Defending Faith and Values: Absolute Lies Discredited

In my last post, I highlighted the media’s reflexive attack of the new Italian PM, Giorgia Meloni; they called her a racist and fascist because they don’t like her defense of religion, God, and traditional values. The hostility towards people of faith, especially Christians and Jews, is in the open today.

Giorgia Meloni and Defending Faith and Values – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com)

Ms. Meloni is the first female prime minister of Italy, something normally celebrated by our media–but our one channel media calls for celebrations only if of the correct political persuasion. The corruption of our media is on full display here. Even Ms. Meloni’s chief political rival on the Left, former prime minister, Matteo Renzi, said talk of an Italian fascist takeover was “fake news”.

Democracy is not at risk, and fascism will not come back to Italy, former prime minister Matteo Renzi – a leftist who said he is ready to collaborate with the future right-wing coalition from the opposition – told CNN in an interview.

“She’s my rival, we will continue to fight each other, but there is not a risk of fascism in Italy. It is absolutely fake news,” he told CNN.

This inside baseball view of Italian politics doesn’t deter the one-channel media. Never let the facts stand in your way when certain you are morally right–or to support the narrative your side has put out. Our media has no guardrails, nothing to limit the extent to which they go to win.

The Lie is Nurtured

Ms. Meloni’s situation demonstrates how the lie is built and continually nurtured. Before you form an opinion of the new prime minister, before you can be persuaded by her words, she is labeled. A racist and a fascist should not be given the time of day. You are told to ignore her because her words are clear, cogent, and direct (and most of all TRUE). The media ties her religious fervor to racism and facism, in an attempt to discredit all people of faith as well. They repeat these same themes, these same LIES, continually. It doesn’t matter how many see through the attack; the repetition alone is enough to fool many.

Ms. Meloni hasn’t even taken office, yet it is hard to find a positive story about her. The meaning of her words are nothing like what the media claims, but the attack will not stop until she recants or is no longer a threat.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. – Joseph Goebbels

Comparisons of Ms. Meloni and President Trump by the Left are inevitable, so I will provide one also. In November 2016, before President Trump even entered office, the narrative for impeachment had already begun; the actual cause for impeachment was randomly drawn from current events, not one that actually warranted impeachment. The American media will also not give Ms. Meloni a chance to succeed. Anyone influential on the Right receives this treatment.

So many lies are developed and nurtured in this manner.

California Governor Newsome signed a bill this week punishing doctors who distribute medical “disinformation” regarding COVID (but only for COVID). But what is “disinformation”? Apparently, only the medical doctors working for the state of California know COVID disinformation; they know medicine better than all other medical professionals. However, who is checking them? Who are the real truth tellers and who are not?

https://www.theblaze.com/news/california-bill-censors-doctors-covid-19

Planned Parenthood doctor, Bhavik Kumar, testifying to Congress last week refused to definitively state men cannot get pregnant. https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/this-is-medicine-men-can-get-pregnant-planned-parenthood-doctor-tells-congress-bhavik-kumar-andrew-clyde-transgender-trans-pregnancy-abortion

Rep Andrew Clyde: Dr. Kumar, can biological men become pregnant and give birth?

Dr. Kuma: Um … so, men can have pregnancies, especially trans men

The corrupt one-channel media facilitates this nonsense: they will not criticize doctors promoting their woke message; they will not allow a full discussion; they will withhold the obvious truth, and will even lie to you if necessary. Would Governor Newsome punish this doctor for evading a simple question regarding science? Is that disinformation? The question was evaded only to support the outlandish narrative: men can be women, women can be men, and this is normal, good, and always has been.

I worry for our culture when we debate uncontroversial notions: Who can have babies? What’s a woman? What’s a man? The African tribe in Matt Walsh’s “What is a Woman” movie shook their heads at the silliness emanating from America. They live a simpler life, but understand life better than those enlightened by progressivism.

The Left always returns to racism, no matter the topic, no matter the context. This week, VP Harris said hurricane Ian impacted low-income, minorities, and women more than others; yet, ground zero was Sanibel island, a ritzy high-income community. She continued, saying we should prioritize aid, not-so-subtly implying if you are rich, white, and have lost your home, you ought to wait behind minorities and women in line for help.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vp-kamala-harris-says-hurricane-recovery-should-take-equity-account

“It is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions,” she said during the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum.

“We have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity,” she added. 

This is not how American works. The electricians restoring power, the Coast Guard and first responders helping desperate people, neighbors assisting each other, and millions donating money and supplies are not thinking about the race or income level of those in need. Still, VP Harris might convince a few people of the continued racism of her political opponents.

This same silly argument was made regarding vaccines in 2020; we should vaccinate first those most as risk, not those of a certain race. https://seek-the-truth.com/2021/03/02/who-are-we-vaccinating/

In 2017, a nut in Charlottesville killed one and injured many with his car. Somehow he becomes the prototypical racist Republican, a man radicalized by President Trump, as all Trump followers supposedly are. That man is in jail for life and nobody comes to his defense. President Trump clearly and repeatedly condemned such actions from day one (listen to the transcript, please!). Nobody of note praised this man or his violent actions. Yet, evidence of support is manufactured by media. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ohio-man-sentenced-life-prison-federal-hate-crimes-related-august-2017-car-attack-rally.

Furthermore, talk about Charlottesville events has no end. President Biden claims Charlottesville was a seminal event in his deciding to run for president (an unlikely story). A mole hill becomes a mountain of racism. All the while, media ignores the impact of the Summer 2020 riots which killed 25 people to protest one man’s death. The 2020 riots can be linked to Democrats and the plea to “defund the police”, so are transformed into “mostly peaceful protests”. The words of Kamala Harris above are clearly racist, but her racism is ignored or downplayed by friendly media. Leftists are not shamed; they are emboldened to go further, and often do.

This is the type of nonsense we get when people are unchecked:

Attack on Religion

Leftism has become a rival to traditional faiths and values; it is an iconoclastic cult defending its own values with religious-like fervor while it is bent on destroying traditional values (with nothing of value to replace them). I routinely encounter anti-religious sentiment on social media: religion itself is dangerous; Republicans seek to establish an American theocracy; religious people seek to impose their values and their religion on everyone else; religious people hate LGBTQ folks. These are ABSOLUTE LIES.

Leftism and traditional religion, Christianity and Judaism, in particular, are mutually exclusive. Yet, only Leftism seeks to destroy the other. Leftism cannot win any other way. Hungary, a more religious nation than the US, overwhelmingly rejected gender equality this year (more than 90% supporting four referendums in a massive voter turnout); they also built a wall on their Southern border and took a principled stance against illegal immigration. Sound familiar? The EU and World Economic Forum label the entire nation as racist and hateful; they push for open borders to change the electorate and achieve a different result. Sound familiar? This tactic is eerily similar to the ethnic cleansing the Chinese imposed in Tibet to stifle to dissent. Downplay the consequences. Attack those who simply notice.

Others from my Church shake their heads at Leftist beliefs, but most don’t see the Left as a rival. Many just want to avoid the political debate. They say a prayer for those who continually discredit faith and traditional values. I pray for them too, but I also call them out. I am polite and civil and I do not condemn them for following misguided beliefs. I think most Leftists are of good intent, trying to the right thing, but are sucked into a destructive narrative. Still, we must expose shoddy thinking, mock their most outrageous views. We must lead them from the malevolence of Leftism. The criticism can seem harsh, but still be fair and honest. Reason and logic, not iconoclasm, is the better path to victory. A WIN IS CERTAIN if we only accept the challenge.

People of faith do not align with racists and fascists as is often explicitly stated. It is a DESPICABLE LIE. Ms. Meloni’s words are not racist or fascist. We do not compel others to join our ranks. We do not force anyone to live the values we have chosen. This is not how our religion is to be spread. We do not seek to stone adulterers or any other sinners. These notions run counter to our teachings.

Instead, we seek to convince people of the truth and hope for a fallen world, while still respecting their freedom to choose another life. However, we object when suspect values impact our own lives and when our children are indoctrinated with views counter to our own. We seek to protect our children’s and our country’s future.

Still, please live your lives as you see fit. I will debate your choices (if you care to engage), but the choice remains yours.

Argument from the Professor

The attacks do not come just from politicians any longer, but increasingly from ordinary folks on social media. The Left has a growing anger and inimical hatred of religion; it has filtered to all our society.

My debating partner, the professor, makes the intellectual argument for this criticism of religion.

All throughout human civilization’s history the “Divine Right” of monarchs has been in many cases grossly abused by men in power and birth-right. Even Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney—all exceptional 17th-century English political philosophers—all wrote extensive, damning critiques of divine right abuses. All three agreed that the more religious a monarch or nation, the more likely he would act and think like a god who had assigned him special revelations as supreme ruler. The same can be said about an oligarchy or sociopolitical zealous minority.

I don’t know what these people believe except that perhaps they think by voting for certain individuals (sic) were are supporting the Divine right of kings. You cannot vote for Trump and be a Christian. I suppose you can vote for others and be a Christian. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how a Christian, or one of my faith, can vote for a politician who supports abortion.

The idea that all people are created equal is not a religious idea; the idea that some people are special or chosen is one that various religious groups have embraced throughout history. The entire Hebrew Bible is about the Chosen people. Religion promotes elitism, not equality.

The Bible is not a history book nor a science book nor a philosophy book. It is intended to bring all to salvation, not necessarily equality. Equality is an important concept and one we generally strive for, but salvation is the real goal here.

Further, God brought his salvation message through the Jews; the message was intended for all, not just the Jews. This point is stressed throughout both testaments. For instance, the early Christian church debated the need for new Christians to first become Jews (to be circumcised and follow other rituals). However, St. Paul makes clear Jewish rituals are not required. Both he and James rebuke their fellow Jews, demonstrating Christianity is a religion which invites all, Jew or Gentile; exclusions are rejected.

The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. Acts 15:7-15.

St. James adds:  It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God (Acts 15:19)

Further:

Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men Catechism of the Catholic Church 50

The apostles demonstrated Christianity is a religion of inclusivity, and the Catholic Church today affirms that principle. Certainly, many have not abided by that precept, but they were not living the faith in its intended manner.

Notice also there is no coercion of the non-religious. God allows each to accept or reject Him. Our choices are respected.

The professor continues:

But unfortunately and despite modern-day Christian Nationalists’ erroneous propaganda for a Christian nation, IRONICALLY self-government and revolution against such tyranny are NOT principles derived from Christianity or its Bible. Period. As a matter of fact, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) is directly opposed to our DoI:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2 NIV)

Paul urges respect for authority: abide by rules of government; respect your parents, one of the ten commandments. I personally wish our nation to succeed, even under the authority of a leader I do not respect, even when it promulgates bad laws.

However, the Jews believed the Messiah would lead them in a revolution to overthrow the Romans. Again the goal is salvation, not revolution or anything else. Christians should keep their eyes on the true prize: salvation.

Yet, authority can be abused. Are we to accept abusive authorities? Are we to accept tyrannical parents who mistreat their children, for instance? No. Parents (and other authority figures) are stripped of authority when it is clearly abused. Also, the Church actively speaks against abortion, gay marriage, and other heretical teachings, while still paying taxes, voting, abiding by laws, and respecting freedom of choice. The Church does not lead political revolution; it leads souls to salvation, whether the government is legitimate or not.

The professor: Rulers and Kings, like King George III of Great Britain, are to be obeyed as a matter of Godly Judeo-Christian conscience and faith. No ifs, ands, or buts. Why?

Christians should not submit to unjust rule. This is what “turn the other cheek” means. This oft-repeated phrase is not the pacific notion many believe it to be. There are two common reactions to an attack: fight or flight. Jesus advocates for a third, little-used, way. Do not run from the fight, but also do not fight back in the ugly manner of an adversary striking you. Give your other cheek to strike, but persist in the fight. This is not the quickest or easiest path to victory, but it is the surest.

The professor quotes America’s founding fathers to support his argument. I shorten the quotations here while trying to retain their essence.

John Adams: The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.

James Madison: I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. 

The professor and I agree on the harmful nature of mixing government and religion. In the USA, we have civil law and religious law. The two overlap at times: murder is prohibited by both while adultery is condoned by civil law but not by religious law. This is as it should be. No Christian or political leaders today are proposing to intertwine the two.

James Madison: Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.

Yes, indeed professor. Government itself is the real power today. Religious institutions have no real power any longer, although at times they clearly misused that power when they had it. But today, a Leftist government, not out-of-control religious institutions, has power. The government aligns with media to distribute its message, aligns with social media to censor its opponents, aligns with educational institutions to indoctrinate children, aligns with corporate America to pressure individuals to conform. Government today misuses its power in the same way religious institutions of the past misused their power. It is simply human nature to do so, whether from government or religious leaders. Government power today should be curtailed; it is the only solution. Return sovereignty to the people. Return to the limiting principles of our Constitution.

George Washington: Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. 

Yes. However, the religion which seeks to impose on others today is the cult of government. Too many of our citizens look to a strong government to solve problems; they look to an all-powerful leader to guide them. The corrupted guiding forces may have once been religious institutions, but no longer.

Benjamin Franklin:  If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it. When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Franklin himself was Quaker, not opposed to religion like the professor and his cohorts. Instead, Franklin distinguishes between good and bad religion. Religion can indeed be corrupted, but which of today’s religious institutions seek Civil Power? Many religious denominations have certainly gone astray. Too many are lukewarm (we are warned of these in Revelation), and lukewarm moderates are not leading the revolution to subsume Civil Power. Only the religion of Leftism seeks such power today, exactly as Franklin warned of.

Thomas Paine: As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith.

Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.

Toleration is a concession; religious liberty is a right.

The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. 

Religion is capable of evil and misuse of power, but we have seen far greater evils in the 20th century in the name of a false religion: Marxism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hussein, and other secular governments killed far more people than the Spanish Inquisition and religious wars of prior centuries, often their own people. Leftists, proud “Democratic Socialists” like Senator Sanders, will lead us down the same path.

communism-killed-94-million-in-20th-century

The professor continues:

Furthermore, there have been at least fifteen (15) Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions & positions over the last century and a half corroborating, supporting the above six Core Founding Fathers’ viewpoints of Church-State Separation and hence, Secular governing or neutral governing ‘of the People, for the People, and by the People.’

Therefore, to conclude, obviously by our nation’s Charters of Freedom, our Core Founding Fathers public and private views, and past SCOTUS decisions, “too much religion” is indeed a bad thing for all peoples’ belief-systems, especially if only or too much Judeo-Christian. And a lack of it/them—within tolerance, as defined by Thomas Paine—is actually a very good and stable thing! 

Paine’s quote did not actually say: “a lack of religion is a stable good”. On the other hand, many contemporary problems stem from the fact America is less religious. This does not mean I am in favor of a theocratic government. The Left has misconstrued the call for religious values, the call for ethical and moral behavior, the call for limiting principles to the out-of-control libertinism of today, as a call for theocracy. Many religions, as well as the non-religious, can share common moral values.

John Adams also presciently said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” As our nation becomes less religious, we become less capable of properly implementing and abiding by the restrictions of the Constitution. The Left uses the Constitution when it is to their advantage, but ignore it, even disparage it, when it limits their goals. Government has grown precisely because the Constitution’s limitations are no longer abided.

We must have common ground to function as a nation. In the 1950’s, 98% of Americans believed in God, that in turn led to common agreement on traditional values, defense of the Constitution, and pride in our nation. Today, belief in God has fallen to 81% (per Gallup), the decline increasing in the last ten years. John Adams rightly linked religion and morality; without religion, we lose our common morality and common principles; this failing will be the doom of our nation.

Next Time

The professor said far more than I could squeeze in here. A third post is needed to fully hear his argument. One point I pressed with him is: WHY does he believe the Right wants to impose a theocracy? The professor answered and I will break down his response.

Our full debate is found here: https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/15107025/posts/83496