Anti-Semitism is Anti-Christ

One atheist charged, “Christianity is the source of Jew-hating.” He cited the unfortunate words of Martin Luther to prove his claim. Although I have great admiration for Martin Luther, I must disagree with many of the things he wrote regarding the Jewish people. However, his offensive words do not in any way provide evidence that the New Testament is anti-Semitic.

Jesus was a Jew and purposely came as one. Therefore, if we hate Jews, we hate Jesus – an impossibility for a Christian. All the Apostles were also Jewish. Therefore, to hate Jews is to hate the Apostles and also the all writers of the New Testament. (Although Luke wasn’t born Jewish, he might have been a convert.)

Hate, in itself, is against the very fabric of the Gospel. How can we hate when Christ refused to hate us and died for us even when we were His enemies:

• “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (Romans 5:8-10)

Therefore, those who hate are not abiding in the truth of the Gospel. Likewise, those who hate Jewish people as “Christ-killers” fail to have any appreciation of the Gospel and the necessity of the Messiah dying for the sins of all of us:

• “He was despised and rejected by men...Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows...But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:3-7)

Thankfulness, rather than hate, should be the response of those who truly belong to God. There are also many reasons to be thankful for the role that Israel has played in God’s plan. Israel preserved the Word of God. Paul recognized this when he wrote,

• “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew...Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.” (Romans 3:1-2)

Nor is God finished with His people to whom He promised the world to come:

• “I am talking to you Gentiles...For if their [Israel’s] rejection [of the Messiah] is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch [of Israel] is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” (Romans 11:13-16)

It was Israel’s rejection of their Messiah that had opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles. But this situation is temporary. Israel will eventually return to their Messiah:

• “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer [the Messiah] will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob [Israel]’…they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:28-29)

• "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” (Zech. 12:10)

Therefore, a Christian hating a Jew is a Christian hating his older brother. Granted, presently Christians and Jews have irreconcilable differences, but this is only temporary. Any Christian should have eyes for the broad perspective. To hate is to deny the riches and assurances we have in Christ. To love Christ is to love the Jewish people from which the Son of David came. To be a Christian is to acknowledge our responsibility toward the Jewish people:

• “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16)

To love the Jewish people is to see them through the eyes of faith and the eyes of their Messiah. Anyone who fails to see this, also fails to see the Gospel of salvation.

Atheism is Death to Equality and Other Principles that We Value

Atheists wrongly assume that once they rid society of Christianity, they will be able to retain those features of Christianity they find desirable – equality, justice and compassion. They also erroneously argue that these features aren’t endemic to the Bible, that other societies have also justifiably laid claim to these as they too can.

In contrast, Jewish scholars point to the fact that these values originated with the Bible. Joshua Berman writes:

• “The Pentateuch articulates a new social, political, and religious order, the first to be founded on egalitarian ideals and the notion of a society whose core is a single, uniformly empowered, homogenous class.” (Created Equal, 6)

Meanwhile, the atheist will claim that we inherited our “egalitarian ideals” from the Greeks, even though Moses predated the noteworthy Greek thinkers by 1000 years. Besides, the Greeks weren’t truly egalitarian. Aristotle, for one, insisted that,

• “From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.”

Only some could be equal. Dinesh D’ Souza adds:

• “Aristotle, too, had a job for low men: slavery. Aristotle argued that with low men in servitude, superior men would have leisure to think and participate in governance of the community. Aristotle cherished the ‘great-souled man’ who was proud, honorable, aristocratic, rich.” (What’s so Great about Christianity)

• [Because of the teachings of the Bible] “For the first time people began to view society not from the perspective of the haughty aristocrat but from that of the ordinary man. This meant that institutions should not focus on giving the rich and high-born new ways to pass their free time; rather, they should emphasize how to give the common man a rich and meaningful life.”

Among more ancient peoples, equality wasn’t even a dream. J.H. Hertz wrote:

• “Among the Oriental peoples, the word “king” connotes an irresponsible despot, vested with unchallenged authority. All law is the expression of his will; and, while it bonds every member of the community, the monarch himself is free to supersede or to disregard it. He owes no formal duties to his subjects and is answerable to none for his actions. To the Eastern mind, a limited monarchy was a contradiction in terms.” (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs)

The Mosaic Law was radically different. The king was no better or any more privileged than any other Israelite:

• He [the king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel. (Deut. 17:17-20)

Mosaic Law was the great equalizer, making us all debtors to God. The king had to be subject to the law as was everyone else! Berman adds:

• “Observations are legion in the scholarly literature that the limitations of the Israelite king…are without parallel in the ancient Near East. Nowhere else do we find legal curbs on the size of the military, the treasury, and the harem.” (Berman 53)

• “In many cultures in the ancient Near East, the king was considered the son of God, with the implication of adoption or election. Deuteronomy too speaks of sons of God—but these statements refer to Israel as a whole (14:1; 32:6, 18)…all Israelites have the status elsewhere accorded only to the king.” (Berman, 63)

Such laws are never the product of the elite. In the absence of a democracy, it had to come from above! Instead, the elite have historically regarded the legal system as their tool to protect their interests. What a contrast with Biblical revelation! Historian Alvin Schmidt wrote of two poignant illustrations:

• Bishop Ambrose [A.D. 390] told the Emperor that he had to repent for slaughtering 7,000 innocent people. In effect, he told him that even as emperor he was not above the law. Then in 1215 the signing of the Magna Carta, greatly shaped by its Christian formulators, is another example of no one, not even the king, is above the law.

Even the Deist Thomas Jefferson recognized that our liberties required a Biblical foundation:

• “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” (Notes on the State of Virginia)

What will happen when Biblical thought and values are finally removed as a basis for society? Hertz gives a couple of examples:

• “’Justice must be guided solely by State interests,’ said a Nazi ruler. ‘Every judge must member that his decisions are intended to promote nothing but the prevailing policy of the State’, said a Soviet Commissar”.

While Communism promised to usher in equality, it was ubiquitously lacking in all of its permutations. Why? Of course, the atheist will argue, “Well, atheism doesn’t have to take the form of Nazism or Communism. We can be pragmatic and simply choose those values that work to produce a viable society.” However there are numerous problems with this claim:

1. The atheist assessment of a “good” or “viable society” might not truly be good. Although atheists have the same God-given laws written on their hearts, they often regard these laws as no more than chemical-electrical impulses and not as authoritative messages from above. They therefore might choose laws or values that work – pragmatic considerations – to produce the type of society that they think is best. Therefore, they lack any reason to not gravitate in a Nazi or Communist direction. Perhaps what works will not prove to be equality but top-down control?

2. If pragmatism is the basis for morality, then it shouldn’t be surprising that it is sometimes pragmatic and self-serving to do some horrible things. It’s also very short-sighted.

3. Instead, atheists might embrace the truths of the heart saying, “We know the truths of the conscience as well as you do. Therefore, we too can embrace equality and compassion.” However, this isn’t enough. There are also the dark “truths” of the conscience – revenge, bitterness, selfishness, jealousy, self-righteousness – and these can impose themselves with urgency.

4. The atheistic naturalistic/materialistic worldview provides no support for equality. In fact, it rules against it! If we are to regard others “materialistically” – the only way of measurement available to the atheist – we cannot see equality, but vast differences among people. Some make positive contributions to society, family and relationships; some don’t. Some are even destructive. From this perspective, some are worthy of equal treatment; some aren’t. Some are entitled to respect and some aren’t.

We find an interesting example of this conundrum within psychotherapy. The profession is understandably committed to treating their clients with dignity and respect, without which the therapeutic relationship cannot move forward. However, from the atheistic/materialistic perspective, some of their clients are regarded as contemptible. The therapist must therefore live inconsistently with their materialistic worldview or live as a hypocrite, expressing acceptance but thinking contempt.

In contrast, the Bible provides an additional means of assessing others – all human life is precious and sanctified by the fact that we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Consequently, the Christian has the resources to work with others. On the one hand, we can deal honestly with dysfunctional, immoral behavior, while on the other hand, positive regard for our clients rests on the fact that God has endued them with inestimable worth.

The atheist Friedrich Nietzsche detested the Christian faith, especially for its endorsement of equality:

• “Another Christian concept, no less crazy: the concept of equality of souls before God. This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights.” (Will to Power)

Worldviews carry hidden costs, some of which can only be seen after it’s too late. However, the German poet Heinrich Heine – around 1830 – was able to see the approach of Nazism from afar:

• "It is to the great credit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the brutal German lust for battle...And should ever that taming talisman break--the Cross--then will come roaring back the wild madness of the ancient warriors...For thought goes before deed as lightening before thunder. There will be played in Germany a play compared to which the French revolution was but an innocent idyll."

We too should be able to see what’s around the corner.

The Japanese Meltdown

In the midst of the destruction that the Japanese are facing, there have been acts of heroism that have touched our hearts. However, I haven’t seen any as solemn and moving as the spectacle of the white-clad Japanese volunteers trooping back into the midst of the reactors where they face almost certain death, trying to contain the nuclear terror from spreading to their people.

From around the world, others have called in, written in, blogged in to express their profound admiration for these honorable modern-day warriors. We have watched this debacle in horror, crying in our hearts for the plight of the Japanese people, hoping perhaps that these diminutive but heroic forms, walking back into the unquenchable inferno, might provide an answer, even a partial answer. Or will their lives be tragically consumed in vain before this restless nuclear beast of our own creation?

Perhaps it takes a meltdown to remind us of our own personal meltdowns and the drama that is played out with almost daily reminders of our own failures, and their possible consequences. It also reminds us of our Savior Jesus Christ who also braved an unstoppable meltdown, taking upon Himself all the fallout that would have buried us eternally. We do not know what will be the outcome of the Japanese meltdowns and the brave people who are sacrificing their lives in hope of containing its deadly contents, but we do know what the One who died for us has accomplished:

• This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10)

Many will resent this analogy – that I am comparing the very real Japanese nuclear disaster with a fairy tale. However, I would urge you to consider the possibility that what Jesus accomplished is real – that He truly died for our sins, and that if we acknowledge this, we can have eternal life. What’s there to loose by trying? Doubt is not the problem. Jesus invited us to,

• Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-11)

Doubt will “ask;” doubt will “seek.” Disdain for God will do neither.

Good Deeds without Truth: The Consequences of Do-Goodism

Do we have to choose between the two? Doesn’t virtue and truth go together? Not according to some, who think we can do good deeds without the necessary theological underpinning. However, according to Scripture, good deeds arise from a theology-fed heart. Giving grows out of gratefulness, and gratefulness from the understanding that we have a lot of reasons to be grateful. Gratefulness might not be the only foundation stone, but it’s an essential one. Paul instructs Titus:

• “And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” (Titus 3:8)

What are “these things” that Titus must instruct his flock? We need to know the full extent of our riches in Christ:

• “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:4-7)

Jesus’ mercy is totally undeserved and not at all dependent upon the things we had done or even our spiritual heart. We need to reject the twisted theology that strokes our pride by insisting that God chose us because He knew that we – being more spiritual than others – would respond positively to His gracious overtures. It is the reverse that is true – God purposely chose us when we were total failures so that we wouldn’t have any basis for boasting (1 Cor. 1:26-30).

Sadly, we often take these incredible words for granted and live our lives as if our ultimate home is the here-and-now and our salvation is a matter of our own goodness. Therefore, Paul begins his admonition by exhorting Titus to remember the absolute sewer we were living in when Christ rescued us:

• “At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.” (Titus 3:3)

Many Christians might consider this depressing. Why must we always rehearse our folly and failures? Don’t we need to be positive and not negative? However, Biblical revelation insists that there are things we need to rehearse if we are to understand the mercy of Christ with poignancy and excitement. When we acknowledge how undeserving we are of anything good from God, our hearts are revived to the glory and grace of what we have been given.

Biblically speaking, good works aren’t merely the product of self-control and the strenuous exertion of the will, but of the Holy Spirit who elucidates Biblical truths. Virtue depends upon theological, Spirit-led elucidation. Otherwise, our virtue tends to go to our heads, and we begin to look down on others (Luke 18:9). Today, we have little appreciation for humility, but the ancients realized that its absence bred negative consequences (Proverbs 11:2; 13:10; 16:18). It was therefore imperative for Israel to never forget their humble beginnings:

• “After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.” (Deut. 9:4-6)

Forgetting this valuable lesson would inevitably enable Israel to believe that they were better and more entitled than other peoples. This, in turn, would produce pride and arrogance – something that God found detestable. Boasting in our own successes is bad enough, but if God is the author of these successes, boasting becomes even more repugnant. Without an appreciation of the fact that all good things come from God, whatever virtuous acts we perform are evil and self-serving at their core. Besides, arrogance bears seeds of its own destruction.

For their own well-being, Israel needed to rehearse the precious revelation of their unworthiness. Moses helped them in this regard. He continued to assault Israel with lengthy lists of their failures to keep them humble and dependent upon their God.

Humility is the mother of virtue, but humility must be suckled by theological instruction. Rehearsing of our rags-to-riches story – the mercies of our Savior – is imperative to produce the right climate to bear virtuous fruits.

What happens when we lack this doctrinal underpinning? What if we just decide to live our lives to do good? For one thing, it can produce a lot of poisonous fruit – arrogance, pride, and an entitlement mentality. Before Heinrich Himmler laid the foundation for what later became Hitler’s SS, and before he became one of history’s worst murderers, he had been a moralistic do-gooder. In his History of the SS, G.S. Graber writes:

• “There is ample evidence in his diaries that Himmler most earnestly wanted to be a ‘good boy.’ He would turn with alacrity to the performance of good works, visiting the sick, doing favors for people…When any of Himmler’s fellow students fell ill, they found in him a diligent and sympathetic visitor. He would run errands for them and their families. Just causes found his ever-ready support. He also acted in a benefit play for underprivileged Viennese children.” (10-11)

Were Himmler’s good works entirely disconnected with his legacy of genocide? Can our estimation of ourselves as “good and deserving people” contribute to the flip-side – evil? Can this identity enable us to commit acts that normally we wouldn’t do? Did Himmler’s self-identity as a “good person” give him the leverage to override his conscience and commit abominations?

The example of the Khmer Rouge (Reds) and their determination to establish a communistic workers’ paradise might shed some light on this question. Their very obvious sacrificial devotion to their “good” cause had even won a number of serious Buddhist monks into their ranks. The monks had an understandable respect for sacrificial discipline – the very thing they were finding among the Khmer Rouge. Their leader, Pol Pot, exemplified this quality as had many other communist luminaries, including Lenin:

• “In describing Pol Pot, a former companion of his appropriated the celebrated remark made by Axelrod about Lenin: that he was ‘the only man who had no thoughts but thoughts about the revolution, and who in his sleep dreamt of the revolution.’” (“The Tragedy of Cambodian History,” David P. Chandler, 239)

We may disagree with Pol Pot and Lenin, but these men were so committed to their ideal of the “good,” that they were willing to sacrifice themselves, and consequently others. It’s amazing how glibly the do-gooder can talk about the use of terror. Lenin was forthright about how the “bourgeoisie must be actively oppressed…

• The state is a special organization of force; it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, 284)

How could the Communists resort to violence with such ease? They had convinced themselves that they were agents of the good and were therefore entitled to subjugate others! While the communists broadly exhibited unfailing devotion to their vision, the Nazis also labored tirelessly for their ideal of a “great” society. However, we don’t have to look overseas to see that the drive to perform the virtuous, without the necessary theological foundation, can lead to some bad fruit. In my fifteen years working for the NYC Department of Probation, I observed a number of people who labored sacrificially to put into place good programs for youth and other offenders. However, success – even moral success – has a way of going to our heads, and these devoted people often became quite poisonous to the others around them.

Conversely, humbling experiences can make us act more humanely, at least for a time. One co-worker often verbally abused his subordinates. However, over the course of years, he had been arrested several times on minor offenses. Interestingly, right after these arrests, his behavior improved dramatically. For a brief period, at least, he didn’t feel entitled to abuse others. While a high regard for our virtue and self-importance can inflate our egos, humbling circumstances can bring us back to reality.

We nod our heads in agreement that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Such power exalts us in importance above others, but our “good deeds” achieve the same thing. What if we regard ourselves as morally superior to others? Why do we find such a strong connection between “do-goodism” and the Killing Fields of human history? For one thing, when we perceive that we are good and devoted to our virtuous cause, we tend to develop an entitlement mentality, justifying violence, because we believe we are better than they. We convince ourselves that we have earned the right to impose our ideals on them.

My years with probation taught me that those who commit domestic violence are convinced that they are the good ones in the relationship, and it’s all their mate’s fault. Conquerors have little problem convincing themselves of their superiority and that they are doing something good by annexing others’ lands, thereby spreading their “civilization” to “inferior” peoples. We Americans justified our expansionism with the philosophy of “manifest destiny.” The Japanese and the Germans did the same thing. In fact, it’s almost a rule of thumb that when a nation becomes rich, powerful, and self-assured, they feel entitled to dominate others, if not exterminate them.

Our sense of superiority can come in many forms. The theory of evolution led us to believe that Caucasians were the ultimate in an evolutionary march toward our ultimate destiny. This idea of our superiority entitled us to treat the “inferior” races with contempt, as evolutionist Karl Giberson has written:

• “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared Haeckel’s [racist, Darwinist] ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.” (“Saving Darwin”)

Regarding ourselves as members of a “superior” race can enable us to override the voice of our conscience. Consequently, when I hear mention of a new utopian idea, I see scenes of death and enslavement.

I’ve digressed from the point – that good deeds, without the necessary theological underpinning, can breed pride and eventually, victimization. In fact, any sense of superiority can do this. However, Biblical faith rules decisively against such thinking. This is one reason why we shouldn’t denigrate theology.

Surprisingly, even Christians are now expressing contempt for theology and believe that true virtue, in God’s estimation, can exist apart from Christian faith (Hebrews 11:6). They have embraced a false dichotomy that says, “It’s about how we treat others and the quality of our relationships and not about our doctrines.” However, this piece of dogma doesn’t stand up to Biblical scrutiny. It’s not a matter of either doctrine or love, but both doctrine and love, together! Similarly, love cannot exist apart from truth. To separate love and virtue from truth is to separate a tree from its roots.

Let’s try to bring this issue closer to home – knowing that He saved me, not because I did anything to deserve it, but purely on the basis of His grace, humbles me and prevents me from looking down on others. Christian theology compels me toward the good and castigates me when I treat others with contempt. I’ve learned that every good thing comes as a gracious gift, as proof of His love for me (James 1:17; 1 Cor. 4:6-7). Consequently, my good deeds are not my self-enhancing gift to the world, but God’s gift to me. How then can I be proud!

Issues of Conscience

To what extent should our government impose a uniform code of behavior upon its citizens, and to what extent should it allow for differences based upon conscience? For example, should it eliminate the “conscientious objector” classification or require all nursing staff to participate in abortions? According to World:

• The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Feb. 18 that it is striking elements of a 2008 Bush administration order that bolstered the ability of medical caregivers to refuse to participate in procedures they find morally objectionable…The new regulations…state that such rights should be trumped by other issues like patient access. Calling the 2008 protections “unclear and potentially overbroad in scope,” the Obama administration changes largely deal with controversial contraceptives…(March 12, 2011, 14)

The alleged problem that the protections had been “unclear and potentially overbroad in scope” could have been addressed by merely restating them. Instead, certain protections were simply eliminated. These issues of conscience have broad ramifications. World cites some particulars:

• At New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital higher-ups pressure a nurse to participate in an abortion. Applications for a university’s nurse residency program include a pledge to participate in abortions.

Should “such rights should be trumped by other issues like patient access?” Whose “rights” should be favored? What should prevail – conscience or convenience? There are several ways to answer this question:

CONSTITUTIONALLY: The U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In light of this, it might be argued that the rescinding of these protections interferes with the “free exercise” of religion, sometimes even jeopardizing the employment of people-of-conscience. Had the “free exercise” interfered with the overriding medical concerns for the health of the patients, this would have been a different matter. However, this doesn’t seem to have been the case here. Is it absolutely critical that every nurse and doctor be willing to prescribe or refer for the morning-after pill? Should the convenience of the patient trump issues of conscience?

PRAGMATICALLY: Can a nation remain viable if it continues to coerce non-essential moral and behavioral conformity upon its citizens? Of course, if every soldier opted to become a “conscientious objector,” this would strongly militate against our national interests. However, this isn’t the case. Likewise, if every nurse in every hospital and clinic refused to participate in abortions, the practice of performing abortions would have to be reconsidered. However, we are very far from this. Besides, if there was such universal consternation against abortion, perhaps the law should be changed to prohibit abortions.

What if it is discovered that Christians make better soldiers than atheists? Should the government outlaw atheism? Of course not! What if Muslim cabbies refused to transport alcoholic beverages because of moral considerations? Should conformity be imposed? Wouldn’t the imposition of such conformity be intolerable for large segments of our population?

Government shouldn’t insist upon coercing such conformity unless non-conformity would result in unacceptably negative consequences. We seem to forget that it is conscience, and only secondarily law, that holds a society together. Our second president John Adams was adamant about this:

• We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

In light of this, coercing conformity at the expense of conscience is myopic, and perhaps even self destructive. It was never intended that national interests should impose upon religious matters of conscience. Our Federal system would never have come into existence without the provision of the free exercise of religion, nor will it be able to continue for long without it. Our Founding Fathers knew all too well the mindset of the Apostles:

• Acts 4:19: But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you [the governing Sanhedrin] rather than God.

God had to come first! Our country has thrived upon this understanding. It will whither without it.


(Sent to President Obama)

Politically Correct: American Psychological Assoc.

• "Psychology and mental health have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry, as well as from compassionate practice in which the welfare of the patient is paramount" (p. xiii).

• "Psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultraliberal agenda" (p. xiii).

• "The APA [American Psychological Association] has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society" (p. xiv).

• "Within psychology today, there are topics that are deemed politically incorrect, and they are neither published nor funded. Journal editors control what is accepted for publication through those chosen to conduct peer reviews... censorship exists... The Monitor on Psychology detests ‘managed care’ but ‘it loves managed news’" (p. xiv).

These quotes come from “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm,” co-edited by Rogers Wright and Nicolas Cummings. You might suppose that these men are renegades, establishment outsiders. Not so! According to A. Dean Byrd, PhD, MBA, MPH:

• “Wright is a past president of Division 12, founding president of Division 31, founding president of the Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences (CAPPS), Fellow of the APA, a Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, the recipient of an honorary doctorate and a distinguished practitioner of the National Academies of Practice.

• Cummings is currently distinguished professor, University of Nevada, president of the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health, chairs the boards of both the Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation and CareIntegra. He is past president of the APA Division 12 and Division 29 as well as the recipient of five honorary doctorates for contributions to psychology, education, and the Greek Classics. He is the recipient of psychology's Gold Medal for lifetime contributions to practice.” (http://www.narth.com/docs/destructive.html)

According to Byrd,

• Cummings notes that though he and his co-editor lived through the "abominable" McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts, still, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness" (p. xv). "Now misguided political correctness tethers our intellects. Those viewed as conservative are looked down upon as lacking intelligence" (p. xv).

So what’s the big deal? "Political diversity is so absent in mental health circles that most psychologists and social workers live in a bubble. So seldom does anyone express ideological disagreement with colleagues that they believe all intelligent people think as they do” (p. xvi).

This climate is so pervasive, intimidating and repressive that many of the potential contributors to this book “declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks..." (p. xv).

The issues of homosexuality and the political correctness seem to be at the heart of the intimidation. Cummings and O’Donohue maintain that the declassification of homosexuality or same-sex attraction (SSA) from pathology to normalcy was the result of politics and not science:

• “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.” (p. 9).

However, this “victory” wasn’t enough. Their strategy goes like this: If SSA is normal, then its treatment is inappropriate and stigmatizes its clients! Despite the lack of scientific support,

• ... this did not prevent its Council of Representatives in 2002 from stampeding into a motion to declare the treatment of homosexuality unethical. This was done with the intent of perpetuating homosexuality, even when the homosexual patient willingly and even eagerly seeks treatment…Curiously, and rightly so, there was no counterargument against psychological interventions conducted by gay therapists to help patients be gay” (p 18) .

If intimidation is necessary to eliminate reparative therapy for SSA, then so be it! Wright asserts:

• “Gay groups within the APA [American Psychological Association] have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate 'gayness,' on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree with this premise are termed homophobic.”

• “Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so” (pp. xxx).

It requires courage to stand up against the mob. However, there are people who are still willing, even at great personal expense to themselves:

• “In a series of courageous letters to the various components of APA, former president Robert Perloff referred to the willingness of many psychologists to trample patients' rights to treatment in the interest of political correctness. He pointed out that making such treatment unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment choice because the threat of sanctions would eliminate any psychologist who engaged in such treatment. Although the resolution was narrowly defeated, this has not stopped its proponents from deriding colleagues who provide such treatment to patients seeking it” (p. 18).

Intimidation continues across an entire spectrum of phenomena, even when logically incoherent. Byrd observes,

• “The authors note, for example. ‘...the status of homosexuality is a settled moral question in the PC movement,’ citing, for example, that the National Endowment for the Arts would likely view those who object to the painting Piss Christ as infringing on freedom of expression, while finding a similar [hypothetical] painting titled Piss Gay as offensive and morally wrong” (p. 24).

It is the same intimidation today that is forcing sexuality upon young school children in the name of “diversity training.” In an age, when so many of our young people are abandoning the church, thinking the Gospel narrow and homophobic, what is our responsibility? Avoidance of the issues? Accommodation? Instead, it is the same answer as it always has been:

• Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

The Darwinian Façade Seem to be Cracking

Once you venture out from “the world according to Richard Dawkins,” don’t be surprised if you find some refreshing diversity among mainstream biologists. Within the context of a panel discussion, biologist Craig Venter disagreed with the concept of “common dissent,” the very foundation-piece of evolution. About this, William Dembski comments:

• Origin-of-life researchers such as Ford Doolittle and Carl Woese have questioned for some time whether there even is a tree of life [common dissent]. Venter is now following in their train. What’s significant is not so much whether Venter is right (I think he is), but what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t?

In the video, Richard Dawkins was flabbergasted:

• The DNA code is all but identical [among all living things]. Doesn’t this mean that they are all related? (My rough quote from the video.)

Interestingly, no one jumped to Dawkins’ defense of this necessary pillar of Darwinism.