The Essential Initial Question

With religion broadly defined as the world view explaining or identifying the uncaused Cause, religion and politics are inseparable [1]. This means that given a political system, the most foundational question becomes "Which religious view shall be the coherent framework of our government?"

Thought Experiment

Consider two governments, both of which hold murder to be illegal. Mafiaville holds murder to be illegal for pragmatic reasons; foremost being, fear of retribution from the victim's relatives.

Unalienableville, in contrast, holds that murder is illegal because it violates the self-evident right to life that the self-evident Creator-God gave to all mankind. Unalienableville holds that due to the logic of Genesis 9:6

Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.

The state should employ capital punishment—not to get the state involved in mere retribution—but for the state to underscore and align itself with the self-evidence of man as God's precious creation.

Because morality and theology rank above our physical existence, the death penalty applied to men is neither hypocritical to man's preciousness nor void of theological content. Those who dissent hold that the cowardly prince who refuses to jeopardize his neck to rescue the princess is as romantic and virtuous as the chivalrous prince who risks his neck to save her.

All other things being equal, in which country would you rather domicile: Mafiaville or Unalienableville?

Analysis of our thought experiment

While Mafiaville's law against murder is good, the reasons for this law are brutish and troubling. While our thought experiment artificially created an "all other things equal" comparison, it is self-evident that relative to Unalienableville, Mafiaville's culture will, in proportion to their brutish pragmatism, decline.

Why should a Mafiaville resident, who imagines—while skirting detection—a way to rob and kill you, avoid this brutish act?

Mafiaville has a thick cloud of thin and ghoulish human beings.

Evaluation of the US Government

So where does the US fit? The unavoidable conclusion is while America's founding documents—The Declaration, The Constitution and The Federalist Papers—point squarely to Unalienableville, America's political practice—Congressional law, Supreme Court rulings and Presidential directives—point squarely to Mafiaville.

Not only do America's government schools and public displays teach that the design of children is the result of random processes, but America does not tolerate even the questioning of this absurd doctrine. Turns out "academic" evolutionism does not even distinguish between evolution and its polar opposite, devolution. Evolutionism's text book definition—"a change in gene frequency over time"—applies just as ambiguously to evolution as to devolution.

Turns out there is also not a single known beneficial mutation either. Not even sickle cell anemia.

Yet such definitional incoherency does not give evolutionism pause. While evolutionists don't know what evolution is, they do know that they wish to deny the "self-evidence" of our Creator God [2]. The bottom line is that evolutionists want to be beasts of Mafiaville who need not have pangs of conscience for sexual improprieties and envy of thine neighbor's goods. The rest of evolutionism is just subterfuge.

So intolerant and so irrational [3] is the American evolutionary political culture that even though John Freshwater was the best science teacher at a government school, because he had the audacity to have a Bible on his desk he was fired.

Because the American government refuses to recognize the self-evidence of our Creator–God, the American government cannot function "to secure" [2] the American people's "unalienable rights" [2]. Rather the American government functions to deny the unalienable and self-evident character of natural law (or general revelation taught by "nature and nature's God" [2]). Denying the self–evidence of the Creator, denies the attendant unalienable rights.

So reprobate is the US government that if one is indoctrinated to believe the government narrative—that he is the product of random processes—one can think that moral concerns are an impediment to one's well–being.

Welcome to the American Mafiosoville.

Post Mortem on American Political Culture

Atheism and the new America

One raised on a farm which competes in a free market has an empirical understanding of natural law. On the farm one sees the decaying trend of nature. This trend intimates the futility of random processes producing an encyclopedia, yet alone the human genome. On the farm, the second law of thermodynamics is empirically understood and associated with Murphy's Law ("if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong"). Fanciful thinking about machinery fixing itself or roof leaks fixing themselves is too ridiculous to occupy one's consciousness.

The free market farm also teaches one to see the unprofitability of sexually pairing pubescent animals of the same sex.

With the industrial revolution, American families moved from the farm. American families financially benefited from the division of labor in urban settings. But in the industrial revolution American families not only walked away from the farm, but have culturally, theologically, and politically given away the political farm.

The industrial revolution not only brought cheaper products and higher profits, but moral and theological confusion. The industrial revolution precipitated the decline of American government. While in the 1860's denying the unalienable rights of black people was a bad, with the (albeit specious) passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, denying wealth producers the fruit of their labors became a good.

I am not suggesting that America become technologically Amish, but I am suggesting that in terms of self-government and political liberty the Amish culture is incomparably superior to the American weltanschauung of the last century.

Sitting at a restaurant, one may observe an elderly couple enter. Yet the metaphysical and romantic gesture of the husband holding the door open for his wife escapes multiculturalism's musings.

With the Scopes trial, the newspaper culture—and then the government—mocked the self-evident foundation of our political rights. Soon Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton found that libido and profit were sufficient justification for a mother to order the dismemberment of her unborn daughter. The scam of Lawrence v. Texas signified that the state had become an enemy of natural law.

The Audacity of Obama's Anti-Americanism

The 21st century is unfolding as a bitter comedy. California's judiciary overrules Proposition 8 while California's legislature outlaws reparative therapy to help sexually ambiguous minors embrace heterosexuality, and outlaws sexually separate bathrooms. The triumph of electing America's first black President has only served to undermine the narrative of unalienable rights that the political narrative of Obama's skin color invites.

While declaring a zero tolerance policy for trafficking in human persons, America's first black President hypocritically grants the financial benefits of 501(c)3 status to the largest religious force promoting slavery the world has known—Islam. Whereas Islam is at war with the civilized world, America's first black President can only say, "The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."

One might think that America's first black President would be sensitive to the plight of the oppressed and especially the unborn. Yet after Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi—who called Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs"—died, Barack Hussein Obama perversely eulogized Tantawi as "a voice for faith and tolerance."

To the media, such a contradiction is not only to be avoided in polite discussion, but to be actively repressed. But is it not at least curious that America's first black President is complicit in stigmatizing a race of people via perpetual religious demonization?

Being an "affirmative action" hustler–prince, Obama has been self–deceived to not recognize one man's achievements or another man's lack thereof. Just so, Obama identified history's greatest repressive force—a force which celebrates religious apartheid (Koran 9:29), sexual slavery (Koran 4:3, 24), tolerates no qualm about the vigilante murder of apostates [4] and which destroys and impedes the unveiling and discovery of knowledge—as a force of scientific advancement which should be psychologically nurtured.

So obscene is Obama fealty to history's greatest repressive force that Obama nominated Charles Bolden, a black man, to be the head of NASA and as such to do the psychological bidding of the Prophet Mohammad. Bolden tells us that Obama's first priority for him was "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

On the subject of infanticide, National Review notes "The media still insist on defending [America's first black President's] votes in favor of infanticide."

Yet the contradiction of Obama's black skin to the American emancipation narrative of the black man moving from the auction block to the White House is rivaled by the betrayal of Obama's felony fraud in identity documentation. America does not even know the name of her first "affirmative action" President. Why is he "Barack Hussein Obama" and not "Barack Hussein Obama Jr."? "Barry Soetoro" strikes most citizen-investigators as more apropos than "Barack Hussein Obama." If blacks and whites agree that the racism of "affirmative action" cannot expiate the racism of slavery what then are we doing? Making a racial down payment?!

And so America has become a walking corpse looking for a place to fall. Our money is about to inflate. Our markets collapse. Even our technology is used to undermine our rights. "Google and the NSA, perfect together" gives pause to those on both the left and right.

What then shall we do?

In the history of peoples seeking emancipation from an oppressive other, it is common to invoke and assert high moral principles. With The Declaration, the US faired spectacularly well. Yet in the history of human experience, as time goes on, just as wedding vows are broken it is also common to betray these high-minded principles.

Unfortunately, the US's betrayal of "nature and nature's God" [2] has also been spectacular.

And such has America turned. America has become a kingdom divided against itself. Such a kingdom, the Bible tells us, "cannot stand."

America needs political leaders with the acumen to see the difference between the atheism of our practice and the theism of our founding. Second, we need political leaders to have the courage to return us to our Christian–Judeo founding.

Indeed there has been a terrible crisis of leadership of American politicians who will champion The Declaration principles, especially natural law. When an Alan Keyes arises, the Republican Party does not champion such leadership. Dr. Keyes has left the Republican Party.

Government schools are the root of all kinds of evil. Gangster government in the education business poses an inherent conflict of interest. The objective of "education" has become to teach kids to be good slaves of the state. Federal government schools strike me as unconstitutional [5]. States should nullify themselves from the taxes that support federal government gangster schools.

We need to educate ourselves about natural law [6] and America's founding documents [7].

For over a century America has experienced a drought in leadership. Leadership will dictate if America will either

  1. fall to her knees and eventually regain her stride or
  2. collapse, be sold, and assimilated into a one world government.

 

[1] Because politics is inherently inter-aspectual, it is necessarily religious. See The Myth of Religious Neutrality by Roy A. Clouser.

[2] Quote from or cross reference to The Declaration of Independence.

[3] Chapter 12 of Alvin Plantinga's Warrant and Proper Function, proves that the embrace of both naturalism and evolutionism is irrational.

[4] "there is no indemnity for killing an apostate...or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die" (Reliance of the Traveller, o8.1-5)

[5] What is truly constitutional should be determined not by Supreme Court decisions, but by the political trilogy: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Federalist Papers.

[6] One can learn about natural law from C. S. Lewis' essay called "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe" in Mere Christianity, from C. S. Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man, from The Bible (e.g., Romans 1:18-32; Ps. 19) and by reading creation
material.

[7] Publius Huldah strikes me as a rare individual who understands the American political trilogy [5].

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.