I often wonder why the Left takes such a hard-line against God as a concept. Often the “separation of church and state” line is used to justify the most vitriolic attacks on public displays of faith. Everything from Christmas trees to post-game prayer are under attack. But that argument does not hold water. There is no such thing as the “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The language simply does not exist. There is a “no establishment clause,” meaning the country cannot establish an official religion (e.g., Anglicanism in England). However, there is no clause that requires an outright ban on a nondenominational recognition of a higher power who, for lack of a better term, is known as God.
Nor for that matter does the no establishment clause ban the recognition of cultural contributions by a community to the National identity. The Ten Commandments, for instance, are culturally significant to the progression of Western Law, not just faith. It is weird, therefore, that the Left would have such an oddly perverse and severe reaction to their display of the Ten Commandments on court grounds, especially since the courts were built on Judaeo-Christian concepts of law and Christian concepts of penance (i.e., the origin of the term penitentiary).
So why does God offend the Left so much? The answer is simple. God gets in the way of totalitarianism.
In order to establish a collectivist utopia, one in which an elite few dominate the masses in a statist regime, God must be killed in His entirety. But not just any God.
The Judaeo-Christian manifestation of God MUST Die!
Understanding the difference between my God, your God, and their God (or gods)
Let me be clear, whereas Christianity is inconsistent with totalitarianism, not all faiths that believe in God or gods are antithetical to statism. Certain faiths can be used to achieve statist objectives. Hierarchical faiths which require the submission of the individual to a leader as a function of God’s will can be used effectively in controlling the masses. So, too, are those faiths which justify the forced conversion or subordination of the unfaithful.
Hinduism, with its rigid caste system, is an excellent tool for the suppression of the masses. The fact that one’s life circumstances are the result of a previous life’s transgressions, makes it hard to justify any attempt toward upward social mobility. If you are born a poor child in Calcutta, for instance, your rank as an “untouchable” (lowest of the low) or a “Sudra” (peasant, commoner), is justly deserved. Not only will the community accept this status, so will the suffering individual. Consequently, Hinduism can be used by the state to achieve its objectives. Statist elites can justify their power over the lower status of the masses by the very fact that their lower status is “deserved.”
Buddhism, an offshoot of Hinduism, effectively teaches a different pathway toward the same static conclusion. Buddhists believe that enlightenment is found in the willing shed of all material items. Thus, the individual that attempts to get to the next plane of existence does not take measures to materially or socially better his or her status. They accept their current status and work within its confines to understand its lessons for spiritual improvement. Yet again, this is a faith well designed for mass population control since the adherents will not attempt to overthrow an oppressor.
Islamitarians… the difference between the Muslim descriptor of God and the Judeo-Christian view
Islam is especially well suited for totalitarianism. However, before exploring Islam’s differences with Judaism or Christianity in the political sense, it is important to explore their differences in the religious sense. Contrary to popular belief, Islam is not grounded in the same monotheistic traditions of Judaism.
Islam is often considered an Abrahamic faith. Muslims consider their founder as Abraham, the same Abraham who established a covenant with God and established the Jewish people. However, the Quran (which I have read) veers off wildly from events as described by the Jews. Muslims will argue that the diversion is the result of the faith’s parallel trajectory which continued to flourish within that same covenant at the point of Ismail’s departure. I, as do many Jews and Christians, disagree.
The point of this exploration into God and the Left, however, is not to argue whether Muslims are right or wrong about the establishment of their faith. The fact is, they came to a far different philosophical (not necessarily theological) conclusion than Christianity or Judaism. Islam has a different governing and legal philosophy than the two.
At the root of Islam is a need to convert. Neither Christianity nor Judaism fits this pattern. Although both faiths have been used to justify impressed conversion, the act itself is not theologically grounded in the words of any prophet. I will get into that distinction in a moment.
In Islam, however, the treatment of the nonbeliever is ingrained in Allah’s words by the Prophet Mohammed. The nonbelievers are offered choices that range from compassionate second class citizenry to death. In this regard, Islam is theologically inconsistent with choice, a necessity in a working republic and/or a democracy.
In either political environment, the active participation of choice regarding one’s leaders or governing decisions through a vote is mandatory for effective political functioning. Choice is not a theologically Islamic value. Rather, subordination to a higher power, Allah, followed by an acceptance of a ruling class as chosen by Allah is preferential. This is why strictly controlled Constitutional Monarchies and/or Absolute Monarchies thrive in the Middle East; totalitarian regimes thrive in North Africa and Central Asia. Islam is a theological breeding ground for top-down governance.
Thus, I choose to make a new term for these governing bodies: Islamitarians. These are totalitarian regimes grounded in Islam.
Islam’s full commitment to subordination, both for the self and the individual that is conquered, perfectly conforms with the statist ideal.
Consequently, I have been far too simplistic in my criticism of the media as it pertains to its soft approach toward Islam. I felt that the reason Hollywood and the media avoid criticizing Islam is largely due to its pathetically weak, bully identity. Hollywood elites pick on Christians because they know Christians will not kill them; Muslims will decapitate them in a heartbeat. Their extreme fear of angering Muslims is evident. A great example of the extraordinary terror that the media feels toward Muslims can be found in the treatment of the popular and controversial cartoon South Park. In the show, Jesus Christ was a constant figure of ridicule. By contrast, when the show’s creators depicted Mohammed, the television channel took extreme means to protect itself by censoring all images and references to Mohammed. Why? Cowardice.
However, there is another explanation for the Hollywood Left’s aversion to angering Muslims. Islam is consistent with Leftist ideology. Not the basics of the faith, but the theological requirement to submit and subordinate.
Islam considers homosexuality a crime punishable by death. This is a punishment still enacted in most Islamic countries. The relegation of women to a subservient status is not consistent with the ideals of the political Left. But the Left believes these are functions of a faith which has not yet matured. Modernity, the Left believes, can cure Islam of its rigid cultural conservatism. The state-down, hierarchical and statist underpinnings of Islam, however, are extremely attractive to the political Left.
Thus, Leftist spokespeople, such as Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, or Bruce Springsteen, will often ignore the inhumane treatment of citizens within an Islamic state because the overarching theological structure complements statism. They excuse the torture because Islamist ideology complements collectivism in the Platonic sense of the “philosopher king” as the greatest form of governance.
Consequently, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and many other faiths theologically complement a top-down political structure which socialism and statism require. They can be co-opted to assist in the subordination of the masses. If you cannot convert Christians to these Eastern faiths, then the Left hopes to take you to another ideological destination: atheism.
No God is better than Your God
Atheism is a belief in no God – period. The merits or origins of atheism are not in question for the sake of this piece. I will tackle that at another time. However, atheism is a political wild card gone Left.
On the one hand, atheists should believe so much in the individual’s primacy that statism should not resonate with atheist voters. After all, in the absence of God, the individual should therefore be the arbiter of one’s future through his or her own works. No one, or for that matter no thing, such as Government, should interfere with the atheist’s ability to achieve. Thus, Libertarianism should dominate the atheist vote writ large. In the absence of a viable Libertarian Party, the Republican Party’s greater emphasis on personal responsibility should resonate.
That has not happened.
Atheists have largely embraced statist political ideologies of the Left ranging from the American Democrat Party to Communism. This is due to the overall lack of political exploration by avowed atheists coupled with the political Right’s emphasis on conservative social norms grounded in God, Godliness, and/or Faith. You can thank intellectual laziness and an emotional attachment for this result.
Some atheists believe that atheism and socialism are the culmination of human evolution. The two ideologies are the culmination of mankind transcending the desires of material and emotional comforts, a revelation that only a select few elites are capable of achieving. These individuals form the core of future statist elites. They are also wrong. Simply put, atheists that adhere to this supreme enlightenment theory ignore the true atheist ideals as explored by early Nihilists.
Philosophical explorations into atheism, such as those conducted by Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, believe that some function of natural and codified law ensures mankind’s morality, not God or a prescribed religious faith. There is a natural law, as such, embedded in an acceptance of the biological not spiritual limitations of the individual. Thus, true atheists can never embrace the political Left, because collectivism’s goal is to flatten outcomes, suppressing the natural abilities of some to ensure fairer outcomes for all.
To be fair, most of those who claim to be atheists rarely take the intellectual leap necessary to explore the very roots of this aspect of their philosophical adherence to a life devoid of God. As such, they do not realize how contradictory the atheist ethos is to collectivism. In this vacuum of intellectual exploration, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat, even though Democrats do not correspond to their purported belief in the natural ability of the self to maximize a human’s value through his or her own merits.
In large part, the reason for the Leftist swing of atheists is more simplistic: atheists find the conservative social positions of the political Right uncool. Thus, whereas many atheists might typically agree with Republican political positions on the economy and/or foreign policy, they find social values grounded in Christianity repellent. The few remaining atheists that vote Libertarian or Republican, therefore, are far too inconsequential to offset their Left voting counterparts.
This is probably the most useful group to any Leftist movement. They are highly influenced by popular culture, to include pseudo intellectual endeavors and academic explorations in their many manifestations. They will ignore self-interested policy exploration because an emotional response to social conservatism makes them disregard consideration of any other, self-serving message from a messenger whom they loathe.
For example, if Rush Limbaugh were to provide an articulate and well-reasoned explanation for why an atheist should embrace the economic policies of the Republican Party, the atheist is highly unlikely to hear the merits of the argument and weigh it accordingly because he or she is only capable of hearing Limbaugh’s earlier arguments on abortion. Their own ideological proclivities act as an impediment to considering any other thought. This is a personal handicap.
Consequently, they are closed minded while considering themselves open-minded, hearing only those items that reinforce their philosophical disposition without exploring policy. These are, therefore, the most useful fools of the Left. They will vote themselves into oblivion and never know it.
I realize that there are other faiths and philosophies out there, such as Confucianism and Shintoism, but this is not a piece specifically on faith. This is a piece on the Left’s ability to use faith or need to destroy it. Thus, having covered the world’s primary faiths and philosophies, we now find ourselves with the smallest primary faith, Judaism, and the largest primary faith, Christianity.
Both are extreme enemies of Leftist ideology for very different reasons.
Judaism as an “enemy of the state”
It is important to reexamine the goals of the political Left to understand why Jews are a threat to the Left. The Left espouses collectivism as an ideal that will lead to fairer or equal outcomes. It requires the compelled assumption of rights and materials to succeed. By taking those rights, the Left can succeed in taking materials. If you suppress Free Speech either directly (imposing legal limitations) or tacitly (making certain unpopular speech socially unacceptable) you limit the ability of the citizen to complain when a seizure of resources begins… suppress Free Press, you limit the ability to inform… suppress Gun Rights, you limit the ability to fight back… suppress Freedom of Religion, you limit the moral grounds upon which individuals may revolt.
The seizure of materials, by the way, need not be done with armed men kicking down your doors. It will begin subtly. Taxes, especially income taxes, begins the process of collective redistribution of resources from those who have to those who do not have… until all have none.
Collectivism can only truly succeed if the state becomes all powerful. Statism and collectivism thus go hand in hand. The state cannot become all powerful while individuals own the means to repel the state and hold onto their private property – whether it be money, a home, or a car. Collectivism cannot compel individuals to surrender their materials without a powerful state capable of enforcing submission. The Left requires both.
Judaism is especially problematic as a faith for the Left because it disrupts statism. It always has. Leftist ideologies, like the Nazis, the Communists, and even modern Leftist political parties in Europe, sought or seek the elimination of the Jews. Why?
The Jewish faith forms an independent community within the state that threatens the collectivist goals of a Left that seeks to eradicate independence in an effort to establish uniformity.
In other words, Jews by their very nature, are impossible to corral into the whole because they will always identify as something other than the established national identity. They become an independent state within the state. That is problematic because the Left needs to control ALL functions of the state in order to succeed for the collective good.
For example, the National Socialist Worker’s Party (NAZIs), as a Leftist ideology, sought to centralize all functions of government, commerce, and national identity. Jews, with their own national identity grounded in faith and community, acted as a stumbling block to that collectivist goal. They and their God needed to be eradicated.
The Soviets, especially under Stalin, felt the same way.
There is no such thing as a Jew who does not have some understanding of his or her unique cultural and religious differences. This is a function of thousands of years of oppression and/or suppression. Consequently, if you are Hitler trying to establish a Nationalist German identity, having a subset exist within your collectivist utopian vision does not work. You are either German or you are not… there can be no such thing as a German-Jew.
In their inability to shed their Jewish identity can Jews and their God ever be co-opted for statist goals? Short answer: No… at least not their God.
Jews do not see things that way because God, in the Judaic sense, does not allow it. They are the “Chosen People.” They are the keepers of a Covenant established by Abraham with the one true God. Thus, the Jewish community will always be a distinct community within the National whole.
The Old Testament is very particular about the definition of Judaism. There are the Chosen and the un-Chosen. In this regard, Judaism has trouble converting non-Jews, because the community tends to grow from within. In fact, the Torah (Deuteronomy 7:3) explicitly forbids intermarriage and although intermarriage occurs in the modern world, and even has Biblical support for non-Jewish marriage (e.g., Ruth) the offspring never shed their Jewish identity. This is especially true if the mother is Jewish.
Reinforcing this separatist identity, the Bible records stories of the Israelites killing non-believers by the grace of God. Notice, unlike Islam, whereby forced conversion is an option in the Quran and the Hadiths, the Old Testament offers no such outlet. In fact, co-option of non-Jews into the overall community is frowned upon. One of the reasons you do not meet too many Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites or Jebusites today is due to God’s command.
It is the separate identity rooted in God that makes collectivizing and co-opting Jews the main challenge to the goals of any statist regime. As long as Jews can help one another, as commanded by God, they cannot be truly obliterated or fully suppressed within the collective. Therefore, it is important not to kill the Jew, but to kill the God that commands the Jews to accept their cultural and spiritual uniqueness.
Oddly, Jews vote overwhelmingly Left by almost two-to-one. This is interesting because on one level, the Judaic communal identity seems to ideologically support collectivism. But there is one missing piece: it supports collectivism within the Jewish communal whole… God’s people growing together. In other words, collectivism is OK, as long as everyone is Jewish. That will never happen anywhere outside of Israel, and even that state is far too multi-cultural to make a Grand Kibbutz possible.
Thus, to co-opt Jews and get them to embrace a cultural disposition toward external collectivism (i.e., outside of the Jewish community), the Left must destroy any vestige of Judaism as defined by faith. Killing God is important. The Jewish commitment to a religious identity allows the Jewish voter to embrace a collectivist approach by which a covenant with the State is more important than a covenant with God. This is the ideological trajectory of someone like Leon Trotsky, a Jew turned atheist and communist.
Judaism must first be relegated to a cultural identity with traditions… followed by the removal of religious requisites in support of that identity… followed by a malleable cultural definition of Jewish… followed by Jewish in the cultural sense only. Judaism as a religious identity dies. Jewish-Americans become no different than other ethno-divisions, like Irish-American or Italian-American.
Do you think this is impossible? Consider how many Jews you know that eat pork in violation of their own religious laws or eat on Yom Kippur, but still call themselves Jewish. It is already happening. Soon, Judaism will not be killed by Nazis or Communists; Judaism will be killed by Jews as they devalue their own relationship with God… and then God Himself.
But the real problem are Christians… especially Evangelicals
Christians, however, are by far the greatest enemy of the Left. That is because the theological underpinnings of Christianity are heavily grounded in individualism. This, of course, depends on which variant of Christianity I am describing.
Tackling the Catholics first
Catholics should be uniquely geared toward hierarchical and statist ideologies. After all, the oldest statist institution in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. It is run by a top-down, patriarchal oligarchy that votes for an infallible Pope, distributes Cardinals to ensure the uniformity of the religious message of Rome, and then governs the masses of its adherents through such uniformity. That uniformity broke slightly with Vatican II, but the Catholic faith as a whole still places a great deal of emphasis on top-down hierarchical control.
Naturally, Catholics, the largest single Christian denomination in the United States, did emerge as a Democrat stronghold. But that has changed recently, almost for the opposite reason that atheists have embraced the Left. Social conservatism resonates with many traditional Catholics, even when the economic message of Republicans or the right does not square with their personal proclivities.
But there is another problem with Catholics for statists: like Jews, they have a theological community that splits their allegiance between two communities, the country and God. In this case, God is manifested in the Pope. Thus, whereas the Left’s attempt to co-opt Jews has to be done through a devaluation of their religious relationship with God, Catholics offer a different challenge. The Left has to combat or co-opt a religious leader that can order his faithful to ignore overtures. This requires the statist to either attack the Catholic Church directly or co-opt the Pope.
Mussolini effectively achieved the latter in the 1930s with Pope Pius XI when the two allied each other to the same political goals. After the death of Pius XI, the successor Pope, Pius XII, established a neutrality pact with Nazi Germany for the sake of survival in an environment of his own predecessor’s making. Either way, co-option and the dismantlement of political Catholicism was important for both statist leaders.
Since forceful compulsion of a Pope is unlikely in today’s environment, and highly unlikely to engender sympathy for a modern statist leader, the only other option for Papal co-option is to do so ideologically while dismantling the political grip of Catholicism. If you can find a Pope that shares collectivist/socialist sympathies while eroding the religious grip of Catholicism within the community as a whole, the Pope can be a very effective ally to the collectivist and statist agenda of the Left.
Now, if only someone can find a pope to denounce capitalism… hmmmmmm…????
Consequently, Catholics will experience serious tremors within their own community not much different than the Jewish community. Catholic-Americans will either begin to move toward a more secular identity, convert to more conservative Christian faiths, or embrace a Leftist Pope’s ideological agenda and the policies that come with it. Either way, Catholicism as we knew it only twenty-five years ago will not exist in the United States for much longer and the Left will cheer the change.
The shift will effectively erode the power of a potentially large bloc of voters to counter collectivism and statism from within the state itself. Catholics will either willingly embrace the end of God knowingly (secularization) or unwittingly (through policies that erode God as a complement to a National identity with Papal blessing). Either way, the mission to eliminate political-Catholicism as a Right leaning identity (begun with the Reagan-Pope John Paul II alliance) is in full swing.
But what about those pesky Evangelicals? No matter how hard anyone tries, Evangelicals remain a strong counter to the collectivist attempts to establish a statist regime. Why?
Because Evangelicals are true believers in the one thing that makes Christianity a natural enemy of collectivism and statism: they embrace the individual more than any other theological precept.
Evangelicals, within the Judaeo-Christian trajectory of faith, are the only group that represents a relationship with God as one that is entirely predicated on choice. Jews are born Jewish and considered Jewish by the Jewish community – whether they like it or not. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Liberal Protestant denominations of Christianity all have an involuntary mechanism for Church membership – infant baptism. Evangelicals have no such involuntary membership. To be baptized as an Evangelical, someone has to make a conscious choice to accept Jesus Christ as his or her Savior. This demands a personal exploration through the Gospels to come to a conclusion as to the need for Christ in one’s life.
Someone cannot be an Evangelical on your behalf. You cannot be born an Evangelical. You, personally and conscientiously, have to become an Evangelical.
As long as Evangelism remains an independent exploration of faith, it will be enemy number one of the Left.
It does not matter that most Evangelicals, while social conservatives, weigh a myriad of other policies higher when considering a candidate. That is not the point. While true, Leftists may find Evangelical policy positions on issues like gay-marriage disdainful, it is their other beliefs that solicit the most hatred and vitriol.
The absolute Right to Bear Arms, overwhelmingly favored by Evangelicals, is scorned by the Left. Whereas the Left sees this position as unreasonable, Evangelicals see the Right to Bear Arms through its original Constitutional lens: the ability to fight against an oppressive state, should one ever emerge.
The Left aims to BE the oppressive state to force you, the citizen, to accept equality of means.
The fight against a national identification system… the fight to maintain state’s rights… the fight to protect the absolute Freedom of Religion and Speech… all of those fights are fights within which Evangelicals form the vanguard of protecting individual liberties from statist objectives. They consistently push back against attempts to increase federal power and have consequently brought the full wrath of the Left upon them.
Regardless of how one feels about something like gay marriage, the Right to Personal Conscience is at the very root of the Constitution. If an Evangelical feels deeply that gay marriage is wrong, that should be their right and they should be able to act upon that right. This is not an endorsement of that position per se, this is a recognition that individuals have a Right to their Personal Conscience… even when someone else things they are wrong.
But the Left cannot allow an individual Right to Personal Conscience to exist. That is inconsistent with statism, which requires the full subordination of the self to the state. As long as Jesus gets in the way, Evangelicals will be especially problematic to statism and collectivism.
A full war on Evangelicals has been waged, especially those problematic Southern Evangelicals that stubbornly hold onto their guns and their Bibles. Do you think me paranoid? Look up Obama’s own words on the subject.
Consequently, Evangelicals are ridiculed in popular culture. They are constantly demonized and vilified. The Left rejoices in the occasional failures of Evangelical leaders in an almost psychotic way. In movies, television shows, and even political discourse, Evangelicals are under constant attack.
Think about this: when was the last time you have seen a compassionate, Evangelical Southern Christian depicted in a movie? You will have to dig deep for that memory…
I have seen many. I have personally seen Evangelical missionaries administer medicine to the poor in Kenya and food to the most downtrodden of India. But if you had Leftist Hollywood as your guide, you would never know such compassionate Christianity came from the hearts of Evangelicals.
While the Left sits comfortably in their California Jacuzzis crucifying Evangelicals for their Christian beliefs, Evangelicals are literally being crucified by groups like ISIS for those same beliefs.
The absolute belief in Jesus Christ as a function of personal enlightenment is under attack by nearly every facet of society and yet, no other group seems to stand up for them. Why? They risk similar political persecution by the Left and therefore, prefer to leave them to fend for themselves.
Those few other groups that may align themselves with Evangelicals, such as The Little Sisters of the Poor, are an example. The small Catholic organization comprised of nuns has a unique mission. They provide care to the elderly poor around the world and the United States. Thus, when Obamacare mandated the small religious order to pay for abortions through their health care, naturally they took the issue to the Supreme Court. They aligned their fight with a number of Evangelical missionaries and schools that shared similar religious objections to abortion.
The Little Sisters of the Poor were thoroughly abandoned.
They were left to fend for themselves when the Pope visited the United States. Cardinals continue to remain silent as their constituents vote Democrat. The Little Sisters of the Poor, meanwhile, found themselves losing political battles when standing by the side of Evangelicals in court, having been abandoned by their own church.
They lost the case. Nuns who sided with Evangelicals have to provide abortifacients to their few employees or comply with a number of legal hurdles. Contrast their treatment with that of Hobby Lobby. The Catholic owned business won both Church support and their case (which shared similarities),. While I agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, it should be noted, they did not side with Evangelical organizations as did the Little Sisters.
Still, despite overwhelming attacks, Evangelicals continue to fight on. Why not give it up? Because they know they are not alone. They have God. He is going nowhere.
The Impossibility of Killing God
The attempts by the Left to kill God are futile. Yes, they can make him uncool. Yes, they can attack his adherents. Yes, they can go after the true believers. But God is going nowhere.
How do I know?
I have traveled to more than seventy-five countries. Some of those countries reach the very depths of human deprivation and extraordinary violence. Those are places where hope has no place to root.
And yet, I have seen the biggest, toughest men pray to God in their time of need… and He listened.
The Left, in their softness, cannot know the conditions that drive strong men to grovel before the Lord for mercy… salvation… hope.
Therein lies the problem with statism and collectivism. In the Left’s efforts to equalize all, they are attempting to eliminate hope. In essence, they are trying to supplant hope with material comfort. But hope does not come from a government issued toothbrush and a loaf of bread. Hope comes from within the depths of a person. It is a desire to improve. If you equalize all outcomes, what can you improve? Where is the impetus to improve? That desire dies as does hope.
But hope will not die. It is within all of us, universally… globally. I believe hope comes from God and correspondingly, within hope you can find God.
You cannot kill that.
 NOTE: Protestants outnumber Catholics as a whole, but the definition of Protestant embraces a number of various denominations that have very little in common, to include, but not limited to, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians (the Liberal Protestant faiths) and Southern Baptists (Evangelical faith). Thus, as a single denomination, Catholics form a plurality of Christians.