Liberal Delusionation: Religious Communism

This will be a new feature on the blog, the Delusionating of Liberals and others. I am hereby defining (and coining, I believe) delusionation as:

de-lu-sion-a-tion [di-loo-zhuhn-ay-shun]

-noun

1. an act of pretending that something you desire is reality, regardless of actual reality.

2. a voluntary false belief that something imaginary is real.

Related forms: delusionatory, delusionate, delusionation

As a recovering liberal, I have seen delusionatory behavior first-hand. The uninitiated might be surprised at the vehemence of a liberal acquaintance's delusionation. It is usually accompanied by a flushed face, muttering "Bush" and/or "Cheney" under the breath, and staccato vocal outbursts. The most telling sign that someone is suffering from a delusionation is when they refer to something that they want as something that is real. Now that alone isn't a delusionation. I want ice cream to be cold. This isn't a delusionation for the simple fact that most ice cream is cold and ice cream is intended to be cold (hence the ice in the name). This only becomes a delusionation if what this person is referring to as real is not in fact real. Using the same example, if for some loony reason I enjoy hot ice cream I could say to my friend, "Ice cream is hot". Now this is a delusionation. Just because I would like ice cream to be hot, does not mean that ice cream is indeed hot. See the difference? Reality vs. what I would like reality to be. Not always the same thing.

In this maiden voyage of the Liberal Delusionation segment, I would like to examine Religious Communism. The fine people at the People's Weekly World have posted an interesting story touching this topic. For those of you unfamiliar with the PWW, they are "a national, grassroots weekly newspaper and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker." They fully admit that they are partisan saying:

"The PWW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides — for truth and
justice. We are partisan to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed
peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and
socialism."

You might say that there is some delusionation going on in their mission statement with the near equivalence of Marxism with truth and justice, and you would be correct but they don't stop there. The PWW published an interesting story a couple of weeks ago about the Communist Party USA. It seems that the Communist Party USA has established a Religion Commission to "strengthen its work among religious people and organizations." To the head of this commission, they appointed Tim Yeager. Tim is a trade unionist in Chicago and also a member of the Episcopal Church. According to the article, Yeager notes that:

"[t]here is a common misconception concerning the position of the Communist
Party USA about religion. . . Many who are unfamiliar with the party wrongly
assumes that all Communists are atheists, or that the party requires its members
to be atheists. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Really, Tim? Is this the same Communist doctrine derived from Marxism? Because Marx himself said, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness," (Marx, K. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right). Lenin himself wrote the following in his book Religion, "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism." Anywhere communism has been adopted in an official capacity, religion is one of the first targets of the Nomenklatura.

Now I'm not denying that there have been communists under a sheepskin amongst the flock for a long time. There are quite a few here in the Chicago-land area - Pfleger I'm looking at you. But how ever much these nut-jobs would like to equate Social Justice/Communism with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it ain't happening. It's simply a delusionation.

The two are antithetically opposed. (I'd like to focus on the tensions between Communism and Christianity primarily but as you can see from the first point below, nearly every major religion would have an inherent inconsistency with Marxist/Communist doctrine).

1. Communism is a strictly materialist doctrine. No spirituality, after-life, omnipotent Creator allowed. Christianity is a system of beliefs that is rooted in an individual's faith in "things unseen".
   
2. Christianity highlights the fallen state of mankind and the need for redemption. Every man, woman, and child is innately sinful, leading to the necessity of Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross. Marxism could be considered a humanist doctrine, in that it sees evil arising not from internal sources in man but from external influences, such as capitalism and greed. That man, once freed from capitalistic and class-based structures, will ultimately prove his inner goodness.
   
3. In Communism, the State is the highest good. In Christianity, God is the highest good.

The tensions between the two are myriad and numerous, but as you can see the fissures begin at the ground floor and just get wider the further you examine these two belief-systems. So for Mr. Yeager to state that Communism and Christianity are compatible is a pretty serious Liberal Delusionation. I pray that Mr. Yeager will seek the foundation of his Episcopalian Church (the stone that the builders rejected) for his inspiration, instead of seeking the dictatorship of the proletariat here on Earth.

ACOTUS?

I love the bloggers at American Thinker. Yesterday, a young woman by the name of L.E. Ikenga discoursed on the phenomenon of the African Colonial, a label that she applies to President Obama. She defines an African Colonial (AC) as someone who has a direct connection to Africa through their birth or heritage. However, an AC's worldviews are shaped not by their tribal lineage, but by the ideals of "European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period." She goes on to describe how AC's use their African heritage when it is convenient and discard it when it becomes a distraction.

Wow.

This certainly describes President Obama's identification with his multi-ethnicity and the way that he touts his it (his Muslim past) when convenient (Cairo) and dismisses it when inconvenient (campaigning in America). L.E. draws evidence from the President's book, "Dreams of My Father" (which I have not read, so I quote her below):

"In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent
piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood
intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people,
especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an
African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to
understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's
legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.

Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of
"progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African
tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)"

Where is the foundation for this behavior in President Obama? Beyond the obvious benefits that this kind of Janus-ification has reaped (a successful Presidential campaign), how or why does one begin to attempt to be both sides of the story? In my opinion, you don't need to look any further than one of his early intellectual mentors, Saul Alinsky. Alinksy, dubbed the 'Godfather of Community Organizers', advocated behavior very similar to the behavior described above. He encouraged his organizers to infiltrate a community by any means necessary. Once ingratiated into a community, the organizer must convince the community that he understands their needs and will fight to the death for them, whether or not he actually will. All the while, the organizer is encouraged to decide for himself what is best for the community and chart their course accordingly. This course frequently demands creating friction where there was none in order to get a community excited and motivated. According to Alinsky, the community is apparently unable to think for themselves but needs an external advocate to perform this service for them.

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The
disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community
organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be
displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and
organization of the new." (Alinsky, Saul "Rules for Radicals" p.116)

What Alinsky is describing is a parasite. Think about it. A tapeworm disguises itself in food, giving the animal/human the impression that what they are consuming is for the body's benefit. Internal order is disrupted (nutrients are consumed by the parasite instead of the body), leading to radical internal changes (increase consumption of food), which in turn leads to the parasite benefiting from the disorder. This kind of community advocacy is a social manifestation of the parasitic relationship we see in nature among parasites and their hosts. It seems to me that what Ms. Ikenga has identified as African Colonialism is simply a more complex way to ingratiate himself into a community, in order to begin his advocacy. What lies ahead in our President's plans? We've seen hints (cap-and-trade, socialized healthcare, radical transformation of social issues) but can we learn more from history? Ms. Ikenga believes that there is a strong correlation between the European Imperialist and the African Colonial.

"Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of
all forms of democracy.

Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914)
what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:

1. Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal)
   identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British
   Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the
   state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to
   just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to
   create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
2. Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means
   necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to
   present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
3. Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally
   puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
4. Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though
   things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to
   mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the
   counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
5. Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your
   followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for
   itself."

Thankfully, this situation is daily unearthing more and more Americans who are fed up and willing to share their knowledge, enthusiasm, and commitment to protect American liberties. I pray that this Presidency will lead to the magnification and glory of God.

A Dearth of Humanity?

The Times Online last Sunday carried a story about Ishaq Khan, a 12 year-old schoolboy from Kohat, located in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. He was given 50 rupees to carry a plastic bag into a crowded area between several shops and leave it. Ishaq was excited to be offered 50 rupees ($0.62) to perform as task as simple as this. His family "barely survives on the money his father earns from house-painting jobs." Ishaq dropped the bag at the appointed site but when he was 20 steps away, the bag exploded. The blast shattered his foot, left 3 people dead and 23 injured.

When he learnt that three people had been killed and 23 injured he was
horrified. “I never imagined it was a bomb,” he said, his eyes filling with
tears. “I move bags for people all day.”

The doctors at the hospital say that the heel on his left foot is completely crushed and they are not sure if he will be able to walk again. His back was hit with shrapnel from the bomb, but his family "has no money for painkillers", so he is likely recuperating in enormous amounts of pain.




Stories like this are becoming more and more common in Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Islamic radicals are demonstrating that they no longer care about the rules of society (which we knew already) and that they are willing to exploit and endanger the most vulnerable of our societies to accomplish their "noble" aims. I am reminded of the incident on January 2, 2009 where two mentally-handicapped Iraqi women were strapped with explosives and sent into a crowded market in Baghdad. The devices were detonated remotely, killing the two women, 65 people, and injuring at least 150 others.




When I read stories like this I am shocked. And then I am ruefully aware of my shock and its inappropriateness. As much as I want to scratch my head in amazement at the heartless actions of evil people around the world, I should know better. The Lord reminds me in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jer 17:9). I know this passage. I understand the fallen depravity of man and the sinfulness of my own flesh. So why does this wickedness surprise me?




I believe that it is a reflection of my Creator that a part of me recoils with horror when I read stories like these. Some of the most sensitive beings around us are children. A child can often sense when someone is troubled or sad. They seem to be innately tuned to be intuitively empathetic towards people around them. This argues that we are indeed created in the image of our Maker. We were created by a loving and caring God and since we are created in His image, it follows that we too retain some vestige of his empathetic love (albeit in a flawed and sporadic variety that tends to be muted more and more frequently as we age). We know, without having to think about it or talk to anyone else, that it is evil to use an innocent child or a disabled person for evil. We do subscribe to a universal morality and stories like these remind us of the fact very quickly.



The warning of Jesus about corrupting influences directed towards children, recorded in Mark 9:42 and elsewhere is particularly relevant here, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." Methinks these cowards who hide behind school-children and coerce handicapped women to do their murderous work are busily earning their very own millstone. Thankfully we have a Savior who is perfect Justice. Marana tha!

A voice of common sense in a sea of emotional quivering.

"To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."

Former Vice-President Cheney gave a speech today at AEI, explaining very candidly the Bush Administration's motivations behind the decision to enage in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (i.e. water-boarding). Overall, I found his speech to be completely appropriate and long over-due. It was reasonable and clearly stated the Bush Administration's rationale, without apologizing for the difficult decisions that were made in the interest of protecting American citizens (full transcript here).


Whether or not you approve of their policies, it is impossible to deny that America did not suffer another terrorist attack during the Bush-Cheney tenure. This fact is all too often taken for granted. Imagine if we were still living in the uncertainty and terror that we experienced on that fateful day. It was a very real possibility.

"But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." End of quote."

So I don't understand why President Obama self-righteously trumpets his commitment to transparency of government and then refuses to release the remainder of the security memos. You know, the ones that show the results of the enhanced interrogation techniques. He already gave invaluable information to our enemies, why can't he show why we continued to use these techniques? Reeks of partisanship to high Heaven..

I join former Vice-President Cheney in saluting those intelligence officers who served their country and helped to retrieve information that doubtlessly saved innocent lives. I pray that they would find peace with their decisions and that God would comfort their souls. I doubt that it was an easy decision for any of them, but at the end of the day it was the right one.

"Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them."