That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" -- not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. -- Dennis Prager
Although Dennis refers to "liberalism" in this quote, it applies to the whole spectrum of the so-called left: Socialists, Communists (International Socialists), National Socialists, and Transnational Socialists (Progressives).
An example of this can be seen in an incident related by Jeff Hamilton of La Vista, Nebraska. He relates the response to one of his web articles encouraging young people to reject pre-marital sex: 'Though not the author’s intention, I received an illustration of this very thing. “When you look over these posts and see how miserable and guilty the children that you advise feel about their "sins" don't you regret the way you teach? God loves us all no matter what mistakes we make and it would be nice to find some Christians that teach the love and not the wrath. Unless the reader can read and clearly understand Hebrew, Arabic, and many of the other languages of the original Bible, I think it is almost hypocritic to spread guilt based on third and fourth level translations. I don't mean to criticize and I definitely respect what you are doing, I think its great trying to help young men and women with their most intimate of problems, but maybe sometimes the answer shouldn't just be 'you've sinned, you're making up excuses.' It's clear that some people have justified pre-marital sex in their own lives and you will likely be unable to change that, but your practical advise on what actions to take should be based on if they continue their ways. I’m sure would be much more valuable to them than judging them. It's not our place to judge or dictate who has the rights of passage into our father's [sic] kingdom. Although I don't expect it to, I will pray that my wisdom has a flicker on your thoughts.”'
As Jeff Hamilton points out:
1. Here is a man who doesn’t care about right and wrong, he just doesn’t want anyone to feel guilty.
2. Here is a man who thinks that no one can do wrong.
3. Here is a man sitting in judgment when someone teaches God’s truth.
Sadly, that means this man is a perfect example of a typical liberal.
Paul the Apostle warned us of this (and gave us the solution), in Ephesians 4:14-16.
It is one that applies both in the church and in the community.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A look at liberalism
"My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous." -- Hugh Hewitt
Faith in Christ Jesus - saving, obedient faith (not that of demons and the pharisees) - demands acceptance of an "absolute moral order" as established by God in His Word. Christians know that things can be absolutely good - or in the absence of good (and God), absolutely evil. Thus, it is not possible for liberalism to be compatible with the "pure and undefiled religion" of which James speaks (James 1:27). Therefore, liberalism is not compatible with any human government which hopes to prove it is acceptable to God (if indeed such exists). Why? Because if there IS a justification for government, its role (per the Bible) is to DISCOURAGE EVIL by punishing it. Only in that way does government promote "GOOD." But since liberalism cannot and will not judge what is evil or what is good, it is incapable of carrying out this primary function.
Ultimately, a government based on principles of this liberalism will become the open enemy of God and our worship of Him. It will seek (as so many modern governments do) to dictate what is politically correct (and therefore "good") based on relative ideas and not absolute values. It turns the universe upside down, substituting the wishes of man for the laws of God. Then, we must decide whether such a government can be tolerated (ignored for the most part) or whether we must take actions to defend ourselves against it, up to the point reached by the Founding Fathers: rebellion and overthrow of the evil regime.
Faith in Christ Jesus - saving, obedient faith (not that of demons and the pharisees) - demands acceptance of an "absolute moral order" as established by God in His Word. Christians know that things can be absolutely good - or in the absence of good (and God), absolutely evil. Thus, it is not possible for liberalism to be compatible with the "pure and undefiled religion" of which James speaks (James 1:27). Therefore, liberalism is not compatible with any human government which hopes to prove it is acceptable to God (if indeed such exists). Why? Because if there IS a justification for government, its role (per the Bible) is to DISCOURAGE EVIL by punishing it. Only in that way does government promote "GOOD." But since liberalism cannot and will not judge what is evil or what is good, it is incapable of carrying out this primary function.
Ultimately, a government based on principles of this liberalism will become the open enemy of God and our worship of Him. It will seek (as so many modern governments do) to dictate what is politically correct (and therefore "good") based on relative ideas and not absolute values. It turns the universe upside down, substituting the wishes of man for the laws of God. Then, we must decide whether such a government can be tolerated (ignored for the most part) or whether we must take actions to defend ourselves against it, up to the point reached by the Founding Fathers: rebellion and overthrow of the evil regime.
Monday, November 22, 2010
More thoughts on John Locke's limits of government
We can look at a few practical examples of how this principle (discussed in the last post) is (or should be) applied.
As Christians - and as humans, period - God has given us NO power to force people to "do good." We may take (within limits) actions to keep people from doing evil, or to at least respond to their evil actions. But we cannot force someone to worship God, to sing praises to Him, to pray to Him, to give in benevolence, or even to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and be buried with Him in baptism. There is no scriptural authority to do this. There is no reason to believe that such authority exists for ANY moral action.
Yet, government claims to be able to force people to do good to others, by collecting money from people and then giving some of that money to the needy as charity (or welfare). Beyond the complete lack of ANY constitutional authority to do, government has no authority granted by God to do so. Indeed, were an individual person to try and take money from someone else, even with the intent of using it to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, or house the homeless, that individual would be recognized immediately for what he is: a thief.
We as Christians are told (by God) to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the sick, and many other things. But NOWHERE in the Bible are we told that we can steal or take money from others to do these good deeds with, OR that our obligation to God is met by having someone else (like government) do this.
And therein lies the reason that Christians cannot support the ideas (or "ideals") of "social justice" and why people are correct when they say that churches who advocate social justice are NOT advocating true and undefiled religion, no matter how much they try to quote the Epistle of James to support their claims. Government programs of "social justice" require that government, and government agents, do things that God DOES prohibit and condemn as being sin.
Government can have nothing to give to others unless it first takes it from someone else. It does this, almost exclusively, by forcing people to "give" money to government, which it then gives (minus a handling fee, of course) to the objects of welfare. How can any church reconcile this (and supporting government's power to do this) with clear scriptural commands not to steal, and to give freely as we have been prospered?
It cannot. And neither can government. If government is not subject to limits imposed by God on the humans that make up that government, it has no limits. More, it is in rebellion to God.
As Christians - and as humans, period - God has given us NO power to force people to "do good." We may take (within limits) actions to keep people from doing evil, or to at least respond to their evil actions. But we cannot force someone to worship God, to sing praises to Him, to pray to Him, to give in benevolence, or even to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and be buried with Him in baptism. There is no scriptural authority to do this. There is no reason to believe that such authority exists for ANY moral action.
Yet, government claims to be able to force people to do good to others, by collecting money from people and then giving some of that money to the needy as charity (or welfare). Beyond the complete lack of ANY constitutional authority to do, government has no authority granted by God to do so. Indeed, were an individual person to try and take money from someone else, even with the intent of using it to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, or house the homeless, that individual would be recognized immediately for what he is: a thief.
We as Christians are told (by God) to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the sick, and many other things. But NOWHERE in the Bible are we told that we can steal or take money from others to do these good deeds with, OR that our obligation to God is met by having someone else (like government) do this.
And therein lies the reason that Christians cannot support the ideas (or "ideals") of "social justice" and why people are correct when they say that churches who advocate social justice are NOT advocating true and undefiled religion, no matter how much they try to quote the Epistle of James to support their claims. Government programs of "social justice" require that government, and government agents, do things that God DOES prohibit and condemn as being sin.
Government can have nothing to give to others unless it first takes it from someone else. It does this, almost exclusively, by forcing people to "give" money to government, which it then gives (minus a handling fee, of course) to the objects of welfare. How can any church reconcile this (and supporting government's power to do this) with clear scriptural commands not to steal, and to give freely as we have been prospered?
It cannot. And neither can government. If government is not subject to limits imposed by God on the humans that make up that government, it has no limits. More, it is in rebellion to God.
Limits on government - John Locke
"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would
be unlawful for them to do themselves." ... whenever the Legislators endeavor
to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to
Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the
People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to
the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and
Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this
fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption,
endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute
Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of
Trust they forfeit the Power the People had put into their hands, for quite
contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their
original Liberty."
-- John Locke
John Locke here expresses an essential principle for Christians, whether in the First Century or in the Twenty-first Century. It is not possible for ANY group of people to do anything AS A GROUP which they are not authorized by God to do individually: indeed, Scripture shows that groups of people - even churches organized in accordance with the New Testament have no more authority to make laws, override God's commands, punish people, or anything else than the individual Christians which make up that church. How much more does this principle apply to human, secular government?
Locke also points out the logical corollary to that principle: Attempts by human rulers to take that power not granted to them by God forfeit ALL power, and the people are thereby free, in the eyes of God, to resume their original liberty. That is the liberty which is God's gift to all humans.
be unlawful for them to do themselves." ... whenever the Legislators endeavor
to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to
Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the
People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to
the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and
Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this
fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption,
endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute
Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of
Trust they forfeit the Power the People had put into their hands, for quite
contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their
original Liberty."
-- John Locke
John Locke here expresses an essential principle for Christians, whether in the First Century or in the Twenty-first Century. It is not possible for ANY group of people to do anything AS A GROUP which they are not authorized by God to do individually: indeed, Scripture shows that groups of people - even churches organized in accordance with the New Testament have no more authority to make laws, override God's commands, punish people, or anything else than the individual Christians which make up that church. How much more does this principle apply to human, secular government?
Locke also points out the logical corollary to that principle: Attempts by human rulers to take that power not granted to them by God forfeit ALL power, and the people are thereby free, in the eyes of God, to resume their original liberty. That is the liberty which is God's gift to all humans.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Two classes of people
James Bovard, in a recent blog posting: http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/11/10/statism-the-greatest-threat/ wrote:
"Trusting contemporary governments means dividing humanity into two classes: those who can be trusted with power to run other people’s lives, and those who cannot even be trusted to run their own lives. Modern Leviathans give some people the power to play God with other people’s lives, property, and domestic tranquility. Modern political thinking presumes that restraints are bad for the government but good for the people. The first duty of the citizen is to assume the best of the government, while government officials assume the worst of him."
Although Bovard does not write from a religious perspective, he has made a point that has religious implications. Where in the Bible can we find this division of humanity? New Testament Christianity makes exactly the opposite assumptions: that NO one can be trusted with power to run other people's lives, and that people are expected to run their own lives: i.e., that we humans have responsibility (to GOD) for what we do and say.
Thus we have another reason to reject "modern political thinking," as Bovard describes it.
"Trusting contemporary governments means dividing humanity into two classes: those who can be trusted with power to run other people’s lives, and those who cannot even be trusted to run their own lives. Modern Leviathans give some people the power to play God with other people’s lives, property, and domestic tranquility. Modern political thinking presumes that restraints are bad for the government but good for the people. The first duty of the citizen is to assume the best of the government, while government officials assume the worst of him."
Although Bovard does not write from a religious perspective, he has made a point that has religious implications. Where in the Bible can we find this division of humanity? New Testament Christianity makes exactly the opposite assumptions: that NO one can be trusted with power to run other people's lives, and that people are expected to run their own lives: i.e., that we humans have responsibility (to GOD) for what we do and say.
Thus we have another reason to reject "modern political thinking," as Bovard describes it.
Friday, November 19, 2010
A Voice of Freedom in today's world
This is the second part of a multi-part post. Please feel free to read the first part "New Manager - Voice of Freedom" below.
Like the old Voice of Freedom (1953-1985) the new blog-version intends to fight against totalitarianism: all forms of it. These will include at least:
- Communism in its revival
- Socialism in all its various forms
- Transnational progressivism
- American liberalism
- American neo-conservatism
- American paleo-conservatism
- Religious hierarchies of whatever flavor or denomination
- Islam
- Humanism and its sisters of atheism and feminism
I am not adverse to adding other "isms" to this list. At the same time, I want it to be clear to all readers: I do NOT wish ill for anyone involved in these forms of tyranny, even leaders. I am not advocating ANY reason to attack someone for their race, ancestry, national origins, or political or religious beliefs - PROVIDED that they do not seek to steal our own liberties away from others.
To that end, the Voice of Freedom will be both blunt and explicit. (I could say, "call a spade a spade," but that expression is often claimed to be bigoted. Don't know why: there is a definite difference between a shovel, a spade, and any other sort of tool for digging up dirt and rocks.) I am not interested in being politically correct; I am not interested in coddling anyone. But I also realize that I answer to God for everything I say and do not say. I do not wish to harm anyone needlessly, and definitely do not wish to drive off people who would otherwise listen to me, and perhaps heed my words, if not now, then in the future.
I do wish it to be clear to all readers, old and new, that this publication, this blog, expresses a very ancient view of both religion AND politics. I no more favor "statements of faith" than I favor "loyalty oaths" for anyone or anything. But I (obviously) do believe in God, and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God and the ONLY door to salvation for man and woman now and in the future, and that we humans are saved by faith - a faith expressed in obedience to God. I do believe that it is possible to lose that obedient faith and therefore lose our salvation, until we die "and then comes judgment." At that Day of judgment, all of us (faithful and unfaithful) will answer for the deeds that we have done, and Jesus' intercession for the faithful will make up for our lack of perfection, and our failure to keep God's commands as we have the ability to do. In this life, we must seek to serve God in accordance with His will and not our own or that demanded by others. I believe that the Bible is the ONLY authority that we have in matters of life and religion: that there is no modern-day revelation, that God does not give us special instructions even though His Spirit dwells in us.
Equally, let it be known that I (and therefore this publication) express a very ancient view of human freedom and government. God gave us free will: He created humans in His image. But He IS the Creator. To the extent that ANY sort of human government can (or should) exist, it MUST be in accordance with God's will. Therefore, any human government must be very limited: indeed, there is strong reason to state that ANY government beyond that of the family and the church and voluntary cooperation is nothing but rebellion against God.
Lest this be viewed as some form of totalitarian theonomy that this blog is espousing, understand that God does not give mere men ANY AUTHORITY to enforce His laws: at most we may take measures to protect ourselves, our families, and our brethren in Christ from internal and external threats, and that the greatest power available to the church or family to do that is exclusion or withdrawal - although God clearly gives us the right to defend ourselves and one another. But no human has any right to revenge or vengeance: God reserves that to Himself.
I understand that this is a radical position: the idea that no government (except that of family and church) is better than any human-conceived government, if push comes to shove. I welcome those who can show in the Scriptures that any human government has the right to usurp God's prerogatives as the Creator, and any authority to use force except in self-defense. God did not make one set of moral law for individual humans and another set for groups of humans.
To these ends, this publication intends to provide intellectual ammunition for believers (and others) to fight against totalitarianism, and tyranny in all its forms. And to also show more fully the Way of the Lord both to those who are faithful believers AND to those who want to become such. This blog will not be limited to my own (Edward's) writings and thoughts: I will borrow freely from others, going all the way back to Job and Abraham and Moses, and ranging through the ages right up to today in 2010 and ahead. In some cases, I will attribute to the author; in others I may not, either because they do not wish it to be so, or for the protection of those others.
As I've mentioned already, I welcome comments, criticisms, and yes, even hate mail.
Edward, November 21st, A.D. 2010, A.L. 235.
Like the old Voice of Freedom (1953-1985) the new blog-version intends to fight against totalitarianism: all forms of it. These will include at least:
- Communism in its revival
- Socialism in all its various forms
- Transnational progressivism
- American liberalism
- American neo-conservatism
- American paleo-conservatism
- Religious hierarchies of whatever flavor or denomination
- Islam
- Humanism and its sisters of atheism and feminism
I am not adverse to adding other "isms" to this list. At the same time, I want it to be clear to all readers: I do NOT wish ill for anyone involved in these forms of tyranny, even leaders. I am not advocating ANY reason to attack someone for their race, ancestry, national origins, or political or religious beliefs - PROVIDED that they do not seek to steal our own liberties away from others.
To that end, the Voice of Freedom will be both blunt and explicit. (I could say, "call a spade a spade," but that expression is often claimed to be bigoted. Don't know why: there is a definite difference between a shovel, a spade, and any other sort of tool for digging up dirt and rocks.) I am not interested in being politically correct; I am not interested in coddling anyone. But I also realize that I answer to God for everything I say and do not say. I do not wish to harm anyone needlessly, and definitely do not wish to drive off people who would otherwise listen to me, and perhaps heed my words, if not now, then in the future.
I do wish it to be clear to all readers, old and new, that this publication, this blog, expresses a very ancient view of both religion AND politics. I no more favor "statements of faith" than I favor "loyalty oaths" for anyone or anything. But I (obviously) do believe in God, and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God and the ONLY door to salvation for man and woman now and in the future, and that we humans are saved by faith - a faith expressed in obedience to God. I do believe that it is possible to lose that obedient faith and therefore lose our salvation, until we die "and then comes judgment." At that Day of judgment, all of us (faithful and unfaithful) will answer for the deeds that we have done, and Jesus' intercession for the faithful will make up for our lack of perfection, and our failure to keep God's commands as we have the ability to do. In this life, we must seek to serve God in accordance with His will and not our own or that demanded by others. I believe that the Bible is the ONLY authority that we have in matters of life and religion: that there is no modern-day revelation, that God does not give us special instructions even though His Spirit dwells in us.
Equally, let it be known that I (and therefore this publication) express a very ancient view of human freedom and government. God gave us free will: He created humans in His image. But He IS the Creator. To the extent that ANY sort of human government can (or should) exist, it MUST be in accordance with God's will. Therefore, any human government must be very limited: indeed, there is strong reason to state that ANY government beyond that of the family and the church and voluntary cooperation is nothing but rebellion against God.
Lest this be viewed as some form of totalitarian theonomy that this blog is espousing, understand that God does not give mere men ANY AUTHORITY to enforce His laws: at most we may take measures to protect ourselves, our families, and our brethren in Christ from internal and external threats, and that the greatest power available to the church or family to do that is exclusion or withdrawal - although God clearly gives us the right to defend ourselves and one another. But no human has any right to revenge or vengeance: God reserves that to Himself.
I understand that this is a radical position: the idea that no government (except that of family and church) is better than any human-conceived government, if push comes to shove. I welcome those who can show in the Scriptures that any human government has the right to usurp God's prerogatives as the Creator, and any authority to use force except in self-defense. God did not make one set of moral law for individual humans and another set for groups of humans.
To these ends, this publication intends to provide intellectual ammunition for believers (and others) to fight against totalitarianism, and tyranny in all its forms. And to also show more fully the Way of the Lord both to those who are faithful believers AND to those who want to become such. This blog will not be limited to my own (Edward's) writings and thoughts: I will borrow freely from others, going all the way back to Job and Abraham and Moses, and ranging through the ages right up to today in 2010 and ahead. In some cases, I will attribute to the author; in others I may not, either because they do not wish it to be so, or for the protection of those others.
As I've mentioned already, I welcome comments, criticisms, and yes, even hate mail.
Edward, November 21st, A.D. 2010, A.L. 235.
New Manager - Voice of Freedom
Let me introduce myself - sort of.
I'm Edward J. and a dear friend of mine has asked me to take over this blog, which he admits he has not given proper attention to, and which he believes has a lot of potential. Well, I think it does, so I'm going to try and see if I can carry his dream forward. He is not doing well, health- or time-wise, and yet he has a deep love for freedom and God, and wants to continue to support this, but in the background.
I want to discuss some ancient history, and then add my own thoughts. (You can add your thoughts too. Please!)
The Voice of Freedom was a colorful, 8.5 x 11 size magazine published by members of the church of Christ [as am I] for more than three decades. Founded by famous editor and preacher G. C. Brewer (1884-1956), it was dedicated to warning of the dangers of Roman Catholicism and Communism, which he viewed (correctly at the time) were forms of totalitarianism and that freedom would be lost if either of these systems were to gain control of the government of the United States. After bro. Brewer's death, L.R. Wilson (1896-1968) edited the publication, concentrating mostly on the threat posed by Roman Catholicism and those people who trusted in the Pope more than in God, and who followed the then-harsh doctrines and rule of the Roman Catholic Church. As Catholicism changed and declined in power and influence (in the aftermath of Vatican II and various other events), the Voice of Freedom started to shift its emphasis to the dangers of humanism, atheism, and materialism, and their threat to religious liberty, under the editorship of P. D. Wilmeth (1907-1987). The magazine attempted to broaden its scope in 1985 but abruptly ceased publication in 1985.
The world has changed a lot since 1953, 1960, 1968, and 1985. Rather than a threat from politicians who were loyal to the Pope and influenced by the international Roman Catholic leadership, today far too many Catholic politicians have totally divorced themselves from ANY belief or practice in Biblical OR Catholic morality. The reforms of Vatican II and the reigns of Pope Paul, Popes John Paul, and even Pope Benedict XVI have changed the Catholic Church drastically, and its influence in the United States is a fraction of what it once had in actuality and potential. It is STILL not Biblical, but it is well down the list of threats to liberty and freedom in general, and christian liberty in particular.
In the early 1990s, many of us thought that Communism too was a threat that had peaked and was declining: the Wall had fallen, the Soviets had evacuated from Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, China was liberalizing, Castro was getting old, and even Vietnam and North Korea were little thought of.
How little we knew! Today, we know that the forces which we may call totalitarianism have again grown powerful (or have been revealed and seen for the threat that they have continued to be). One of my predecessors at this blog likes to refer to one of the kind of 21st century totalitarians as "Transnational Progressives" or "Transnational Socialists" or Tranzis. I shall probably stick to the word "totalitarians" - keeping in mind that different flavors have different levels of acceptance and desire for power.
I shall continue this discussion in my next post. Till then, for visitors to this site, and to readers, WELCOME! Please share your thoughts and ideas with me.
Edward
I'm Edward J. and a dear friend of mine has asked me to take over this blog, which he admits he has not given proper attention to, and which he believes has a lot of potential. Well, I think it does, so I'm going to try and see if I can carry his dream forward. He is not doing well, health- or time-wise, and yet he has a deep love for freedom and God, and wants to continue to support this, but in the background.
I want to discuss some ancient history, and then add my own thoughts. (You can add your thoughts too. Please!)
The Voice of Freedom was a colorful, 8.5 x 11 size magazine published by members of the church of Christ [as am I] for more than three decades. Founded by famous editor and preacher G. C. Brewer (1884-1956), it was dedicated to warning of the dangers of Roman Catholicism and Communism, which he viewed (correctly at the time) were forms of totalitarianism and that freedom would be lost if either of these systems were to gain control of the government of the United States. After bro. Brewer's death, L.R. Wilson (1896-1968) edited the publication, concentrating mostly on the threat posed by Roman Catholicism and those people who trusted in the Pope more than in God, and who followed the then-harsh doctrines and rule of the Roman Catholic Church. As Catholicism changed and declined in power and influence (in the aftermath of Vatican II and various other events), the Voice of Freedom started to shift its emphasis to the dangers of humanism, atheism, and materialism, and their threat to religious liberty, under the editorship of P. D. Wilmeth (1907-1987). The magazine attempted to broaden its scope in 1985 but abruptly ceased publication in 1985.
The world has changed a lot since 1953, 1960, 1968, and 1985. Rather than a threat from politicians who were loyal to the Pope and influenced by the international Roman Catholic leadership, today far too many Catholic politicians have totally divorced themselves from ANY belief or practice in Biblical OR Catholic morality. The reforms of Vatican II and the reigns of Pope Paul, Popes John Paul, and even Pope Benedict XVI have changed the Catholic Church drastically, and its influence in the United States is a fraction of what it once had in actuality and potential. It is STILL not Biblical, but it is well down the list of threats to liberty and freedom in general, and christian liberty in particular.
In the early 1990s, many of us thought that Communism too was a threat that had peaked and was declining: the Wall had fallen, the Soviets had evacuated from Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, China was liberalizing, Castro was getting old, and even Vietnam and North Korea were little thought of.
How little we knew! Today, we know that the forces which we may call totalitarianism have again grown powerful (or have been revealed and seen for the threat that they have continued to be). One of my predecessors at this blog likes to refer to one of the kind of 21st century totalitarians as "Transnational Progressives" or "Transnational Socialists" or Tranzis. I shall probably stick to the word "totalitarians" - keeping in mind that different flavors have different levels of acceptance and desire for power.
I shall continue this discussion in my next post. Till then, for visitors to this site, and to readers, WELCOME! Please share your thoughts and ideas with me.
Edward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)