Political Fundamentalists—A Grave Threat to World Liberty

Kelly O'Connell

Here is a deeply disturbing truth of our age—one American group, our most aggressive political ideology, is dangerously reactionary, exhibiting all the hallmarks of a fundamentalist movement. Is this the Conservatives? No. This group is, of course—modern liberalism. In fact, during a recent debate witnessed by this author, one party claimed that any person holding a literal belief in the Bible should be kept from public office by law. Why? Because such persons are generally assumed unfit as they are incapable of rational thought. Specifically, the left must keep a perennial eye peeled for the advent of a theocracy.
Sadly, this dismissive instinct towards forging a Conservative ghetto to “protect the country” is getting stronger. Signs of this idea are regularly given in the mainstream media. For example, the preoccupation with claiming each and every Conservative presidential candidate is simply too stupid to be considered for office. The implied evidence being they are too dumb to realize Conservatism is idiotic. Likewise, the claim that electing a strong Christian would destroy the country by Taliban-like activities—proved by the terrifying fact that the would-be-politician actually believes the Bible.
And yet, most of the distinctive elements making the West the preeminent place of learning and enlightenment for the last 500 years are directly, or indirectly tied to our historic Christian faith. Further, attempts to employ Marxism and other socialist ideologies have resulted in the greatest human rights disasters ever recorded, with hundreds of millions murdered in the name of the State. This article is composed to point out the absurd contradiction in these facts and suggest a more tolerant view of religion in our society.

I. What is Modern Liberalism

Those demanding that Conservatives be politically sidelined are modern liberals—but what is modern liberalism? This definition is essential. Scholars claim the term “liberal” was employed during the last three centuries to describe the theories espoused by advocates of liberty. Then, around the turn of last century, socialists decided this term would be helpful to spread their ideas. Writes historian of Liberty Ralph Raico.

“Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals, ie socialism.

The most important thinker in the history of classical liberalism is probably religious enthusiast John Locke.

II. Hallmarks of Modern Liberalism, aka Socialism

So what are the traits of modern liberalism, aka socialism? In brief here is a description which hits upon the parochial and inflexible nature of its outlook. First, it makes dramatic and exclusive claims about reality which then implies those who disagree display perilous mental infirmity, suffer an utter lack of education or unforgivable moral bankruptcy. Second, given its primitive structure, it cannot accept compromise, since it claims a position of exclusive,  unparalleled truth. Third, it is simplifying to a startling degree,  and simplistic in its claims of the nature of reality. As such, it cannot risk engagement in debate, and therefore constantly seeks to derail any meaningful dialogue. Fourth, it has an autocratic leadership structure taking the place of an inner set of “core truths,” and so is capable of infinite permutations and contradictions. Fifth, it is overwhelmingly religious  in its vision and structure, and so is held with all the fervor of pagan beliefs common thousands of years ago. Finally, as in all true fundamentalism, it seeks to either permanently silence or annihilate its critics.
To explain why modern leftism has the characteristic structure it does goes farther afield than the purpose of this article. But it does have everything to do with the fact that socialism and all progressive ideologies, including Marxism and Fascism, derive their structure and purpose from Joachim of Flora’s heretic 12th century Catholic writings (as detailed here).

III. Modern Liberals Belching Bigotry

A. Stupid is as Stupid Does

As Newt Gingrich has recently risen to the top of the GOP 2012 presidential primary heap, he received the de riguer mainstream press treatment of prominent conservatives being insulting described as not-intelligent. The following headlines illustrate the point:
Politico, website of conservative knee-capping (which single-handedly committed itself to the demise of Herman Cain) asks: Is Newt Gingrich as smart as he thinks? The author then writes,

“Nobody thinks of Gingrich as a wonky type. Nobody thinks of him as someone who has serious positions, white papers, policies on a wide array of issues coming from deep knowledge and experience,” said Roderick Hills Jr., a constitutional law professor at New York University who’s active in the conservative Federalist Society. “I don’t think of him that way, and I don’t know of any professor who thinks of him that way.”

Paul Krugman: Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’. NY Times columnist Krugman has established recent high-water-marks on ill-advised and frankly idiotic commentary, but may have reached his zenith here. When asked why Gingrich has gained in the polls, preternaturally childish Krugman said:

It was his time, the Republican base doesn’t want Romney and they keep looking for an alternative, and Newt—although somebody said ‘he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like,’ but he is more plausible than the other guys they’ve been pushing up..

But how can ALL conservative politicians be described as dumb unless the conservative movement itself is lacking in any intellectual soundness? This question is well-examined here: Liberals Are a Thousand Times Smarter Than Conservatives—Just Ask Them!

B. Christianity—Dangerous Fundamentalism!

Further, it is assumed that anyone who believes literally in the Bible cannot think rationally, accept logic or science, or if elected—lead outside of direct application of all scripture. This is why the mainstream media cannot rest until each candidate receives vigorous personal attacks, outside of which, these politicians would come into a race against Obama unduly strong versus his weakling profile.
For example, to choose just one target, Rick Perry’s faith has come under scrutiny:
Is Rick Perry as Christian as He Thinks He Is?
Maddow (Rachel Madcow) discusses Rick Perry’s connections with a Christian conspiracy group
Rick Perry Agrees With Wife, He Has Been Brutalized for Christian Faith.
Then consider Sarah Palin, who along with Tim Tebow have received astounding anti-Christian attacks because of their faith: Tebow, Palin & the Logic of Thanksgiving
Overall, the attacks against religious politicians make no sense given the utter inability for liberals to make progress on America’s problems.

IV. Why the Traditional Western Christian Viewpoint Trumps Liberalism

A. General Impact of Christian Ideas on West

Various stories of how Christians uniquely influenced history to the benefit of mankind have been detailed, a few in this column. For example, it was a Christian who laid out the most important document in the history of British law and liberty—the Magna Carta—Archbishop Stephen Langton, as described here: Why Separating Church & State is a Fool’s Errand: Consider Magna Carta’s Origins.
And even religious tolerance itself was a Christian concept, as outlined by Puritan philosopher John Locke, who wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration which outlined his ideas on tolerating unpopular or diverse religious beliefs. And from a completely different angle, it was a Christian set of beliefs that led to the creation of modern science, as detailed here: The Christian Foundation of Modern Science.

B. Natural Rights—A Christian Theory

But it was even Christian scholarship which created the raw material that the entire modern view of government and law is based upon—Natural Rights Theory. In fact, it was William of Occam who first articulated modern Rights Theory as we might understand it. Occam was a famed Christian scholar regarded as one of the most brilliant and learned men of his day.
According to Brian Tierney, in The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 1625, Occam was a colossus of Right’s Theory who wrote from an explicitly Christian viewpoint. In other words, the idea of modern rights, so essential to liberal and even radically humanistic ideals, would not have occurred without biblical scholars positing Christian rights doctrines.
Paul E. Sigmund, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University, in NATURAL LAW, CONSENT, and EQUALITY: WILLIAM of OCKHAM to RICHARD HOOKER, writes:

Ockham’s writings on natural law are significant for the ideas of both individual rights and consent to government. Defending his Franciscan order against papal criticisms of their teachings on spiritual poverty, he distinguished among the various meanings of the Latin word jus (law, right) and dominium (rule, property) to defend an individual right to property. While he was not a canon lawyer, he cited arguments from medieval Church lawyers who had already debated the status of property and attempted to explain and justify the transition from communal property before Adam’s Fall to the contemporary institution of private property. Ockham was also one of the first to derive the legitimacy of government from consent. He drew on statements from Roman and canon law about man’s original freedom and equality in order to explain the establishment of legitimate rule in both state and Church through the consent of the governed. He even used the term “the state of nature” (which became so important in the later theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) to describe man’s original condition. In the case of the Church, that consent was expressed through the universal council that could limit and even depose the pope. In the temporal order, Ockham argued that the Holy Roman Emperor held his office because of the consent of the Roman people (i.e. those subject to the Holy Roman Empire) as expressed by the bishops and nobles who were the imperial electors. His arguments were based partly on the Bible and on the history of the Church and the Empire. More fundamentally, he derived the necessity of consent from natural law doctrines of original freedom and equality and from the “equal natural rights” of all mankind.

But to set aside Christian values of tolerance and rectitude would mean that only those who agreed with socialism would be allowed to silence any group that disagreed with their premises, as occurred in the USSR, etc.

V. Conclusion

Christianity is responsible for most of the West’s distinctive doctrines, a few of which are outlined above. Therefore, it would be both unwise and unjust to penalize Believers simply for their belief, by keeping them from public office. Further, since modern liberalism, aka socialism is so failed at building an economy, and seems so ill-designed for the actual construction and direction of a proper modern democracy, it seems suicide to treat our Conservative politicians like garbage. The only way forward through these staggering times is undoubtedly setting aside trendy, failed policies and embracing what made America superb in the past.