Kulturkampf in America

In 1870, Otto von Bismarck began his Kulturkampf (“culture war”) against the German Catholics. It was a leftist crackdown against the major Christian religion in Germany at the time, born out of Bismarck’s fear that the German Catholics might not be completely loyal to his government and that they could possibly form their own political party. “Catholicism was seen by progressive Germans as foreign, antiquated, backward, and un-German.” (362 Goldberg) The man who actually created the term “Kulturkampf” was the German scientist Rudolf Virchow, who was “a renowned liberal who hoped the Kulturkampf would liberate men from the clutches of Christian superstition and wed them to progressive principles.” (362 Goldberg) When the first Kulturkampf laws were passed in 1873 and “restricted the disciplinary powers of the church, placed the education of the clergy under state supervision, and provided for the punishment of those who refused to cooperate.”

(1 Columbia University) Bishops and church officials were put in prison, sent into exile, and controlled by the state. Although the movement died out, the idea “that traditional Christianity was a threat to national progress took permanent root.” (363 Goldberg) Decades later, Hitler would harness these roots to fuel his regime and rebuild the Christian church in his own Nazi image, passing laws to place the church under the government’s rule, never establishing it as the national religion, but most definitely restricting the free exercise thereof.

Where is the similarity in this day and age? Why, it’s right here in America. Obama has been fighting his own Kulturkampf against conservative Christianity – Catholics and Protestants alike – since he took office, particularly through his Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate under Obamacare. This mandate forces all employers to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees for free despite any moral or religious convictions the employer may have. Christian charities, hospitals, churches, and other religious groups will be made to provide abortions to their employees without exception. In other words, even if you believe abortion is infanticide (which it is) and is morally repulsive, going against everything your faith stands for, Obama’s HHS mandate will force the liberal faith and morality upon you. The only religious freedom you can have is that of the liberal faith and creed. The State, not the Church, is taking the only power to define the Church and its areas of influence is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights and “whether one agrees with the Catholic position on birth control and abortion or not, the Church’s opposition to both is rooted in religious principle, and its right to conduct its programs in accordance with this principle is protected by the First Amendment.” (1 Connor)

Works Cited

Columbia University, comp. "Infoplease." Infoplease. Infoplease. Web. 31 May 2012. .

Connor, Ken. "Obama's HHS Mandate Not Just Unconstitutional, But Ungodly | LifeNews.com." LifeNews.com. LifeNews.com, 29 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. .

Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.

The Ground Zero Mosque

This post is in response to a number of comments on a friend of mine's facebook status that reads:

"Should Muslims be allowed to build a Mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero? According to every law, yes. We came here for religious "freedom," not only for Christianity."

There were many points brought up in response to this argument. Here they are:

1. Muslims are peaceful.

2. Terrorists, not Muslims, attacked us.

3. It's just a "place to worship."

4. Some of the people killed in the attack were Muslim.

5. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

6. Nothing to do with religion.

7. Right to religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Some of these are good points, but I don't see how any of them truly justify the construction of a mosque within throwing distance of Ground Zero - a sacred site where thousands, like it or not, lost their lives to Islamic terrorists. I've been thinking a lot about this issue. Some of these points had me questioning my belief that the mosque should not be built at Ground Zero. So, I've been doing a lot of research on the subject - specifically the background of the organization and the man who are primarily behind this initiative. I will share what I have found and address each point.

So where shall we begin? Or rather, when?

The year is 711 A.D. It is the beginning of the end for the Visigoth Kingdom. Tariq the Berber arrived in Spain with his army of Moors. To this day, the place where his troops landed is preserved. The Moors called the place Gebel al-Tariq, or The Mountain of Tariq, but today we know it as, "The Rock of Gibraltar." After a brief imprisonment by the Arab governor of North Africa, Musa ibn Nusayr, Tariq was released by the Caliph Walid to continue his conquests on the Iberian Peninsula (291 Durant).

The Moslems made their way up into France, intent on conquering all of Europe in the name of Islam and making it a province of Damascus. In one of the most decisive battles in world history. This battle essentially saved Europe from being conquered by Islam. The Moslems were defeated by Carolus Martellus, a.k.a. Charles the Hammer, the Duke of Austrasia (292 Durant). They were all expelled from France by 759 (163 Langer). However, I have gone a bit further than I intended in our history lesson. Let us return to Spain.

In 756, Abd-al-Rahman I was appointed the emir of Cordova with the task of leading the Umayyad governors against the Abbasids, who had initially ordered for the entire Umayyad family to be executed. Abd-al-Rahman, was the only one to escape the massacre (291-292 Durant). It was in this year of his appointment that he began construction of the first Great Mosque of Cordoba. This mosque was built on the site of a Visigoth church (90 Grant). Although it was recaptured by the Christians in 1238 and turned into a cathedral, it still stands today as a symbol of what was once the height of Islamic power in the Iberian Peninsula.

You are probably wondering why I just gave you this tiny history lesson about a seemingly unrelated mosque. As you can probably guess by the previous sentence, these mosques are not unrelated in the slightest.

We will now examine the characteristics of the mosque that is intended to be built in NYC just two blocks from Ground Zero. The sponsoring organization of the mosque is called, "The Cordoba Initiative" and the name of the mosque itself is intended to be "Cordoba House." Any bells ringing? Does anyone find it odd that the mosque being built at Ground Zero is explicitly named after the Great Mosque of Cordoba, that was once the symbol of Islam's control over Spain? It was the capital of that empire and was no less built on the demolished ruins of an ancient Christian church. Sure, the land was bought and paid for, but that doesn't reduce the meaning behind the symbolism in the slightest!

Lets go a little deeper into this organization and the man behind it.

The Cordoba Initiative:

A questionable organization at the very least. Founded in 2004 by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and funded by the Malaysian government, the Cordoba Initiative (CI) was aimed “to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.” (http://stopthe911mosque.com/background-info/cordoba-initiative/) Note that the link provided within this link links to a page that has been removed by the CI.

[Just real quick here, on a side note, let's remember our history lesson. What possible point in history could the CI be referring to here? Cordoba Initiative.. hmmm - Ohhh!!! They must be referring to when the Muslims ruled Spain with “tolerance and respect” between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. But wait… who was in charge there… uh oh… it was the Muslims. They may have “tolerated” the Christians and Jews and “respected” them, but they were still in charge and the Christians and Jews were still subject to Muslim (Sharia) law. I just wanted to point that out.]

Back to the CI. In 2006, it started what is called the Sharia Index Project. The purpose of this is to develop a system of rating countries on their Islamicity. To determine how Islamic a particular state is. This should turn a few heads at the very least. Why would they want to create something like this? We already have methods of determining the religious majorities of the world’s nations. What possible use could the Sharia Index Project have?

The founder of the CI, Imam Rauf, is a key figure in another organization called the Perdana Global Peace Organization (PGPO). This organization is known to be THE biggest donor to the Free Gaza movement, which was the key organizer of the flotilla that tried to break through Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-operated Gaza Strip. Not only that, but the PGPO has supporters like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who openly advocate terrorism as a necessary tactic and wish they had done more bombings in the Weather Underground. Moving on with the CI’s ties. The PGPO has partnered with the IHH (the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief [Insani Yardim Vakfi]), which is a Turkish charity with known ties to jihadi terrorists.

Let's trace this back now. At the bottom of our food chain here are the jihadi terrorist organizations. They are funded by the IHH, which is partnered with the PGPO (largest donor to the Free Gaza movement), which has Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf serving on their board, who is the founder of the Cordoba Intiative, which is sponsoring the mosque at Ground Zero. It seems to me that CI and Feisal are pretty close to the top of this food chain.

Speaking of the famous Imam, let’s take a look at him, shall we?

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948. His father, Mohammed Rauf, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is known radical, violent sect of Islam. Mohammed gained his radicalism at Al-Azhar University, which is essentially the Muslim version of the Vatican. Mohammed was forced to leave the country in 1948. Rauf went to school both in Malaysia and the UK. Fast forward to 1965. Feisal was 17 years old when his family moved to New York to live with his father, who had moved there from Malaysia to build the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan (even though it wasn’t actually built until the 1980’s.). The family moved again to Washington D.C. in 1971, where Mohammed built the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Ave. But enough about Feisal’s father. He’s dead and gone and is not the person at issue here.

Feisal Abdul Rauf’s unique educational background provided him with an important skill that would aid him in his journey to becoming such a prominent figure in “Muslim-American relations.” This skill is known as taqiyya, which is “the deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam.” His knowledge of western culture allowed him to master taqiyya.

In 1997, Rauf founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). It is now run by his wife, Daisy Khan.

In 2004, Rauf formed a group of 125 young Muslims called, the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. Members of this group contain a spectrum of liberal Muslims to mask the horrors within. Yasir Qadhi is a member of this organization. He is a favorite speaker at conferences held by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Another radical member is Dhaba “Debbie” Almontasser, who is known to work with Hamas’ U.S. arm, which is a known and “unindicted co-conspirator in terror financing.”

Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative has received funding over the years from an eclectic group of sources for the building of the Ground Zero mosque. It’s an impressive list of donors. The full list can be found here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true. Much of my information on Rauf is found here as well. The sources for the article are also carefully cited at the bottom of the page provided in the link.

Rauf wrote a book in 2004, but it was a two-for-one deal. Well, sort of. You see it was translated into English and Arabic. No big thing, right? It’s the same book, just different languages, right? You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you? Sorry to disappoint. The English book was released with the title, What’s Right With America Is What’s Right With Islam, while the Arabic version was released with a title that translates to, The Call From the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11.” I’ll let you compare the implications of these titles, which say completely different things. The one meant for us, the “useful idiots of the West” as Vladmir Lenin would say, and the one meant for everyone back home. Now, I know you can’t judge a book by its cover, and I haven’t read either of these books, but something tells me that two such radically different titles are imply a radically different message within.

One last thing about our good friend Feisal. He really likes Sharia law. I mean he REALLY likes it. In fact, he misses it so much he’d really like to see it implemented in America. The constitution is “Sharia-compliant” after all, with just a couple of exceptions. But he’s flexible. Those can be taken care of later. The Muslim Brotherhood teaches the doctrine of flexibility when attempting to implement Sharia law on a nation. There must be adaptation before there can be full implementation - before the United States Constitution can be replaced with Islamic law. What’s the big deal, you say? What’s so bad about Sharia? Well let me enlighten you.

Sharia is translated as “path.” It is the law by which every Muslim lives (and the law by which all non-Muslims underneath the supreme Muslims must abide). It dictates everything from daily routine to marriage to criminality. It is the reason behind all the honor killings of Muslims who have converted to Christianity, or Muslim women who leave their husbands, etc. When Sharia is completely implemented, even the non-believers must abide by it or face punishment. Check out this website for the top 10 reasons why Sharia is not good for any society. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

I realize the length of this essay and I will draw it to a close. You are capable human beings and I encourage you to do your own research on these topics. Get ALL the facts before you pass judgment in favor or against something as sensitive as this.

Now, on to the points that have been raised. [Don’t worry, I’m almost done! Hang in there!]

1 1. Muslims are peaceful.

I don’t doubt that there are peaceful Muslims. But that’s really not the issue here. It’s true, there are plenty of Muslim believers who just want to live their lives and serve Allah quietly. The issue here is that those behind this mosque are not those types of Muslims. They are the opposite, in fact.

Even still, one has to look at the implications of jihad and sharia and Islamic theocracy in general. Check out this video if you get a chance. Louder with Crowder on Islam Some may find it funny, some offensive, some enlightening, some frightening. Take it with a grain of salt and decide for yourselves.

2 2. Terrorists attacked us, not Muslims.

Yes indeed. Terrorists did attack us. But these terrorists were Muslims, whether we like to admit it or not. The entire Muslim world did not attack us, just those living out the jihad of the Muslim faith. Muslim terrorists attacked us.

3. It's a "place to worship."

There will be a place of worship within the Ground Zero mosque. This much is true. In fact, the mosque is intended to be somewhat of an Islamic version of a YMCA. This is an honorable endeavor, to serve one’s community, but recent events with such places do not encourage me to support building one in Manhattan. The assurances given to us by Imam Rauf have been given before in similar situations.

Take the mega-mosque in Roxbury, MA, for example. Assurances were given that there would be an interfaith commitment to serving the community, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Unfortunately… that mosque has been found to have terrorist ties to Hamas and other organizations. The Imam there even preached that Muslims should “pick up the gun and the sword” (2 Gaffney).

Same thing happened in the U.K. with the North London Central Mosque. Turns out the Christmas underwear bomber was an attendee of that mosque (2 Gaffney). Now I realize we can’t condemn an entire group on the actions of a single individual, but we must observe the context of these things.

4 4. People killed in the attack were Muslim.

Yes. I’m glad we noticed that. People of all religions, faiths, creeds, races, and backgrounds died in that terrible event. It was tragic, but the fact that Muslims died in 9/11 is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a sacred site that would not exist if it weren’t for Muslim terrorists. It is a slap in the face, despite the taqiyaa that is being fed to us by Imam Rauf.

5."I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Indeed. Once again, a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t justify what is happening here. An organization, with known ties to terrorist organizations who only wish they had been the ones to hi-jack those planes and fly them into the Twin Towers, is trying to build an enormous mosque just a few hundred feet from the site itself! There is no sense in defending the ideology that wants to see this country destroyed. The wisest of all men once said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” (Matt 12:25). If we defend to the death their right to build such an insult to our country, we will achieve only the death of our nation, not the birth of freedom.

But even that is beside the point. There are zoning laws at issue here. The building where they are trying to build this mosque qualifies as a landmark, despite the fact that it has not yet been declared as such. The American Center for Law and Justice recently submitted a request to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with a compelling argument for saving that building. You can read the request here: http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Executed-LPC-Submission_20100720.pdf

*NOTE: Unfortunately, the LPC has just voted unanimously to deny landmark status to the building. However, the ACLJ is continuing the fight to to grant this building the status it deserves and stop the mosque from being built.

6. Nothing to do with religion.

I have to blatantly disagree here. This has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Islamic terrorists flew those planes into the WTC, because of religion. The name Cordoba Initiative comes from the religious history of Islam. There is no part of this issue that has nothing to do with religion, except perhaps the common sense that tells you not to let a Muslim with known terrorist ties to build a $100 million mosque within throwing distance of Ground Zero!

I would ask HOW this has nothing to do with religion.

7. Right to religious freedom and freedom of speech.

It’s true. We have freedom of religion in this country. It isn’t just for Christianity, but for all faiths. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there; or abridging freedom of speech.” As much as I dislike the idea of this mosque being built, it is unfair for me to say it shouldn’t be built because it is a mosque at Ground Zero.

I cannot object to this mosque on the basis that it is a mosque. It is hypocritical to do so. However, I can object to it on the basis that the building that will be destroyed for the construction of this symbol of Islamic supremacy, is a historical landmark. If it weren’t for the agenda put in place to get this project pushed through as quickly as possible, it is likely that the building would already by declared as a landmark. I can also object to it on the basis of its questionable funding and its ties to terrorist organizations.

I believe we should be taking a closer look at all the information that has been provided. It’s obvious that something isn’t right here. There is an agenda here that has nothing to do with “interfaith” anything. The evidence is overwhelming. The history, the man, and the organization behind this are damning at the very least. The history points to symbolic Islamic supremacy, the man points to the implementation of sharia law in the future (not directly via this mosque, but it is an important first step as we have seen through history), and the organization points to the radical Islamic and terrorist ties of it all.

All that being said, I absolutely DO NOT support the building of the Cordoba House Mosque at Ground Zero.

*On another note, I would like to emphasize that I AM NOT A BIGOT (as some may be thinking now). You saw for yourselves that I questioned my original belief and I did the research necessary to answer my questions about the issues at hand. I educated myself about it and I formulated, what I believe to be, the correct answer. This post is not intended to attack or degrade. Merely to walk you through my thought process and educate us both.

I encourage DISCUSSION about this issue, rather than close minded, opinionated slogans and sayings without any facts behind them. I discourage attacking each other personally or letting something like this ruin a relationship. Discussion is needed so that an answer can be found.

THANK YOU!!! to everyone who read all of this! It took a long time to read, I know, but trust me... it took way longer to write. lol!

Works Cited

"Cordoba Initiative." Coalition to Honor Ground Zero — Stop the Ground Zero Mosque. Web. 03 Aug. 2010. .

Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: Part IV THE AGE OF FAITH. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950. Print.

Gaffney, Frank. "A Shrine to Sharia." Townhall.com. 28 June 2010. Web. 16 July 2010. .

Grant, Michael. Dawn of the Middle Ages. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981. Print.

Langer, William L. An Encyclopedia of World History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1948. Print.

Lappen, Alyssa. "The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams." Pajamas Media. 14 May 2010. Web. 3 Aug. 2010. .

Mussolini's Fascist Agenda

Hello all. As you can probably tell from my ideological portrait, our current government is not my ideal government. In fact, it is not remotely close to what I believe a government should be under the United States Constitution. The B. Hussein Obama administration and the democratic senate and house majority are drastically and rapidly moving our nation away from the principles our Founding Fathers laid down when the wrote our Constitution. Our government is expanding far beyond its constitutional boundaries and, I believe, developing the progressive tendencies of fascist totalitarian government.

Excuse my rabbit trail rant. I will move on towards my point now.

I am currently reading an extremely enlightening book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. It is a great book that addresses the left-wing origins of fascism and progressivism beginning with Benito Mussolini all they way through to many of the left-wing liberal progressivists currently destroying our Constitution and our economy. In the first chapter, Goldberg writes about the beginnings of fascism and it's creator of sorts, Mussolini. The most frightening part of the chapter, I think, is where Goldberg tells us the official agenda of Mussolini's fascist organization, the Fasci di Combattimento. The organization was founded by Mussolini and others on March 23, 1919 just three years before Mussolini became prime minister of Italy. Here is that agenda:

• Lowering the minimum voting age to 18, the minimum age for representatives to 25, and universal suffrage, including women.
• "The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intelectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture.
• End of the draft.
• The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal work day of eight actual hours of work for all workers.
• A minimum wage.
• The creation of various government bodies run by workers' representatives.
• Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.
• Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.
• The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the raising of the "the proletariat's moral and cultural condition."
• "A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches."
• "The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues."
• The "review" of all military contracts ad the "sequestration of 85% of all war profits."
• The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.
  

It's  long list to be sure, but under examination it is plain to see that our government has accomplished at least six of these (to my knowledge). I will lay them out.

1. "The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture." -- Obama has successfully bypassed the Senate with the appointment of his 21 czars. All of which, in one way or another address "intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture."
2. End of the draft. -- That's just already done. I don't know the reasons behind it, and i'm not blaming that on the current administration. I just know that it ended at the hands of Nixon after Vietnam.
3. A minimum wage -- We have a minimum wage and I am not personally against having one, but it's manipulation and increases by congress has in no way been helpful to our economy. I don't understand why they don't see that increasing minimum wage only increases the price of living and everything else. I have personally seen this at the movie theater I worked at for two years. Twice the minimum wage rose, and each time the prices of everything from movie tickets to popcorn to candy rose along with them.
4. The creation of various government bodies run by workers' representatives -- hmmm labor unions? lobbyists?
5. The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the raising of "the proletariat's moral and cultural condition." -- Need I describe our terrible educational system? Its liberal bias? Its refusal to acknowledge the multiple views of the origins of creation and allow students to decide FOR THEMSELVES what they believe to be true instead of claiming the THEORY of evolution and the big bang theory as the only possible explanation of how everything got here. Intelligent design is never addressed and if it is it is immediately dismissed. Accurate political and social history is ignored, facts are twisted and spun. It's disgusting.
6. "A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches." -- For those of you who don't know, expropriation is when something is taken away, usually by the state. Currently congress is pushing through the Value Added Tax (VAT).  This VAT is a tax that is essentially a national sales tax, except instead of having the tax added on when something is bought, the tax is added into the price of the item at each stage of the production process. The VAT, according to heritage.com, will expand the cost of government (last thing we need!! the national debt is like 11 trillion dollars already according to the national debt application on my iPod!), increase income tax rates, and it will slow down our economy even more as well as destroy jobs.

America is NOT headed in a good direction at the present and the forecast does not look good at all with the current progressive (I would argue fascist) B. Hussein Obama Administration. I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to read Liberal Fascism and educate themselves on the true left-wing origins of fascism. 

Thanks for reading.

My Political Ideological Portrait

Since this is my fist entry, I am going to give you all an overview on where I stand politically. This is actually a final paper i had to write for my Modern Political Ideologies class last fall. In the paper we were required to review a couple of other political philosophies simply for review purposes of the class. My actual portrait is contained primarily in the second section of the essay. This essay is actually about 9 pages printed out, so kudos to those of you who press on and read the whole thing.

Thanks and I hope you enjoy this and my future writings! Please feel free to comment or ask questions!

I.

            On the political spectrum, conservative views of the religious right are polar opposites from the radical socialist views of the Marxist left. The religious right primarily stands to challenge the rapidly increasing trend of relativism that is growing in the United States, to correct misinterpretation of the first Amendment, and to return a sense of morality to the government. According to Ralph Reed, there are misconceptions of the religious right. Conservative Christians are portrayed as extremists with a “potential for [the] destruction of our political, religious, and legal institutions” as the National Abortion Rights Action League has so delicately put it (185 Reed). Christians simply want a place at the table of politics. They are tired of standing on the sidelines while everyone else makes decisions. “Their objective is citizenship, not theism” (185 Reed). If the Christians of the religious right were more involved in politics, their goals would be a stronger emphasis on preserving and strengthening family; shrinking government; a continuing sense of democracy; decreasing in crime and increasing in public safety; and more successful schools. Another ambition of theirs would be to fight against anti-religious slurs and equate them with gender-based and racial slurs.

            Marxism is based, among other things, on the constant struggle between the classes. Marxists believe that as long as there are societies divided into classes, there will always be conflict. This battle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat classes can only end with the abolition of both classes along with the societal institutions that have encouraged them. Marxists trust in Karl Marx’s revolutionary sequence to ultimately dissolve the classes. First, an economic crisis must occur in which the proletariat becomes utterly miserable in their plight as the oppressed working class and they go through a revelation of class-consciousness. Second, the proletariat will then seize State power and rule in their own self-interest. Third, socialism will occur. Marx’s Labor Principle is crucial in this step. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.” Finally, communism will finally begin its reign. The proletariat will abolish themselves and the State will dissolve and the population will live according to Marx’s Needs Principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marxists believe that the ultimate form of government is the dissolution of the State and social classes into a commune in which everyone takes care of each other.

II.

            The most important components of my beliefs are shaped around the basis that all beliefs concerning government, its functions and its actions, are shaped by the various worldviews of the people. I believe that our forefathers spelled out very clearly what a government’s responsibilities are in the Preamble of our Constitution. That the government is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty….” It is the duty of the government to “establish justice” and “punish the transgressors of [the] law to such a degree as may hinder its violation (19 Locke). Government must “insure domestic tranquility” by promoting and maintaining a peaceful atmosphere within its borders so as to avoid civil wars and violent activity among the people. This must be done without transgressing the freedoms and rights of the people. The government is responsible to its people to “provide for the common defense” by creating and sustaining an excellent military force to protect the lives of the people, their rights, and their freedoms. I also believe that the American government has an obligation to come to the aid of other countries who suffer under abusive regimes. I agree with Irving Kristol, that “the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal.” The government is accountable to people to “promote the general welfare”, but not in the form of welfare checks and handouts. There should be an atmosphere and economic structure created among the people to make it possible for citizens to create and acquire wealth through honest means. The government should have no authority to take money out of my pocket to give it to someone else because they make less than I do. I work hard to get that money into my pocket and I believe I should get to keep it there or take it out of my own accord. Finally, the government is constrained to “secure the blessings of liberty” by guarding the unalienable rights of the people.

            Another component of my beliefs is that every government ever established was shaped by the religion of the people. The first Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, but it is outrageous to think that because there is no State-sponsored religion, that religion has no place in politics and therefore should have no influence upon government. One can try and remove religion from politics, but you can't remove religion from the people. If the population holds religious beliefs, those beliefs will be reflected in their politics.

            I believe that freedom is being able to believe as I wish without earthly consequence and do as I please without threatening or violating the rights and/or lives of another. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is a crucial and difficult to understand part of allowing the exercise of freedom. The Harm Principle states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” At first glance, this principle seems very straightforward, but when forced into the spotlight of specific circumstances, it becomes very controversial and difficult to interpret. Despite its confusing nature, it is one of the best definitions of true freedom that we have. When the government limits our freedoms, we lose our ability and our choice to be responsible with the freedom we’re given and we become servants of the State. Thus, we lose our dignity as functioning, individual members of society.

            If I had to label myself as a member of a particular political camp, I would label myself as a neo-classical liberal. I believe that we, as individuals, are to overcome government interference so that we can exercise our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I believe in a positive freedom, which is defined by Thomas Hill Green as, “the liberation of the powers of all men equally for contributions to a common good. No one has a right to do what he will with his own in such a war as to contravene this end” (69 Green). Our freedom is more than the absence of restraint. It is a freedom to do something for the “common good.” I believe that with these freedoms we have a choice to help or not to help our fellow man and the government should not force us to do anything otherwise. If there is a person or family with a need, we should be free to help them out through private enterprises, not through government welfare checks taken from hard-working taxpayers, I stand by William Graham Sumner’s analogy of the forgotten man. “A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D…. C is not allowed a voice in the matter” (119 Sumner) This is exactly what the government does through its welfare programs. It takes money from those who make a certain amount, without their consent, and hands it out to those who don’t make that much or claim a “need” to it. I believe that this taking from the strong will ultimately weaken society, because it is the strong who create and provide the means for the weak to climb the ladder of advancement by providing and creating jobs for the financially weaker of society.

            Since I suffer from ideological claustrophobia, I cannot only place myself in the neo-classical liberal ideology. I must also place a portion of myself within the religious right conservative camp. I agree with them in that “most of what [Christians] desire for society can only be achieved through private philanthropy and personal acts of goodness” (186 Reed). As a Christian, my goal is not to force my religious points of view down the throats of others, but to simply be a voice for the Christian American. My faith says that I am to love my neighbor as myself and I believe that the best way I can do this is through actively participating in politics so that I can encourage policies that promote the common good. My objective for participating in politics is not to subject others to my religious beliefs, but simply to exercise “duty – to vote, participate in the political party of [my] choice, lobby elected officials, and even seek public office.” As a Christian with a foot in this camp, I believe in a stronger emphasis on strengthening and preserving families and promoting smaller government. I believe this would have a very positive impact on society. More families would stay together if we elected leaders who would promote policies to instill good family values in our communities and our children. It is a proven fact of life that children develop better when they grow up in an intact family with a mother and father. In a smaller government, “judges would interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench,” (190 Reed) and “the marriage covenant would no longer be the most unstable form of contract in society” (190 Reed). Welfare systems, which tend to discourage people from trying to become more responsible and independent, would be eliminated so hardworking taxpayers could keep more of their money and cause them to be more charitably inclined towards those who are struggling to get by.

            I must split my ideological soul a third time and place it into the camp of conservative Kristolism. I believe that, because the United States of America is a large nation with an ideological identity, its national interests extend much further than its geographical borders. Because of this large, ideological identity that we possess as a nation, the United States will always come to the defense of other nations and combat “non-democratic forces, external or internal” that may be plaguing them. I also believe that world government is something that everyone, American or otherwise, should be wary of. “World government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny” and threatens the national sovereignty of every nation (168 Kristol).

            All these beliefs that I hold have been integrated into my life through more than my social standing or my upbringing. They stem from my Christian worldview as well as my family and the literature I read. Of course, being a Christian, the Bible is the greatest source of my political standpoints, but less spiritual ideological heroes of mine would be John Locke and John Stuart Mill. The more influential of these two ideological giants upon my ideological identity is John Locke.  His arguments concerning Natural Law are extremely compelling. I, like Locke, believe that “all men are naturally in… a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and personas as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature” (17 Locke). John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle fits nicely into the philosophy of John Locke and hence fits into a description of my ideology. Both say that we are free to do as we wish as long as it doesn’t invade the rights of another, but they differ on the subject of harm upon oneself. I agree with Locke in saying that we “[have] not liberty to destroy [ourselves], or so much as any creature in [our] possession” (17 Locke). Mill’s Harm Principle concerns harming oneself only in the context of being “young persons below the age which the law may fix.... [and] those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others must be protected against their own actions as well” (36 Mill). He argues that because the “individual is sovereign” over “his own body and mind”, his only constraint in exercising his freedoms is to not harm others in his actions, but he is free to harm himself since he is sovereign over his body. Locke recognizes that, because of the law of Nature, although the individual may be sovereign over mental and bodily actions, he does not have the liberty to “destroy himself.”

            My beliefs differ most greatly from those of Karl Marx and his followers. My initial reason for this is the blatant foundation of atheism that is typical of Marxist societies. This is apparent within the Communist Manifesto when Marx and Engels state that, “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things” (275 Marx and Engels). Religion, which Marx called “the opiate of the people,” falls within the category of “social” order, and I cannot stand for something that demands an “overthrow” of one of the freedoms I hold most dear. I also don’t like the distributive wealth ideals that are encouraged by Marx. I hold to the principles laid down by William Graham Sumner, Adam Smith, and Milton Friedman, that taking from the strong only weakens the rest of society, that we need to have a “laissez faire” approach to the economy, and that maintaining a free market helps to prevent political tyranny by dispersing political power. I also disagree with Marxists that class conflict is evitable. Marx’s revolutionary sequence seems like it would be a nice idea, but it doesn’t seem plausible. When the proletariat rises up to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it would seem that the positions of the two classes would only switch and there would be a new bourgeoisie made up of the recently promoted proletariat and a new proletariat made up of the overthrown bourgeoisie. Seeing as this revolutionary sequence has never truly been completed, it appears to be nothing more than an endless cycle of overthrowing the ruling class only to create a new one.

            As for my similarities with Ralph Reed and his accurate description of the Religious Right Conservatives, I wish I could take credit for writing that article. I completely agree with him on all his stances concerning Christians and government. I agree with the first Amendment and that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, but I don’t think that Christians should be barred from being involved with politics simply because of what they believe. It used to be that Christians were encouraged to be active in politics and atheists discouraged, because they had no higher being to answer to. I am not so radical as to suggest that Christians should take over politics and government, but I am tired of standing “on the sidelines watching everyone else play the game” as Reed so succinctly put it (185 Reed).

            My Christian worldview is an incredibly powerful factor in shaping my political worldview. My politics grow out of my theology which I find evidence for, not only in Scripture, but in the documents written and signed by our forefathers. I believe our government has a duty to its own people, as well as the people of the rest of the world, to protect their God-given rights and promote freedom and democracy abroad.