marxist at heart, as the country began to explode along racial lines. He also managed to excise the military of numerous conservative high-ranking officers. The purge continues under Biden.

We should not even begin to ask what would occur if America enters another foreign war, undirected by the United Nations. Democrats are too busy tearing apart the fabric of our nation with Marxism to be interested in equipping ourselves for real combat.

Will this Marxist-military be used eventually to strip Americans themselves of rights? Instead of pooh-poohing this question, perhaps look at what is currently occurring in Washington, D.C. A populace of citizens still locked out and troops still deployed.

Second, contrary to the political puppet Lt. Gen. Whiting, who relieved Lohmeier of command, it is Lohmeier himself who is the real leader here. Whiting charged that the Lt. Col. had lost the “ability to lead.”

What is real leadership?

Leadership absent courage is a farce. … not arrogance or bravado, but real courage. It takes courage to break from the norm, challenge the status quo … Courage is having the strength of conviction to do the right thing when it would just be easier to do things right.

Real leaders are not men such as Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, touted as the tobacco-spitting, cursing, Ragin’ Cajin tough guy by the MSM. All Honore does is go around spouting Marxist slogans and verbally attacking conservatives. That is easy in our Marxist climate. It is easy to bob downstream with the rest of the clueless people while belching out ugly epithets against Constitutionalists.

Real leaders are not men such as Lt. Gen Whiting, who is the blind politically-correct devotee, who is either apparently afraid of losing his own job at the Biden Administration, or has himself become a willing client of the Marxist-oriented culture that surrounds Washington, D.C. It is to be noted that Lohmeier’s criticisms and concerns have not been answered.

Real leadership goes upstream—against the current—and is unafraid to speak out against the real perils to our society. This is Lohmeier. He may have lost his job at the command post, but he has earned admiration from the common man.

by John L. Kachelman, Jr.: Identity Politics—the New Fascism controlling the Loony Left and destroying the USA 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John L. Kachelman, Jr.

Identity Politics in the 1930s pushed a racist ideology saying that Jews were “parasitic vermin” worthy only of eradication. Identity Politics 2021 pushes a racist ideology stating white people need to be eradicated.”

Wherever you are on the spectrum of fact or fantasy in our culture, some answer to the perplexity is deserved.

A bird’s-eye survey of our current situation reveals a struggle, decades in time, between two incompatible positions—there is neither compromise nor appeasement that will reconcile these two positions. These two positions are either Freedom or Fascism. The conflict ends only when one is terminated.

The current cultural conflict focuses on transforming the foundation of the American culture. Our nation’s greatness grew from the fact that diverse nationalities came together and formed a union in America’s “melting pot.” As each person came into America he was assimilated into the core fabric of our national culture—there was a shared language, dress, moral ethos, work ethic, and dreams. This “melting pot” led to America’s greatness because it focused on the priorities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by the individual. These objectives were couched by a firm belief in the rule and reign of the Almighty God in the citizenry and the fact that maintaining these objectives was the responsibility of each individual citizen.

The success of the American system became the envy of the world (and it is still the envy of the world as myriads march to enter our nation however, in February I was in Eastern Europe and was asked, “Things in America have changed in the last years and it is not as it once was. Right?”). The formula for our nation’s success was impracticable in Europe, Central America, Asia, or any other location. These were steeped in a governing that denied the individual and thus prevented the key factor for success found only in the New World. These governments saw the success of America but refused to reform and provide the environment necessary. This refusal ignited resentment against the culture that made the USA so unique.

There were a number of historical forces attacking the national foundations that made the USA the envy of the world. Among the many historical attacks, I believe three are most significant.

Atheism arose and challenged the Judeo-Christian foundation. Communism arose challenging the American work ethic. Socialism arose challenging the individual’s responsibility for success or failure. With each of these attacks the foundation that gave the USA strength and success was compromised. Slowly the governing system, judicial system, educational system, religious structures, and civil fabric were transformed. The “melting pot” ceased assimilating and the national unity was fractured. Lost were the uniting factors of language, dress, morality and religious core that had highlighted America’s “melting pot” union.

Worldwide conflicts marked the century’s change from the 1800s into the 1900s. This paradigm shift created havoc as the settled certainties of civilization were attacked. The anarchy spawned by the godless French Revolution, metastasized worldwide. The turn of the century was marked by anarchists in religion (repudiation of God), governments (repudiation of governing systems) and education (repudiation of reason and exaltation of “expressionism”).

Unlike other nations in chaos during this time, the USA was initially insulated from a major invasion of these anarchist threats. But history shows that these malignancies eventually invaded and corrupted our Republic. A number of sociological phenomena combined and changed the basic core values that had made America a great nation.

Eventually a spirit of anarchy ignited and attacked the judicial, educational, and religious systems and the moral fabric was compromised. The “counter-culture revolution” was aptly named—it stood for the opposite of every law, value and ethnos that had made America great. Entertainment united to shock America’s modesty and shame her morality. The boast of “freedom” was corrupted to advocate actions, beliefs and morality that were shameful.

The elevation of bigoted education and false science to an idolatrous level spurred on the compromises in morality and religion. Consequently our national conscience was desensitized.

The counter-culture of the 1960s graduated into academia. Scorn became the customary tone for morality and religion while “personal freedom” was presented as the only true virtue. The message was that any restriction on personal freedom was contrary to the American way (the sexual revolution and drug use became the vanguards pushing this new freedom). The visibility of this frightening fruit of a warped freedom is today shouted by the anarchistic mobs, “Whose streets? Our streets!” The Rule of Law has been replaced by personal anarchy! Academia became the final voice of authority in this revolution. And, the educators were unquestioned even though their positions hid behind invalid accusations.

In 2018 David Horowitz accurately chronicled the devastation of academia upon the American culture:

“Since the seventies, the radical movement had been establishing a political base in the universities, purging conservative faculty and texts, and transforming scholarly disciplines into political training programs. These leftist indoctrination programs are referred to as ‘oppression studies,’ ‘social justice studies,’ ‘feminist studies,’ ‘whiteness studies,’ and the like.” (Dark Agenda, 124)

This malignant educational process erased the singular concept that made America great—it vanquished the fact that individuals are personally responsible. Personal responsibility was replaced by teaching that values regarding good and bad are determined only by group identity! Basically, this says that one’s entire person (beliefs; values; self-worth; significance; etc) is determined ONLY by the group with which he is identified. IF one is identified with a particular group THEN that one is valued only by what that group identifies! The concept of individual merit is cursed. You cease to be an individual. If you are identified as a part of a group then it does not matter if you agree with the group or not.

The irony of this madness is seen in how the leftist’s “identity politics” boomerangs! A number of articles have reported on how identity of “whiteness” precludes support and identifying with “blackness.” Perhaps the most well know of these is the former Spokane, Washington NAACP President Rachel Dolezal who admitted in 2015 that she is white, despite publicly claiming to be black for years. “I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents, but I identify as black.” Regardless of the personal choice, the personal choice is denied by the Leftist “identity politics.” Sorry Rachel Dolezal but your individuality to “identify as black” is rejected by your identity politics! You are assigned to a group and regardless if your personal actions and attitudes, you must accept this assignment!

When personal choice and individual responsibility are replaced by group/identity, the very foundation upon which America was made great is destroyed!

When one removes the individual and focuses only on the group, evil quickly follows. Such is illustrated by the fascists in Hitler’s Germany. Individually the Jewish person ceased to exist. All that existed was a “group” labeled by a racist ideology saying that Jews were “parasitic vermin” worthy only of eradication. The “Identity Politic” of fascist Germany was pure evil!

It is evil to assign carte blanc damnation to an entire group based upon the identity of that group! But the Leftist academia and politicians have energetically embraced such evil and have been permitted to practice an arrogant racism in the USA! They have been applauded for such actions and EVEN rewarded by corporate businesses that reward anyone in a certain group and ignore other groups.

A recent article in the Daily Wire illustrates the deplorable depth to which “identity politics” has taken academia. Chrissy Clark observes, “A Virginia public school district’s equity lead sent out a graphic claiming that Christians are privileged and women, children, and people over the age of 50 experience ‘oppression.’ Lottie Spurlock, the equity director for Loudoun County Public School District — one of the most affluent school districts in the nation — passed out a graphic that used immutable characteristics to divide people into two groups — oppressed and privileged.”

According to Clark’s article here are the two groups into which modern America is to be placed:

These are identified as the “privileged”:

  • Men
  • White People
  • Christians
  • Heterosexual
  • 20-50 Year Olds
  • U.S. Born
  • Owning/Middle- or High-Income Background
  • Currently Able-Bodied
  • College Educated or Parents College Educated
  • Not Adopted or Foster Child
  • English as a Primary Language
  • “Average” or “Thin” (referencing weight)
  • Lighter Complexioned People of the Same Race

These are identified as the “oppressed”:

  • Women
  • Children
  • People of Color
  • Non-Christians
  • Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Queer
  • Gender Non-conforming
  • 50 Years and Older
  • Immigrant
  • Working Class/Lower Income Background
  • Disabled
  • Not College Educated or Parents Not College Educated
  • Single Parent or Raised by a Single Parent
  • Adopted or Foster Child
  • English as a Second Language
  • “Overweight”
  • Darker Complexioned People of the Same Race

We are where we are today because the individual has been replaced with group identity. The individual’s personal responsibility has been replaced with group victimization (this victimization rationalizes and excuses incivility). The concepts of individual life, liberty, and happiness have been replaced with group autonomy. The individual’s duty to think and reason has been replaced by group think.

In Columbia, Missouri, on October 30, 2008, Barack Obama stated, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Lottie Spurlock’s equity directive for the Loudoun County Public School would certainly applaud Obama’s words.

The reality of the Leftist “Identity Politics” is illustrated by a troubling article describing how a candidate for student government at Stanford University posted racist threats, including “white people need to be eradicated,” then apparently deleted the account when caught. This is the same identity politic that the Fascists in Hitler’s Germany used to torture and murder millions who were not “useful” for their evil ways.

Historically proven is the fact that eventually the favored “group” is exposed and is held accountable for its evil upon the other “groups” it sought to “eradicate.” “Justice” is blind and holds scales that are eventually balanced.

The United States of America has been fundamentally transformed because the Fascists of the Left have removed personal responsibility and cast all into group identity. Today certain “groups” are applauded as they burn and destroy BUT other “groups” are arrested, harassed as they gather in large numbers and voice concerns. The “peaceable” group utilizes arson, intimidation, calls for violence and stir a manipulative fear. The “domestic terrorist” group utilizes mass gatherings without conflict, no intimidation, and no violence.

Things today have definitely been “fundamentally transformed.” And, it does not take a crystal ball to see that no matter how bad things are now, they will devolve to an even greater decadency unless justice is meted and evil is punished.

John L. Kachelman, Jr. can be reached at his website Kachelman Family Resources and Materials.

Bill Lockwood: Atheistic Professor in England Explains that a Brain-Affecting Parasite May Cause Support for Trump and Brexit 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

American Thinker published a column by Andrea Widburg (Nov. 22, 2020) which exposes a Cambridge University constituent college professor who presents a theory as to why Americans voted for Donald Trump and why Brits supported Brexit. A parasite has infected their brains, which causes severe mental disorders and behavioral problems.

The academic, Dr. Robert Asher, is an evolutionary zoologist at England’s Trinity Hall and a one-time contributor to Huffington Post. Asher suggests a parasite named Toxoplasma gondi is the cause of politically-incorrect behavior, a parasite which has long known to affect cats. Toxoplasmosis feels like a bad flu, which can cause seizures and lung problems. Behavioral problems as well result from Toxoplasma infection.

Asher explains;

I would personally argue that one of the problems facing humanity is, is related to, um, you know, the influence of toxoplasma in, ah, cat owners, for example. One could argue why did Brexit happened or why did people in the United States elect Donald Trump? I suspect that it has very much to do with the mind-altering parasite called toxoplasma. And if you were interested in something like that, then taking a course like Evolutionary and Behavior would help you understand this truly nefarious problem. I don’t think anyone really realizes just how bad that particular problem is.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Crazy as the professor may sound, his assumptions are the inevitable result of the worldview known as Naturalism. The assumption of Naturalism, upon which other assumptions begin and end—namely the General Theory of Evolution as well as Atheism itself--holds that all explanations of life and even thinking must ultimately make reference to materialistic causes. As atheist of yesteryear, Woolsey Teller, stated, “the brain secretes thoughts as the liver does bile.”

Delos McKown, a one-time a professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, wrote that “the more we understand our brains by ‘chemicalizing’ their functions, the more the person is ‘biologized,’ …” Everything must be seen through the prism of “biology.”

Based upon this assumption, McKown went on to question free will. He went on to note regarding How the Brain Works, that “some neuroscientists are beginning to suspect that everything that makes people human is no more than an interaction of chemicals and electricity inside the labyrinthine folds of the brain.”

If these professors are correct in their analysis of the brain, what follows?

First, there is no such thing as rationality in the materialistic worldview. How did professor Asher come to his conclusions? His brain also—not simply a Trump supporter—is a result of physical and chemical functions alone. Perhaps he hit his head on the way to the office the day he conferenced the above ideas about toxoplasma. Perhaps he slept wrong the night before and his brain malfunctioned. This caused his thinking processes to alter and ascribe to conservatives a “parasite problem.” The chemical and electrical reactions in his brain are what caused this “conclusion.”

Better yet, perhaps he himself has been infected with the dreaded toxoplasma! Toxoplasma is a mind-altering parasite, we are told. How do we know he himself, and his conclusions about conservatives, is not the result of the dreaded cat parasite? Do you have cats at home, professor Asher?

Again, the professors’ worldview of naturalism demands that all of his “thinking” is the result of “natural processes” such as chemicals squirting through the labyrinthine folds of the brain. Why trust your conclusions, Professor Asher?

Second, there is no such thing as free will, per the professors’ assumptions. If there is no free will, then there is no responsibility for thinking a certain way or voting for a specific cause or candidate. Not only so, but that would apply across the board. Professor Asher is no more responsible for his chemically-induced diagnosis of our brains than we are to have voted for Donald Trump. In reality, his “diagnosis” is not rational, nor could it be, given his assumptions. Isn’t it peculiar, that in denying God and the reality of rational thinking, atheistic professors actually cut off the ability to label their own conclusions as rational?

Third, what is the remedy to this parasite? Shall we prescribe medications to Donald Trump supporters? To Brexit supporters? Just what kind of chemicals must we pour into our bodies to alleviate this parasite? Perhaps before the next election, government will prescribe some medication before entering the voting booth.

In the end, Professor Asher cuts the legs from underneath himself. If we know, for example, that a person argues for the free market SOLELY because he is afraid of losing his money, we tend to discredit his argument as due to irrational causes. This is because when we know that an argument proceeds from an irrational source, we discredit it. According to the professor, all thought comes from an irrational source. Thought has no power. It is the result of physical and chemical pressures in your cranium. The atoms therein simply arranged themselves so that you believe in God, for instance, or in voting for Donald Trump. But atoms inside Asher’s brain have done the same thing. Therefore, we cannot trust his thoughts any more than he can trust the thoughts of a Trump supporter.

Bill Lockwood: #BLM Black Lives Matter is Anti-Christian 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

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.”

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is Rooted in Atheism 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

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.

First, socialism and communism are one and the same. Textbook authors of Elements of Socialism, John Spargo and George Louis Arner (1912) state it plainly. Communism is “equivalent” to Socialism (226). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto, are lauded as the founders of modern-day socialism.

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.

 

Bill Lockwood: Ocasio-Cortez Should Spend Time Reading the Bible Before She Criticizes It 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Nothing more clearly illustrates that the ideology of Socialism is in reality a religious doctrine dressed in political clothes than the amount of vigor socialists exert to criticize the Bible. Our entire culture war is a religious one. From Barack Obama to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, socialists have felt the need to attack God’s Word. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, once again this week unleashed on biblical values. Why? Because the Bible demonstrates that totalitarian systems are wicked.

This is all very peculiar to many mistaken Christians who naively suppose that Christians have no business logging in on “political issues.” Their idea seems to be; allow atheistic socialism and communism and fascism to trample God’s Word with hobnail boots—just keep your mouth shut. Give no answer.  This evidently comes about because they cannot see divine principles behind the political machinery in America. For example,

Life, Liberty and Property

Life, liberty and property are not important values to us because they are Constitutional concepts. Instead, they are constitutional concepts because they are biblical values. This is why the Founders built our system of government upon these theological pillars.

Take the issue of life. God’s Word teaches (Psalm 139:13-16) that God gives life to an infant within the mother’s womb. But the protection of that life, the very purpose of law, Ocasio-Cortez likened to “controlling women’s sexuality.” When the state of Alabama outlawed nearly all abortion in the state in 2017, she could hardly contain herself and charged that the “religious right” only invoked religion to “punish women.”

This is the classic dodge by a hedonistic society that has thrown out God’s Word and is therefore left with a big empty hole of nothingness by which to determine what is and what is NOT life. Godless women may be sexually active—but there are consequences to that behavior, including the formulation of life. For a society to allow the murder of that unborn life so that women and men may feel no repercussions for their immorality is itself a gross violation of natural law, to say nothing of biblical values.

Consider the issue of homosexuality. Last week during a House Oversight Committee hearing on “LGBTQ Rights” Ocasio-Cortez compared religious people on the right with “white supremacists” and opined on the “long history” of people “using scripture and weaponizing and abusing scripture to justify bigotry.” “White supremacists have done it, those who justified slavery have done it, those who fought against integration have done it, and we’re seeing it today.”

What Shall We Say To These Things?

First, for one to claim biblical backing for a concept of “rights” does not mean that this is an accurate portrayal of the Bible. Some in history may have tried to “justify” racial superiority with scripture, but God’s Word cannot be blamed for every misuse which the invention of man may come up with. Ocasio-Cortez should understand this. The Bible declares that life is sacred because it is created by God (Gen. 1:27), even in the mother’s womb (Psalm 139). Yet, that does not stop liberals from demanding the murder of the unborn as a “right.”

Second, the legal standards historically established by our society have been biblically-based, including the outlawing of homosexuality. The New Testament is emphatically clear that homosexuality is a behavior-driven malpractice that results from a free choice that people make. Romans chapter one even points out that this grievous sin occurs in society only after that society has repudiated God.

If the absolute standard of God’s Word be no longer valid, then what would be wrong with being a “white supremacist” or a “black supremacist?” Can Ocasio-Cortez tell us? What standard condemns these ideologies? Regarding slavery, what would be wrong with slavery to begin with, if there is not an absolute standard by which to measure? Why would “bigotry” be an ugly thing, Ocasio-Cortez? What criminality or injustice would there be in being prejudiced and intolerant of others?

The natural parameters of Republican principles of government come from the Bible—including public morality. All the residents of a community are subject to these standards approved of by the majority. If not, government itself would be impossible. Ocasio-Cortez may rail against the “theology” of what she calls “religious fundamentalists,” but the only thing she has to offer in its place is a “theology” of atheistic hedonism which turns society into cesspool of wickedness and violence in which “every man does that which is right in his own eyes.”

Bill Lockwood: Why Should Christians be Interested in Opposing Socialism? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Modern America has been trained to compartmentalize their lives by placing “religion” and worshipping in the church-house or privacy of the home as separate and distinct from “politics.” “Politics” is thought to be what one does when going to the ballot box. Never should these two ideas meet. So is the conventional wisdom.

It is further supposed that ideas such as socialism, communism, statism, collectivism or their variants are merely “political theories” that have no bearing on religious teaching, or more than that—that biblical teaching does not touch such ideas.

This is all very shallow and without any serious thought into what the biblical view of the world includes. Let’s begin with the Bible. Christian truth is one organism. It has a unity and coherence the parts of which cannot be arbitrarily removed without doing violence to the whole. In the words of the great Christian writer James Orr,

“He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of Redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, found only in Christianity. This forms a Weltanschauung, or “Christian view of the world” which stands in marked contrast with theories wrought out from purely philosophical or scientific viewpoint.” 1

This is why there is deep antagonism between Bible believers and scientific theories of the origin of the world and mankind. The schism cannot be papered over by simply saying, “I believe in God and the general theory of evolution.” The naturalistic view of the world begins with this sign: “NO MIRACLES ALLOWED.” The Christian view of the world begins with this: “In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.” There is no middle ground.

Socialism

The same is true regarding socialism. Oscar Jaszi was a noted Hungarian social scientist, historian, and politician of the 19th century. Jaszi found himself in the middle of socialist revolutions in Europe during the formative years of communism/socialism, labor parties, and liberal democratic movements. Later, teaching at Oberlin College in Ohio, he authored works published by the University of Chicago Press. He wrote the entry under Socialism in 1934 for the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, a multi-volume scholarly work. In his lengthy article on “Socialism” for the Encyclopedia, Jaszi summarizes six points which are characteristic of all collectivist movements. They are as follows:

  1. A condemnation of the existing political and social order as unjust
  2. An advocacy of a new order consistent with moral values
  3. A belief that this ideal is realizable
  4. A conviction that the immorality of the established order is traceable not to a fixed world order or to the unchanging nature of man but to corrupt institutions
  5. A program of action leading to the ideal through fundamental remolding of human nature or of institutions or both
  6. A revolutionary will to carry out this program.

Jaszi then issues this warning. “The fact can scarcely be overemphasized that no true socialist is satisfied with merely economic reforms but advocates also a distinct educational, ethical, and aesthetic policy.”

At the heart of all socialistic ideas, including communism, Nazism, statism, and fascism, is an atheistic view of man. That is, mankind is solely determined by physical, social, and/or economic factors. This is directly at variance with the biblical view of man, which teaches that the problem with mankind is sin, a rebellion against God (Rom. 3:10-12).

To teach that God Exists sets one at war with atheism which says there is no God. To teach that there is One God (Deut. 6:4) is to oppose polytheism which says there are many gods. It is also to oppose the pagan worldview which believes that deity is somehow embodied in the earth. And to teach that God created man in his own image—a freewill being whose problem is SIN, is to be at variance with the socialistic creed that preaches the problems of mankind arise from the environment and that by reforming social institutions problems will be solved.

It is simple. Belief in the biblical view of God opposes atheism and the biblical view of man opposes socialism. Further, since politics is defined as the principles by which society should be governed, should not Christians be engaged in combatting socialistic ideas that engraft themselves into a culture—even if they are in the political arena?

1 The Christian View of God and the World, p. 4.

Alex Newman: Schools Busted Promoting Islam 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment
by Alex Newman

Government schools in Michigan are under fire after an investigation by the Thomas More Law Center, a non-profit legal group, exposed a massive tax-payer funded propaganda program glorifying Islam and denigrating Christianity. Teachers were targeted in the controversial scheme, with the expectation that they would pass the lies on to their students.

The investigation began after TMLC discovered that teachers were being forced to take a two-day “training seminar” on Islam. The program, run by a Muslim “consultant” and self-proclaimed “social justice” advocate, bombarded hundreds of public-school teachers with anti-American and anti-Christian extremism masquerading as “culturally responsive teaching.”

Among other concerns, the training program was “riddled with falsehoods and errors of omission that were clearly meant to deceive,” the Law Center explained. For instance, there was no truthful information provided to teachers on either jihad (holy war) or Sharia (Islamic) law, which are two of the cornerstones of Islam.

Teachers were told that while the Bible had been changed, the Koran had come straight from Allah to Muhammad. “Her message was clear: The Koran is superior to the Bible,” the Thomas More Law Center explained in a statement about its findings, adding that the Muslim “consultant” was paid $2,500 per day to indoctrinate teachers.

The “consultant,” Huda Essa, also dismissed concerns about terrorism, saying it had nothing to do with Islam. Perhaps not surprisingly, the program also taught Michigan teachers that white Christian males were more dangerous to the public than Islamic extremists whose holy book commands them to wage never-ending war against infidels. Essa accused America of “genocide,” too, while ignoring Islam’s 1400 year history of exterminating non-Muslims across the Middle East and North Africa, TMLC said.

“We found that the teachers were subjected to two days of Islamic propaganda, where Islam was glorified, Christianity disparaged, and America bashed,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, after the investigation was completed. “This type of infiltration amounts to an Islamic Trojan horse within our public-school systems. No other religion gets this kind of special treatment in our schools.”

As part of the investigation, the Law Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the workshop. Within the materials received, the conservative-leaning non-profit legal group obtained audio recordings of the “diversity” presentation forced upon Michigan teachers.

What Thompson found most disappointing about the ordeal was the fact that not a single one of the over 400 teachers subjected to this particular “training” session publicly challenged the bizarre teachings. It was not immediately clear whether this was due to fear of reprisals, agreement with the consultant’s extremism, or other causes.

Similar tax-funded “training” seminars for educators by the same Islamist have taken place in California, Georgia, Texas, Florida, and more. In fact, the consultant’s website openly brags about all the educators across America who have been subjected to the same propaganda, which has been filtering down into school classrooms for years.

It seems that, with one key exception, any and all religions are now being welcomed and promoted to gullible children in government schools in America today — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, and so on, are all celebrated. By contrast, only Christianity and the Bible, the foundations that America and the West were founded upon, is blacklisted, ridiculed, denigrated, and openly attacked.

The Takeaway

Especially in a Christian nation like America, this tax-funded anti-Christian indoctrination should be considered totally unacceptable. It represents an existential threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Parents and taxpayers need to stop these abuses now, before the ongoing “fundamental transformation” America becomes impossible to reverse. Protecting one’s own children is a great place to start.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.

« Older Entries