Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

A British journalist assesses the significance of Memorial Day in America

Arlington National Cemetery

Arlington National Cemetery

Timothy Stanley writing in the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

The apparent paradox of ignoble sacrifice can be resolved by considering what Americans actually fight for. The USA is unique in that it was founded on an idea. That’s why I’ve headlined this piece with the controversial statement that it’s the “greatest country in the world.” To qualify: Britain is clearly God’s garden, but it belongs only to the British. America, because it is founded on the universal principle of free will,belongs to humanity. It can assimilate any individual, family or entire culture because the principle is so much more powerful than the nationality of the person who integrates into it. As a Briton living in America – even without being a citizen – I feel more American than British on the strength of enjoying free speech, a free market, the free exchange of ideas, freedom of faith. Most importantly, I am unencumbered by the European poison of class. In the US, folks are defined by the content of their individual character, not what their ma and pa did for a living. If they want to become a nun and feed the poor, they can. If they want to become Donald Trump and screw the poor, they can do that, too. The Americans leave judgement to God.

[...]…American imperialism is unlike any other. The Europeans came to exploit, then they built a cultural edifice upon the wasteland. The Americans, by contrast, have rarely physically stayed anywhere very long. The US went through a period of European colonialism in the late 19th century, but the goal of Korea, Vietnam or even Iraq was to create a democratic state that could defend itself. America has tirelessly pursued dialogue with countries that have been determined to destroy it (Maoist China, the Soviet Union); it ended the Cold War without firing a single shot. Given their reputation for being gung-ho, one of the greatest virtues of the American people is their patience. And throughout it all, there’s always been a vocal opposition at home that reminds the soldiers of the precious freedoms for which they fight. For all the wrong reasons, Richard Nixon was right when he said “[Our enemies] cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”

But my need to understand the strange pride that even I – a foreigner – feel when I walk among the graves at Arlington is, ultimately, redundant. On days like Memorial Day, a civilian has to just shut up and stand in silence – an act of respect for the giants in the earth, and for the great country that made them. God bless America.

Everyone can be an American in spirit. You just have to honor American heroes for their sacrifices.

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , ,

Were the Crusades unprovoked attacks against peaceful Muslims?

Here’s an article from a historian specialized in the history of the Crusades.

Excerpt:

For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

Since this question comes up in apologetics, and even William Lane Craig screws it up by calling the Crusades evil, I thought it might be a good idea for us to have some background so that we would be able to set the record straight if it’s called into question. It’s important to know this because a lot of people appeal to the Crusades to take shots at Christianity and introduce a kind of moral equivalence that excuses real wars of aggression and real terrorism.

The article also includes some of the real mistakes made by some of the Crusaders, so be ready to own up to those.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

American Atheists: are they much different from Stalin and Mao Tse Tung?

I do want to make a distinction between ordinary individual atheists and militant atheists. This post is about militant atheists, the kind that organizes into groups and then exerts political power to try to trample the rights of religious people. This post is about that kind of atheist, not the ordinary kind that is honest and open to being convinced that God exists. If you are an atheist, and you don’t have any thoughts about silencing religious people, or making religious people deny their convictions, or taking away their rights to speak freely or assemble, then this post isn’t about you. But there is another group of atheists that does have these and other goals, and this post is an answer to them.

Consider this post on the American Atheists web site. (The PDF is saved here)

Excerpt:

It should come as no surprise that the individuals who abide by fundamentalist Christian… doctrines would be the first to cry out that they are being persecuted when their dangerous, damaging and disingenuous beliefs come under attack. Most of these people lack the maturity and intelligence to act in a socially acceptable manner.  Many of them are sociopaths and quite a good number of them are psychopaths.  All of them are clearly delusional.

The fact is that fundamentalist Christians… are not interested in coexisting or getting along.  They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.

Their interpretation of the Bible… are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves.  It is not just in the best interests of atheists to be intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam, but it is also in the best interest of mainstream believers within these faiths, as well.  Moderates and even Progressives who stand in support of extremists just because there is a claim to the same deity are not doing themselves any favors.  Fundamental Christians make all Christians look bad…

…the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity… does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.

Wow, that’s some pretty strong rhetoric. Has anyone actually ever tried to eradicate Christianity? Let’s see.

The death toll of atheism: over 100 million in the last century

Here’s a quick introduction (from Harvard University Press) to the body count for atheist regimes in the last century.

Excerpt:

Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

“Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit,” Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience—in the China of “the Great Helmsman,” Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under “Uncle Ho” and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin’s destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu’s leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao’s Red Guards.

As the death toll mounts—as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on—the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century.

It’s important to understand that these communist regimes were run by militant, organized atheists. And atheism was at the center of their worldview, and their political involvement.

Here is a citation from a communist web site:

In the body of his study Marx pointed out that: “The proofs of the existence of God are either mere hollow tautologies… all proofs of the existence of God are proofs of his non-existence.” (Marx, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, 1841, MECW 1.)

…In 1841 Marx and Bauer planned to publish a radical philosophical periodical, Archives of Atheism. The views of some contemporaries give some indication of the scope of their project.

Arnold Ruge wrote: “Bruno Bauer, Karl Marx, Christiansen and Feuerbach are forming a new montagne and are making atheism their slogan. God, religion, immortality are cast down from their thrones and man is proclaimed God.

And Georg Jung wrote to Ruge: “If Marx, Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach associate to found a theological-philosophical review, God would do well to surround himself with all the angels and indulge in self-pity, for these three will certainly drive him out of his heaven… For Marx, at any rate, the Christian religion is one of the most immoral there is.” (David McLellan, Marx before Marxism, 1970)

Flowing from his atheism, Marx opposed organised religion and the role of religion in politics. A flavour of Marx’s attitude can be gleaned from his journalism at the time.

…in “The Leading Article” in No. 179 of the Kölnische Zeitung (1842), Marx accused the Prussian state of disseminating Christian dogma, criticised the police and the censor for protecting religion and insisted that no distinction should be made between religion as belief and the religious establishment. (MECW 1)

But this is ancient history right? Or is this still going on today?

Anti-Christian violence in atheist regimes

The problem hasn’t gone away… it’s still here wherever militant atheism is the state religion.

Here’s an example of how Christians are treated by the atheist regime in North Korea. This is just one of these atheist dictators who is taking the anti-Christian rhetoric of Karl Marx seriously.

Excerpt:

North Korea publicly executed a Christian woman last month for distributing the Bible, which is banned in the communist nation, South Korean activists said Friday.

Ri Hyon Ok, 33, was also accused of spying for South Korea and the United States and organizing dissidents. She was executed in the northwestern city of Ryongchon near the border with China on June 16, according to a report from an alliance of several dozen anti-North Korea groups.

Ri’s parents, husband and three children were sent to a political prison camp in the northeastern city of Hoeryong the following day, the report said, citing unidentified documents it says were obtained from North Korea. It showed a copy of Ri’s North Korean government-issued photo ID. It is virtually impossible to verify such reports about secretive North Korea, where the government tightly controls the lives of its citizens and does not allow dissent.

On Thursday, an annual report from a state-run South Korean think tank on human rights in the North said that public executions, though dropping in number in recent years, were still carried out for crimes ranging from murder to circulating foreign movies.

North Korea claims to guarantee freedom of religion for its 24 million people but in reality severely restricts religious observances. The cult of personality surrounding national founder Kim Il Sung and his son, current leader Kim Jong Il, is a virtual state religion.

The government has authorized four state churches, one Catholic, two Protestant and one Russian Orthodox, but they cater to foreigners and ordinary North Koreans cannot attend. However, defectors and activists say more than 30,000 North Koreans are believed to practice Christianity secretly.

The U.S. State Department reported last year that “genuine religious freedom does not exist” in North Korea.

“North Korea appears to have judged that Christian forces could pose a threat to its regime,” Do Hee-youn, a leading activist, told reporters, claiming public executions, arrest and detention of North Koreans are prevalent.

The BBC reports on some eradicating of Christianity in China.

Excerpt:

Human rights groups have documented an increasing number of arrests of Chinese Christians since the beginning of 2004.

According to the charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide, persecution is becoming more systematic and targeted at large-scale Christian gatherings.

Since June the charity has documented three mass arrests of unregistered Christians. In each case more than 100 people were detained.

Amnesty International has reported many cases of detained church leaders in recent years, especially in the provinces of Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Hebei.

One of the most high-profile cases is that of Gong Shengliang, head of the South China Church, who was sentenced to death in 2001. His sentence was commuted to a prison term, but Amnesty has received reports that he has been severely tortured in jail.

In August three Christians were sentenced to jail terms for passing information to foreign governments, and in July state media reported that a woman had been beaten to death after being arrested for handing out bibles.

Peter Xu said that while he was in jail, he saw several people even being killed for their faith.

“A believer was praying, so a jailer made other prisoners lift him up to the ceiling and drop him to the ground many times until he died,” Mr Xu said.

So, judging from these examples, at least some atheists have taken the desire to “eradicate Christianity” and put it into practice.

Can atheism ground human rights and morality?

So does atheism rationally ground a prohibition on mass murder? Well think about what atheism involves. Atheism is the view that there is no design to the universe. The universe is an accident. Matter is all there is. There is no way the universe ought to be, objectively – because there is no designer, objectively. And there is no way humans ought to act, objectively – because there is no moral lawgiver, objectively. Humans have no free will to make moral choices – we are just matter in motion, and that means that our behavior is fully determined by our genetic programming and sensory inputs. Moreover, there is no one we are accountable to after we die, so even if we had free will, there would be no reason to do good self-sacrificially, or to abstain from evil, self-sacrificially. When you die, that’s the end, so there’s no point in sacrificing your happiness for some arbitrary social conventions that vary by time and place. There is no reason to put anyone else’s interests above our own unless it gives us pleasure or helps us to avoid pain or social disapproval.

On atheism, if you feel pleasure from hurting or killing others, and there’s no one there strong enough to stop you, then there is nothing objectively wrong with hurting or killing others. Morality is just a convention on atheism – it varies by time and place. If the majority of people like slavery, then slavery becomes “moral”. There is no transcendent source of morality or human rights, such as the right to life or the right to liberty, on atheism. I repeat: on atheism, morality is the same as traffic laws or clothing fashions – they just evolve as a result of biological evolution and social evolution. So atheist morality is just “do whatever makes you feel good, but don’t get caught by those who might have different arbitrary preferences than you do”.

Don’t believe me? Consider a couple of prominent atheists:

William Provine says:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

Michael Ruse says:

The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

Richard Dawkins says:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

No ultimate foundation for ethics? Ethics is illusory? No evil and no good? Then why is this American Atheist article saying that some things are evil and that some things are good? It’s not rational to make claims about what’s evil and good on atheism, because on atheism, as Richard Dawkins tells us, there is no evil and no good.

When a Christian theist says slavery is wrong, he means it really is wrong. And he can make a rational argument for it based on the existence of a designer who has revealed that slavery is wrong – as Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce argued when he single-handedly ended slavery in the UK. But when an atheist says slavery is wrong, he means 1) that the morality of slavery is a matter of opinion, and 2) that the two opinions “slavery is right” or “slavery is wrong” are both equally warranted depending on where and when each convention evolved, and 3) that he has a personal preference for one view over the other, in keeping with his social group. In one time and place, slavery is “wrong”, and in another time and another place, slavery is “right”. Whatever has evolved in a culture at some time and in some place is right for that culture. There is no rule, on atheism, to say that one society is better than any other. Whatever evolved, biologically and sociologically, is right, on atheism.

Are atheists at least scientifically literate?

It’s also important to realize what we are dealing with in atheism.

According to the Secular Humanist Manifesto, atheism is committed to an eternally existing universe, (See the first item: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”). If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists. The standard Big Bang theory requires that all the matter in the universe come into being out of nothing. The Big Bang has been confirmed by experimental evidence such as redshift measurements, light element abundances and the cosmic microwave background radiation. According to this peer-reviewed astrophysics journal article, the best explanation for the Big Bang event is a supernatural agent. This cosmology falsifies eternal models of the universe, which are required by atheism.

So you have an entire group of people who basically make a faith commitment to an unscientific cosmology, and then they go on to advocate the eradication of Christianity (and therefore, of the eradication of the followers of Christianity). They believe what they want to believe – regardless of logic and science. Now why is that? Let’s consult a famous non-theist to find out what’s really going on.

Consider the famous agnostic Aldous Huxley:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves… For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.” — Aldous Huxley in Ends and Means, 1937

That’s what’s really going on here. They assume a reality that corresponds to their desires, and then they disregard any evidence that falsifies it – even scientific evidence.

What happens to atheists in debates?

Consider this debate with Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig:

If you watch the debate closely, you will find that although Christopher Hitchens is very aggressive, that he makes only one argument very briefly, in his very last speech. Instead, about 99% of his speeches he expresses his dislike for God and his preference that God would do things differently, so that it’s more in line with Mr. Hitchens’ preferences about the way the world ought to be.

The same thing happens in this debate with Sam Harris:

It’s really not about truth – it’s more like “Yuck! I don’t like Christianity!”. As we’ve seen, atheists don’t really believe that morality is real at all, it has no existence outside people’s opinions, on their view.

One final point, since it gets mentioned a lot: slavery. I find it particularly interesting when atheists complain about slavery. Slavery occurs when one group of people who have power de-humanize another group of people with less power based on some characteristic of that other group, so that they can exploit them or prevent them from interfering with their own pursuit of pleasure. Now consider the issue of abortion today. Conservative Christians oppose abortion, because we don’t think that entire groups of people lose their right to life just because they are small or insufficiently developed. Atheists on the other hand tend to favor of abortion.

In the time of slavery, the most committed evangelical Christians like William Wilberforce were active in the abolition movement.  Similarly, the most committed evangelical Christians today oppose abortion. Both issues are the same – a whole group of people are having their basic human rights removed by some other powerful group. Now abortion is much worse than slavery – 50 million unborn Americans have died since 1973. And generally, atheists do not oppose abortion today. This leads me to suspect that atheists would not have been opposed to slavery back in the time of slavery, certainly not in the way that William Wilberforce opposed it. In fact, here is good old Richard Dawkins expressing his support for infanticide. Richard Dawkins recently made comments about wanting to destroy Christianity – even though he fled from an opportunity to debate William Lane Craig. It’s not debate they want.

So what’s my view of what to do with atheists? I advocate reasoning with atheists, using arguments and evidence. I also advocate treating them gently and respectfully and charitably. This is no surprise, since religious people are known to be more charitable than non-religious people.

Related posts

Filed under: Polemics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thomas Sowell explains how liberal pacifism causes wars

Thomas Sowell

I just finished reading Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society” and I really recommend it. I mean – this is the book of the year from 2010. If you have no interest at all in economics and politics, you should definitely buy this book and read it. If you have never read anything about conservative economics and policy, then this is the place to start. It covers a little bit of economics, a little bit of jurisprudence, a little bit of education, a little bit of foreign policy… you name it – it’s in there. And in plain English. Thomas Sowell is my favorite economist, and the economist favored most by all conservatives. I own about a DOZEN of his books. He’s that good.

I wanted to talk to you about what was in chapter 7 “Intellectuals and War” and chapter 8 “Intellectuals and War: Repeating History”. So I searched and searched and found a summary of Sowell’s arguments in those chapters.

Here’s an article from Townhall.

Excerpt:

On the international scene, trying to assuage aggressors’ feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: “It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles.”

Like our former ambassador from the Carter era, Chamberlain sought to “remove the causes of strife or war.” He wanted “a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war.” In other words, the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler — and contempt for him by Hitler.

What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.” That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center.

Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In Britain during the 1930s, Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending, while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war.

All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it, and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. This is what they did not believe the West had. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief.

Then as now, pacifism was a “statement” about one’s ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm “as an example to others,” economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: “You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?”

The reply was: “Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?” In other words, the issue was about making a “statement” — that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, “Welcome them as tourists.”

That was explained even more in the book with more examples from history.

Most people think that Thomas Sowell is a libertarian, but he isn’t a full libertarian. He just reports the evidence. If the evidence is pro-war, then he’s pro-war. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher called this view “peace through strength”. There is only one reason why evil people do not attack – because they think that good people have the firepower tomake them pay dearly for their aggression, and – and this is very important – the will to use it. In the book, Sowell explains how the the left responded to the horror of world war one by undermining the will of the people to fight. They minimized patriotism and heroism, and emphasized charges of “imperialism”, moral equivalence, and lots of sob stories about victims.

Here’s an article that explains it more.

Excerpt:

In France, after the First World War, the teachers’ unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called “bellicose” books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers’ unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers’ heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun— French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims— and just like victims in other nations’ armies.

[...]France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany.

At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers’ union was told, “You are partially responsible for the defeat.”

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards — except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Everybody wants peace. Everyone – on both sides of the issue. The problem is that one side – the leftists – call their opponents names like “imperialist” and talk “disarmament” and “dialog” as if they have have the answer to peace. That doesn’t work and it has never worked. Pacifism only “works” in the classroom, where naive children are forced to parrot the opinions of their secular leftist teachers who have no expertise in war or history. What has actually worked in history is peace through strength. Strength deters wars, strength deters violence. Strength – and the will to use that strength to restrain evil.

Read this to learn more about the doctrine of peace through strength, and read this to compare terrorist attacks under Bush and under Obama.

A good book to read on this topic is Frank Gaffney’s “War Footing“.

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama spent 23 million taxpayer dollars to promote abortion in Kenya

Story here from Fox News. (H/T Jammie Wearing Fool via ECM)

Excerpt:

A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya’s referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum, and Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in sport of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.”

He and other lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation’s coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.

[...]One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S.

Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday.

But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role.

“If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.”

We’re in a recession. Many people don’t even have jobs, and yet these socialist bunglers waste 23 million dollars of taxpayer money that could have been used by small businesses to create jobs.

And I thought that Democrats were opposed to American imperialism? I guess not.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , ,

Wintery Tweets

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 3,936,978 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,717 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,717 other followers

%d bloggers like this: