FRANCOIS HOLLANDE, ISLAM, SECULARISM, AND HOW IT BLINDS

The Daily Mail just revealed that:

·       During his election campaign, [the French Socialist President Francois] Hollande was regularly on the estates, claiming he was at one with poor communities. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834003/President-Hollande-admitted-France-problem-Islam-warned-country-s-national-symbol-one-day-woman-burka.html#ixzz4Mz20wue0

However, Hollande has evidently changed his mind:

·       Francois Hollande has admitted the country 'has a problem with Islam' and warned France's national symbol will one day by a woman in a burka.

·       The words were all part of a more general attack on people from Muslim backgrounds whom the Socialist Mr Hollande views as a major difficulty for his country.

·       …exposed by authors Gerard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme, Le Monde journalists who base their book on 61 interviews carried out with Mr Hollande over the last four years.

·       He reveals that he no longer supports mass immigration, saying 'I think there are too many arrivals,' and says: 'It's true there's a problem with Islam, it's true. It's not in doubt.'

Hadn’t this always been obvious?

1.    Hundreds of Islamic no-go-zones growing across Western Europe

2.    Riots, rapes, and a burgeoning assortment of criminal acts

3.    Explicit Islamic threats to take over

4.    Non-Muslims relegated to a demeaned status in every Islamic nation

5.    The terrifying teachings of the Koran and Hadiths on jihad and world domination

Why hadn’t Hollande and a vast assortment of Western leaders seen this before? The evidence was there. Why didn’t they seriously consult the available evidence? Evidently, they didn’t want to. Why not?

I think that the reason is obvious. Our Western elites have adopted a philosophy or worldview that prevents them from seeing Islam as it really is, as it has always claimed to be. They are wearing a pair of eyeglasses that filters out what they do not want to see, leaving only what agrees with their worldview.

It is a common worldview, albeit naïve. It maintains that if we accept others, they will reciprocate. If we love them, they will just naturally love us back. Love conquers all. It must! If we merely accept all forms of anti-social, immoral behavior, they will naturally disappear on their own. Therefore, we can take down our borders, remove our border guards, and embrace everyone. After all, we are one big human family, aren’t we!

The secularist wants to view himself as a good person, perhaps even a morally superior person. He is therefore above those medieval ideas of crime and punishment. He is, after all, enlightened.

However, reality has a way of stripping us of both our arrogance and perhaps even our upside-down lenses. So check the rubbish heaps for all of those discarded lenses.

THOMAS DILORENZO AND THE FAILURES OF SOCIALISM

In “The Problem with Socialism,” economist Thomas DiLorenzo, writes:

·       A 2016 Pew Foundation poll found that 69 percent of voters under the age of thirty expressed “a willingness to vote for a socialist president of the United States”

DiLorenzo is clearly troubled by our acceptance of a system that has consistently failed:

·       Socialism in all its forms has always been poisonous to economic growth and prosperity. This is not because the “wrong people” have been in charge of socialist regimes, and that “better” or smarter people could somehow make socialism work, or that all that is missing is democracy. Socialism is economic poison for several fundamental, inherent reasons. In other words, it is impossible for socialism to be anything but impoverishing as an economic system because of the very nature of socialism.

DiLorenzo, in his very readable short volume, provides many examples of this:

·       Hong Kong was one of the freest economies in the world under British rule with a modest, flat income tax and very little government regulation of business. That recipe made Hong Kong, with no natural resources to speak of except for a large harbor, one of the most prosperous countries on earth. By contrast, socialist China experienced the usual economic stagnation and backwardness that is the hallmark of all socialist economies.

·       The Soviet economy was so dysfunctional, thanks to seventy years of socialism, that by the time the entire system collapsed in the late 1980s it was most probably only about 5 percent of the size of the U.S. economy.

·       Argentina, which embraced socialism in the late 1940s during the Juan Perón regime. Perón restricted international trade, imposed wage-and-price controls, seized private property, nationalized some industries, and spent lavishly, much of which was financed by the government simply printing more money. The predictable result was economic ruination and hyperinflation that led to Perón’s ouster in 1955 by military coup. Argentina, however, remained socialist. Its economy continued to stagnate and, several coups later, by the late 1980s, it was suffering from 12,000 percent inflation from years of trying to cover up the failures of socialism by printing money to pay for all the socialist programs. 9 In 2001 Argentina defaulted on its obligations to foreign lenders in the then-largest public default in history. It defaulted again in 2014. Argentina was once the world’s tenth-largest economy, but by 2016 it was barely ahead of Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea.

According to DiLorenzo, even the failure of the first American settlements are attributable to socialism. He also challenges the examples of the Scandinavian countries which have been touted as socialistic success stories. For example, he explains Sweden’s apparent success with socialism was a result of its accumulated capital which had, cushioned her for many years from the socialistic drain of the economy. In an interview, DiLorenzo explained:

·       Sweden, for example, was one of the wealthiest countries in the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries thanks to its large degree of economic freedom and a culture of entrepreneurship and capitalism.  It produced many great inventors and entrepreneurs such as Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, the people who created Volvo and Saab automobiles, and much more.  Sweden enjoyed the highest per-capita income growth in the world from 1870 to 1950.

·       But Swedish politicians began experimenting with fascism in the 1930s and then socialism, with the nationalization of many industries, a large welfare state, super-progressive income taxation, and onerous regulation and regimentation of private industry.  Sweden began “eating up” its accumulated capital, created by previous generations of capitalists, so much so that according to the Swedish Economic Association, Sweden did not create a single net new job from 1950 to 2005.

·       Because of this economic destruction the government resorted to printing massive amounts of money in an attempt to bail itself out, resulting in 500% interest rates. That in turn led to a Thatcher-like revolt that reduced marginal tax rates, privatized many industries, deregulated bank lending, retail, telecommunications, and airlines, and imposed deep spending cuts.  But fifty years of Swedish socialism is hard to recover from: the Swedes still have a per-capita income level that is lower than in Mississippi, our lowest-income state. (Townhall.com)

Well, what’s the big deal? It’s only money, isn’t it? Not according to DiLorenzo:

·       The main problems with socialism is that it will destroy your economic future – and your children’s future; it creates an unjust society where a small political elite enriches itself by imposing a regime of equality of poverty and misery on most everyone else; it has been associated with the worst crimes in human history, as documented in The Black Book of Communism, among other places

·       The socialist welfare state also harms the poor by destroying their work incentives, crowding out private charities, and causing family break-ups where fathers are replaced by government checks; and it destroys personal freedoms by using governmental force in pursuit of “equality.”  That’s just for starters.

Are our youth listening?

DID JESUS BELIEVE IN INCOME EQUALITY?

I couldn’t find one instance where Jesus affirms income equality (IE). Perhaps the parable that comes closest to supporting IE is the parable about an owner who repeatedly goes to the market to hire workers for his vineyard and pays each the same amount, irrespective of how long they had worked. When those who had worked the longest complained, the owner answered:

·       “’Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:13-16; ESV)

Jesus never suggested that His ideal is IE. Instead, there are a number of reasons that this teaching shouldn’t be taken as a repudiation of capitalism in favor of IE:

1.    Jesus affirmed, as He did in all of His parables, the legitimacy of the employer/employee relationship.

2.    Jesus also affirmed the legitimacy of the owner/employer having disproportionate wealth.

3.    He affirmed the fact that ultimately there will be some who are first and some last. Not all will have the same thing.

4.    Above all else, the owner gave out of generosity and not because he owed it to his employees or to the government.

In other parables, Jesus affirmed the legitimacy of capitalism even more directly. Another parable featured the owner of a vineyard who had leased it out to tenants. However, the tenants, perhaps advocates of IE refused to pay the landlord the profits due to him. However, Jesus sided with the landlord (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16).

Jesus used the father of the Prodigal Son as a positive role model. However, he had numerous “hired servants” (Luke 15:17) and evidently great wealth. Even in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, who ended up in a place of torment, there is no indication that his wealth had been the problem, but rather that he refused to share what he had (Luke 16:19-31).

In fact, it is important to note that Jesus never criticized but endorsed the Mosaic Law. Instead, He often criticized those who departed from it (Matthew 15:1-8; John 5:44-47). However, the Law had nothing to say against being rich and having employees, even servants. In fact, God had blessed many – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, David, and Solomon – with great wealth. While the Law did mention equality, it was never a matter of IE.

Jesus’ teachings were in tandem with the Mosaic. He too endorsed the principle that the hard worker should be able to reap his rewards.

Jesus told a parable about a wealthy landowner who was leaving in a long journey. He therefore entrusted with money so that they would use it to make a profit for him. Most did so and were commended by the landowner upon his return. However, one servant simply buried it and returned to his master the very amount that had been entrusted to him.

The master did not commend him but berated him:

·       “‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.’” (Matthew 25:26-29)

Not only did Jesus affirm the master/servant relationship, He also affirmed the fact that the master was using the servant to make a profit. Even “worse,” Jesus affirmed that the little that the “slothful servant” had should be taken from him and given to those who had much more – hardly an advocacy for IE.

Of course, Jesus wasn’t advocating unrestrained capitalism. The Mosaic Law contained numerous safeguards and provisions for the poor. However, the Law didn’t suppress individual initiative, the essential element of capitalism.

However, many, even “Christians,” are not aware of Jesus’ teachings and, therefore, tend to understand Him in a way that affirms their own modern, progressive values. One New York Times columnist cited a fringe figure, Brian McLaren, as proof that the Church is not following its Founder:

·       “Our religions often stand for the very opposite of what their founders stood for…”

·       “No wonder more and more of us who are Christians by birth, by choice, or both find ourselves shaking our heads and asking, ‘What happened to Christianity?’” McLaren writes. “We feel as if our founder has been kidnapped and held hostage by extremists. His captors parade him in front of cameras to say, under duress, things he obviously doesn’t believe. As their blank-faced puppet, he often comes across as anti-poor, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant and anti-science. That’s not the Jesus we met in the Gospels!”

McLaren claims that the Church has misunderstood Jesus. What is the basis of his charge? Certainly not Scripture! Rather, it seems that the Church is wrong because it fails to understand Jesus in a way consistent with McLaren’s progressivism.

And what of McLaren’s charge that the Church is not following Jesus’ teaching about feeding the poor? Jesus never petitioned the ruling classes to establish entitlement programs to feed the poor. However, He did appeal to individuals to give generously.

Admittedly, we fail in many regards. However, it is not because, as McLaren alleges, the Bible-believing church has willingly distorted His teachings.

IS CAPITALISM EVIL?

According to Elizabeth Warren, capitalism necessarily means exploitation:

·       “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” 

Warren suggests that the creator of capital doesn't really have a right to his capital, because the capitalist had taken advantage of the labor of others. 

However, creating wealth can also be an act of love. What if I decide to work 14 hours a day and sow 50 acres with tomatoes instead of my usual 30. I will have to hire two unemployed neighbors, and the extra tomatoes going to the market will lower the price for everyone! Doesn't sound too evil, does it?

Let's now add another aspect of capitalism. It empowers. It motivates and marshals our energies into something wholesome - creating things that others want and need. 

In contrast, when the government assumes responsibility for our welfare, we are disempowered. We no longer need to work or to be enterprising. We become devalued, even within our nuclear families. The bread-winner is no longer essential, when the State provides. The children are no longer essential to provide for their parents, after the State assumes responsibility for them.

The community also becomes irrelevant and therefore disempowered once their care-giving role has been usurped by the State.

What is the alternative to capitalism - the freedom to pursue capital? The elimination of this freedom! But how? Through costly government control! For what purpose? Empowerment or dis-empowerment?

Is capitalism an evil? Does it foster greed, materialism, exploitation, and avarice or is it one of many ways that our baser instincts can find expression? 

In "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," Max Weber argued that capitalism is not the cause of these evils but one of many ways that our evils can be expressed:

·       The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself nothing to do with capitalism. This impulse exists and has existed among waiters, physicians, coachmen, artists, prostitutes, dishonest officials, soldiers, nobles, crusaders, gamblers, and beggars. One may say that it has been common to all sorts and conditions of men at all times and in all countries of the earth, wherever the objective possibility of it is or has been given. It should be taught in the kindergarten of cultural history that this naïve idea of capitalism must be given up once and for all.

In light of this, socialism and communism do not eliminate our dark impulses but merely channel them in different ways.

Let's return to Warren:

·       "But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” 

Indeed, we are our brother's keeper. We have been given and so we must give, but how? Through government coercion? The Bible insists that giving should be done freely and not through coercion:

·       “The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.” (2 Corinthians 9:6-8)

When giving is coerced, it is not cheerful. It might not even be helpful.