You Do Not Stand Against Evil,
You Stand For It
by Linda Bowles
are in a cultural war, and at the center of it is a
major offensive against Christianity. Anyone who does not believe this
is in denial. It is in-your-face obvious to those who read the paper,
listen to the radio, watch television, or go to the movies -- and think
about what messages are being delivered. The latest evidence of
Christian bashing is the wise-off comment by Minnesota Gov. Jesse "The
Mouth" Ventura in the current issue of Playboy. Flexing his monstrous
ego, Ventura blurted out this bit of bigotry: "Organized religion is a
sham and a crutch for weak-minded people. ... It tells them to go out
and stick their nose in other people's business."
He expressed an intolerant, divisive view that has become the prevailing view of America's self-professed intellectual elite and the left-wing radicals who control the Democrat Party -- as well as a strong majority of the mainstream liberal media.
Ventura attempts to conceal his anti-religious bigotry by declaring himself "neutral" on moral issues. But there is no such thing as being "neutral" on moral issues. There is an old saying that the only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing. To paraphrase another verity, if you do not stand against evil, you stand for it; you are either with Him, or you are against Him.
This is not an academic argument. It has to do with the survival of any government "of the people." It has to do with the relationship between religion-based morality and self-government.
Thomas Jefferson asked the question, "Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
John Adams put it this way: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
In Volume 1 of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that "... liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
Will and Ariel Durant, in their classic book, "The Lessons of History," asked themselves this question: "Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes and wars?"
This was their answer: "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."
If religious principles are so fundamentally a part of our heritage, why are they under such violent attack?
Two basic reasons underlie the attempt to separate America from its spiritual roots. First, the liberal goal of state socialism is incompatible with a citizenry who look to themselves and to God, rather than the state, for the satisfaction of their needs. Socialism requires that citizens do obeisance to the state as the Source from which all blessings flow. The supreme State can have no other God before it.
The second reason for outlawing religion derives from the lobbying of those who wish their sins declared virtues. They seek the validation of the law, in the futile belief that the legal right to be wrong makes wrong right.
The rationale of the anti-religious bigots in our society is that moral values such as are practiced by most mainstream religions, for example, Southern Baptists and Catholics, are, if you can believe it, un-Christian. This ill-begotten idea that Jesus wants us to forego distinctions between good and evil and right and wrong is so ludicrous as to be laughable.
While heathens are selling the idea that Christian love means stupidity, legal charlatans are using the First Amendment to protect public obscenity, pornography and flag-burning. They have no problem with anti-Christian hate speech framed as art and hung in the taxpayer-funded Brooklyn Museum, but are appalled at the idea of religious speech and expression, particularly in government schools, where children might be listening.
They are advocates of a separation of state and religion and a marriage of state and anti-religious smut.
The people are told by arrogant judges that moral discernment is equivalent to bigotry. They are advised that the Constitution does not grant people the right to establish the rules of civility and set the standards of decency by which they wish to live.
The Constitution no longer protects us. It has become, in the hands of unaccountable, power-corrupted judges, an instrument of our oppression.
It is time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.
|Originally Published on October 5, 1999|
|Copyright © 1998 Creators Syndicate, Inc.|
25 oct 99