Community of Women?

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria ...

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although widely criticized from both sides, the callous video celebrating 40 years of abortion-rights Roe v. Wade  featuring actor Mehcad Brooks dovetailed perfectly with the Marxist call for the “community of women” in which the Communist Manifesto basically calls for women to have no restriction on who, when, and for how much they will sleep with men. Really what they meant was for women to be community property. I can imagine that this sounds great to an amoral Marxist man but what woman feels properly valued in that state? If you don’t believe me read it for yourself below. Then ask yourself if the current state of morality on high school and college campuses more closely approximates the “Communist ideal” or a practice that is actually healthy for women?

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

–from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto

Advertisements

Black Voters, Democrats, Republicans, and History

Ku Klux Klan members and a burning cross, Denv...

Ku Klux Klan members and a burning cross, Denver, Colorado, 1921

I recently enjoyed a segment on the The World and Everything in It with Alonzo Rachel giving a brief overview of black American history vis a vis the Republican party. I’ll include a brief synopsis below.

The fact is that it was the Republican Party under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for black emancipation from slavery. The Republican Party was actually a fairly new party arising from the growing popularity of abolitionists. It was the Democrats that actually seceded from the country and formed the Confederate slave holding States. After losing the Civil War, it was the Democratic Party that formed the KKK in order to violently kill Republicans both white and black and convince them with basically terrorism to stop trying to have influence in the South.  Decades later the opportunity for the civil rights movement was helped by Republicans who drafted the 1960s civil rights legislation during a session of Congress before LBJ, a Democrat got behind it. That civil rights legislation actually passed with 100 percent of the Republican vote but only a portion of the Democrat vote.

I agree that we have forgotten so much history. I recently was talking to a new acquaintance on a plane ride home. He mentioned how the Republicans had a lot of work to do to overcome their sordid past. He mentioned the KKK as one example. People need to be told that all that was from the Democratic party. Myself, I don’t hold to party loyalty. I hold to principle loyalty. I consider myself a Christian first, a conservative next, and a Republican as long as their candidates stand for Christian principles. Historically the Republican party has tended to stand for what is right. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation in the last 150 years. And there has been resulting slippage and confusion of direction. There are some changes that need to be made in the Republican party, but not in the liberal direction.

Alonzo Rachel also made a spoof of the recent ad celebrating the 4oth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. He makes it clear how abortion is welcomed by many as a racist practice.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday


58 years ago in 1954 Lyndon Johnson added an amendment to an appropriations bill which made it illegal for nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations to speak out in political matters. This was a major intrusion on our First Amendment freedoms of religion and of speech. Since then the IRS has become the censorship board of the government. They have never actually taken any violation of this regulation to court. They have always dropped cases after essentially intimidating the churches involved. Pulpit freedom Sunday is an attempt to call their bluff: to challenge this unconstitutional law and open up freedom for our nation’s pastors once again.

Please check out the information about Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 7, 2012. Ask your pastor to consider participating.

Remember our Fallen

Twin Towers

Twin Towers (Photo credit: wstera2)

Let’s remember our fallen heroes, victims, and their families today on the 11th year since the attacks on September 11. Let us pray for them, for our country, and for our armed services today. Let us commit to speak up and act in accordance with Christian and American principles.

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. John 15:13 NIV

Freedom of Religion

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does freedom of religion mean? Is freedom of religion a nebulous concept that must conform to the dictates of the government? Is it squishy? Can it be pushed to whatever size box the government allows for it? Obamacare includes a  mandate to provide abortifacient drugs. Many of us have problems with this from a moral point of view founded on our religion.  But we are private citizens. The HHS exemption only covers churches and some religious institutions. So has the president and his party decided that the freedom of religion of the private citizen is not important? What does our freedom of religion really mean?

 

 

It seems to me that if we can be forced to purchase medicine to initiate the murder of innocent unborn children, we have crossed a line of freedom of religion. If the intention of our founders was to consider sexual freedom on a par with religious freedom, wouldn’t we find it the first amendment? or somewhere in the Constitution? But we don’t find it because it isn’t there. The founders placed freedom of religion in a prominent location. But they didn’t raise the issue of sexual freedom. Do you suppose they didn’t have sex back then? Of course not. First of all, our founders knew that the area of sexual relations is governed by the Bible and trusted this area to the self-government of the people and the common law which is founded on the Bible. Second, sexual freedom leads to social chaos. Many of the social ills that we have in our country today can be directly linked to “sexual freedom”: 50 million Americans dead, epidemic STDs, single-parent families, poverty, crime, prison expansion, the growing welfare state.

 

 

What do you think? What should freedom of religion mean? On what do you base that meaning?

 

 

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy – Eric Metaxas

I finished the biography by Eric Metaxas on Dietrich Bonhoeffer  recently. It was very well written, and I had many moments for reflection and connection throughout. I’ve not been a big reader of biographies, but I found this treatment of the young German theologian inspiring and instructive. I’ll share a few insights here which I hope might whet your appetite to read it for yourself.

Bonhoeffer worked to shine light on what Hitler was doing by communicating to his allies in London specifically Bishop George Bell and a number of other ecumenical leaders. He bravely took a stand against the German Christian “church” which was being raised up as a pagan religion or replacement for true Christianity, attempting to expunge any connection to its Jewish roots. When Hitler ordered the Night of the Long Knives in June of 1934, Nazi hit squads went through and murdered anywhere from 400-1,000 people. After this people who disagreed with National Socialism or Hitler began to fear for their lives. If you spoke up against Hitler or his policies you could very well end up dead. Through all this Bonhoeffer remained steadfast in his stand against the pollution of the church and the pull of the German Christian movement to paganism, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish sentiment as well as the fusing of the church with the state.

Hitler never spoke against the church as he rose to power. He was very politically astute to know that would not do. However, once he was fully in control of Germany he moved to break down the church and rebuild it in his own image. He supported the group called the German Christians who warped orthodox theology to make Jesus out as anti-semitic and basically return Germany to its pagan roots. Hitler himself despised Christian teaching and preferred the coarse power of the ancient germanic  pagan religions coupled with Darwinian naturalism. Within his inner circle, Goering and Himmler cultivated occult practices among the SS and incorporated them into the Nazi death camps.

Bonhoeffer attempted to rally groups of churches both within and without Germany to speak out against what the “German Christians” were doing. However, Nazis used control of information and communications to divide their enemies. This made different churches who had been allied with Bonhoeffer to split away. The Nazi divisive tactic whittled down and essentially liquefied their opposition. This has some connection with our current political battle. If churches and the righteous cannot unite against our common enemy of godlessness and immorality, no one will stand. If we divide our forces and become fractured and diffused, we will lose.

More than anything I am struck by Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s unyielding commitment to the rational pursuit of the conclusions of his faith. He did not back down from thinking things through to their logical conclusion, then taking action as necessary. I pray that we American Christians would do the same.

Have you read this stirring biography? What were your reactions?

How Should We Then Live? Francis Schaeffer

link to Book on Amazon

How Should We Then Live?


Francis Schaeffer’s book How Should We Then Live? This is one of the modern classics of Christian thought. Schaeffer follows the development of Western thought and our various worldviews from the time of Roman civilization to modern times. He frames this development in the attempt of philosophers to explain our world starting with either absolutes or particulars. He gives dozens of examples of the various philosophic schools of thought playing out in art, music, and architecture.

The Reformation in Northern Europe found freedom for creation under the Bible and in its balance of universals and particulars found true freedom. The Renaissance in Southern Europe adopted the humanistic view with particulars only, and therefore had no basis for transcendent growth. As humanism began to infiltrate into the scientific thinking and philosophy of the 1700s and 1800s and on into today, people were faced with the problem of drawing absolute principles starting with particulars. This turned out to be impossible. Trying to come up with a unified, cohesive philosophy of life starting with human experience takes people nowhere.

As he closes the book, Schaeffer lists several pressures that are facing societies today which could push them to accept authoritarian rule instead of chaos. These pressures include: economic breakdown, war or serious threat of war, the chaos of violence including terrorism, the radical redistribution of the wealth of the world, a shortage of food or other natural resources in the world. As these pressures mount people will feel more compelled to give up freedom so that they can have some measure of peace and order. And as the Christian worldview base evaporates from societies in the West, people will have no basis to argue or think otherwise. A modern example played out in Germany when the people cried out for order from the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic and gave Hitler dictatorial power in their country. Not long after as the Germans rose in power under this dictatorship, Chamberlain signed over Czechoslovakia eventually losing most of Europe in World War II. They were hoping for “peace in our time.” What is the proper response? Do we succumb to the breakdown of society and imposed order, or do we as Christians affirm the Christian base that provided the freedoms upon which our nation was originally founded? This can only happen if individual people discover that Christian base in their own lives and then act to influence the consensus. “Such Christians do not need to be a majority in order for this influence on society to occur.” Christians were not in the majority when they changed the entire Western civilization.