By Timothy Birdnow ——Bio and Archives--October 6, 2013
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
"Mohammedanism was a [heresy]: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing."And Belloc was absolutely correct; it piggybacked on Christian beliefs and Christian tradition, twisting it out of shape, claiming Muhammad was the Paraclete prophesied by Jesus. More on this here. It is interesting to note that Belloc explains the success of Islam as one tied to the redistribution of wealth; wherever the Muslims conquered they forgave debt and seized the property of the wealthy and successful. Does that sound familiar? Islam also legalized the sexual revolution, allowing a man four wives and as many concubines (read hookups) as he wished. Sound familiar? Islam was strongly anti-clerical, with no established religious hierarchy. There was (and is) no theology but that which one wishes to believe. Muslim warlords delighted in murdering and disgracing Christian priests and Bishops. Sound familiar? Islam was monistic in that it unified Church and State under a leader who was concerned with all aspects of life. The subjects of the State were under the control of the Muslim elites, who not only governed but ruled almost all aspects of life. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, the same can be said of Liberalism. Liberalism has likewise been described as a Christian heresy. As Ross Dothan, author of the book Bad Religion, in an internet debate with William Saletan, states: "[W]hen I look at your secular liberalism, I see a system of thought that looks rather like a Christian heresy, and not necessarily a particularly coherent one at that. In [his recent book] Bad Religion, I describe heresy as a form of belief that tends to emphasize certain elements of the Christian synthesis while downgrading or dismissing other aspects of that whole. And it isn’t surprising that liberalism, which after all developed in a Christian civilization, does exactly that, drawing implicitly on the Christian intellectual inheritance to ground its liberty-equality-fraternity ideals. Indeed, it’s completely obvious that absent the Christian faith, there would be no liberalism at all. No ideal of universal human rights without Jesus’ radical upending of social hierarchies (including his death alongside common criminals on the cross). No separation of church and state without the gospels’ "render unto Caesar” and St. Augustine’s two cities. No liberal confidence about the march of historical progress without the Judeo-Christian interpretation of history as an unfolding story rather than an endlessly repeating wheel. And what’s more, to me, contemporary liberals’ obsession with the supposed backwardness of Christian sexual ethics—an obsession that far outstrips sex’s actual role in the preaching and practice of Christian faith—reflects a subconscious liberal knowledge that Christianity is their theological mother, and they’re its half-rebellious child. You can see in it the child’s characteristic desire to finally overthrow the last bastion of parental authority, joined to a continued desire for the parent’s approval for their choices and beliefs. ... The more purely secular liberalism has become, the more it has spent down its Christian inheritance—the more its ideals seem to hang from what Christopher Hitchens’ Calvinist sparring partner Douglas Wilson has called intellectual "skyhooks,” suspended halfway between our earth and the heaven on which many liberals have long since given up. Say what you will about the prosperity gospel and the cult of the God Within and the other theologies I criticize in Bad Religion, but at least they have a metaphysically coherent picture of the universe to justify their claims. Whereas much of today’s liberalism expects me to respect its moral fervor even as it denies the revelation that once justified that fervor in the first place. It insists that it is a purely secular and scientific enterprise even as it grounds its politics in metaphysical claims. (You will not find the principle of absolute human equality in evolutionary theory, or universal human rights anywhere in physics.) It complains that Christian teachings on homosexuality do violence to gay people’s equal dignity—but if the world is just matter in motion, whence comes this dignity? What justifies and sustains it? Why should I grant it such intense, almost supernatural respect?" Liberalism was born as the evil twin of the Protestant Reformation. Unlike Protestantism it rejected the Christian spiritual trappings while maintaining a core of the beliefs. That is why Liberals preach Christian virtues like charity, tolerance, forbearance, equality, and whatnot. But they do not preach it as individual actions but as collective, state-sponsored works. The State replaced the Church in the Liberal worldview. This can be traced back to Jean Jacques Rousseau, who created the notion of Nationalism, whereby the "nation" was to be worshipped as the sum of the collective will. Rousseau knew what he was doing; he wanted to break the power of the clergy, of the Church, of the "superstition" of Christianity. He wanted a false god on the throne. He was also quite taken with Islam, and proposed it as a model. And that explains why liberals are so missionaristic, so eager to expand their beliefs. They, like the Muslims before them, broach no dissenters. They are willing to kill - as many people as it takes - to guarantee the victory of their beliefs. Look at Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Hitler, Castro, etc.. The similarities between Islam and Liberalism are striking. Both are engaged in Jihad. Barack Hussein Obama was the child of both worlds. He was sired by a Muslim, educated by Muslims, raised by a Muslim. His mother was a radical leftist, as was the grandfather who took on the task of raising him after Mr. Soetero departed, and his father's good friend and next door neighbor was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist, who took the boy under his wing. Obama taught a class on Saul Alinsky, the father of leftist radicalism (who dedicated his book to Lucifer, the first rebel). Obama went to Chicago, home of the most radical leftists in America, to launch his career. He became a member of the communist New Party, and a communist terrorist named William Ayers launched his political career. He is the crux, the person at the crossroads between the blood brothers of Islam and Liberalism. I am not saying Barack Obama is going to cut off heads, or burn down Christian churches or Jewish synagogues, but I am saying he comes from two very ruthless strains of thought, neither of which tolerates opposition. And he understands the importance of symbols to his enemies. If we are to understand the man we must understand his roots, his intellectual influences, his religious beliefs, his upbringing. Obama was brought up steeped in Jihad - both Islamic and Leftist. He will destroy his opponents (as indeed he has personally destroyed almost everyone he has run against rather than actually beaten them with ideas.) His actions in this continuing resolution battle are absolutely predictable. It should come as no surprise that he would go after our monuments and places of honor. In the end, Obama can be forced to retreat to fight another day. But that requires that we continue to fight. Like Charles Martel in France, or Jan III Sobieski at Vienna, Obama can be defeated. It simply takes determination. Let us hope the GOP finds that sort of backbone.
View Comments
Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Reviewand has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu.