Statism, simply put, is worship of the state (i.e., government), and in this country the federal government reigns supreme. No Christian will acknowledge that he or she worships the state, but that is in a sense what’s happening, if even on a subconscious level.
Symptoms of this were evident during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Many Christian voters saw George W. Bush not as the “lesser of two evils,” but as one who was chosen by God as “the right man at the right time for the right purpose.” Sure, he wasn’t the paragon of conservatism some had hoped for, but he was a professing Christian, and that alone meant that we owed him our devotion.
Then, of course, there was the outpouring of Christian support for the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein never once attacked us and posed no threat to our security, evangelicals from all across the fruited plain cried out for blood. The state had been exalted to such a lofty position that those Christians who dared to speak out against the war on moral and constitutional grounds were considered anti-American at best, treasonous at worst.
In an attempt to drum up as much support as possible for military action against Hussein, “conservative” publications and websites ran countless articles that tried to equate the Christian worldview with American foreign policy. We also heard from religious leaders like Jerry Falwell who tried to convince us that “God is pro-war” and that one of the duties of the church “is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives.”
So, George W. Bush, a man chosen by God, was simply doing his Christian duty when he invaded Iraq. We therefore have no right to question his actions or motives. It’s as if the Old Testament example of King Saul no longer has any significance for us today.
Fellow Christian, are you a war monger? Take this test and see.
TV turns kids into bullies.
Is the Iraqi insurgency on the run, or is it evolving? I think Lind is correct, "For America to win in Iraq, it has to leave behind a real state. Further, that state must not be an enemy to America. The chance of meeting just the second requirement is small, given the Iraqi people’s resentment toward the occupation and the strongly Islamic character of any likely new regime. It is improbable that we will meet the first requirement either. We may leave behind us the form of a state – a capital, a parliament, a government, etc. – but in most of the country, the real power will remain where it is now, in the hands of armed elements operating outside the state. That is true whether we defeat "the insurgency" or not."
In yet another fantastic column, Paul Craig Roberts asks, "Whither America?"
While acknowledging that the pope was in many ways a great man, Joe Sobran wonders if the pontificate was a success for orthodox Catholics.
The maladies that have infected the Church since the Second Vatican Council (at which he was an enthusiastic participant) haven’t been remedied — liturgical corruption, low Mass attendance, poor Catholic education, errant bishops, heretical theologians.
And one of the worst scandals in Catholic history erupted on his watch: the revelation that homosexual priests had been abusing boys. This was a natural result of the homosexual domination of American (and possibly other) Catholic seminaries that had been increasing since the 1960s, well before John Paul’s papacy; but he seemed to have had no clue that it was going on and hardly to have believed it when he learned. That doesn’t speak well for his supervision.
This writer says that the US has a plan to militarily support armed militias to prevent a clerical-driven religious regime in Iraq.
I hadn't heard that John Attarian passed away on New Year's Eve. I've just been reading his demoltion of Stephen Moore and other immigration enthusiasts who make the audacious claim that more immigration could save Socialist Insecurity. I've also seen Attarian published over the years in The Occidental Quarterly, Modern Age, and Chronicles. He will be missed.