Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Five Yankee Authors

Five Yankee Authors

Thomas Allen

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting, but little known, facts about five well-known Yankee authors: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Henry D. Thoreau, and Walt Whitman. All five were anti-Christian Transcendentalists and proponents of the Illuministic New World Order.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson (1803-1882) was a Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard and a Unitarian minister who used the Unitarian Church to promote socialism. Also, he was a leader of the Death of God movement. Moreover, he worked to change the sacraments and to reduce the essence of Christianity to something called God but without Christ.

Furthermore, he was an early leader of Transcendentalism and participated in the Transcendentalist Club. (Transcendentalism substitutes spiritualism for Christianity and provides an intellectual side to socialism. Although it appears to be a rational, reason-oriented philosophy seeking the truth, it is really a transformation from Christ to antichrist.) 

Emerson went to Europe during the Revolution of 1848 and met with many of its leaders. He was a socialist and a radical revolutionist, who praised Mazzini and  Kossuth, both of whom were revolutionary leaders.

Further, Emerson was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail. (The  Democratic Review promoted the agenda of Young America. The Dail was the journal of the Transcendentalist movement in New England. Young America was a movement that advocated social reform, territorial expansion [American imperialism], national unity [nationalism], American exceptionalism, democracy, democratic participation [expansion of suffrage], free trade, and economic interdependence. Also, it supported republican and anti-aristocratic movements abroad and opposed European hierarchical society. [Young America appears to have been the forefather of today's neoconservatives.])

Additionally, Emerson was a speaker for the Boston Lyceon Bureau. (The Boston Lyceon Bureau sought to indoctrinate people to support a socialist new world order.)

Also, he was a founder of the Radical Club, which he later left, and the Free Religious Association. (The Radical Club sought to influence the arts, letters, publishing, etc. Consisting of the most radical of the Unitarians, the Free Religious Association promoted social Darwinism, rejected Christianity, and promoted rationalism theology.)

Emerson also was involved in the Brook Farm, a communist commune.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne (1804-1864) was a Transcendentalist Fourierist, a member of Emerson’s study group, the Saturday Club, and Young America, and was involved in the Brook Farm. (The Saturday Club was a club of free thinkers and socialists whose objective was to dominate American intellectual and publishing pursuits.)

Hawthorne was appointed an assistant collector of customs in Boston. Later, President Pierce, whose biography Hawthorne wrote, appointed him the consul to Liverpool.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Longfellow (1807–1882) was an early leader of Transcendentalism, a member of Emerson’s study group, and a member of the Saturday Club.

Henry D. Thoreau

Thoreau (1817–1862) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group and was involved in the Brook Farm. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail.

Walt Whitman

Whitman (1819-1892) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review.

Further, he was a leader of the Equal Rights Party. (The Equal Rights Party came out of the radical wing of the Democratic Party. It was strongly egalitarian and opposed banks, paper money, and monopolies.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

King on How Should a Christian View Communism

Thomas Allen

In “How Should a Christian View Communism,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 99–108, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses Communism as a rival to Christianity, the incompatibility of Communism and Christianity, Christianity and social justice, and capitalism. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by identifying three reasons why Christian ministers need to speak to their congregations on Communism. All three reasons are correct at the time he wrote.

“The first reason recognizes that the widespread influence of Communism has, like a mighty tidal wave, spread through Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and now even to our hemisphere.” (P. 99.) Nearly a billion people believe its teachings with many embracing it as a new religion. (People whom Communism oppressed did not believe in it. Probably, most of the Communist leaders did not believe in it. They used it to feed their insatiable lust for power.)

“A second reason is that Communism is the only serious rival to Christianity.” (P. 99.) Although Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are possible rivals to Christianity, “Communism is Christianity’s most formidable rival.” (P. 100.) (Now, Communism has fallen by the wayside. Hinduism and Islam are the fastest-growing rivals of Christianity. Along with Judaism and Zionism, wokeism has infected nearly every Christian denomination. Ironically, if King were alive today, most likely, he would be preaching wokeism as the new Christianity since it is a natural outgrowth of his civil rights movement.) 

“A third reason is that it is unfair and certainly unscientific to condemn a system before we know what that system teaches and why it is wrong.” (P. 99.) Then, King states, “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible.” (P. 99.) (Yet, King spent his career associating with known Communists. Communists trained him, financed his movement, and wrote many of his speeches. Although he never became a member of the Communist Party, never did he seriously denounce them — even after the Kennedys urged him to avoid them. Based on his works, King was not a true Christian. Though he preached from the Bible, his heart was with Communism. Based on his actions, he did not consider Communism incompatible with Christianity — at least it was not incompatible with his perverted version of Christianity.)

Then, King proceeds to condemn Communism. “First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe.” (P. 100.) It is secularistic and atheistic. God is a fiction, and religion grows out of ignorance and fear. Communism “thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society.” (P. 100.) Conversely, Christianity believes that God exists, and He “is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values.” (Pp. 100-101.) Correctly, King writes, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.” (P. 101.) (Unfortunately, King did not believe what he wrote. He was much closer to Communism than he was to Christianity.)

Next, King discusses the second reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Second, Communism is based on ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to the most expedient methods for dealing with class war.” (P. 101.) (This relative right and wrong was an underlying principle of King’s civil rights movement.) Correctly, “Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.” (P. 101.) Christianity rejects the philosophy that the ends justify the means. (King and his civil rights movement have resorted to Communist tactics: lying, deception, law-breaking, violence, intimidation, etc.) Then, King writes, “Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends.” (P. 101.) (King and the civil rights movement have used destructive means to achieve their ends. Consequently, America is in its death throes.)

Next, King discusses the third reason that Christianity is incompatible with Communism. “Third, Communism attributes ultimate value to the state. Man is made for the state and not the state for man.” (P. 101.) (King fails to explain what the state is. The state is the people who control it; it is the oligarchs who control the government and the country through their political, economic, and social power. They use their control of the state to protect and increase their wealth and especially their power.) In theory, under Communism, the state is supposed to fade away when a classless society is achieved. (However, such a society is never reached. The oligarchs ensure that such a society cannot be achieved.) Nevertheless, as long as the state exists, a classless society is its ostensible end. “Man is a means to that end. Man has no inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. . . . Man must be a dutiful servant to the omnipotent state.” (P. 102.) Correctly, “Christianity insists that man is an end because he is a child of God, made in God’s image.” (P. 102.) Moreover, man “is a being of spirit, crowned with glory and honor, endowed with the gift of freedom.” (P. 102.)

Again, correctly, King notes, “The ultimate weakness of Communism is that it robs man of that quality that makes him man.” (P. 102.) Being confused about God, Communism is also confused about man. Then, King remarks that “never can we, as true Christians, tolerate the philosophy of Communism.” (P. 102.) (Thus, King proves that he is not a true Christian. He not only tolerated the philosophy of Communism, but he also promoted much of it. Like the Communists, he advocated the civil rights movement, which Communists organized and guided. Likewise, King advocated such Communist programs as the welfare state, transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, a guaranteed income, public housing, etc. Further, I have not found him speaking against any of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

Continuing, King comments on Communism and social justice. According to King, Communism is a protest “against the injustice and indignities inflicted upon the underprivileged.” (P. 102.) (If so, why has Communism fascinated the upper middle class more than the lower class? Why has the upper middle class promoted it more than the lower class?)

King notes that in theory, Communism emphasizes a classless society. According to him, this classless society includes not only the elimination of economic classes but also the elimination of all racial differences. (Thus, King promotes genocide. He would have all the races interbreed until only mongrel man exists. Moreover, all these mongrels would have the same income, wear indistinguishable uniforms, live in identical dwellings, etc. so that no class distinction of any kind exists.)

Continuing, King states that Christians need to be concerned with social justice. (King believes that miscegenation, forced wealth transfers, the welfare state, quotas, etc. are essential to the achievement of social justice.) He comments on the Bible expressing concern for the poor. (King’s proposals for expressing concern for the poor differ from the Bible’s. King wants the government to forcibly take property from the rich and give it to the poor. On the other hand, the Bible wants the rich to care so much about the poor that they will voluntarily help them.) Then, King remarks, “No doctrinaire Communist ever expressed a passion for the poor and oppressed such as we find in the Manifesto of Jesus.” (P. 104.) (True, however, Communists have often excelled in manipulating such people.)

King states that Christians should repudiate racism. (What does King mean by “racism?” At least 800 definitions of “racist” exist. [See “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.] Moreover, King disagrees with God about the races. Since God created the races, He must consider them important. However, King does not since he advocates breeding them out of existence. Further, while God commanded racial segregation and separation, which preserves the races, King promoted integration and miscegenation, which genocides the races.)

King writes, “Racial prejudice is a blatant denial of the unity that we have in Christ, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, Negro nor white.” (P. 104.) (First, King is adding to the Scriptures. Negro and White in the sense that he is using the terms are not in the passage that he is paraphrasing. Second, racial prejudice does not exist in the South. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks are based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Therefore, they are not prejudging Blacks.)

Then, King condemns the church for its lack of alacrity in preaching his idea of social justice. (Today, most churches preach King’s social justice instead of the Bible.) The church should focus on present evils on the earth rather than on salvation.

Next, King castigates the church for failing in its mission of social justice; consequently, it has failed Christ. (King seems to believe that his version of social justice is the heart of Christianity and thus its most important aspect. His version of social justice leads to Black supremacy and massive discrimination against Whites.) He chastises the church for not opposing colonialism and slavery. (Nowhere does the Bible condemn or outlaw slavery.)

Continuing, King writes, “The judgment of God is upon the church.” (P. 105.) (True. Ever since the church replaced preaching the gospel of Jesus with preaching the gospel of King, the church has been declining in relevance. Most denominations have degenerated so much that they are drowning in wokeism.)

Next, King discusses what he calls traditional capitalism. Part of the rise of Communism results from the weaknesses of traditional capitalism. He condemns capitalism because it “has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that . . . they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity.” (Pp. 105-106.) Then, he condemns the profit motive because it “encourages a cut-throat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. . . . Capitalism may lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the theoretical materialism taught by Communism.” (P. 106.) (His observation of capitalism has some merit because capitalism has more in common with socialism than it does a free market, free enterprise economy. [See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.] A free market, free enterprise economy depends on all the economic actors cooperating.) According to King, capitalism and Communism represent a partial truth. “Historically, capitalism failed to discern the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise.” (P. 106.) He advocates the melding of the two. (That is, King advocates a form of fascistic welfare state, which most countries have today.)

Continuing, King notes that Communists have a “zeal and commitment to a cause that they believe will create a better world.” (P. 107.) (Communist ideologues may believe that Communism leads to a better world. However, those in control see Communism as a means to feed their insatiable lust for power.) King states that Communists seem to have a greater passion to win others to Communism than most Christians have to win others to Christ. He urges Christians to “recapture the spirit of the early church.” (P. 107.) Then, he discusses the zeal of the early church.

King concludes that preaching the gospel of Jesus and turning people to Christ is the best defense against Communism. War cannot defeat Communism. (Although Communism fell at least in the Soviet Union, progressivism, fascism, and wokeism rose to take its place. Preaching the gospel of Jesus can defeat them. Unfortunately, most churches preach Zionism, i.e., Judeo-Christian heresy, and the gospel of King, which birthed wokeism.)

Additionally, conditions that lead to Communism need to be removed: “poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination.” (P. 108.) (Thus, King endorses the Great Society with its War on Poverty and civil rights laws.) Eliminating them will starve Communism to death.  (What happened to slaying Communism with the gospel of Jesus?)

Once again, King preaches a great sermon and offers some good advice. Yet again, he ignores most of his advice. He has an excellent understanding of Communism and knows that Communism is incompatible with Christianity. Nevertheless, he spent his career associating with known Communists. They controlled his civil rights movement. His alliance with Communists proves by his own words that he was not a Christian.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Thomas Allen

A person can understand the Bible in terms of his theology or can derive his theology from the Bible. Most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians argue that the Bible should be understood in its most literal sense. One exception is when a figure of speech, such as a metaphor or simile, is obviously being used; for example, the description of Jesus as a lamb in heaven in Revelation should not be understood literally. 

However, these Christians are not consistent in their literalist interpretation. When a literal reading contradicts their theology, they abandon literalism. Thus, they let their preconceived theology drive their understanding of the Bible. The following four examples illustrate this point.

Chapter 4 of Genesis describes Cain leaving his homeland and going to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and raises a family. Literalist fundamentalists and evangelists understand this chapter in light of their theology: the unity of man, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. These Christians argue that Cain married his sister, whom he apparently carried with him in his exile. However, nowhere does the Bible make this claim or even suggests it. A strictly literal reading of Genesis leads to believing that Cain discovered other people in Nod and married one of them. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Adam and Eve had any children between Abel and Seth. Moreover, the events of Cain’s arriving in Nod, marrying, and beginning his family seem to have occurred before Seth’s birth. Consequently, Cain could not have married his sister. A strictly literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that people inhabited Nod before Cain’s arrival, and these people were not descendants of Adam. Other events about Cain also support this conclusion, such as his fear of other people killing him, which led to God placing a mark on Cain to warn others not to kill him. 

Instead of understanding Genesis 12:3 literally, fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize the verse while condemning people who spiritualize Biblical passages.  (Genesis 12:3 reads, “and I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”) They have to spiritualize this verse because a literal reading conflicts with their premillennialist theology. A literal reading of this verse shows that the promise of blessing and cursing applies to those who bless and curse Abraham. It does not apply to those who bless or curse the country of Israel. Fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize this verse and claim that it applies not only to Abraham but also to Israel today.

Like most Christian Zionists, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals argue that today’s Israel is entitled to all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This claim is based on Genesis 15:18, which reads, “In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Some identify the river of Egypt with the Nile while others identify it with the stream that is now called the Wady el-‘Arish, whose mouth is near Arish.) According to these Christian Zionists, ancient Israel never fulfilled this promise. Therefore, the promise has not yet been fulfilled; it lies in the future. However, Joshua disagrees with these Christian Zionists. According to Joshua 21:43-45, “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. . . . There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” Thus, the promise made in Genesis 15:18 occurred in the time of Joshua. Consequently, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals like most Christian Zionists ignore Joshua for the sake of their premillennialist theology.

Like almost all Christians, these literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals are Trinitarians. They understand the New Testament in the light of the Trinitarian creeds developed in the early centuries of Christianity and elaborated on since then although they disagree on what the Trinity really is. Thus, they let their theology drive their understanding of the Bible.  However, if they read the New Testament literally with an open, unbiased mind, they probably would not arrive at the orthodox Trinity dogma. Most likely, they would arrive at a doctrine similar to what the Arians espoused, which was similar to the subordination doctrine (the Son had a beginning and was subordinate to the Father) that was orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Or, perhaps, they would arrive at an adoption doctrine (God the Father adopted Jesus the man to be His Son). These two require much less mental gymnastics than does the Trinity doctrine to explain away contradicting passages.

Many Christians start with their preconceived theology and proceed to understand the Bible in light of their preconceived theology. Only a few let the Bible determine their theology. Nevertheless, nearly all Christians of the former group will claim that they derived their theology from the Bible.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Basic Principles of the Modern Left

 Basic Principles of the Modern Left

Thomas Allen

In “The Modern Left Is Not Marxist, It’s Worse,” Chronicles, November 2020 (page 19), Paul Gottfried identifies four basic principles or practices of the modern left. The modern left rose after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

(1) Leftists are globalists or universalists. They find Western Christian White society revolting and seek its demise. Unlike the right that values particularity and the sanctity of local and natural traditions, the left rejects particularity and traditions.

(2) Leftists worship equality and endeavor to obliterate all human distinctions and differences. Nothing is more valuable than equality. Consequently, the ideal human is a unisexual (asexual, hermaphroditic, sexually fluid — any sex except male or female), motley, mongrel being — and all these humans have the same intelligence, beauty, talents, skills, and standard of living.  Thus, the ideal society consists of indistinguishable beings. (Since most rightists are racial nihilists, they agree with the leftist desire to create motley, mongrel humans, but they disagree on the sexual part.)

(3) Since “historically grounded natural rights do not advance equality or ‘human dignity,’” leftists promote the expansion of “human rights.” Human rights call for the extinction of social and historical distinctions. They want to replace “long established customs and conventions” with whatever “journalists and academics deem conducive to greater equality.”

(One equality that modern leftists shun is equality before the law, which is an equality that rightists accept. For leftists, anyone who promotes equality and other leftist agendas can violate all sorts of laws with immunity. Examples of lawbreaking leftists escaping punishment are the Clintons and members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa.)

(4) Leftists believe that humans are perfectly malleable. For example, any male  can become a female including replacing his male Y chromosome with a female X chromosome.  Likewise, any female can become a male including replacing one of her female X chromosomes with a male Y chromosome. Judges and other governmental officials should defend the right of a person to become any of the more than 100 current sexes, and everyone should accept such sex, even if it changes daily, and find it admirable and heroic. Consequently, leftists spurn the notion of the right that “human identities are rooted in tradition and nature.” Thus, the left believes that genetics do not influence a person’s nature (many rightists also hold this belief).

Therefore, the goal of modern leftists is to destroy sexual identity, the White race and other races (racial nihilism) if they are consistent, Western civilization, and Christianity — the last two because they are products of the White, Aryan, race. All distinction and differences are to be sacrificed on the altar of equality.

Gottfried notes that the old left of the Soviet-Union days focused on economic equality (socialism, communism, welfarism) and gave little attention to social equality except for the civil rights movement (which they orchestrated). The modern left focuses more on social equality. Nevertheless, modern leftists do not ignore economic equality. However, they prefer welfarism with a highly progressive income tax, expanded welfare programs, and other wealth redistribution programs. Instead of governmental ownership of businesses, industries, and farms as advocated by the old left, the modern left advocates a highly regulated economy. Thus, they prefer the fascist model of socialism where governmental central planning is through governmental control of privately owned businesses, industries, and farms.

Also, Gottfried observes that some of the biggest supporters and pushers of modern leftism are major multinational corporations. Could it be that these corporations promote the leftist agenda because it leads to a homogenous market? After all, the leftist lust for equality destroys diversity. The destruction of diversity would result in a homogenous market, and a homogenous market would reduce the cost of production and marketing because everyone would want the same things.

Whereas old leftists emphasized economic equality, modern leftists emphasize social equality. Thus, modern leftists advocate racial nihilism and the new morality with no sexual differences — that is, racial and sexual amalgamation. Moreover, they seek to annihilate the White race, Christianity, and Western civilization. They strive to nullify human nature and to remake mankind to be contrary to his natural genetic makeup. Individuals, races, and the sexes are naturally unequal and can never be made equal. Naturally low-quality people can never be raised to the level of naturally high-quality people. However, high-quality people can be suppressed. Consequently, leftists need to institute a totalitarian government to achieve equality by suppressing everything superior — except the ruling elite. Ironically and hypocritically, although they preach equality, leftists believe that they are superior to rightists and other deplorables — yet, most leftists may deny their superiority.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Thomas Allen

Below the Bible is summarized in two sentences. Also discussed are two views of the Bible, the lack of clarity of the New Testament, the rapture, the sin of omission, the greatest sin, God’s love, hate, the love of money, Noah, and the wisdom of John (not the Biblical John). These are mostly observations.

The Bible in Two Sentences
The Bible is the story of God revealing Himself first through one biological race (or species of humans), the Aryan or White race, then through one family, Abraham through his grandson Jacob, which became the nation of Israel, and finally through one man, Jesus. All other nations and people mentioned in the Bible are merely a supporting cast in God’s process of revealing Himself through Jesus, His Messiah and Son.

Two Views of the Bible
Christians fall into two camps. One believes that anything that the Bible does not expressly forbid is allowed. In secular terms, they favor the Anglo-Saxon legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically prohibit is allowed, and a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The other camp believes that anything that the Bible does not command or expressly allow is forbidden. In secular terms, they favor the Napoleonic-civil-code legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically allow is prohibited, and a person is guilty until proven innocent. Of course, both camps hold that whatever the Bible commands is obligatory.

Lack of Clarity in the New Testament
The writers of the New Testament failed in writing with clarity. If their writing were clear, disagreement over various doctrines would be much less or nonexistent. Two examples illustrating the confusion that the unclear writing of the New Testament has caused are soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and eschatology (the doctrine of the end of time, the Second Advent, and the final judgment).
First is salvation. Is salvation by predestination, faith only, faith plus works, or other means? All have their proponents who defined their doctrine with vigor. Further, some claim that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation no matter what he later does. Yet, other claim that a saved person can lose his salvation. Moreover, disagreement occurs over the salvific effects of baptism, the proper form of baptism, and infant baptism.
Second is eschatology. There are several interpretations of Revelation: preterist, historical, apocalyptic, and futurist. Preterists interpret Revelation as describing the events taking place during the lifetime of John and in his environment (full preterists) or that most of these events occurred during the lifetime of John (partial preterists). Historicists interpret Revelation as revealing history from the time of Jesus until the Second Advent and beyond. Apocalypticist or idealists interpret Revelation as a religious philosophy of life.
Futurists interpret Revelation as describing the future, primarily the time immediately preceding the Second Advent and the millennium. Futurists fall into several camps: pretribulation (the rapture occurs before the seven years of tribulation), mid-tribulation (the rapture occurs in the middle of the tribulation), and post-tribulation (the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation). Others teach that no rapture will occur. Also, there are premillennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs before the  Millennium), post-millennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs after the Millennium), and amillennialists (rejects the notion that Jesus physically rules on earth for a thousand years).
Does God enjoy watching men arguing about the correct interpretation of the Bible and even killing those who disagree with their interpretation? He must because He had His writers write with enough vagueness to cause bloody disputes. If that were not His purpose, He could have had His writers write with enough clarity to avoid such disputes.
Some old-time reform preachers declared that nothing brought God as much joy as tormenting sinners in Hell forever. They were wrong. God’s greatest joy seems to be watching His people arguing and fighting over what the Bible says.

Rapture
One thing is amusing about people who predict the date of the rapture, often down to the hour or minute. After the big day passes, the predictor finds that he is still on planet Earth. Immediately, he assumes that his calculation was wrong, and some redo the calculation. Never does it occur to the predictor that his calculation was correct — he was just among those left behind.
Another amusing thing about the rapture is the believers who sell all their property before the big day. Why? Do they plan to take the money with them? Do they plan to use the money for one big going away party?

Sin of Omission
Many clergymen teach the “sin of omission.” That is, if a person knows someone in need and he has the ability to help the needy person and does not, then he is guilty of the sin of omission. If true, then these clergymen have accused God of being the greatest sinner in the universe. Being omniscience God knows everyone’s needs. Being omnipotent, God has the ability to eliminate those needs. Since He does not (all the suffering in the world would immediately vanish if He did), God is guilty of the sin of omission. If these clergymen claim that God is not guilty of the sin of omission, then they hold their fellow man to a much higher standard than they hold God.
If the sin of omission exists, more evidence that God is the greatest sinner of all is natural disasters. Being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He can prevent them and all the heartache and destruction that such disasters bring people. If a human can prevent someone from suffering from a natural disaster and does not, would he be guilty of the sin of omission? If so, the clergyman who makes such a claim holds God to a much lower standard than he holds his fellow man.

The Greatest Sin
What is the greatest sin of all? It is a sin so great that God does not allow it to exist anywhere in the universe. This sin is unquestionable, unhesitating, and unadulterated cooperation from all deities, angelic and spiritual beings, people, animals, plants, weather, mother nature, machines, things, etc., etc., etc.

God’s Love
If earthly parents expressed their love for their children the way that the Heavenly Father expresses His love for His children, they would have their children taken from them because of their cruelty and abuse. Furthermore, the parents would spend the remainder of their lives in prison. To love their children the way that God loves His, parents would beat their children until they looked like roadkill. Then, they would expect their children to thank them for not making their lives more miserable. At least, this is the impression that many Christians give of God’s love.  (Notice how God’s love connects with the sin of omission and the sin of cooperation.)

Hate
Most clergymen teach that Christians should not hate. However, God hates. Should a Christian hate whatever and whomever God hates?

Love of Money
1 Timothy 6:10 reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. . . .”  Except for misers, who really loves money per se? Nearly all who lust after money do not love money itself. They lust after money for what they can exchange it, i.e., for what they really desire: power, security, fame, lovers, big houses, fancy cars, status, etc. Money is just a means to an end.

Noah
I have concluded that Noah is the most selfish man in the Bible. He possessed not one altruistic bone in his body and only thought about saving his own scrawny hide. If he cared one bit about his decedents and fellow man, he would have refused to take black flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and all those other useless bloodsuckers on the ark.

Wisdom of John
I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do recall and who died in 2012. He made two memorable comments. (1) He said that the quickest way to be thrown out of a church is to ask questions about its doctrine. (2) He was convinced that Christianity was the true religion because it has survived two thousand years of Christians.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Below a box of crayons is used to explain the difference between segregation and integration. Also, discussed are the praise of Blacks and women, the idea that all collectives are socialists at heart, Martin Luther King, the future of the American Negro, eugenics and dysgenics, and the rape of a transgender.

A Box of Crayons
A box of crayons contains unique colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, etc. It is a representation of diversity.
A segregationist-separationist preserves the uniqueness of each crayon by keeping all the crayons apart. Although the segregationist-separationist has a reputation of animus for diversity, his policies preserve diversity by protecting the unique color of each crayon.
An integrationist-amalgamationist destroys the uniqueness of each crayon by mixing them together. Although the integrationist-amalgamationist has a reputation of adoration for diversity, his policies destroy diversity by reducing all colors to a monotonous oneness of motley gray.

Praising Blacks and Women
The way some people, especially White progressives, liberals, and Democrats (almost a redundancy, but not quite) fawn over Blacks and women for performing tasks that Blacks and women do not normally perform is insulting to Blacks and women. These people act as though Blacks and women are incapable, or at least have great difficulty in performing such tasks. Moreover, these people behave like people who see an animal performing tricks — especially tricks that are unusual. In short, these people degrade Blacks and women, while in their minds, they think that they are praising them. (Such sycophancy is especially noticeable during Black history month and women’s history month.)
Also, most of these people speak with a Janus-face — thus, showing their hypocrisy. With one face, they preach “judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With the other face, they praise Blacks for performing tricks, tasks, that they seem to believe that Blacks are not capable of doing or do with great difficulty. They reveal this belief by the way that they emphasize that the person is Black. (Their view of women shows the same thing.)

Are All Collectivists Socialists?
Some claim that “racists,” nationalists, and others who believe that their membership in certain groups or collectives is important and valuable and that such collectives should be protected and preserved is a socialist at heart. They are all collectivists. Is this assertion true? Yes, they are collectivists, but their collectiveness is social and not economics. However, such collectivism does not make one a socialist.
For example, some people identify themselves as Americans and believe that the United States and Americans are important and should be protected and preserved. Consequently, they are collectives. According to the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents, Americans who believe that the United States and Americans are important and worthy of preservation are socialists. If true, how do the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents explain why the more socialist a person is, the less likely he is to believe that the United States and Americans are worth protecting and preserving?
Likewise, Christians who believe that Christianity is worthy of protection and preservation are collectivists. Are these Christians socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. Yet, most socialists want to destroy true Christianity.
Furthermore, Blacks who believe that the Negro race and the American Negro are worthy of protection and preservation are collectives. Are these Blacks socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. (If these Blacks truly believe that the American Negro and Negro race are worth saving, they would oppose miscegenation and interracial mating and support people of other races who also opposed interracial mating.) However, except as a tool to advance their Marxist agenda, most socialists do not care about the Negro race or the American Black.
Because one believes in noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, religion, and race, does not mean that he believes in a collective economic system, such as socialism, fascism, and communism.

Martin Luther King
A liberal friend once told me that King’s assassination was the best thing that happened to him. Being assassinated, King died a martyr. If he had lived much longer, most people would have recognized him as the rabble-rouser, scumbag, and hustler that he really was. Instead, his martyrdom led to his deification, and now he is revered more than Jesus, the Son of God.
By 1968, the illuminists, ruling elite, insiders, establishment, or whatever one calls them knew that they had ridden the King horse as far as it could go. They concluded that King was more valuable dead than alive. Therefore, they sent out the word, most likely indirectly rather than directly, that King needed to die — and, thus, he was murdered. His death, they used to provoke race riots. Moreover, they martyred him and then deified him to bring down Jesus, the heart of Christianity, which they despised. Now, almost everyone, from the far right to the far left worships King.

The Future of the American Black
Why do common Blacks continue to follow their self-appointed leaders, who promote open borders and unlimited immigration? Is it because nearly all these immigrants (or, more correctly, colonists) are “people of color”? Do common Blacks believe that these “people of color” will support the cause and agenda of the Black man? If so, their ignorance deceives them.
Nearly all these people of color are from Latin America, East Asia (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos), and the Indian Subcontinent (Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis). Rare is any of these people who care anything about Blacks. For the most part, they despise Blacks, and many consider them subhuman. Most esteem Blacks less than the stereotypical Klansman does. (Even the Melanochroi of the Horn of Africa and along the Sahara have an extremely low opinion of Negroes.) They only ally themselves with Blacks when convenient to advance their cause.
After they have driven the pariahlike White Americans into insignificance, one of these three major factions (Latinos, Asian Indians, and East Asians) will rule the territory of the former United States. Most likely, after the Whites are driven to the status of the American Indian, these three factions will divide the country among themselves — probably, after a bloody war. Regardless, the American Negro will fare far worse than the remnant of Whites.
Blacks cannot and will not cower and control any of these people of color with guilt as they do Whites with white guilt. Smearing these people of color with the accusation of “racism” will not work because, unlike most Whites, they are proud of their race and believe that it is the best. Unlike Whites, people of color are not cowardly wimps who despise their race and want it to vanish. Indeed, having race consciousness, they defend the interest of their race, which is why Blacks will fare poorly when the Latinos, East Asians, and Asian Indians take over the country.
The few surviving Blacks will look fondly at the good old days of Jim Crow when they were at least allowed on the bus. If Blacks want to see their future, they only need to look at Los Angeles, which is a paradise compared with what is coming.
If Blacks want to survive and prosper with a relatively high degree of freedom and prosperity, they need to jettison their self-appointed leaders and demand real immigration reform. They need to demand that no more “people of color” be allowed into the United States until the racial composition of 1920 is achieved. Hopefully, most Blacks will realize that being 10 percent of a White dominated country is better than being 1 percent of a non-White dominated country. Unfortunately, most will not — and, thus, they doom their race. (Ideally, Blacks would govern themselves in their own independent country.)

Eugenics or Dysgenics
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, eugenics rose in popularity. In the forefront of the eugenic movement were the progressives. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade, and dysgenics began to rise. Today, dysgenics has completely replaced eugenics.
Based on their words and actions, nearly everyone from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from the far right to the far left, prefers dysgenics to eugenics.
Gene pools of races, ethnicities, nationalities, and other groups are not static. They are either improving, eugenics, or disimproving, dysgenics.
Since 1930, both the United States government and State governments have adopted policies that promote dysgenics. That is, they have instituted programs that degrade the gene pools instead of improving them. Examples are the welfare state and civil rights.
The welfare state subsidizes people with low IQ having large families while penalizing families with moderate to high IQ by requiring them to support not only their own families, but also the families of low IQ people. Generally, low IQ families are larger than high IQ families. Thus, low IQ people are out breeding high IQ people. Low IQ people are also out breeding even moderate IQ people, who have even more difficulty than high IQ people, in supporting two families: their own and that of a low IQ person.
Civil rights promote miscegenation, which degrades the gene pools of both the White race and the Black race. In reality, from the progressive’s perspective, miscegenation is a covert form of eugenics for the Negro race because progressives believe that the Negro race can only be improved by a large infusion of White genes, which cause Blacks to cease being Blacks. More important, progressives see miscegenation leading to the destruction of the White gene pool, which is dysgenics, and will eventually kill the White race. As most progressives intensely hate the White race, they support the genocide of the White race, although most progressives are White. Unlike the progressives of the early twentieth century, who promoted eugenics, the progressives of the early twenty-first century promote dysgenics, and so do most conservatives and libertarians.

Raping a Transgender
Can a man rape a man who claims to be a woman without the rape being a homosexual rape? Would such an attack be more hideous than raping a real woman? After all, the attack is against a person with a double privilege status: female and transgender (triple, if the transgender is Black; quadruple, if a Hispanic; and quintuple, if also handicapped). On the other hand, would such an attack be considered a badge of honor for the victim because he has convincingly passed as a “she”?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Thomas Allen

    Trinitarianism and its Christology may be 100 percent correct, which would be surprising because they are manmade. The following issues and problems with Trinitarianism and its Christology are presented in no order of importance.
    1. The way that the creeds relating to the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology were developed and adopted is a disgrace to Christianity and an insult to Jesus. Their development and adoption depended mostly on speculation, intrigue, and violence and little on Christian charity, forgiveness, humility, restraint, and the Scriptures. They were long on speculation and short on Scripture. Their adoption depended much more on conniving and coercing than on reasoning and persuading. The doctrine of the faction that excelled in cunning, scheming, bribing, and wielding the sword won and became orthodox. Most of the leaders at the councils that adopted these doctrines seemed to be extremely egotistical and void of humility. More often than not, individual egos seemed to be more important than God, Christ, or the Scriptures. The winner got everything, and the losers were anathemized and were often exiled and stripped of their property. Thus, the dissidents were not allowed the dignity of maintaining their opinion. They had to agree with the majority of the council or be anathemized and, otherwise, punished.
    Especially in the Eastern Empire, Christians believed in the vendetta and carried their grudges for a century or more. When they gained enough power in a council, they would declare the theological ancestors of their theological opponents heretics, even if they had been dead for more than a century.
    Furthermore, the discussions of the various councils often concerned church politics more than Christian doctrine. Usually, the side that won the debate had imperial support and became orthodoxy. Imperial support came not only from the emperor, but also his family, courtiers, and the bureaucracy. Moreover, religious issues were often used to advance political issues. Thus, the development and adoption of the Christian creeds on the Trinity and related issues depended much more on politics, both secular and church, than on theological debate.
    When these doctrines were adopted, the behavior of Christians was like that of radical Muslims of today. Both the clergy and laity behaved like today’s college students who seek to oppress all with which they disagree; they disdained the free exchange of ideas. The councils that developed these Christian doctrines often behaved like political conventions at their worst. All sorts of corruption (bribery, threats, violence, etc.) and political influence were used to win the agreement. Slogans, symbols, stereotypes, and guilt by association were used much more frequently to advance doctrinal discourse than reasonable, intelligent, and logical debate.
    Moreover, the laity did not behave any better than their leaders in the councils. Often, they acted worse. Although the laymen were ignorant of the theology involved, they were hostile toward anyone who disagreed with them.
    Arguments for the various competing doctrines were often written so convoluted, complex, and technical that few could understand them.
    If it were not for several emperors of the Roman Empire, the Nicene Trinity may never have become the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. These emperors enforced the Nicene Trinity doctrine, while suppressing competing doctrine.
    Christianity would have been a more peaceful and Christlike religion if both the “orthodox” and “heterodoxy” had followed the Scriptures instead of abandoning them in favor of speculation. In developing their doctrines, both the orthodox and heterodoxy seem to prefer speculation to the Scriptures, although both used selected Scripture to support their speculations. Moreover, to have used persuasion instead of coercion to convince opponents of the error of their doctrine would have resulted in a more peaceful, trusting, and loving society.
    If the clergy had expended the effort of living as Christ taught instead of forcing their speculations about his being on everyone else, this era would have been much more peaceful and probably would have made greater advancement in Christianity. Moreover, a united Roman Empire would most likely have lasted longer, and Islam may never have left the Arabian peninsula.
    2. Jesus’ rise to become God Himself, i.e., the eternal God the Son, who is equal to the Father, had much more to do with Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire than with anything in the Scriptures. Jesus had to lose his image as a human rebel against the Empire. Furthermore, having Jesus as God suited the autocratically ruled Empire much better than having Jesus remaining a humble man. As a result, the gospel texts that stressed Jesus’ humanity and supported his subordination to the Father, were minimized. Paul’s letters describing Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were transformed from the political context in which these events occurred to a cosmic event.
    3. How many orthodox Trinitarians realize that the prevailing (orthodox) idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for about 200 years before Constantine made Christianity the state religion was similar to the heresy of the Jehovah Witnesses: the preexisting Son was subordinate to the Father and was not eternal and the Holy Spirit was an attribute or operation of the Father instead of a person of a triune God (however, many believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, but inferior to the Father and the Son). Before then, the prevailing idea of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit was similar to the heresy of the Biblical Unitarians (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) and Christadelphians.
    4. In the early days of Christianity, people believed that if the state (country) practiced an incorrect form of Christianity, God would punish that state and society with wars, plagues, famines, and other disasters. If true, Orthodoxy must have been an incorrect form of Christianity because the Roman Empire collapsed under Christianity. Furthermore, Orthodox Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East fell to Islam.
    5. The Church Fathers who developed the Nicene Creed used Platonic philosophy and speculative reasoning in deriving their Creed. Scriptural support in its development was scant. Scriptural support came later when the Scriptures were interpreted to support a predetermined dogma.
    6. A majority vote in a council of bishops decided to change the unipersonal God about whom Jesus preached and to whom he prayed to a triune God of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, they elevated the man Jesus to Deity (Paul, Peter, and John referred to Jesus as a man and never as God Himself). Moreover, the council was not even representative of the Church as a whole — as though a council could change God.
    7. From the late fourth century onward, anyone who disagreed with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity (or any other Catholic doctrine) has been branded a heretic. For more than a thousand years, free religious debate ceased. Apparently, the Trinity Doctrine is so insecure that Trinitarians must suppress any questioning of their doctrine. Moreover, Trinitarians became notorious for their book burning.
    8. Ask a Trinitarian if there is only one God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Ask him if Jesus is God, and again he will answer, “Yes.” Next, ask him if the Heavenly Father is God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Finally, ask him if Jesus is the Heavenly Father, and he will answer, “No.” Thus, the Trinitarian says that there is one God, and then he says that there are two Gods. Which is correct? For there to be only one God, the answer to one of the questions must be incorrect: Jesus is not God; the Heavenly Father is not God; or Jesus is the Heavenly Father. This is the logical and reasonable conclusion. However, the Trinitarian would muster all the logic that Trinitarianism allows and declare, “Not two Gods, but three Gods who are one God” and then quote the Athanasian Creed, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” Thus, he shows that the Trinity Doctrine is void of logic and reason and relies mainly on mere assertion (and for hundreds of years, on political power).
    9. For many Trinitarians, the test of a true Christian is not believing Jesus, loving him, and striving to follow his example and teachings. It is believing what some ancient councils, about which most Christians know nothing, said about his nature.
    10. Why do Protestants reject the doctrine of Mary being the Mother of God? It is such a component part of the Nicene Trinity Doctrine that for a thousand years any Trinitarian who questioned it was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic.
    11. Jesus, Paul, and John had plenty of opportunities to explain clearly this previously unknown triune God, yet they failed to do so. Why? Completely alien to their Jewish audience, who believed in a unipersonal God, was the concept of a triune God. So obscure is the support of the doctrine of the Trinity and dual nature of Christ in the New Testament that around 400 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a good application of Greek philosophy, and the frequent use of force against dissenters were needed to discover it.
    12. Nowhere does the Bible declare that there are three equal, eternal beings, each of whom possesses all the attributes of Deity, yet they together constitute but one God. Moreover, nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature and that these two natures made one person. As these concepts would have been completely new to the Jewish audience to whom Jesus and the apostles preached, one would think that they would have explained these new concepts in detail.
    13. The Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of Jesus having two natures are two dogmas that have been so deeply inculcated in the Christian mind that few Protestants question it — and the few who do are usually condemned as heretics. Yet, these two dogmas are based on Catholic tradition instead of the Scriptures. Whatever scriptural support is given for them it is via Catholic traditional interpretation of Scriptures. However, these supporting verses can just as easily and usually more legitimately be interpreted such that they do not support the Catholic dogma of the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. (Another Catholic doctrine based more on tradition than on the Scriptures is that of the unity of man, i.e., all humans are descended from a common set of parents. It has been so ingrained in the minds of men that even secular humanists, atheists, and nearly all other non-Christians do not question this dogma. The disagreement between them and the traditional Catholic dogma is when the initial set of patents came into being and how they came to be. Moreover, both believe in Darwinism although many of the followers of the traditional Catholic doctrine deny it.) So much for Protestantism’s boast of freeing itself from Catholic dogma.
    14. Beyond the comprehension of mere Christians are the Trinity Doctrine and its concomitant Christology. Only an enlightened elite, the illuminated ones, can truly understand them — so asserts Gregory of Nazianzus, a principal force behind making the Holy Spirit a coequal, coeternal God along with the Father and the Son. Moreover, Gregory rejected the notion that one can come to know God by applying rational thought to the Scriptures. Apparently, a great deal of philosophical speculation is necessary to really know God. Consequently, Gregory’s claim that only the enlightened can understand the mystery of God is akin to Gnosticism, for the Gnostics maintained that only the enlightened can comprehend the mystery of God.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.