Rss

  • youtube

Helicopter government – Part I – A Nation of Wimps

Posted by :admin On : May 29, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Government, Socialism

Back in the late 1980s the term helicopter parenting came into vogue to describe a style of parenting in which overprotective parents discourage a child’s independence by being too involved with the child’s life. In other words, a helicopter parent hovers over a child like a helicopter, ready to swoop in at the first sign that their child may face a challenge or discomfort.[1] According to Dr. Robert Hudson, a clinical professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Center for Resilience at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, there are four ways helicopter parenting manifests itself: overprotecting, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. Each of these types of parenting has serious consequences for the child.[2]

A nation of wimps

Bad things happen to everyone in life, and children must learn through experience including bad experiences while growing up. Psychology Today’s Editor-at-Large Hara Estroff Marano described the consequences resulting from parents who overprotect their children from experiencing failure and discomfort: inability to adapt to the difficulties of life, psychologically fragile (depression and anxiety), risk-averse, loss of identity, loss of meaning and a sense of accomplishment, lack of self-control, and lack of perseverance. These consequences can last into adulthood. Quoting one child psychologist, “Kids need to feel badly sometimes. We learn through experience, and we learn through bad experiences. Through failure we learn to cope.” According to Marano, “Whether we want to or not, we are on our way to creating a nation of wimps.”[3] As these overprotected children move into adulthood, American government and its bureaucracies have willingly assumed the role of surrogate parents of this nation of wimps.

It appears that unhealthy consequences of helicopter parenting for children are strikingly similar to the pathologies resulting from a nanny-state government increasingly involved in its citizens’ lives and which we might also label helicopter governing by a helicopter government. Government involvement with the details and intricacies of the lives of American citizens has grown dramatically commencing with Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Judiciary’s exceptionally expansive re-interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause in the 1930s. This involvement was greatly exacerbated by the Great Society programs of the 1960s and continues under the socialistic policies of the current Obama administration.

Under modern judicial, legislative, and executive branch interpretations, the general welfare of American citizens has come to mean far more than those fiercely independent and self-reliant Founders ever imagined. In the twenty-first century, America’s helicopter government stands ready to swoop down and fix, mend, change, smooth-out, correct, adjust, or repair any problem, difficulty, or perceived injustice that may arise. No aspect of its citizens’ general welfare is too large or too small to escape our helicopter government’s attention and involvement, be it the size of our sugary soft drinks or the kind of cars we are permitted to drive.

Before we examine the consequences of a helicopter government, we must understand the driving forces behind it and how these forces have changed America over the last 75 years. America has changed because the worldview of much of the leadership of the institutions of American life and the organizations they represent have changed. A worldview is a person’s belief about things, an overall perspective or perception of reality or truth from which one sees, understands, and interprets the universe and humanity’s relation to it and that directs his or her decisions and actions.

The collective worldviews of a nation’s citizens becomes its central cultural vision, and in America there are two worldviews contending for dominance in its central cultural vision. One is the Christian worldview which reflects the central cultural vision of the colonial Americans, the Founders, and the nation for 150 years following its founding. The Christian worldview rests on the universals reflected in God’s creation and the biblical revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. Humanism is the competing worldview that contends that Nature is all there is and that man is a product of a long, developmentally progressive period of evolution. For humanists, there is no God or life after death, and all truth is negotiable and determined by the current needs of society.

The best way to contrast the two worldviews is to look at two fundamental differences that stand at the heart of the conflict. The first centers on the purpose for which man was created. For Christians, the fundamental purposes of life center on an eternal relationship with God and earthly relationships with his fellowman. For the humanist, the ultimate purpose is happiness through the exaltation of self. From these basic differences flow a whole myriad of conflicts which we call the culture wars.

The second major point of divergence relates to the nature of man. Christians view man as having been created by God but subsequently having a fallen nature because of his disobedience that resulted in a broken relationship with God. Consequently, man is in need of redemption. Humanists believe that man is basically good and therefore not fallen nor in need of redemption. Hence, humans are masters of their own destiny, and reason and science alone point the way to an ever-progressive improvement of mankind.

Because the humanistic worldview does not present a true picture of reality (truth) as it relates to the purpose and nature of man, the tenets of its faith are flawed and from this flawed perception of truth we see pathologies develop as humanism fails to adequately address the basic questions of life.

America’s helicopter government is the product of a humanistic worldview that has gained ascendency in America during the last seventy-five years. The required method of organizing society under a humanistic worldview is socialism. As the humanistic worldview has advanced, so has America’s tendency toward socialism of which a helicopter government is its heart and soul.

In this series of articles we shall examine the four types of helicopter governing (overprotecting, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming), the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “helicopter parenting,” Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/helicopter+parenting (accessed March 24, 2014).
[2] Jason Ashley Wright, “Nurturing in Excess,” Tulsa World, March 24, 2014, D1.
[3] Hara Estroff Marano, “A Nation of Wimps,” Psychology Today, November 1, 2004. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/nation-wimps (accessed March 31, 2014).

Would Jefferson label the modern Judiciary as the “Despotic Branch”?

Posted by :admin On : May 22, 2015
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

George Will is one of the brightest and most articulate columnists on the national scene (Washington Post Writers Group). I normally savor every one of his appearances on the opinion page. This is why I am disturbed by Will’s false and malicious criticism of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (“Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification”).[1] Will is a huge fan and student of baseball and occasionally writes a column on the subject. Using a baseball analogy, Will must know that his column’s pitches at Huckabee were not only far outside the strike zone but that they were intended as bean balls meant to injure and harm Huckabee. This disappoints because Will has not lowered himself to such levels in past columns that I have read.

Will claims to be “appalled” by Huckabee’s recent remarks that deal with the question of judicial error and overreach with regard to the Constitution, an issue that also concerns a great number of Americans. Will takes Huckabee to task for rejecting “judicial supremacy” and suggesting that a ruling by the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In doing so, Will incorrectly links Huckabee’s remarks with the pre-Civil War doctrine of nullification which arose in 1830 during Andrew Jackson’s presidency.

The doctrine of nullification evolved from resolutions initially adopted by the South Carolina legislature in December 1828 and which opposed certain tariffs imposed by the federal government. In opposition to President Jackson with regard to the tariffs, Vice President John Calhoun authored a lengthy essay on state government which supported the Southern position of state sovereignty and minority rights. According to the doctrine of nullification, individual states did not have to follow a federal law and in effect could “nullify” the law. By 1830, the nullification debate had evolved to the larger questions of origin and nature of the Constitution. Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster defended the federal position by “…attempting to show that the Constitution was not the result of a compact, but was established as a popular government with a distribution of powers binding upon the national government and the states.”[2]

It is misleading for Will to accuse Huckabee of crusading for nullification of federal laws at will because the Constitution was merely the product of a compact. Huckabee’s concern is with modern judicial efforts to create legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. What is interesting and lends authority to Huckabee’s position on interpreting the Constitution is Andrew Jackson’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the constitutionality of a re-charter of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. Although the Supreme Court viewed the legislation passed by Congress as constitutional, Jackson did not and vetoed the legislation. The bank charter debate became the major issue of the 1832 presidential campaign.[3] In defending his veto, Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[4]

In the first seven decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

Marbury v. Madison

In the last hours of the presidency of John Adams, he made several Federalist judicial appointments in the District of Columbia in an attempt to further load the bench with Federalist appointees. Under President Adams, John Marshall was both Adams’ Secretary of State and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As Secretary of State, it was Marshall’s duty to deliver President Adams’ legally executed appointments, but he failed to do so. When James Madison became Secretary of State under newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, the president refused to have the appointments delivered. The disappointed appointees sued, and in Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court at first ruled that the Court had no judicial authority over the case. Then with a surprisingly contradictory action, the Chief Justice ruled that President Jefferson should deliver the appointments. Jefferson and Madison ignored the ruling and received virtually no condemnation voiced by Congress, the Supreme Court, or the public. Jefferson called the Court’s attempt to interfere with the business of the Executive decision a “perversion of the law” by attempting to strike down the Judiciary Act of 1789 in which on two occasions the Supreme Court had found no objection or fault.[5]

Nineteen years later, Jefferson affirmed the general view of the Founders that any of the three branches could interpret the Constitution.

[E]ach of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.[6]

Jefferson specifically rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[7] [emphasis added]

Jefferson and the other Founders would be greatly alarmed with the modern view of the Judiciary that it may prescribe rules for the other branches of Government.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott was a Negro slave, a household servant for Dr. John Emerson who had taken Scott to various areas in the North where slavery was prohibited. Scott eventually sued for his liberty in Missouri courts and maintained that he was free because of his stays in a free state and a free territory. In March 1857, the Supreme Court ruled (Dred Scott v. Sanford) that Scott (and all other slaves) was not a citizen of the U.S. or the state of Missouri and therefore not entitled to sue in the federal courts. For Scott and all other slaves, the effect of the ruling reinforced the status quo of slavery and made it impossible for slaves to gain their freedom through the courts or legislation.[8] Effectively, the Supreme Court had declared that Congress could not outlaw slavery and that slaves were not citizens but property.

Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[9] [emphasis added]

Like Jefferson’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison sixty two years earlier, both Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery.[10]

Jefferson, writing to Abigail Adams in 1804, said of the Supreme Court, “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[11] [emphasis added] But this is what the Supreme Court has become in 2015 America. Thoughtful judicial interpretation of laws in light of the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. But through judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature in making laws, the courts have appropriated unto themselves a law-making role never intended by the Founders and breaches the coveted separation of powers.

Will is not only incorrect in his spurious charge that Huckabee was crusading for nullification, he crudely disparages Huckabee’s Christian faith because of his call for prayer for the Supreme Court justices considering the fate of same-sex marriage (See: 1 Timothy 2:1-2). He also belittles Huckabee’s well-founded concern that the nation is moving toward the criminalization of Christianity which is amply demonstrated by the growing trend of the judiciary and bureaucracy to punish Christians for practicing their faith.

In the age of the “living” Constitution, the Judiciary has made it pliable in order to accommodate the whims of a humanistic society unhooked from mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past. In Jefferson’s words such a Constitution becomes, “…a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Combining the words of Jefferson and Lincoln, such a Judiciary would become a “despotic branch” and “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] George Will, Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification,” Tulsa World, May 15, 2015, A-15.
[2] Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1953), pp.167-168.
[3] Ibid., p. 173.
[4] Ibid.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 275-176.
[6] Barton, p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Morris, pp. 221-222.
[9] Barton, p. 272.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Barton, pp. 271-272. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 27, to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804.

Why are democracies unraveling around the world?

Posted by :admin On : May 14, 2015
1

Category: Archives, Government, Worldview

There are few columnists with which I disagree more on almost all issues than E. J. Dionne (Washington Post Writers Group). In a recent column titled “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Dionne implies that many of the world’s democracies are dysfunctional and unraveling.[1] However, his conclusions as to “why” this is happening and the solutions offered are not only wrong but are oblivious to the real cause of societal dysfunction in democracies.

Dionne points to a 2013 survey in which “…63 percent of Americans said government should be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but 59 percent also believed government had grown bigger because it had become involved in things people should do for themselves.”[2] Dionne believes that the world’s democracies are beset by a peculiar set of contradictions. He states that there is a decline of trust in traditional political parties but also a rise in political partisanship. But the larger picture escapes Dionne as he attempts to gloss over big government’s systemic failures by blaming political parties that engage in divisive partisan politics. A second observation was that people want the government to reduce levels of economic insecurity and expand opportunity while at the same time they do not believe government has the ability to do so.[3] Here, Dionne fails to see that mistrust of government extends far beyond its perceived failure to provide economic security and opportunities as demanded. Rather, in the larger perspective, people have been conditioned to expect the government to accomplish the impossible task of providing an ever expanding array of wants, rights, and wishes while at the same time limiting government involvement in their lives.

How is it that America has arrived at this paradox after almost 250 years of democracy? There are two parts to the answer. One is loss of the concept of limited government. The other is the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom. We shall deal with the loss of the concept of limited government first.

Limited government

Traditional ideas of limited government were part of the American psyche even before the Founders designed the American system of governance. These ideas prevailed until the rise of the humanistic worldview in the early twentieth century and converged with the economic and societal upheavals caused by the Great Depression and World War II. Under the humanistic worldview there was a seismic change in how mankind and justice were viewed. Man was not fallen but basically good. Therefore, all injustice and inequality in society are the result of defective institutions which the government must correct.

Three generations after this convergence, many Americans now view government as primarily responsible for dealing with an ever expanding array of societal problems. Politicians became the power brokers for providing solutions to a host of newly found social and political demands. However, funding government and the growing list of wants, rights, and wishes of the populous has become a major hurdle because government cannot do everything for everybody. Samuelson called this “the politics of overpromise…the systematic and routine tendency of government to make more commitments than can reasonably be fulfilled.” For decades the irrationality of the politics of overpromise has been glossed over by a misplaced faith in an ever expanding economy that would provide all the income necessary to meet the growing list of demands.[4]

Government became the provider or guarantor of happiness as opposed to making possible the pursuit thereof. After decades of an ever increasing institutionalization of synthetic rights purported to be due to the great majority of the populous, progressive politicians and bureaucrats must find someone to pay for the costs associated with a benefactor government. Because government cannot do all things for a people, it is held in deep distrust.[5] To maintain governmental power in the face of dwindling resources, there is a steady progression towards socialism.

Dionne attributes much of this mistrust of government to the growth of special interest groups he claims have too much influence on government. He quotes one study by a political scientist who wrote of the rise of negative partisanship among the electorate, “…supporters of each party perceive supporters of the opposing party as very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics and fundamental values.” Dionne states that, “…our current form of partisanship leads us to dislike not only the other side’s politicians but even each other.[6]

Dionne cites Stanley Greenberg who says that this hostility among not only the politicians but the electorate as well is a result of special interest groups having too much hold on government.[7] But Samuelson correctly argues that the growth of special interest groups is merely a result of growth of government.

When government is limited, it can be more easily influenced through elections. Voters can get a sense of where there representatives stand on major issues, and legislators can judge their constituents’ general feelings. As government activities proliferate, this is harder for both voters and legislators.”[8]

In other words, big government begets special interest groups. For years liberal big-government politicians welcomed special interest groups. But now campaign finance reform is always popular with proponents of big government. Until the advent of the Internet, talk radio, and a proliferation of cable TV companies, the proponents of big government weren’t too concerned with campaign funding because by default the bully pulpit was monopolized by the big government-friendly news media, academia, government bureaucracies, big business, and the entertainment industry. But even with the loss of the liberal monopoly over the media to influence public opinion, they are happy to give up campaign funding and go back to the good old days. It is not that the liberal monopoly wants to eliminate special interest groups; it is that such legislation will dry up funds for conservative political action committees, limited-government candidates, and issue-oriented campaigns. Funds for conservatives to access new media outlets are dried up by so-called campaign finance reform, and this leaves the no-cost liberal media monopoly and their government funded emissaries and yes men to spread their big government orthodoxy.

Incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom through big government

The second part of our answer as to the paradox regarding the unraveling of democracy deals with the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom because of the impositions of big government.

Dionne ends his article with a remarkably revealing statement as to what he believes is the first task of politicians in democratic countries—the aggregating of sustainable majorities. He quotes Daniel T. Rodgers’ 2011 book Age of Fracture which proposes that, “…if the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s were a time of political and social ‘consolidation,’ the dominant tendency now is ‘disaggregation’ which is a big problem for self-government.”[9] If Dionne is correct, then our elected representatives are not to be primarily concerned about the opinions and wishes of the electorate but to merely aggregate sustainable majorities. It appears that much of the elected leadership has been following Dionne’s prescription since the 1960s. Could this be the cause of the electorates’ anger and mistrust of government which is “…undermining faith in the public endeavor and unraveling of old loyalties”?[10]

The conflict between big government and limited government as well as the frustrations and anger expressed by the electorate are merely a microcosm of a larger conflict of worldviews in America. On the one hand we have the biblical worldview upon which the nation was founded. The biblical worldviews of its citizens collectively became the central cultural vision of the nation and reigned supreme until the first part of the twentieth century. In a society built upon the biblical worldview, men join together and voluntarily limit their freedom. But the imposition of limits comes from a group of like-minded individuals whose central cultural vision reflects the biblical worldview of freedom (lack of coercion) resonates with the nature of man. By the mid twentieth century, those of the humanistic worldview had risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed (coercion) on a nation whose citizens still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the essence of the culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews.

To answer the “why” of Dionne’s question regarding democracy’s unraveling around the world we must look to John Adams, Founder and second president of the United States.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[11]

In other words, democracy cannot be sustained without a moral populace. Morality in government must flow upward from the morality of its citizens. By morality and religion Adams meant Christian morality. Without a moral citizenry, there is no hope for a sustained moral and just self-government. However, in Dionne’s world, morals are a matter of interpretation and decided by man and not God. Self-government flows downward from the humanist elite or, as C. S. Lewis called them, the “conditioners” of society which are more interested in aggregating sustainable majorities to maintain their power rather than representing the wishes of the people. But such a government eventually erodes into a totalitarian state and a loss of freedom so essential to man’s nature.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] E. J. Dionne, “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Tulsa World, May 2, 2015, A-16.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Robert Samuelson, The Good Life and Its Discontents, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1997), p. 143.
[5] Ibid., p. 188.
[6] Dionne, A-19.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Samuelson, p. 193.
[9] Dionne, A-19.
[10] Ibid.
[11] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: Fame Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 10-11.

Are Christianity and Islam morally equivalent? – Part IV

Posted by :admin On : May 8, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

Modern trashing of the Crusades, Christianity, and Western civilization

We began Part I with President Obama’s description of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) as a distorted and deviant form of Islam. But he immediately suggests a moral equivalency of Christianity with ISIL, slavery in America, and past racism in the South.[1] But the President’s denigration of Christianity and the Crusades are not a new phenomenon.

The historical explanations of how and why the first Crusade began have been perverted by historians, academia, liberal politicians, and others hostile to Christianity for three hundred years. Their new interpretation is much more sinister and contemptuous. This cynical view of the Crusades has been widely disseminated by the progressive education movement in America which wrested education from the influence of the church in the late 1800s. The progressive educational establishment is a bitter enemy of the biblical worldview and much of Western civilization in general. The tenets of progressive education stem from the Enlightenment and its humanistic influence. Therefore, the Crusades have become a convenient tit-for-tat when defending Islam and denigrating Christianity through claims of moral equivalency.

Typical of the charges against the Crusades are that they are the cause of modern Muslim bitterness and Islamic fury at their mistreatment by the Christian Crusaders. The Crusaders were motivated by lands, spoils, and power, not piety and safety of Christian pilgrims going to the Holy Land. Crusaders were barbarians that attacked, brutalized, and destroyed “the enlightened Muslim culture.” Even the New York Times compared the Crusades to Hitler’s atrocities. Others charge that the Crusades were “…an expression of Catholic bigotry and cruelty.” These recurrent themes flow from the halls of academia, media, liberal politicians, and an assortment of humanist intellectuals, and their stanzas have been condensed to a single chorus by Rodney Stark, “…during the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam.”[2]

Although time does not allow a point by point refutation of the charges against Christianity and the Crusades, the remainder of this article summarizes and overwhelmingly exposes the absurd claims of the cultural and moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam.

Comparison of the tenets of Christian and Islamic Faiths

When one compares the tenets of Islam with those of Christianity, the two religions are worlds apart in their treatment of humanity. Islam is a militant theocracy with a stated purpose of subduing the entire world under an Islamic caliphate. But Christians obedient to the Bible cannot compel conversion nor punish those who do not convert as do the faithful followers of Islam. Numerous verses in the Quran speak of the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims. Perhaps the most telling difference between the tenets of Christianity and Islam is their respective records of persecution. Forty-one of the top fifty countries with the worst records for persecution are headed by Muslim governments substantially ruled or heavily influenced by Islamic theocracies. When one compares the tenets and the resultant actions of the faithful followers of the Qur’an compared to the faithful followers of Christ and the Bible, the superiority of the Christian faith is irrefutable.

Geographical extent, duration, and severity of Muslim aggression as compared to the Crusades

Disregarding motive and morality, there is a remarkable disparity in time, extent, and severity of conquest and brutality when comparing Muslim and Crusader aggression. In Part III it was noted that the twelve centuries of consistent and concerted Muslim aggression over three continents far outweighs the sporadic Crusades that occurred over two centuries and confined to a relatively small area. The historical record reveals that Muslim aggression lasted a millennium longer than the Crusades. Widespread accounts from various lands invaded and conquered reveal a consistent pattern of Muslim conquest and brutality that was far more frequent and harsh than the misdeeds of various Crusaders during the five campaigns to free and protect the Holy Land.

Motives and morality of Christians and Muslims

As stated in Part III, we must first clarify that good motives do not in themselves excuse immoral actions, but an examination of motives (good and bad) can determine if moral equivalency exists between Christianity and Islam. Stated simply, the motives of Muslims faithful to the Quran are to ultimately subdue the entire world under an Islamic caliphate. But in accordance with Christ’s command, the principle motive of Christians is to share their relationship with God as they interact with humanity. Perhaps the best description of a Christian’s motivation is described in that well-known verse found in John’s gospel, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16. RSV] This message is based on freedom to choose Christianity as opposed to Muslim coercion to convert. From the perspective of morality and motive, the superiority of Christianity is undeniable when compared to Islam.

Cultural superiority of Christianity over Islam – Making a better world

Not only do history’s revisionists attempt to find moral equivalency between the Crusades and Muslim aggression, they also attempt to elevate Muslim culture in comparison with Western civilization. Arab claims of a sophisticated and superior culture are not the result of Arab development but are the results of what they learned from the cultures of their subject peoples, the dhimmi populations which included the Byzantium (Judeo-Christian-Greek cultures); Egyptian (the Copts and Nestorians), Persian (Zoroastrian), and Hindu. Most Arab science and learning was originated with and translated into Arabic by these assimilated dhimmis.[3]

Claims of a superior and advanced Muslim culture were enhanced by comparison with a supposed backwardness of Christendom as a result of the Dark Ages. Moderns often describe the Dark Ages as a time of intellectual darkness and barbarity during the five or six centuries following the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire during the fifth century.[4]

From the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to well-known historians of the twentieth century, Western intellectuals consistently describe life in Europe during this era as a time of “…barbarism, superstition, [and] ignorance…” (Voltaire 1694-1778). Rousseau (1712-1778) stated that, “Europe had lapsed into the barbarism of the earliest ages.” Historian William Manchester (1922-2004) labeled the period as an era “…of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness…The Dark Ages were stark in every dimension.”[5]

Only recently has the myth of the Dark Ages been recognized. This recognition was noted in the Fifteenth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1981). The “Dark Ages” are no longer recognized as “… a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity.” This period is now acknowledged as “…one of the great innovative eras of mankind” in which Europe’s technological advances placed it well ahead of the rest of the world.[6]

In spite of the humanists’ fiction of intellectual darkness and barbarity during Christendom’s first five centuries in Europe, the influence of those Christian refugees from fallen Rome would ultimately influence and change the world as no other people ever had. But this story is little known or acknowledged in the midst of a hostile humanistic and secular culture that has ascended within America over the last three generations. We are indebted to Alvin Schmidt for giving us a definitive and unapologetic understanding of the unparalleled importance of Christianity in the history of the world. The following is merely a brief mention of the major themes outlined in Paul Maier’s Foreword to Professor Schmidt’s book, How Christianity Changed the World.

…many of our [America’s] institutions and values reflect a Christian origin.

Not only countless individual lives but civilization itself was transformed by Jesus Christ. In the ancient world, his teaching elevated brutish standards of morality, halted infanticide, enhanced human life, emancipated women, abolished slavery, inspired charities and relief organizations, created hospitals, established orphanages, and founded schools.

In the modern era, Christian teaching, properly expressed, advanced science, instilled concepts of political and social and economic freedom, fostered justice, and provided the greatest single source of inspiration for the magnificent achievements in art, architecture, music, and literature…

No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done.[7]

_____

The fiction of moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam has been utterly demolished by the facts as shown in these four articles. However, Christians and others who revere truth must understand that such attempts to find moral equivalency by President Obama and others is but one small battle in the much larger war of ideas and worldviews occurring between humanism and Christianity in America. It is in this battle that Christians must continually be engaged and vigilant for its outcome will determine if we, our children, and our grandchildren will live in freedom or slavery.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] President Barak Obama, “Remarks of the President at the National Prayer Breakfast,” The White House – Office of the Press Secretary, February 1, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast (accessed March 30, 2015).
[2] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), p. 8.
[3] Ibid., pp. 56-57.
[4] Ibid., p. 65.
[5] Ibid., pp. 65-66.
[6] Ibid., P. 66
[7] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001, 2004), pp. 8-9.

Are Christianity and Islam morally equivalent? – Part III

Posted by :admin On : May 1, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

Muslim conquests and demise of the Islamic empire

In Part I the origins and explosive growth of the Islamic empire in the seventh and eighth centuries were described. Muslim domination of its distant empires waxed and waned over the course of its twelve centuries of war on the world. In 1672, the forces of the Muslim caliph Mu-Awiyah (previously mentioned in Part II) ruling from his capital in Damascus decided to attack Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire (today known as Istanbul). Sailing from the Syrian coast, Muslim ships entered the Dardanelles and moved north through the narrow strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Marmara Sea. At the north end of the Dardanelles lay Constantinople, gateway to the Balkans from which a Muslim victory would have allowed the invaders to attack all of Europe. The defenders of Constantinople easily defeated the Muslims who were forced to cede recently conquered islands in the Aegean and pay tribute. In one of the world’s most consequential battles, all of Europe was saved from Muslim domination. This was the first major defeat of Muslim forces. Soon the Muslim hold on Spain began to ebb, and they were driven from Sicily and Southern Italy.[1] True to their mission of world domination, Muslim conquerors driven out in one area would regroup, conquer, and subjugate other lands and occasionally reconquer lands once held but lost.

For a thousand years Muslims had conquered and subjugated non-Muslims on much of three continents stretching from Spain to portions of India. Their military victories and success in eventual subjugation and establishment of Muslim cultures reinforced their unwavering belief in and allegiance to Islam. The Muslim world’s arrogant confidence rested on the power of the sword, but the sword was also expertly wielded by a short-in-stature infidel from the heart of Europe. In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte struck a blow at the center of the Muslim world that eventually led to its historic collapse. The little French dictator easily conquered Egypt which quickly led to the defeat and colonization of much of the remainder of the Muslim empire by a number of European powers.[2]

Over the centuries, it was Muslim power that dictated what was to be considered right. But when Muslim power failed in the early nineteenth century, they began to imitate many Western ideas including politics, government, customs, outward appearance, and dress. Reeling from the catastrophic collapse of its empire, Muslims began to question their fidelity to the Qur’an and Sharia law. All things Muslim began to appear outdated relics of another age, and many countries such as Turkey began distancing themselves from their Muslim past. According to noted author and journalist Raymond Ibrahim, the Westernization of many countries in the former Muslim empire introduced what he called the “Christian Golden Age” during the colonial and post-colonial years of 1850-1950. Greater freedoms and reduced oppression by the Muslim majority resulted from the direct liberation and protection of Christians by the now dominate European overlords. More importantly, Ibrahim attributes the diminished subjugation and oppression of Christians to a growing Muslim rejection of their former Islamic identities, mentality, and ways of life.[3]

The Crusades

Provoked by four centuries of Muslim wars to conquer and colonize the West, the Crusades were Christian Europe’s response to Muslim plunder, rape, murder, and brutalization from one end of the known world to the other to accomplish their stated goal of world domination under an Islamic caliphate. The Crusades were a series of campaigns that occurred between 1095 and 1291 and intended to end Islam’s brutal control of the Holy Land. At the time of the first campaign, much of what once were Christian territories had been under Muslim domination for four hundred years: the Middle East, Egypt, all of North Africa, Spain, southern Italy, and the major islands of the Mediterranean.[4]

The first Crusade was prompted by a plea for help from Byzantium emperor Alexius Comnenus to Pope Urban II. The letter requested that Europe’s Roman Christians send troops to aid their Eastern Orthodox brethren in repelling the Seljak Turks (recent converts to Islam) that threatened Constantinople. The letter also described the ghastly tortures, rapes, and murders of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and desecration and destruction of Christian churches and Holy sites. Although there were many disagreements on lifestyle and cultural heritage that separated the two branches of Christianity, they stood on common ground in their opposition to the marauding Muslim aggressors.[5]

On a day in late November of 1095, Pope Urban mounted a platform in a meadow outside the city of Clermont, France, to present the Byzantium emperor’s request for assistance. The Pope gazed across the immense crowd that spread in all directions. With a powerful and expressive voice he began describing the conditions being experienced by their fellow believers at Constantinople and the persecutions of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The crowd was stirred by the Pope’s passionate words, and plans were made to set out the following year to avenge Muslim wrongs and reclaim the Holy Land.[6]

In the exuberance and excitement of the moment, many in the crowd may not have understood the difficulties and hardships that lay ahead. But many of the nobles and knights present that day were not foolish or naïve for a number had made pilgrimages to the Holy Land or had close relatives or associates that had made the journey. They knew of the difficulties, cost, perils, hardships, and bloody battles that such a venture would entail in defeating the ferocious and determined Muslim foe.[7]

The Crusades were led by heads of families at immense personal cost with little hope or expectation of material reward. For the most part, the kingdoms established and maintained by the Crusaders for two hundred years did not produce material gain. This is confirmed by the fact that the colonies required large subsidies from the Crusaders’ homelands in Europe.[8]

How can one find moral equivalency between twelve centuries of Muslim conquest and domination with the five campaigns of the Crusaders? One cannot. It is more correct to say the heinousness of twelve centuries of consistent and concerted Muslim aggression over three continents far outweighs the sporadic Crusades over two centuries and which were confined to a relatively small area. This comparison is accurate and very illuminating but still seems unsatisfactory because it fails to speak to morality.

We must first clarify that good motives do not in themselves excuse immoral actions, but an examination of motives (good and bad) can determine if moral equivalency exists. Put another way, those with bad behavior that seek moral objectives are not morally equivalent to those with bad behavior that seek self-serving objectives. Therefore, to determine moral equivalency, we must look to the motives of the Muslims and Crusaders. What were their central motives? What drove their aggression?

As with all military conflicts between peoples, the motivations for war are not all the same. Many wars are fought to gain lands, booty, power, and forced conversions. This was the undeniable motive of Muslims which rested on a militant theocracy bent on world domination. At the other end of the spectrum, motives for war may include fighting to defend one’s homeland, to attain freedom, to advance a righteous cause (e.g., end slavery and suffering), or to achieve a host of other noble objectives that may still contain a degree of selflessness. It is only in examining motives for going to war that we can comparatively judge the morality of the combatants. The execution and events of war itself must be judged separately from the motives for going to war. Even when the motives for going to war are known, the acts of war itself may often cloud those motives in retrospect. Over the centuries the true motives of the Crusaders appear to have often become clouded in in the minds of modern historians.

It is in the failures of the Crusaders’ actions, often unfairly judged by modern standards, as opposed to a right understanding the principle motives driving the Crusades that has caused widespread denigration of Christianity and Western civilization over the last three hundred years. The Crusades began as a noble and holy mission, and many of the knights leading the expeditions viewed their endeavor as such. Their goal was to liberate the Holy Land and end the suffering and death being inflicted upon their fellow Christians. The Crusaders’ actions frequently fell short of their higher purposes for going to war. In spite of these shortcomings and failures, the details of history present a compelling confirmation of the worthy motivations of most Crusaders.[9]

In Part IV, the efforts of those that use the Crusades to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam will be exposed as falsehoods aimed at denigrating Christianity and Western civilization. More importantly, we shall present the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam through a comparison of the contributions of each for the betterment of the world.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), p. 36-37.
[2] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again-Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), p. 10.
[3] Ibid., p. 10-13.
[4] Stark, p. 9.
[5] Ibid., pp. 2-4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 8.
[8] Ibid., p. 8.
[9] Ibid., pp. 117-118.