Wake Up America! Liberalism, Democracy and Unenlightened Capitalism.

LIBERALISM…
Liberalism, as a political philosophy (not party politics), is rooted in
Rationalism, that is to say, in the belief that human reason can attain
truth unaided by divine revelation. Since, according to its premises, human
reason can attain truth unaided, it follows naturally that man must be
free, that is, free to do what his reason tells him is right. Hence, the
birth of Liberalism. The concept of man’s reasonableness and freedom is
eminently Christian, but in a totally different sense, and this ambiguity,
which has always been cultivated by the enemies of God, has been
responsible for a great many evils.

DEMOCRACY and CAPITALISM…
The philosophy of Liberalism has given birth to a political system: Democracy; and to an economic system: Capitalism. In both systems, freedom of action and expression is the mainstay, and both rest on the private judgment of persons, not on considerations flowing from divine revelation.

It is not difficult to see, therefore, to what abuses these systems can lead: moral values are not considered. When they exist at all, it is merely as a legacy of Christian tradition, the complete disappearance of which is only a matter of time.

Once moral values have totally disappeared no limits will be set to the claims of man, nothing will restrain his craving for complete freedom: anarchy and bloodshed are the inevitable outcome. But, before we reach that final stage, laws are enacted which are increasingly permissive, since, according to the Liberalist creed, laws must reflect the will of the consensus.

Thus, evils such as divorce, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are made lawful. As early as 100 years ago, many thinkers forecast what we are now witnessing. But their warnings were unheeded, if not held up to ridicule, and modern man continued on his democratic path toward chaos and anarchy.

Read more

Submitted by Bob Stanley

Does Pope Francis think people are stupid?

In the longest and most important speech of his four-month pontificate, Francis took a direct swipe at the “intellectual” message of the church that so characterized the pontificate of his predecessor, Benedict XVI. Speaking to Brazil’s bishops, he said ordinary Catholics simply don’t understand such lofty ideas and need to hear the simpler message of love, forgiveness and mercy that is at the core of the Catholic faith.

“At times we lose people because they don’t understand what we are saying, because we have forgotten the language of simplicity and import an intellectualism foreign to our people,” he said. “Without the grammar of simplicity, the church loses the very conditions which make it possible to fish for God in the deep waters of his mystery.”

Read more

Editor’s note: How did the post-Vatican II mantra – “God is love” – which likely constitutes the greatest depth of official Catholic catechesis, since the late 1960’s – suddenly become “too intellectual”?

The problem isn’t intellectualism, it’s liberalism – and the almost complete lack of virtually any good, practical Catholic catechesis, at the parish level.

The liberals who took over the church after Vatican II – like all “good” liberals – relied on a system of substandard education in order to obliterate from memory the old ways – in the hope that their gravely inferior, radical (but luke-warm) reforms would eventually become the “norm”.

Now that they have achieved what they intended, they’re still not happy – and that’s not surprising, considering the substandard “product” they’ve managed to foist upon the “People of God” – for the last half century.

According to Pope Francis, more CHANGE is necessary – and much, much more must be “stripped away” from The Mystical Body of Christ – for the good of the people – and the Church.

After the Catholic faith debacle of the last 50 years, one has to wonder what remains of the one, true faith that can actually still be jettisoned?

Pope Francis – in spite of his recent popular success – is turning out to be a very “shallow” – arrogantly humble pope – who seems to be obsessed with the concept of minimalism. And that doesn’t bode well for the Catholic faith – or the world.

Pray for him.

Ecumenical Christian Scandal: The Paganization/Gnosticization of New Testament Bible Studies.

Babel1

Pagan Gnosticism Is Modernist Christian Babel

Given the institutions where I have taught during my professional life, it is appropriate to begin my overview of the Paganization/Gnosticization of NT Studies with a quote from J. Gresham Machen, speaking of the inroads of Liberalism into the American church at the beginning of the last century:

“The truth is that liberalism has lost sight of the very centre and core of the Christian teaching. In the Christian view of God as set forth in the Bible, there are many elements. But one attribute of God is absolutely fundamental in the Bible; one attribute is absolutely necessary in order to render intelligible all the rest. That attribute is the awful transcendence of God. From beginning to end the Bible is concerned to set forth the awful gulf that separates the creature from the Creator. It is true, indeed, that according to the Bible God is immanent in the world. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him. But He is immanent in the world not because He is identified with the world, but because He is the free Creator and upholder of it. Between the creature and the Creator a great gulf is fixed.

To be sure, Machen does mention Gnosticism, but he does define the essence it religious belief. Gnosticism, which builds on the common pagan notion of humanity as divine. Plato taught that the soul “was immortal by its very nature.” This notion is integrated into Jewish thinking by Philo, and developed by later Gnosticism as the alien “divine spark” within humanity.

Hans Jonas defines Gnosticism as radically dualistic–a dualism between man and the world, “an anthropological acosmism.” “The essence of man is knowledge, of the self and God.”

As the famous Messina Colloquium on Gnosticism in 1966 clearly recognized, “the idea of divine consubstantiality” is a defining notion of Gnosticism. Such a notion effectively eliminates the uniqueness and transcendence of God.

Read more

See what might happen if liberalism and ecumenism are allowed to proceed unchecked.

devilcloseup

Mr. Hugh Moore, Executive Director of the St. Laphatdis Foundation (www.laphadisfoundation.net) in Chicago announced today at a press conference the discovery of a previously unreleased version of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on inter-faith relations.

The document outlines efforts by the council to reach some level of ecumenical understanding with the Church of Satan.

In Germany, an ecumenical Cardinal who prefered to go unnamed gave ghostly praise to the new document, calling it “a breakthrough in the Catholic Church’s journey toward fully reconciling herself with the many gifts that those who reject Christ bring to our cultural heritage.”

Read NOSTRA AETATE (Part II):
Declaration on the relation of the Church to Satan

Editor’s note: This article is a parody. Nothing like this ever happened … yet!

The feminized metrosexual culture of contemporary liberalism

Big Bird, the perfect symbol of liberal fantasies, is neither handsome nor ugly, has no discernible sexuality, is neither smart nor stupid.  He is never threatened by the need to work hard to accomplish things, because he has no discernible ambition.  He never demands anything and never has to deal with aggressive wishes.

Anger is not a problem for Big Bird.  Competition is not for him.

Unlike the creatures of classic fairy tales, he is just a bland, unthreatening being purveying the liberal fantasy that in utopia, we are all equally lovable and all think good thoughts.  No doubt there are graduate students at our elite universities composing theses on the postmodren significance of Sesame Street.

Read more

Obama’s poor Julia vs. traditional Jane

When Jane was 17, there was no Race to the Top program or federal aid to education. Nevertheless, she took the SAT and a number of Advanced Placement examinations. Strangely, SAT scores were much higher then. Although fewer people went to college, hardworking high school graduates still could get a good job before federal taxes and regulations drove about 40,000 factories overseas.

Jane did not get a Pell Grant, but college education was very affordable. She could pay most of her in-state tuition with earnings from a part-time job in the chemistry laboratory, which paid $1.25 per hour. She lived at home. The commute was short, but in any event, gasoline was less than 30 cents a gallon, or about $1.91 in 2005 dollars.

Poor Julia will be in debt before she ever graduates from college.

Jane had an appendectomy at about age 14. There was no “health care reform” and no Medicare or Medicaid, either. Her hospital bill was $150, which was 10 days’ pay for a construction laborer.

Julia’s hospital bill probably was 10 or 20 times higher.

Read more

Those who do evil insist upon the acceptance and even the promotion of evil, on an ever-widening scale.

There is a substantive moral difference between permitting a particular elective practice and forcing everybody to participate in the funding of that practice. One has to be pretty far gone morally to fail to see this distinction. To fail to see it, one must argue something very much like the following:

  1. Practice X is a morally good personal decision.
  2. Therefore, those who embrace Practice X promote the common good.
  3. Therefore, everyone should contribute to the costs of Practice X.
  4. Therefore, anyone who believes Practice X to be immoral should be coerced into paying a share of the costs.

This line of thought includes no fewer than four logical leaps. It begins with the assumption that there can be no legitimate disagreement concerning the value of Practice X. It leaps from that assumption to a further assumption about the common good, and from this second assumption to a third, that the cost of whatever contributes to the common good should be shared by all, and finally from this third assumption to a fourth—that coercion is warranted for those who disagree.

Read more

Editor’s note: Liberalism in itself is evil … so it’s no wonder that liberals typically suffer from a pronounced darkening of the intellect … and are often guilty of blindly following a profoundly deviant moral compass … currently exemplified by Barack Obama and his merry band of left-wing, Marxist/Leninist anarchists.

Liberalism is a sin