"Christophobia" Rhetoric: Politics as a Religion

  Suzanne Fields writes in Turning Swords in Bombs …

What is Islam? Is the barbarity of September 11 rooted in the preaching of Muhammad? Or are the Islamists, the Islamic fascists, bent on the destruction of all who disagree with them, merely an aberration, mixing politics, religion and violence in an appeal to the lowest psychological denominators of suicide bombers? Historians, political scientists and psychologists are all over the place in supplying answers to these questions. … The historical forces at play are obvious. Bernard Lewis, a leading scholar of Islamist rage, places the fault line at the failure of the Muslim world to keep up with the West in the modern world. Diminishing Muslim power is both a humiliation and in Muslim minds a reversal of divine law, driving the losers to pick through the verses of the Koran to find justification for violence against winners. … Other scholars blame Western colonialism and imperialism, along with Judeo-Christian traditions, as contributing to the violent mentality of the extremists. These aberrations, they say, cannot be found in the teachings of Muhammad. … Islamists distorted this phenomenon for their own malevolent ends, fusing politics and religion into an all-purpose aggression for the “long-suffering victims” of Western imperial expansion. But there’s another view. “The Middle East’s experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarian imperial tradition,” writes Efraim Karsh, a British scholar, in “Islamic Imperialism,” a provocative and persuasive book. … He looks directly to the words of Muhammad, who in his farewell address to his followers ordered them to fight all men until they submit with the assertion that “There is no god but Allah.” … Muhammad proselytized with violence and used violence to consolidate conquest. Occupying territory was as important as converting or killing unbelievers. When the Jews of Medina resisted Muhammad in the 7^th century, he beheaded the men and sold their women and children into slavery. The prophet, who claimed to derive his power and authority from Allah, was not only head of the captured states but was the single religious authority. “This allowed the prophet to cloak political ambitions with a religious aura,” writes Mr. Karsh, a professor at the University of London, “and to channel Islam’s energies into its instrument of aggressive expansion.” The ultimate goal would be for the world either to embrace Islam or live under its domination. This goal was realized in part with the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, which allowed certain other religions to exist but not prosper. Christians who sought domination, on the other hand, never invoked the teachings of Christ to justify violence. … The interpretation of the Islamist mentality as rooted in Muhammad’s appeal to violence, and the Islamist determination for religious domination of the world, may not tell the whole story today, but it explains why, for millions of Muslims, the image of the warrior trumps the image of a prophet of peace – if, indeed, there ever was one.

In Ms. Fields article, the point is clear about Islam. However, her statement:

Christians who sought domination, on the other hand, never invoked the teachings of Christ to justify violence ...

...is misleading, and not entirely correct. Examples would be the series of Crusade expeditions, other than the first one. Violence was seen in the New World, in the name of the Church by Conquistadors and Jesuit monks and priests. Christians in the medieval period burned books -- and people. The Inquisition tortured confessions from people, and if that was not enough, they either hanged them or burned at the stake. Of course, like violence begets violence, there is no justification for what atrocities are committed in the name of religion and war being declared against any nation, entity, or individual that criticizes or does not support Islamic ideology.

While the West will deny that this is a holy war, a war specifically toward the people of Islam, but instead show they are at war with Islamo-fascists – those who have twisted and used the methods of Muhammad’s conquest as written in the Qur'an (Fields made the common mistake of spelling it like it was when the word was converted from Arabic to English, thus the spelling “Koran.”) and in the annals of Arabic history of the time -- the Islamo-fascist insists that it is indeed a "Holy War". When outrage is spoken of the murder and mayhem in the name of Islam is conducted, the Islamic religious leadership complains and then attack Christians and burn their churches in retribution upon hearing or seeing something they do not like or insults them; yet they constantly insult, and even threaten to exterminate those who are not of their faith, specifically Christians and Jews. How is it, one may ask, that it is possible to see such hypocrisy and recognized for what it is. But one must remember that children of Islam are taught these things at an early age and that is all they know – and this is the gist of the fear the Muslims have when considering the idea of being in contact with those of other faiths, specifically Christians and Jews.

And meanwhile, in American schools, they are teaching about Islam to the point of dressing like they do and so on – hypocrisy when Christians are not allowed to carry their Bibles to school, not allowing students to say prayers before eating a meal at the cafeteria, not allowed to mention the words "Jesus" or "God"; prevent public display of Christian icons, such as the nativity, et cetera, remove any monuments that displays the Ten Commandments and so on. In America, Christianity is the only religion that is treated this way, despite the fact that America is predominantly Christians. This is not freedom of religion by any means, but instead an outright display of prejudice and an attempt to subvert the rights of Christians to practice and display icons of their religion. The 1st Amendment guarantees it. Whether the Left realizes this or not -- this subversion of religion or a certain religion falls under the ideology of Marxism that led to Communism. The state becomes the religion and politics its doctrine.

And then there is the political left in America that increases the problems of the situation in regards to Muslims and the organized terrorist factions as Burt Prelutsky points out in his article The Religious Left.

If there is any among you who still thinks the mass media isn’t in the pocket of the Left, you merely have to compare how the Plame affair went from being the biggest scandal since Capt. Dreyfus to a non-story once the crime couldn’t be laid at the feet of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. … Liberals who are aware that I’m not religious sometimes take me to task for not criticizing the religious Right with the same zeal I bring to bear on what I refer to as the religious Left. … The prophets of the faith include Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. The fact is, I have nothing against Christian fundamentalists. Mainly, I disagree with them on the issue of abortion. … I dislike abortions as a method of birth control, but I think they’re a necessary evil. … I honestly don’t know how any of the high-ranking Democrats can bear to look at themselves in the mirror when they shave in the morning. But if I ever run into Hillary Rodham Clinton, I’ll be sure to ask her.

And I wonder how any American voter, who claims to be a Christian, can vote for anyone in that progressive Sociocrat hierarchy or follow the Democrat Party and its political platform without questioning their actions, and denouncing them for what they stand for. It is the Democrats who side with Leftists who are for partial birth abortion, yet decry that it is inhuman to administer lethal injections to a convicted murderer. It is these people, under the party’s platform, that wants the Ten Commandments to be removed from public view or any other Christian icon because it may offend another person of different faith or no faith in a deity or religion at all. Those are the people who side with those who insist that not even silent prayer be allowed in school cafeterias or anywhere on public school grounds; yet allow children to be indoctrinated into the rituals of being a Moslem, to include dressing as they do in the Middle East. It is the Democrats who side with those who use abortion as a means of secondary birth control, and instead of abstinence for youth, they hand them a box of prophylactics. Americans can have morals despite being of different religions or none at all. 

It has to do with the “Golden Rule” and other civic laws based upon laws of morality – “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal,” thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” and “thou shalt honor and obey thy parents, so your days may be long.” Except for the first commandment, the Ten Commandments are fundamental things to have in civic law -- it makes the rule of law versus the rule of the mob. I don’t even know if the judiciary system of America (or society for that matter) recognizes/enforces the law against adultery is the one of the Ten Commandments -- or even pay attention to the fact that it is part of the rule of law in America. Our judiciary seems to pick and choose as to what laws will be enforced -- our illegal immigration situation is a good example. There are 12 to 14 million illegal immigrants (not just from Mexico) that remain here because laws passed by legislators and supposed to be enacted by the executive branch are not enforced. So, what is the proposed solution to the problem? Give the law breakers amnesty, an act that occurred before and only increased the amount of illegal immigrants and, at the same time, compromised our national security and increased the flow of illegal drugs, et cetera. Laws, at least the fundamental ones, are there for a reason, just as the U.S. Constitution had basic articles. And it is the rule of law that we should follow, not the rule of men or those who bend and shape those laws to conform to political ideology or perception of a changing time. The law says that the American government will not establish a religion, in so far as government not making any law that says we must obey any doctrine of any religion; but the Left, the Democratic Party, has added words and organizations like ACLU haspolluted and corrupted what was meant to be into something they think will make America a utopia. The dream of a better America or improving it is something that may be acquired, but a utopia will never be found in this dimension. If you want to follow twisted ideology, dreams of an American-style socialist-based government – then let the DNC continue its march to its agenda. It would be far easier to clean up the GOP’s act than the DNC, at least externally – and both will get the message this election day if those who have held long tenure in Congress with politics as usual (both parties) find themselves suddenly back into the real world – away from our capitol and all of its corrupted splendor (at least for the chosen elite) because voters finally say, with the voice of their voting power – enough is enough. We want fresh ideas; we want to see those good ideas that some in the Senate and the House of Representatives worked so hard to pass and try to reform the system become reality. It cannot happen unless we, the American voter, remove those who are stopping or slowing down the wheels of progress and government reform. 
The Republicans (some, past and present) have been a disappointment, especially those who are following President Bush’s ideology (90% I disgreed - didn't keep his promises, like Obama), such as giving 12 to 14 million law breakers amnesty – calling it whatever term they choose to use. To put our nation into jeopardy at several levels, from national security to our sovereignty is unacceptable. We have seen what social experiments can do, like Social Security, where the money is not your retirement fund held in “trust” – but, instead, an account to dip into whenever times get rough. Unfortunately, there have been too many “rough” times. One administration falsely tells the American people that there is a “surplus”; and another tells us that dissolving the sovereignty of America as a single nation made up of united states and forming a North American Union with our neighboring sovereign states is beneficial. Beneficial to who? I can understand why the Mexican government has been for it. They have been crying that America has stolen property that belonged to them, but even their knowledge of history is failed – if anyone has such a claim it would be Spain, they were the first to arrive.

Kevin McCullough is a bit harsher on the subject and more theologically directed with mention of the idea of traditional marriage in his article Why Liberals Channel Lucifer …

Biblically literate people understand that before Satan fell, he shared an exalted place in close communion with God. But through his pride and lust for power he foolishly attempted to think himself equal to God. … I argue that these are the exact same tactics used by modern liberals. Where they disagree with the Almighty – they simply dismiss Him.

First, the being mentioned is an archangel and his name – Lucifer. Satan was a secondary nickname that became a name to represent the evilest of evil -- just a theological fact pointed out. But Kevin's argument is a rebuttal to the so-called "tolerance" of liberals, progressives and Sociocrats.

Another political subject that is considered a science to the Left is global warming. Debra Saunders has something to say about this in her article Inhofe, The Apostate …

Global warming is a religion, not science. That’s why acolytes in the media attack global-warming critics not with scientific arguments, but for their apostasy. Then they laud global-warming believers not for reducing greenhouse gases, but simply for believing global warming is a coming catastrophe caused by man. The important thing is to have faith in those who warn: The end is near.

Alan Sears in his article Madder Than Ever …

One of the more potent (and predictable) side effects of forcibly removing religion from public life, public conversation, and yes, public schools, is that society gradually loses touch with the religious dimensions of life. … And the things which unsettle us … often begin to make us angry. Perhaps that explains the increasingly open and unrelenting fury of the Left toward Christians, as rant after rant erupts in a variety of avenues … The savage soundbites on NBC’s new ‘Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,’ in which Aaron Sorkin’s characters like Christians to the KU Klux Klan and deride them as both wild-eyed doomsday-ers and ignorant bigots from inconsequential corners of the American landscape. The recent virulent Rosie O’Donnell outburst, as she explained to the audience of ‘The View’ why Christians are even more dangerous than Muslim terrorists. The increasingly aggressive efforts of university administrations to drive Christian students from campus, usually on the premise that Christians are “intolerant” of homosexual behavior and that religious activities are inherently divisive. The escalating effort to remove crosses erected on government property to memorialize the sacrifices of fallen servicemen and police officers – lest some atheist passer-by take offense. The inscrutable decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, which ruled that Christians can’t meet in a private room at a public library because they might start studying the Bible or singing hymns … and religion isn’t considered free speech, on public property. But if it’s one thing for the Left to demand that Christians check their faith at the door, it’s another to ask us to check our minds. … Madonna, who justified the climatic moment of her current “Confessions” tour, in which she hangs from a gigantic cross with a “crown of thorns” on her head. Sorkin’s comparison of Christians to Ku Klux Klan members. … The endless accusations of “intolerance” lodged against Christians. Mocked, censored, and persecuted, we pray, change the channel, write letters, stage boycotts, complain on Conservative radio, file lawsuits, vote. In other words, we utilize the full resources of a democratic society … while our opponents force-feed their political agenda with aggressive censorship and fiats invoked by judges more obsessed with their own leftist liturgy than the letter of the law. O’Donnell’s outburst. How long does she think an outspoken woman who publicly embraces lesbian behavior would last under the tolerance of Al Qaeda, whose idea of religious conversion is “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse?” The American secularist media. They dutifully shake their heads over the rising number of sex crimes and teen pregnancies – while promoting increasingly pornographic images on everything from daytime television to cable news programs. They warn of increasingly violent crime rates all over the country, between commercials for ever-more sadistic “entertainment” programs.  

...and the hypocrisy when it comes to being anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, when it clearly shows in the statistics that those states who allow their law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons under special permit have less violent crimes …

In their blind determination to eradicate God from our community, from our culture, even from our government, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State and all their Leftist kindred aren’t really accomplishing the demotion of the Divine – Who is, by definition, un-demote-able. They are bent, rather, on destroying themselves. The only question that remains as they head for their mad fall is whether they take our nation, and our children, with them.

In Mike Adams article, he writes about Legislating Morality, which addresses his students in a class at UNC-Wilmington, part of his job as professors, he says, “is to dispel certain myths you learn in your other classes, especially sociology. If you decide to question these myths in Sociology 101”, he tells his students, “… your professor is likely to assign you to sensitivity training sessions.”  

…During the 1990s, liberals stated that legislation designed to cut food stamps was “immoral.” But most liberals also adhere to the belief that you “can’t legislate morality.” How can a bill be “immoral” if it can’t be “moral”? … The First Amendment clearly prevents the federal government from establishing a national religion. Does it also forbid the federal government from establishing a national morality? Was the 13^th Amendment ban of slavery an example of Congress trying to “legislate morality”? If your answer is “yes,” is that sufficient grounds to reinstate slavery? … Have you ever read the 1802 letter from which the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was taken? Is there any truth to the assertion that the letter was written to a group of Baptists in Connecticut ensuring that their church would be protected from the government by a one way wall of protection? How did that letter produce the justification for keeping a high school girl from mentioning Jesus at her high school graduation? Is it true that Thomas Jefferson set up the University of Virginia – using state funds – with rules including a ban on swearing and an expectation that students would “attend religious services”? Given that Thomas Jefferson did not attend the constitutional convention, why is it that people often quote him when insisting that the “separation of church and state” is a “constitutional requirement”? Is it possible that many of these self-described liberals are unable to differentiate between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? How many states that ratified the First Amendment had official state churches? Is there any relationship between the ACLU’s love of communism and its hatred of religion? For the answers to all of these questions, you can simply read Legislating Morality, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Or you can come back to class on Friday to hear me lecture on the topic of “legislating majority.”

And last (but not least), in this lineup of Christian columnists speaking out and questioning the ideology of Leftist politics – Marvin Olasky, writes in his article Were Nazi Christians? Are Christians Fascists? …

Christophobia is marching through movie theaters and onto the pages of books. … The fear-mongers are not just at the publishing fringes. Kevin Phillips’ rant – “American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21^st Century” – hit the bestseller lists earlier this year. Nor is it surprising that the creators of these projects imagine crosses turning into swastikas, because they’re drawing on writers a generation ago who thought that Nazism grew out of Christianity – so why shouldn’t it happen again? That’s why it’s good, in this year of popular culture of paranoia, to have a scholarly book that shows how those who developed the Nazi religion “were decidedly anti-Christian because they saw Christianity as a Jewish phenomenon in the 1920s to the 1940s to be anti-Semitic meant being anti-Christian and vice versa.” … Nazi theologies praised “Aryan religion” with its ethic of power and complained that “The Pauline-Augustinian-Reformed teachings about original sin are insulting to the ethical and moral feeling of the Germanic race.” Nazi Poewe notes, “learned their anti-Semitism outside of the church, then hated the church because it would not affirm their anti-Semitism, and finally developed their outright rejection of Christianity.” … Hitler, like many of today’s Islamo-fascists, was out to kill all Jews, Christians, and leftists. And that’s why it’s particularly strange to see, in “American Theocracy” and other productions, the sense that George W. Bush and U.S. evangelicals are a fascist threat, rather than the defenders of liberty against those who would impose a new “final solution.”

Christophobia – finally there is a word to counter the Left’s sociocrat word Homophobia or Islamophobia. When a liberal-sociocrat disagrees with an issue or ideology, and they cannot find facts to back them up, they resort to either untrue or misleading character attacks or just label them with a phobia. 
Freedom of Religion is an important liberty; however, when a religion breeds and establishes violence, murder, and mayhem as their doctrine and threats for conversions -- the "freedom" to do so becomes null and void. If Aztecs and Mayans were alive today, would they be allowed to sacrifice humans in the name of freedom of religion?

BIBLIOTHECA