Sunday Stories: Christianity and Racism

New Blog Schedule

Introduction

Right up front, I’ll warn you this post is going to be long. To answer the questions I’m going to discuss here thoroughly, I’ll need you to bear with me. The argument I’m going to present takes some set up, and so I hope you’ll stick with me as I go through the necessary background information to get to the argument and the answer to the questions I’m going to present. Furthermore, for those who may be liberals in my audience, understand up front that I do not support racism in any way, shape, or form. I’m about to go through why. I’m hoping you’ll track with me on this one, though, because I’m about to go through the moral, historical, and ideological grounds that lead to racism. I’ve spoken to various liberals about why they believe what they do regarding racism, and I often hear good reasons with very, very inconsistent and bad logic. It’s entirely possible to be right and be completely inconsistent in your viewpoints, and that’s where most liberals I’ve spoken to are at. We’ll dive into why in this article, but please read with an open mind.

Why We Need to Discuss This in the Church and With Our Kids

I genuinely believe that the ideologies that most of our culture has bought into from a moral standpoint and from a worldview standpoint have led to the problems we are seeing today. If you look at history and where other countries who have adopted America’s current philosophies as pushed by the radical far left movement, the end result has always been the breakdown of all three areas of authority that God put into place: State (human government), church, and family. It happened in Russia, Nazi Germany, Italy under Mussolini, Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Prussia, and many other places in both geographical and historical locations. Right now, our country’s liberals are praising those like Stalin and Mussolini. Mussolini’s reign of terror was short-lived compared to some dictators, but in twenty-one years of power, he killed two-thousand political opponents and an estimated 430,000 people total died under his regime. Stalin was responsible for killing an estimated twenty million or more, according to many historians. Stanford historian, Norman Naimark, considers Stalin’s mass murders to be genocide and states that Stalin and Hitler have more in common than many of us in modern day culture seem to believe. These are the men we’re seeing the Democrat party praising or aspiring to be like. They want the same system of government that these men wanted and used. They’re repeating the same trends that past dictators did. Arguably, so are some of the far right radicals in office as well. Both are incredibly dangerous.

But if we don’t educate ourselves on history, we don’t see the trends. We ignore those who lived for many years in countries who have done all the same things we’re now doing thanks to the liberal, progressive agenda, and even though they express the fear they feel over seeing us doing what their governments did on the intentional path to dictatorships and communism, we scoff as if somehow they’re nutcases. If we don’t know what those who believed what we’re now espousing and hailing as forward thinking had to say about their goals with their philosophies, the things that were inseparable in their minds from their theories, and the ways in which those who followed after their founders chose to apply them, we’re going to be very easily led astray. Our young people are already being misled and taught lies. They’re swallowing it because we’re not teaching them any differently. They’re swallowing it, and we’re playing into the hands of our enemies. Outright communists in our country have the confidence to tell those of us who fight back: “Good job finding all of the links between communism and what we’re doing here. You’ve done your research. But it won’t matter. We’re going to win because we have your children.”

This isn’t something out of a crazy conspiracy novel. I wish it were! If it were, I could laugh it off and roll my eyes at the crazy people who believe this. But when you examine the history, the evidence, and what’s going on right now in our country, you can no longer dismiss what is happening. There is a very real battle going on, folks. And while it’s tempting to look at the rioting and looting around us and say that’s the battle, the battle goes far beyond that. It is a battle of ideologies, and right now, those who are prevailing hold a distinctly anti-God, anti-American, and anti-freedom perspective. We’re going to discuss why any of that matters.

Who Is This Mainly Geared Towards?

I would be remiss, at this point, if I didn’t say something about who this is geared towards. To some of you in my audience, you’re already yawning and rolling your eyes or becoming extremely incensed, if you even made it this far. Some might be considering saying a few nasty things because they think I’m insane at this point. That’s a risk I knew I’d be taking if I chose to speak out on this issue. But I’m going to do it anyway because this is so incredibly important for the Church to consider and understand.

To some of you, it might even sound like a wonderful thing to destroy every principle our country stands on. I am not naive enough to believe that every liberal individual out there is simply unaware of what’s going on, the agenda that the Democrat platform is truly pushing behind the scenes, or the implications of what they believe. I have to give those in the liberal camp credit: not all of them are being misled. Some of them are doing the misleading.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, my main focus here is on Christians no matter what side of the fence they’re on politically. Those who are believers, who have given their lives to Christ, and who have chosen to–in some way, at least–live for Him. Those who are non-religious, only believe when it’s convenient, or who are merely religious as opposed to living out the natural results of a heart fully surrendered to its Creator and King? You are all welcome. It is not my intent to tell you not to read on or to tell you that you aren’t welcome to read what I have to say here. But my focus is on my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ because the trends I see in the Church today both horrify and devastate me. At times, it can feel as if I’m on an island and am the only one in the Church who is seeing the horrific direction that Christ’s Bride, who is to be unspotted by the world, has taken. I know I’m not, but I also know that fewer and fewer Christians, regardless of what they think politically, are a) really redeemed sinners who are living in the Spirit of God and b) walking with God in a relationship with Him once they are redeemed. We have conformed to the world around us instead of being transformed into the likeness of Christ through the renewing of our minds in the Word of God.

Probably Stepping on Toes

I’m likely making some people very angry right now, but here’s the thing… Those of us on the conservative side have historically chosen to give up, not stand up, and to just stand aside as those who hate our country’s founding principles keep taking ground from us. If no one is willing to tell the truth, we will become a country living in deceit, lies, and misdirection (more so than we already are). Some who have been misguided will someday wake up and see what’s happened, and they’ll wonder how everything good they truly thought they were fighting for could’ve been destroyed. I pity those individuals, and I pray we never end up there. But if the Church and those who know where the philosophies being taught by a society running to destruction will end don’t choose to stand up? We will end up where every other country doing what we are has ended up: ruined, without the equality for all that the radicals claimed they wanted, and wondering how we lost our freedoms so quickly.

Most people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me will boo even literal quotes, which reveal uncomfortable truths, from people they hail as heroes. I’ve watched it happen. I have watched as various conservative blacks around the country have tried to warn their community about the facts. I’ve watched as those people, who have a heart for their communities and want to end the Democratic party’s manipulation of their communities, have been silenced, booed even before they’ve done anything but give statistics, and told they’re not “truly Black” if their opinion doesn’t fit the Democrat party’s narrative. Really? Really, guys? Could this behavior be any more childish and willfully blind? And lest you think I somehow believe just the Black liberals do this? It’s been done to me by white liberals who presume they can speak for the whole Black community because they’re “allies”. I’m the enemy because I listed stats or because I dared to ask them to provide proof on any specific area that there’s a real instance of racism going on. Some of you may be preparing to retaliate against the things I’ve already said or will consider it by the time I’m through here.

Further than that, I don’t even have to say these individuals are wrong or even try to start an argument. Expressing an opinion or asking a question is enough to get the name-calling, booing, and hate flowing. I ask a legitimate question in an attempt to understand what another community I’m not part of is going through, and what I get from other white people (who also are outside the community I’m trying to understand) is, you’re a racist because you bothered asking and don’t just automatically assume they’re right on everything. Sometimes those from the community jump on the bandwagon with the white individual who already started the name calling, mockery, and disrespect. Those who do often complain that I can’t understand because I don’t know what I don’t know, but they do. The complaints boil down to, you’re a racist, and I know that because I’m a minority, you’re not, and as such, I have special knowledge you don’t. (This isn’t to say that no one outside the minority community is racist and rightfully called out on it, of course. There are definitely instances where an individual from a minority rightfully calls out racist behavior as it is. But these days, simply asking a question is racist, and the individuals I’m referring to above are the sorts who propose to judge the motive behind the question even when none is actually given. How they can do that is beyond me. I mean, I know I don’t have that particular superpower, but apparently some special human beings of other colors do, so…)

Now, granted that’s not everyone’s attitude. But the vast majority of people making a lot of noise and fuss and pulling the race card on things that have become increasingly more ridiculous think this way. Those of you who are non-Christians probably don’t see the big deal. But while I do hope that this article will be a good learning point for you guys in seeing why the Biblical worldview will always take the strongest possible stance against an attitude of racism possible, my goal in writing this article is mainly to address my fellow Christians: liberal or conservative.

A Wake-Up Call

Guys, we need to wake up and start getting back to the God of the Bible and what He has to say. No two ways about it… If we don’t do this, we are going to keep losing our children to a socialist/communist agenda that seeks to destroy any belief in God, seeks to destroy God’s people, and seeks to destroy liberty. That’s why this is important.

Right now, the church is not meeting the culture with a strong Biblical stance on the issue of racism. We’re instead pandering to the culture, refusing to talk about it at all, or are wishy-washy on it. If we do any of those three things in response to this, we’re giving the culture the opportunity to inform our children’s viewpoints on because we have not first shown them the Biblical point of view. We will lose them to a culture that says racism is wrong with zero legitimate reason, from a non-Biblical, evolutionary point of view, to say that it is.

Nothing in evolution requires that we think that somehow we are the only race that has escaped the evolutionary hierarchy. Saying otherwise is to contradict everything in the theory, as it has changed remarkably little since Darwin and his immediate predecessors first developed it. If we want our children to believe in something that has no inherent reason to respect the sanctity of human life, no foundation for any sound or consistent morals beyond whatever society or the individual chooses for themselves, and zero reason for any concern for those around them… If we want our children to walk away from God because we have given them a view of Him that is so utterly decrepit and unholy, so utterly without answers to the issues they’re seeing around them every day, then going silent on the issues around us and on what God has to say is the way to do it.

I don’t yet have kids to train up in the way they should go. But someday I will, and I don’t want to live in a country where I have no freedom to do what God has called me to do without fear. America’s greatest strength has been in its promise of liberty and the protection of rights for everyone. Granted, there have been times where we as a nation didn’t uphold those ideals like we should have. But we’ve always had groups who stood up and fought rightfully through our legal system, peaceful protests, and petitions to make a difference and to stop injustice. That’s an amazing thing, but if we start in the home by teaching our children a Christ-centered viewpoint that respects even those who as individuals have proven undeserving of it, that loves even the most unloveable, and that speaks truth even when it is unpopular to do so, we’re going to start seeing a return to the values in our Constitution. We’re going to lose fewer of our children to the world’s lies, and we’re going to raise kids who are able to change the world around them for the better because they have a God-sized vision for change and for reaching the hearts of men for their King.

While I don’t have kids to raise yet, if I want to be able to raise them safely and in freedom without the fear of the government taking them away, refusing me the right to raise them in the fear and admonish of the Lord, or trying to brainwash them while silencing me as the parent, I need to be doing my part to defend those liberties now before it’s too late. Right now, I might not have kids, but I do have a voice, and I can use it to try to reach even just one or two others who can catch the vision for a church and, yes, a country, that is once again God-centered, God-focused, and multi-generational in its view toward the future. It isn’t too late for us, especially for those of us in my age range who don’t have kids yet and don’t have to lose them to a world that will destroy them and everything truly morally good and upright in them.

So let’s start addressing the issues in today’s culture from a Biblical worldview. Today, I’m starting with the one most in our faces right now: race and the issue of racism.

The Question for Consideration

Why is racism and racist behavior or thinking wrong? Liberals and Democrats would scream from the tops of mountains and to anyone who will listen that anyone who dares have such a mentality is one of the most disgusting, wicked human beings out there. Ironic considering their worldview often gives no yardstick by which to measure morality and thus offers them no leg to stand on to say anyone is more wicked than another for any given behavior. But I’ll save that for later on in this discussion.

The fact of the matter is that right now we’re hearing society’s loudest voices shout down anyone who dissents against their view on racism and we’re hearing countless voices, conservative or liberal, denouncing racists and racism behavior. But if we’re going to do that, shouldn’t we know what we’re standing against and why we’re doing so? As Christians, it’s imperative that we exercise discernment and understand why we do (or do not) agree with a given philosophy or belief so that we can ensure every word, deed, and thought is in line with Scripture.

So let’s take a look at why the biggest supporters of anti-racism will be those who are true believers following God’s Word and living in the Spirit. Let’s also examine where this concept of racism really sprang up from, why it did so, and why you must have a Christian worldview (at the very least on this issue) to have any validity in saying racism is wrong.

A Question of Morals

There are many places I could start on this discussion, but I’m going to start with morals because I don’t believe any discussion on this topic can be meaningful if your morals are not grounded firmly in truth. The issue of racism is a moral one, whether we want to admit it or not. I think most of us can agree that it isn’t political, even if others want to say it is. If it were simply political, there would be no outcry on the grounds of certain behaviors being right or wrong.

But here’s the problem that you run into, then, if you recognize it’s a moral issue but you refuse to acknowledge God or His Word as the solution. Many people will say something along the lines of “we don’t need God to know the difference between right and wrong.” Now, I’m not trying to make light of these people or mock them, but that is the statement of a fool according to the Bible (Psalm 14:1) as a fool doesn’t acknowledge that there is a God or a need for one. But why is it so important that there is in fact a God, and specifically a God like the Bible presents, if we are to have any basis for morality?

Change as the Reason

The answer? Change. Human beings are subject to change. Once upon a time, the Germans (or at least large groups of them) thought it was fine, maybe even morally praise-worthy, to round up and slaughter Jews, Blacks, and other minorities like animals simply because they were “less evolved” and “not a part of the superior race”, which was exactly how Hitler justified what he was doing. Once upon a time, rich white plantation owners justified one of the most horrific forms of abuse known to man in the form of American slavery, and while no one up North likes to admit it, most people North and South didn’t care much one way or another.

No one but a select group of very loud abolitionists, who rightfully found the practice reprehensible, spoke up against it. While some might have personally believed it wasn’t a good thing, most simply ignored it if it didn’t affect them or viewed it as necessary. And few, if any, on either side even viewed the Africans (or other slaves from say Ireland who were under the guise of “indentured servants” and were treated as poorly or worse than the Africans due to how cheap they could be acquired) as human beings or people. Thus, they came up with insane compromises like treating them as 2/3rds of a person under the law in some cases and like property in others.

Once upon a time, Darwin stated that the natives of South America were savages and hardly human if they were in fact human at all, and those who followed in his footsteps on the matter of evolution agreed. They made inherent dehumanization of those who didn’t act or look like them a major part of their theory. Darwin himself justified this by saying that it was simply one more example of evolution in action, just as the Galapagos finches were to his mind examples of evolution in practice. Therefore, he said, those savages (referring to the non-white tribal people of South America and later to African slaves) were closer to being apes than he and those from England or Western Civilization were, and he saw no problem with treating them as less than human.

These examples are only a few of the instances where humans set their own moral standards of right and wrong without God and His Word in the picture. But what happened? Do we still believe those mindsets are acceptable? No! We don’t. Even though we still have evolution around, and even though there is absolutely nothing in the evolutionary theory or the science supposedly behind it that would give us reason to say that we shouldn’t behave just like the other animals around us (since we are, after all, simply more evolved animals ourselves), we still view these actions and thoughts as disgusting. Liberals and conservatives alike would decry these behaviors. Few think they’re acceptable in any way. Why? Because society changed its mind. We don’t live in a society that thinks this is still okay.

The Breakdown of Morality

Okay, but clearly we still can have some moral compass without God, right? Wrong. Anyone who is going to argue that one thing is wrong and another is right must argue it with a rooted belief in the God of the Bible. They won’t admit it, of course, and they make their own arguments logically fallacious because they don’t believe in God, but evolution or any viewpoint with an unchanging, perfectly holy God must then be unable to declare anything moral or immoral. There is no set standard because we as humans, who change our minds constantly, are the only ones who can decree what is right and wrong. If there’s no yardstick to measure by, then if society decided tomorrow that it’s acceptable to kill every, let’s say, white liberal man in a given country, we can’t say it’s wrong. Because society said it was fine.

You also can’t say that Hitler was wrong because the majority of his society agreed with him. Had he won, most of Europe wouldn’t have found anything wrong with what he did either because the victors write the history books and put their own spin on it. That area of Europe would’ve adopted the same mentality because with no moral code higher than ourselves, why would we declare it wrong so long as everyone around us says it’s right?

If I could ask for a show of hands right now for who feels comfortable with that conclusion, I doubt many would raise their hands. But here’s the problem. If you don’t believe in an unchangeable, holy God who gave us His moral code, which can never change, then you’re left with only one option: humans must decide what is moral good or moral evil on their own. Whether society does it or you say a single individual does so for themselves, there will be problems with either.

Deep down, most of us can admit there are just certain things like murder, hating your fellow man on basis of skin color, or taking/destroying another’s property that are simply wrong. But why? Have we stopped to ask that question? For someone with a Christian worldview, the answer is easy. God says murder, hatred (murder in the heart, according to Scripture), and destruction or theft are all sin. He punishes them, and they are clearly labeled as outpourings of a sin nature, which goes beyond a simple issue with a specific sin and is ultimately what will condemn us without Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and His blood applied to us. But if you don’t believe that God exists, what is your basis? Society said so? You said so? Last I checked, we’ve already proven both are subject to change and that both can be wrong, so how can you condemn someone who thinks differently than you if that’s the case? What if they’re right and you’re wrong?

In the end, then, all things must be named acceptable so long as either a) they are acceptable to a large enough crowd of people or b) the individual has decided it’s right for them. Neither is a good solution. Both lead to all kinds of issues, and inevitably, as we’re seeing all over in America today with the looting, rioting, senseless killings, and outcries for a false justice to be meted out on an entire group of people who in most cases neither descended from slavers nor have done anything truly racist or wrong. Both options that leave God out of the equation result in a breakdown of morality.

No True Morality Without A Holy God

There are no two ways about it. You can split hairs all you want. But if you are going to be logical about it, you can’t say everyone is human and deserves respect as such (that’s a Biblical concept, not a progressive, evolutionary idea), you can’t say that we should do unto others as we want done unto us (that’s also a Biblical concept, not a progressive evolutionary idea), and you can’t say in any honest way that we can discern right from wrong (because that’s a Bible idea and a conscience thing, which animals and evolution have no room for, and it’s not a progressive evolutionary idea).

If you’re going to be logical and honest about where a viewpoint without God leads in the matter of morality, you must then say that the only reason you think something is right or wrong is because it isn’t to your taste. It isn’t truly right or wrong because there’s no such thing if you aren’t reasoning from a measuring stick that doesn’t change. Right and wrong are determined by society or by the individual, so the fact that you don’t find it tasteful doesn’t mean they’re morally wrong for doing it. Your opinion is no more valid than someone else’s if there’s nothing behind it except your own ideas of what’s right and wrong. Those ideas are all in your head. They’re as made up by you as a fictional world is by a writer. Unless there is a God who holds us to an unchangeable standard and is Himself above all else with the authority to declare what is right and what is not, unless there is a holy, just God who will never pass judgment in error or change the standards up, you cannot have morality.

The Mindset that Justified Slavery

Slavery of the sort American plantation owners and British upper class citizens practiced has been around for nearly as long as mankind has existed. You can go all the way back to the Romans, Ancient Egypt, and certainly Ancient Babylon or Assyria even further back than the first two. You’ll find it, and it didn’t discriminate in color when it came to the wickedness of treating another human being like property. Many times, these slaves were “spoils” of war.

But by the time history gets around to Colonial America and Britain previous to their anti-slavery policies, we see something start to happen that wasn’t as common if it was found at all. British and American traders began to take slaves on their forays into Africa, South America, and the Indies. They had other slaves, of course, in the case of convicts from Britain who were sent to work on penal colonies or Irish political prisoners in other cases. But there were rules governing how these individuals were to be treated, even if they were mistreated in many situations, and they weren’t viewed as non-humans. So why is it, then, that Africans and natives of places like South America or the Indies weren’t afforded the same privilege?

The answer lies in the mindsets springing up around the world and in the combination of both the old world view of the native inhabitants of the new world and the emergence of evolution via Charles Darwin and those who followed in his footsteps. Now, I know full well that those who support evolution (meaning most liberals and even some Christians) will say, we don’t follow Darwin, and we know better because science has advanced. But Darwin was not simply a product of the prevailing discriminatory attitude Western civilization had for anything that wasn’t Western. He certainly had that mentality, and it’s obvious in his writings, but what is equally transparent is that Darwin was happy to state that his views on evolution informed his thinking on treatment of and status of the natives and Africans he encountered.

He not only viewed the natives as savages, but he also states many times things such as “one could hardly believe they were human” or that they were “far inferior to the English colonists”. He viewed them as “primitive beings” and didn’t see them as human. He had zero issue with slavery, not because it was widely accepted at the time, but because he believed natural selection dictated that it was fine and that the eventual extermination of the “savages” was inevitable due to natural selection. Darwin even compared the natives of South America that the crew took back to England and their transformation into “complete and voluntary Europeans” as well as many other situations he observed in the native lifestyles to the natural selection he found in the finches on the Galapagos islands, which he viewed as evidence for evolution.

Using the Mindset and Philosophy to Justify Unspeakable Acts

So then, when his teachings are observed, it is clear that, at the very least, Darwin applied evolutionary principles to the human race and used it to create a distinction between a European and a native in South America. While it should be admitted that Darwin himself, on a humanitarian scale, didn’t agree with the heinous mistreatment of the natives despite his belief that they were, at the least, not the superior race, his beliefs and the logical conclusion of them were adopted by many who followed after.

This led to disastrous events and unspeakable mistreatment levied at those “less superior” races. Most notably, history gives us Hitler, Stalin, and the American version of slavery. Darwin would likely have been horrified by Hitler and Stalin. What he would’ve thought of slavery in America is less certain since he himself did not find any moral issues with it during his time, and it was no less hideous then. But there is no escaping the facts. The European mindset of Western superiority blended with evolutionary philosophies as Darwin and others developed it set the stage for justification of some of the worst acts known to man. And for those who are willing to be honest and consistent in their beliefs, we still see it causing issues today.

The Liberal Arguments Against Racism: Substantiated or Not?

From a liberal perspective with God out of the equation, the arguments, as I briefly noted earlier, run something along the lines of saying all of us are human regardless of skin color, no one is superior to another on that grounds, and we should all treat each other the way we want to be treated. Further, some would say, we don’t need God to know right from wrong, and we don’t hold to Darwin’s teachings on this matter because science has advanced enough to let us know that was wrong. Some would say that science has proven Darwin’s teachings and that it isn’t a religion or faith-based thing but is instead that Darwin discovered a scientific fact and was later proven right. In some cases, I’ve heard from liberal acquaintances and friends that whether we have any purpose on the Earth or not, and whether we were created by God or evolved for no particular reason at all, should have no bearing on how we treat each other.

These are real responses I’ve gotten when I’ve asked liberals why they think racism is so bad when God is taken out of the equation. I asked because I didn’t want to get the answers wrong, misrepresent their viewpoints, or unfairly accuse them of saying things they wouldn’t ever say. (And… Well, I asked because I was genuinely curious too. Never have heard a good answer–or really any answer at all–backed by sound logic from a liberal who believes in evolution wholeheartedly, and I was curious if anyone had some answers. We seem to take it for granted that this issue is wrong, but while I have reasons why it’s wrong from my perspective, I didn’t have any idea what a non-Christian liberal thought. Now I do!)

So, let’s break this down. I agree with them on the first three points. Let’s start with those since it’s a point of common ground. While they are correct to state we’re all human regardless of color, that no one is superior to another based on skin color, and that we should treat others as we want to be treated, what is the reasoning point for this? I’ve heard zero good explanations of the grounds for these statements from any liberal who removes God from the equation. This is entirely due to the discussion on morality I gave above. Evolution doesn’t give them any ground to claim this because evolution says, hey, we’re all random chance, products of natural selection, and more evolved animals. A viewpoint like that results in the following logical conclusions:

  1. Nothing actually matters that much because it’s all random chance and there’s not much to live for except, depending on who you ask, furthering the survival of the human race. But what’s the purpose for it? Why bother if there’s no reward or benefit in it? I’m going to die eventually, and so will my children. So why not live in whatever way most pleases me? I have zero reason, from this viewpoint, to care what happens to other people around me unless I happen to have some sort of emotional concern for them because they’re friends or family. We see exactly this attitude in those who are stealing, looting, rioting, and burning the homes or businesses of individuals who haven’t done anything wrong. It is entirely a me-focused mentality, and why shouldn’t it be if it benefits your survival and your needs? At best, you might be concerned about the survival of those around you simply because they’re central to your preferred existence or because you have feelings of affection toward them. But any altruism that doesn’t in some way benefit us? Evolution gives us no reason for that. It’s a good thing from a Christian point of view to serve others and to be self-sacrificing. From an evolutionary perspective, who cares? We’re random chance and animals anyway, so why bother to act like we’re not?
  2. We’re all animals. Animals don’t care who gets hurt when they do something. One monkey who dukes it out with another over a female doesn’t care if it kills the other male who lost. One group of lions who fight another over turf doesn’t feel remorse over killing their own kind. So if we’re no different than animals, what do we care if we kill someone else? There’s nothing special about us, no inherent aspect that goes beyond simple matter or neurons firing in the brain. Just like animals, we simply live and work off emotions, the drive to survive, and the drive to reproduce. We don’t have a soul or something called a conscience because animals don’t possess it, and if we’re animals, neither can we. We’re capable of more thought than a dog, say, but at the base of it all, we’re still just highly-advanced animals. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if what I do hurts someone else. I’m just acting on my instinct to survive and on my baser instincts to fight when challenged. If I happen to have the pack mentality some animals possess, great. If not and I’m more of a loner type of animal that will attack anything that comes onto its territory, eh, who cares? Whichever of us is superior will win, and natural selection will have strengthened the winner’s group by weeding out the losing party, who was too weak to make it anyway.
  3. Nothing can actually be morally right or wrong if you’re going to be both logical and honest. We went over this one before in detail, but if there’s no standard that’s unchanging outside of societal pressures or our own changeable, fickle natures, then we can’t have morality. So an honest evolutionist would also have to say that, while some things might not be their preference, it’s all okay because, really, it’s all about what you or what your society wants to do.
  4. I have a right to be prideful and think I’m better than everyone not like me if I’m the superior race. After all, survival of the fittest dictates that whoever is best equipped for survival survives. They weren’t fit for survival or aren’t currently and are in the process of dying out, so it’s only natural that my expansion and my upward movement on the evolutionary totem pole may result in their diminishment or perhaps even their complete destruction, and there’s nothing wrong with that because it’s just natural selection/survival of the fittest at work. I haven’t done anything wrong in helping it along either because that’s just naturally what the superior race does as it expands in its quest to survive. (This, by the way, is exactly what Darwin believed and found integral to his evolutionary theories. His contemporaries Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus saw this in his theories, though Darwin himself spoke of it rarely and mostly contained it to his personal writings, and they ran with it. From this viewpoint came the idea of laizzes-faire capitalism, or in layman’s terms, unrestrained capitalism. Spencer applied survival of the fittest to economics, and unrestrained capitalism during the Industrial Revolution was the result, much to our detriment in America today. This “social Darwinism” was used down through history to justify many horrific acts of racism, imperialism, eugenics, and social inequality. —History.com)

There are, of course, other issues that evolution can lead to in terms of thinking. But these are the ones relevant to our discussion here. You can see that, if you think through what evolution actually says and apply it logically with no rose-tinted glasses and without any inconsistencies or conflict of your beliefs, you must come to a conclusion that is at best untenable to most but, in reality, is repugnant and horrifying to nearly everyone. To those who object that evolution is science, not faith, and doesn’t have anything to do with what religion you choose to hold… Believing evolution is true is as much a belief as believing that you are a good person or believing that one person would be a better president than another. Furthermore, it is in fact as much faith-based as believing there is a God and has fewer answers with more logical holes and fallacies than any belief in a Creator. We all hold beliefs, and evolution is one of them that people hold by faith since, though we teach it as fact in school, the very scientists who once thought it true have admitted they have no idea how it happened, have been unable to repeat it or observe it–something absolutely necessary to make something scientific fact per the scientific method–and do not know how they might prove it to be true beyond the simple belief that it must be true because how else could we come to be? If that is not enough, their “scientific fact” has ignored the clear display of intelligent, intentional design in everything from the plants around us to the very eyes we use to see those plants. Intelligent, intentional design requires an intelligent origin! We would never look at a car and say, Wow, how amazing that particles randomly smashed together to create parts, which randomly organized and evolved into this vehicle that I am going to drive. That’s ridiculous. We know when we look at that car that someone had to create the design that others would then build. How much more inane is it to say that the incredible work we see in the way our own bodies function, in the way the world around us functions so well together in nature, is somehow the result of random chance? We have brains, and those brains, if they weren’t taught to believe the philosophies we’ve been fed since birth, if they weren’t insistent on denying any Creator’s existence, would never reasonably come to the conclusion that we’re no different than animals, that the world is random chance, and that such intentional design could randomly evolve somehow in a way we can’t even replicate.

To be clear, only the truly crazed individual or someone with no love on any level within their darkened heart could say the things I have just laid out. I’ve not yet met an evolutionist or a liberal evolutionist who was willing to say these things because they’re too inpalatable and disgusting to beings with a moral compass in the form of a God-given conscience. No matter how insistently they refuse to acknowledge God or His law, they still use it in determining how they should interact with their fellow man even when their worldview gives them zero reason to turn to love, kindness, and respect for those not like them. Unfortunately, that crazed individual or person without any love at all in their hearts would be more honest about the conclusions they must draw from their evolutionary belief than any other evolutionistic liberal who chooses not to acknowledge these things and instead reasons from a Christian moral system while denying the very God who gave it. Is it any wonder our world is so messed up on moral good and evil?

The Conclusion on the Matter? Substantiated or Not?

So then, we see that while liberals are correct to argue that we are all human regardless of color, that we should do unto other as we want done to us, and that we shouldn’t hate someone based on something like skin color, they have rendered their own argument invalid and unsupported by removing God from the equation. Another similarly godless individual might well look at them and say, “That’s nice and all, but you have yet to give me anything that makes your opinion better than mine. So I think genocide is okay, and that’s what I’m sticking to.” Another similarly godless person would argue just as validly that racism, hatred, murder, and mass slaughter is all perfectly acceptable because a liberal arguing these things from their worldview invalidates their own message, even if it is in fact the right one. That liberal has nothing to point to that demands respect for human life, the sanctity of that life, or the importance of behaving with love towards those different than us. They can shout about it all they want, but they don’t have any valid reason not to look at the individual who thinks killing others unlike them is okay and say: “That’s not my preference, but you do you, I guess.” They can’t argue from any moral ground because their viewpoint removes morals entirely from the equation, so if they’re going to try to reason from a moral perspective, they have to use God’s Word and His law to reason against the wrong belief that killing an entire people group (or anyone, for that matter) is okay.

In response to their last two points, I point back to our discussions on morality and to what modern evolution still has to say about the human race. The fact that we call someone of a different color than us another race in the first place is evidence to just how deep evolution’s roots go in the issue of racism. Had science truly developed, we wouldn’t use that terminology. Even though science may clearly show that our DNA doesn’t differ by much at all (certainly not enough to make us separate species), we’re still wrongly dividing people up by race and using Darwin’s system even as we argue that racism is bad. If science has developed so much, we would see evolutionists firmly disputing Darwin’s claims on the whole because they were motivated and rooted in racist opinions and even those views which are not tainted by it are questionable as we cannot repeat them, and we would not call the issue of hating those of other colors in our population racism at all. Rather, we would more accurately call it discrimination (which to be fair many do, but they use it interchangeably with racism). We would call it that because we would recognize what so many liberals don’t seem to: hatred of another on the basis of color or any other factor is not restricted to only those in one group or “race”. If it were, you wouldn’t see BLM reps calling for whites who haven’t participated in active racism, haven’t owned slaves, and (in so many cases) have only immigrant ancestors who never once owned a slave and were often equally discriminated against in the North.

So, on all points, their argument’s basis renders itself logically and reasonably invalid. Does this mean we should discard everything they’re saying? No! So let’s take a look at that next.

Racism in light of the Bible

When it comes to a proper view of the wickedness of racism, the Christian man or woman rooted in God and His Word can confidently say it is wrong, and when asked why, we can give a logical, sound reason for it! Granted, liberals and others who refuse to acknowledge the existence of an all powerful, entirely holy, unchanging God will say this isn’t valid. But as we’ve already proven, they’re going to take a stance on it that, while lighter than the one I believe we as Christians should be taking, is still entirely rooted in Scripture whilst they deny the God that makes their argument at all valid or accurate. Let’s review why we can make a valid, logical, and substantiated claim that racism is wicked from a Biblical worldview.

  1. The Bible doesn’t recognize any “race” but the human race. It has plenty of nations and tribes or peoples, as they’re sometimes called, but race does not enter the equation. Anyone who says that a person who looks different them on the grounds of skin color or appearance is a different race? They’re patently wrong and ignoring the fact that God didn’t make more than one human race. He made Adam and Eve as the father and mother of the human race, and we all descend from them. (Genesis 3:20)
  2. Christ was inclusive of people of all colors, tribes, and nations. In Jewish society, outsiders (or Gentiles) were looked down on. People like the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip spoke to and baptized in Acts would be considered lesser than a Jew. Worse than that, anyone who was of mixed Jewish and Gentile heritage was hated or despised more than a Gentile would be. And yet, Jesus came to die for all peoples, tribes, and nations. He didn’t die for just Jews, and He makes that clear time and again, even though the Jews didn’t get it. More than that, lest anyone miss that point, Paul and other men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote to the Jews and Gentiles both and reminded them that Christ died for men of all types, not just for their group and no other. (Acts 10:34-43; Acts 15:7-11; John 4:1-41; Romans 3:21-30)
  3. The Bible is very clear we should do unto others as we would have done unto us (the same argument liberals use while denying that it was God that said it!), and so if we would not want our friends in another color group to attack us, enslave us, hurt us, or deride us simply because of what color we are, then we’d better not do it to them. (Matthew 7:12)

These are all very good reasons why we shouldn’t have a mentality that divides people into other races just because they’re not the same color as we are. But there are some even bigger problems with a Christian who endorses anything like the American or British versions of slavery or who has a racist mentality. So here are some clear sins we’d be committing if we did approve of racism.

  1. The sin of hatred. Jesus calls hatred committing murder in our hearts. It is the inward attitude or heart problem that may, in some cases lead to committing the physical act of murder, and the Bible takes it very, very seriously. A Christian who commits this act of inward murder in the mind and heart is a Christian who is not obeying the command to love those around them. So in hating someone else because of skin color, we would then be committing sins of both commission (hating when we’re told not to) and omission (failing to love when we’re told to). (Matthew 5:21-26)
  2. The sin of pride. Proverbs has all kinds of things to say about this, all of them negative! Most notably are the verses where God says he resists the proud and gives grace to the humble or the point in Proverbs where Solomon through God’s inspiration writes that there is more hope of a fool than a man wise in his own eyes. God hates pride. Pride was the sin that ultimately got Satan kicked out of heaven along with all the angels who joined him in it. It’s deadly, it’s destructive, and it’s ugly. In the case of discriminating against another because of their skin color, pride yet again rears its ugly head as the individual doing the discrimination is literally saying, I’m better than you because I’m part of this group and not your group. It says, you don’t deserve to be treated with respect and dignity or with love and kindness because you are beneath me. What a wicked attitude to have! (Psalm 10:4; Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 11:12; Proverbs 8:13; Proverbs 16:5; Proverbs 26:12; Isaiah 14: 12-15; Daniel 5:20; Obadiah 1:3; Mark 7:20-23; Luke 14:11)
  3. The sin of blasphemy. When I first saw this connected to racism, I admit I was a bit confused. How is being racist blasphemous against God? Blasphemy is when we talk about God in an irreverent or sacrilegious way. When we look at another human being in disgust, we are in essence telling the world and God that He got it wrong. We’re maligning His character, if you want to think of it that way, because we’re looking at the amazing creativity God had in creating us with so many variations and beautiful differences in appearance and saying, God, if I were you, I wouldn’t have done it like this. We’re now turning our pride on God and saying, I could’ve done it better than You did, so let me tell you how it should’ve been done. What a dangerous place to be! Even if we don’t recognize it as such, looking at another of God’s creatures with such contempt and disgust solely on the grounds of color and appearance they were given from birth, which they had no control over, requires us then to make a statement on God’s design. Because if the human beings we hate for being black, white, red, yellow, or any other skin color under the sun had no control over how they were made, then our statement of poor design can only reflect upon the designer, not the work of art. God’s design was always for us to dwell in peace with Him and our fellow men. Sin has broken that fellowship and peace between all parties, but we are still called to live peaceably with all men as much as lies within us (Romans 12:18). While no specific Bible verse is going to tell you it’s blasphemy, an attitude that says God got it wrong denies the very nature of God, His plan, and His Word, all of which is blasphemy for a believer to say.

So we see that there are three very insidious sins involved in the actions and attitudes of a person who is truly racist. Those attitudes of hate, blasphemy, and pride are all sins, and they should be addressed as such.

Conclusion

When next you’re speaking to a non-Christian on the topic of racism, I challenge you to present it from this light. This is an opportunity to take a stand against sin. In this case, while the world may hate us and shame us for not condoning more sin in response to individuals’ sins already committed (by which I refer to the growing push to punish/demand restitution from all whites across the board, even if they genuinely have done nothing wrong, under the belief that they are at fault for everything wrong with the Black community as a result of their ancestry), we still have an incredible opportunity to stand up and speak out. We can stop applauding the wrong philosophies of the world around us while still affirming that God has called His people to love those around us, even if they hate us and spitefully abuse us. We can stop applauding an attitude of hatred on both sides while still affirming that racism is wicked and wrong.

But more than that, this provides an amazing opportunity to challenge an unbeliever to reconsider their views on God. As we’ve seen, the belief in evolution has contributed in so many ways to an worldview that logically would promote racism and offers those who already desire to engage in that heinous attitude an excuse to do so without guilt. So this is an opportunity to both find common ground and also challenge them. You can agree with them that racism is wrong, but then ask them why they think so. Ask them what the reasoning behind this is. Listen to them. Be thoughtful, respectful, and considerate. But push for answers. It’s always okay to keep asking “But why” or to say “But if you believe this, then why don’t you believe this is/isn’t okay?”.

These questions will probably make people mad, even if you ask it as kindly and gently as possible. I’ve been told many times that reasoning in this way and asking the question “Why is racism wrong” after having done so makes my question invalid and undeserving of an answer. But despite what the culture might wish to say or insist on, they’re valid questions to ask and do deserve an answer. The culture around us demands an answer of us. Why can we not also ask an answer of them, especially when we do it far more kindly and gently than they often have? There is a double standard, and if we play by their rules instead of using the brains and the tools God gave us to combat philosophies that are stealing our young people and deceiving those around us, we’re going to lose. Stop playing by their rules! They don’t want to be held to their own standards of reasoning, but they should be, and it’s time we started to do so respectfully but firmly.

In many cases, these questions can open the door for you to witness to people who otherwise never would’ve considered listening to a Christian, as well. If you’re able to have an honest conversation, help them to understand you aren’t approaching them in pride (if that’s not true, it’s better you don’t approach them at all), and point out the problems with their perspectives, the chances are much greater that they’ll be open to hearing you out, and in the process, God can use you to work on their hearts. He can’t do that if you’re rude, combative, and entirely un-Christian even as you may be factually correct.

Most importantly, pray. Pray for those that God gives you chances to be a light to. Ask Him to work on their hearts. It is not for us to save, only to take every opportunity God brings to us to be the salt and the light to a dying, lost world. Let’s do that by taking the truth to that dying, lost world in love and refusing to let go of them. They may scream, they may rage, they may call us names or refuse to listen. Perhaps when you ask if you can pray for them, they will say no. Pray anyway. Ultimately, while we need to understand the truths I’ve gone through above, and we need to have an answer to give for the hope that is in us and the things that we believe, prayer is our greatest weapon. We can speak the truth in love until we’re blue in the face, but if God does not change the hearts to receive that truth, then we will still see no fruit. So while we’re doing the active part God has called us to play, let’s not forget that prayer is also an action and must not be ignored.

I hope this has been an encouragement and, perhaps even, an eye-opener for those of you who are believers. We do have answers for the lost, dying world around us. We do have answers for our young people if we will only live the way we are asking them to. If we will address our culture’s false claims and Satan’s lures on our young people with Scripture and guide them to see the beauty in a life surrendered totally to God, we are going to lose far fewer of them to the temporary pleasures of sin and the world’s system.

Furthermore, at times, those around us who are condemning us so roundly for what we believe are actually in agreement with us without even knowing it. This includes both children who have already begun to reject our message in favor of what they are hearing at school, from peers, or from society as well as others around us who are part of that society and culture. We can find incredible opportunities to use that common ground, where it may exist, as a way to be the light God may use to open their eyes. This is not to say we should conform to the world or create common ground by compromising on Scripture. That is unacceptable if we are to live a set-apart life, holy in the eyes of God. However, if that agreement or common ground already exists beforehand when you are simply following what Scripture says, take advantage of that to show them the why behind what they’re claiming to believe. Most probably have no idea that the moral values they hold have Scriptural backing but no backing in the socially acceptable, evolutionary viewpoint of today’s society.

But even if we’re not able to stand on any common ground in our witnessing to individuals around us, we still can rest secure in the fact that we have a sovereign God who is still on the throne and that our God has not asked us to do the impossible but only to go to those around us with the hand of love extended and the truth on our lips. It’s time for us to reclaim the Church for God, to see a revival like we see in history’s pages happen today, and to stop letting the culture inform us on how we can be Christians in name without offending anyone by being Christians in reality. We please God, not man. He has given us the answers to a morally bankrupt society if we will only stand on those truths, exemplify them in our lives, and pass them along to the next generation. God help us all, in whatever stage of life we may be in, to do our part in achieving that God-focused goal in our life.

The War of Independence and the Civil War: Parallels

Ariel Paiement

Introduction

The topic of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and rebellion have all become rapidly circulated issues in today’s culture with everything going on. People would like us to believe that the American Revolution and the Civil War are miles apart, that rebellion is a good thing, and that the only reason the Civil War happened was because slavery. But are any these things true? That’s what we’re going to explore today as we dive deep into history and take a look at the facts on both the major wars fought on our soil, the parallels between the two, and the issues surrounding both.

The Matter of Jurisdiction and Rebellion

Before we can get into the parallels between the two wars and the issues pointed out in the introduction, we have to go over the topic of jurisdiction and authority and define rebellion. Too many Americans (and people in general) don’t understand this, but if you don’t understand these issues, then you can’t really understand anything that’s going to follow in this discussion, nor are you fully able to comprehend the intent of the Founding Fathers or our Constitution.

Hence, we see a breakdown of American ideals and society, and we see an increase in the numbers of people who want to liken seizure of city blocks by a mob to the American Revolution. We hear more and more comparisons of riots to our country’s founding or to the Civil War, and while there may be some argument for this on the grounds of the second war in that we haven’t in all the time that has passed managed to improve our attitudes since it occurred, the argument for the first is baseless due to these principles.

So what is jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is the realm of authority afforded to each sphere of life. The spheres of life are family, government, and church. (I know many non-Christians would argue me on this point, but I can get into why the Christian viewpoint is the one that we must reason from on matters of morality–which rebellion is–in order to have any validity at some other point. This is not the point or the forum for it.) Within those spheres of life, certain realms of authority have been given by the Creator, who is above all earthly authorities.

For example, the government has no authority to regulate how you teach or raise your children (with the exception of certain scenarios such as clear abuse of a child, which requires a higher authority to step in and help). They overstep these bounds all the time in modern day society, but the Bible is clear that within the home, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach, raise, and train children in the way they should go. They are wards of the parents, not the states.

Likewise, the church has no authority to tell the government to run the country, and the government has no God-given authority to force the church to worship or not worship in a prescribed way. Oh, they can arrest those who choose to worship in a way that goes against state wishes, as they do in China, but they have no authority to tell Christians not to worship God because we answer to a higher authority, that being God, and we are to obey God’s laws rather than man’s if there is a conflict between the two. So while there will be persecution and consequences for doing the right thing, we do it anyway because the highest authority of all, from whom all other authorities derive their power, commands our loyalty.

Why does this matter? Because there are clear dictates to jurisdiction. In many cultures, authority figures have chosen not to bind themselves by their own laws. Western civilization is unique in this regards because there is a contract between us and our rulers that states our rulers must abide by our laws just as much as we must. This gives us recourse when they break their end of the contract. Understanding this is essential if you’re going to understand either the American Revolution or the Civil War. But we’ll get to that in a few.

Western Civilization and the Contract of Authority

As I said earlier, Western civilization is unique because there is a stated contract between our rulers and we the people that they will do A, B, and C in exchange for us doing D, E, and F. That’s the whole basis of our Constitution. It is an agreement by our rulers with us that all of us will abide by the rules, whatever those may be, and that no one is above those laws. When a ruler steps outside of the bounds of authority established in that contract, they are in violation of the agreement and are no longer exercising rightful authority.

In the case of a country without this sort of contract, then whatever the authorities do, with the exception of choosing to try to stamp out God’s church and His worship, is rightful authority as they have given no such promise to their people to abide by any given set of rules. Therefore, though they may do many, many heinous things, any uprising on the part of their people would be, in fact, a rebellion and therefore unacceptable on the part of any Christian who is following the Scripture. This doesn’t mean Christians won’t disobey a law if it requires them to break God’s laws, which are higher than any civil law on Earth, but it does mean they will have no part in fighting a war against the authorities and will accept whatever punishment accompanies their decision to obey God rather than man.

So how are the American Revolution and the Civil War not rebellions? Because of two very important documents and what they said. Let’s start with the document that gave the American Revolution the status of a war of self-defense, not a war of rebellion.

The Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was a document that laid the foundation for the entire system of British law. It was agreed to in June of 1215 and was an agreement between King John of England and the nobles representing the English people, who were at the time revolting, at least in some areas. It established some basic liberties and the agreement that not even the king was above the English law.

This important document along with the individual charters that colonies had with England formed the backbone of the American Revolution. During the years leading up to the American Revolution, the king was ignoring both the Magna Carta and the individual charters established with the colonies. Had the colonists been in England, their rights as English citizens would never have been so blatantly disregarded, and so they wrote letter after letter and sent representatives to plead with the king and Parliament to hold their part of the deal in all cases, not just in the instances where it benefited them.

King George III and Adding Fuel to Fire

Instead of addressing the concerns, which would have kept the peace and kept the colonies as part of Britain, the king and Parliament ignored them. They continued to pick and choose when to follow their own laws, thereby invalidating the contract by which they held authority. Since they wouldn’t honor their own agreement, it became invalid, and the colonies sent the Declaration of Independence. In a nutshell, that declaration was saying, “You won’t follow your own laws, you won’t treat us like citizens, and so we declare that we do not recognize your wrongful authority nor are we going to continue behaving as if we are citizens when you do not view us as such.” Obviously, the language was much prettier when Jefferson wrote it, but the point was the same.

Essentially, as King George III continued to add fuel to the fire, the colonies finally seceded from Britain. We like to think of it as a grand rebellion for freedom, but it wasn’t. We declared our independence with no violence. After doing so, we appointed our own leaders as any new country would and we kicked out the ones who had invalidated their authority. Most of that was still not violent unless soldiers from Britain wouldn’t leave colonists’ homes, in which case the colonists defended themselves. But that was still self-defense, not rebellion, because Britain had invalidated its own authority and jurisdiction.

The war began when Britain decided to treat the colonies as rebels instead of ex-citizens. They attacked the newly formed coalition of colonies, and the forming country defended itself.

The Constitution

This document formed the backbone for the Civil War in more ways than one. The finalized and superior form of law after the Articles of Confederation we first tried failed, this important document regulated what could and could not be done legally in America. We continue to use it today, though more and more lawmakers try to twist it and often get away with doing so. But in the days leading up to the start of the Civil War, this had not yet begun.

Granted, there was major hypocrisy in how we applied the terms of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence’s statement on the matter of liberties for all men. We as a country had the ugly issue of slavery to deal with if we were to address the issue of hypocrisy that had become so ingrained in our nation by the time of the Civil War. Some illogical (and, if the Constitution were fully followed, illegal) compromises were made to deal with the tension between the two segments of the country–North and South–on this issue. But nonetheless, we had the Constitution, and it governed our laws underneath its umbrella.

Secession and the Constitution

How did this come into play during the Civil War? Prior to any shots being physically fired, segments of the South had already chosen to secede if Lincoln were elected. He won the election with not a single Southern state supporting him. While the hot button issue was slavery, it is worth noting that some states had a secessionist attitude over anything they felt stepped on their toes, not just slavery.

North Carolina, in particular, had been an issue for past Presidents even when no violations to the contract (the Constitution) between states. But regardless of the issues they were arguing over, the fact of it is that secession at that point remained an option. The Constitution did not forbid this right to the States, and so, even if their reasons for doing it were to preserve slavery, which they perceived as absolutely necessary to their existence, the South had the right to leave.

This in no way means that they were right for wanting to keep their slaves. That was a dark blot on the promises the Constitution made. It was inexcusable, wicked, and disgusting. It never should’ve happened, and the Founders had planned for it to fade out. When it didn’t, we ended up with a lot of unexpected problems, and sadly, our leaders on both sides didn’t deal with it in a way that was morally correct. Had they done so, they would’ve freed the slaves (indentured servants included in this since most were treated just as badly, sometimes worse, than slaves) and made sure that those individuals went through the process to become citizens like anyone else or were sent back to their countries of origin. Instead, they went to war over it before we even fired a shot in the Civil War, and the South developed a siege mindset long before a true war even erupted.

But, despite the poor decision-making, wrongful behavior on the parts of many individuals, and a sickening practice of enslaving fellow human beings, the States all had the right at that time to leave the Union. Legally, they should have been allowed to go.

Lincoln and Adding Fuel to the Fire

Lincoln’s election, through no fault of his own, added fuel to the fire. If he had stopped at that being the only thing he did to add fuel to the fire, then he would be blameless in this whole affair. Instead, he blatantly stated in his inaugural address that he was treating the newly-seceded states, which were to form the first part of the Confederation, as rebels. They were not, according to our Constitution, rebels. Thus, after Lincoln declared the Union would force them to return to and stay a part of the Union, the seceded states began preparing for war. They organized further militia forces beyond what was normal the individual States to maintain and prepared to be forced to defend their land and their choice to secede. More states joined them and the fledgling country as the months led up to the Civil War and Lincoln continued to throw fuel on the fire.

He refused to meet with any representatives of the new coalition of states, much like King George III had done, because he wouldn’t recognize them as their own country. He utterly refused to acknowledge their right to leave, regardless of the reason, and insisted on treating them as rebels as opposed to a new country trying to work out the issues between themselves and the neighboring country. Then he further added insult to injury by sending supply ships to a Union Fort in the middle of their territory without asking permission to pass through their borders. Had it been any other country or circumstance, this would have been considered unacceptable, and firing on the ship and fort would’ve been acceptable since the ship wasn’t declared or given permission to pass borders. Instead, Lincoln thought it was fine because he viewed them as rebellious states still in the Union, not as another nation. Why shouldn’t he be able to send his ship anywhere he pleased in his country, right?

To be fair, there were miscommunications on both sides in the issue of Fort Sumter, and those misunderstandings led to many of the issues that resulted in the fort being fired on, but Lincoln’s antagonistic, dismissive behaviors led to the boiling point, and the war began.

To be fair, there were miscommunications on both sides in the issue of Fort Sumter, and those misunderstandings led to many of the issues that resulted in the fort being fired on, but Lincoln’s antagonistic, dismissive behaviors led to the boiling point, and the war began.

Similarities between the American Revolution and the Civil War

Some of the similarities should already be readily apparent from our earlier discussion on jurisdiction, authority, and rebellion. But let’s go over them more clearly and state a few additional similarities that I have come across in the research I’ve done on the two wars.

Rebellions?

First off, neither was a rebellion. In fact, I would call both wars of self-defense, even if, in the case of the Civil War, the first shot fired was over a miscommunication. If you look at how both wars were fought, both were fought on the soil of the newly-independent country, predominantly or entirely. Neither of these wars’ defendants were interested in seizing territory from the other side as a policy. They simply wanted to leave quietly and be left alone to govern their own affairs.

Fought on the Defendant’s Soil

Most of the war in the case of the Civil War was fought in border states that had been split in half between North and South or in Southern territory. The Confederate States were utterly destroyed by the war and Lincoln’s determination to overrun them, run roughshod over their choice to leave, and force them to return to the Union. In the end, he succeeded, but he cost both countries enormous losses of life and cost the Confederacy a great deal of the infrastructure they did have. The war only further entrenched the siege mentality the Confederate States had and confirmed their worst fears that they wouldn’t be allowed to leave.

In the case of the American Revolution, it was fought entirely on American soil, and we fought, just as the Southerners did, to defend home and family. While the American Revolution didn’t have the cause of slavery added into the mix to make the war appear “unrighteous” on the part of those who seceded, it and the Civil War are similar in that the war only started when the new countries were threatened or outright attacked by the countries they seceded from.

Given this is the case, the American Revolution would be more accurately termed the American War of Self-Defense, and the Civil War would be more accurately termed the Confederate War of Self-Defense. After all, the American Revolution was not a revolution in the true definition of the word, nor was the Civil War a Civil War because it was between two countries, not one that was split. You can’t have a civil war if the war isn’t between citizens of the same country, and no matter how much Lincoln wanted to ignore the Constitution’s terms, the South had legally left and declared themselves no longer citizens of the Union, so it wasn’t a situation of citizens of the same country fighting.

Struggles Against Wrongful Authority

Since both wars were fought between countries who operated with the Western form of government, which involves contracts that both parties most follow to have authority or to be governed, both the colonies and the Confederate States were fighting against wrongful authority. As mentioned earlier, the colonies were fighting against a government that was not following its own contract and laws. The Confederate States ended up fighting a war against the Union because its leader and government chose not to honor their contract, which allowed the Confederate States to do what they had done and secede. In both cases, the governments that had previously governed them violated their contracts and therefore were exercising wrongful authority when the wars erupted. This directly leads back to the reasons why neither were, in fact, in rebellion.

Conclusion

To round out this history discussion, let’s go back to the beginning. The issues I proposed as questions were that the American Revolution and the Civil War are miles apart, that rebellion is a good thing, and that the Civil War was about slavery alone or predominantly. So looking over what we discussed, here are the facts.

  1. The American Revolution and the Civil War were in fact vastly similar. Both were wars of defense against wrongful authority, and both were fought in a mainly defensive manner, supporting their claims that they just wanted to leave in peace.
  2. Rebellion is never acceptable from a Christian worldview. Those who promote it are wrong to do so, and a Christian espousing a rebellion is doing so in direct violation of myriad commands to respect authority.
  3. The Civil War itself was not about slavery. The South seceded over slavery, but the war happened because the North broke away from the Constitution and treated them as rebels for leaving. Their cause for leaving? Entirely unjust, but legally allowable. Their cause for fighting the war? Entirely justified because the North had no right to disregard the usual courtesies expected for passage between nations and the parleys that would occur between both. So while there were certainly problems and hypocrisies in that time of our nation, the war itself was neither a civil war nor was it acceptable for Lincoln to decide to get us into a war because he wanted to force them to stay. That was the move of a dictator, just as King George III’s behavior was, not that of a ruler abiding by the laws he and the rest of his government agreed to be bound by through a contract with those around them. Had he treated them as an opposing country and tried to conquer them like Germany did to France or other countries through history have, he might’ve been given some leeway, but he didn’t, and so, while he might not have been a bad man personally, he was nonetheless a dictator who chose to ignore the rules he was required to operate under by law.

I know many people would argue with these conclusions, but facts are facts. While no situation is every fully black and white, particularly with wars, the facts that lead to us being able to declare something a rebellion or a war of self-defense are not. Those distinctions lie solely in facts and definitions, whether we like it or not. Though we shouldn’t disregard or marginalize the uglier sides of history or try to pretend they were justified, let us also avoid declaring those on the losing side entirely unjust in their defense of themselves or in declaring the winners justified simply because they have won. This is what we have done when it comes to our country’s history, and while it is commonly understood that the winners write the history books, we cannot be a people who disregards truth or fact in favor of emotion and perception simply because the latter is more favorable. To do so is to destroy our very foundations and ourselves, and this is exactly what we have chosen to do in modern society.

We have not improved or moved away from the very same attitudes that inspired the Civil War in modern society. There is still a desire on various sides of the issue to ignore history, ignore our country’s founding principles in favor of whichever flavor of hypocrisy we prefer, and to demonize the other side simply to support our own. If we wish to have another war where we split into two countries, this is the path to follow. But if we want to learn from history, avoid its same mistakes in present day, and finally move past what was done in the past, then we’re going to have to be honest about the facts. I hope today’s exploration into the background on these two wars has been informative and beneficial.

Sunday Stories: A Past Altered

Ariel Paiement

As election season gets into full swing and everyone is posting about this or that that’s got their hackles up thanks to something “the other side” has done, I’ve been watching what people on both sides are saying. And while I think that both sides sometimes have good points, I’m alarmed by what I see. Even more so as I’ve been reading through 1984 by Orwell and waking up to just how many parallels there are between the world Orwell presents in the book and our own world right now. (If you see lots of quotes from Orwell’s 1984 in here, now you know why.)

Scrolling through the comments on political posts or my newsfeed on Facebook where both liberals and conservatives are posting, the thing I see most is an overwhelming proliferation of ignorance. Yes, you heard right. Ignorance. Sure, they’re well informed about what they can’t stand about the other side or what their side has done that they may or may not be super happy about (such as the newest things Trump has done to make the liberals angry or the fact that the right is pretty happy Sanders dropped out of the running). But they’re uninformed otherwise or they wouldn’t be sitting there arguing over two sides who are both going to destroy our nation.

Looking at history–and no, I don’t mean history textbooks because they’ve been changed often enough that you can’t even get them to match what the federally protected national parks say about the historic events in them–reveals a lot about how we ended up here. I understand, as Orwell said in 1984, the how, but I do not understand the why.

Bear with me here. Don’t shut me down right away because this isn’t really about politics or any one political party. That’s just the most recent outlet for the bigger problem I’ve been seeing for years in people of every political stripe and affiliation.

A bit of setup here to help you understand my background and where I’m coming from on this topic… Growing up, I was homeschooled from start to finish in a Christian home. Now, my more liberal readers may be tempted, in many cases, to assume that means I’m brainwashed and don’t know anything… Not saying you all do because that would be too great a generalization and therefore untrue, but I’ve heard it more than enough times to know that’s the general consensus about homeschoolers from the liberal crowd. I don’t even get a chance to say what I think before those of you in this crowd form an opinion of me, all because I said I was homeschooled and a Christian.

May I suggest to you a point of consideration? For those who grew up reading the firsthand accounts of history, it’s also easy to look at you, listen to the “facts” you rattle off from the history textbooks you were taught to believe, and shake our heads as we think exactly the same about you? We understand, of course, how you can believe something so strongly.

But don’t people on both sides of the argument understand that? I think most of us understand that it’s pretty typical for those who were taught a particular viewpoint (as opposed to being taught to think for themselves) to cling to whatever lies they were told even when presented with an alternative that’s supported by the facts. Both sides do it all the time. And we can respect a person who’s clearly intelligent and holds an opposing view even as we wonder how they could be so misled, can’t we? We do it all the time. Agree to disagree, right?

My point is this… You may look at the other side and shake your head thinking they’re idiots for holding onto something that’s so clearly “false” to your way of thinking, but they’re doing the same to you, and it gets no one anywhere. Express your disbelief in the “stupidity” of others if you must, but don’t forget… There are always two sides to every story.

I get that not every homeschooler has (or had) parents who really encourage them to think or make them sit down and read the accounts of those who literally lived history. Mine did. My parents had me read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, many of the classic authors (both fiction and non-fiction) who have been pulled from our public school curriculums, and countless autobiographies from various Presidents, Founding Fathers, and other important men and women. I learned to love history not because of a textbook but because I was able to practically live it in my mind as I read from those who had actually lived it.

My parents’ goal to teach me and my siblings (the youngest being 13 now) about a history our nation has all but forgotten involved a trip we all took from Illinois down to Texas. We drove, and along the way, we took the time to visit national park after national park. We read the plaques, walked the grounds where historic moments occurred, and read what the men and women from those days had to say about their stories, about why the things that occurred did.

And you know what? Time and again, those firsthand accounts of history don’t fit the narrative given in the textbooks used in public schools or, even, in the ones we used at home, which were sometimes more accurate than the public school textbooks and sometimes less. How have we ended up at a point where the accounts of the men and women who lived through the history we claim to know don’t match up with what we’re being told happened?

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, this isn’t an accident. People altered the records. How else could they change so that they don’t match what the people living in those times had to say about the events going on? Lies don’t self-propogate with no origin point. The victors write the history books, as they say, and they most certainly did in this case. We ought to stop worrying about what one side or the other is doing and start worrying about what has happened to us.

We’ve elected officials, on both sides, who have supported changing the records of history as taught in our schools to our children. We’ve allowed our children to be taught lies as if they are truth, and we’ve done nothing. We’ve even participated actively in removing the influences that might undermine the social conditioning and the lies our government is encouraging, in some cases. As Orwell said in 1984, “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future” (Orwell, 1984.) He couldn’t be more right. And I think the most frightening part is the point we’ve reached.

People argue that we’ll never end up like Orwell’s society in 1984, altering every record to fit whatever the government’s chosen narrative is and controlling all information–even the very minds of our people–but we’re already well on the road to that. Maybe it hasn’t gotten that bad, but if we don’t wake up, it’s going to. We shouldn’t expect, friends, to walk the same road of destruction others did, refuse to turn around, and then not end up at the same disastrous end that they did at some point. We’re already doing the same things he warned us about on a small scale. The country we know today is not a country our Founding Fathers would be proud of. Our federal government has more power than it ever should’ve, and every day they take more. We don’t notice it because it seems insignificant to us at the time, but Orwell couldn’t have said it better when he stated, “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end” (Orwell, 1984).

We’ve reached a point where we look at the warnings embedded into books like 1984 or Animal Farm, at the warnings in the non-fiction writings of so many who lived during the time when socialism, fascism, communism, and more were emerging, and think, that’s not ever going to happen to us. We can use those systems and not end up like them. Why do we think this? Because we don’t know history, people. We don’t.

Kids today aren’t taught history. They’re taught propaganda. I’m not blaming it on the teachers. They don’t decide the curriculum, and at this point, the ones who fight to keep the truth in our schools are viciously attacked and called ignorant for wanting to promote reality instead of this new reality that exists only in the minds of those buying into it. The ones who don’t often don’t even know the truth themselves because they too were taught a lie. The lesson I have learned from my time in a secular community college, a fundamental Christian college, and watching the opinions of both sides is this: those who do not know history are doomed to repeat its mistakes, and we do not know our history, so we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

I know this isn’t a popular opinion. It isn’t a popular statement. No one wants to be told that they’ve willing chosen to be ignorant. But here’s the reality of it. If you choose to accept what your history textbook says without checking the “facts” presented against a primary source, you have chosen to rely on someone else’s word for your own heritage and your own country’s history. You have chosen, then, to remain ignorant of the voices of those who lived through it, which reach beyond the grave to dispense their warnings, wisdom, and truths. You chose that. And so, then, you are responsible in part for the current state of affairs where we squabble over things that are symptoms of a larger problem, not the real root of the problem.

To those who actually know what I’m talking about when I quote Orwell, it’s time to wake up. It’s time for you to face the music. I don’t care what side you’re on. If you keep refusing to turn to the past–the real past as it’s presented by those on both sides that lived through it–you’re responsible for what happens as a result. You are responsible for the decline and eventual destruction of your country as you know it. I can’t speak for how things are in other countries and whether or not their history in schools matches history as it’s told by the primary sources, but I can speak for America because I’ve seen it firsthand, and it’s horrifying.

In twenty years, how much more will history have changed? Will you even realize that it has changed? Did you pay enough attention to educating yourself and thinking for yourself–no matter what political party you belonged to or where you were schooled–to notice when those “facts” change yet again? For most people, the answer would be no. Do you even care?

We need to wake up and realize what’s going on. We need to turn back to educating ourselves and our children on the real history and how things happened. The national parks and museums are one place to start. The firsthand accounts of people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other famous leaders and individuals in our country’s history are another place to start. It isn’t as though it’s really hard, though it will require mental exercise and purposeful intent to learn the truth from those who have spent a lifetime ignoring it and dismissing it as unimportant.

History has all kinds of important lessons. Don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. Learn from them. Find ways to do better than those who went behind us. You might be surprised at how much you discover that doesn’t match with what the popular opinions of the day say about our history. Learn to be curious, to think, to aspire to know more, to understand the why not just the how.

If we want to preserve our freedom, we must do all of this and do it now before it’s too far gone. You don’t have to contribute to a further downward spiral of ignorance of your own heritage. Take responsibility for finding out the truth and holding onto it even if people mock you for it or call you crazy for doing so. After all, “Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad” (Orwell, 1984).