Friday, August 19, 2011

Collision Between Two Worlds

NBC's Nightly News anchor, Brian Williams, introduced Martin Fletcher the other night to give his report on the riots in London by proclaiming, "More on the anger and hopelessness that's fueling a kind of tale of two cities."

Fletcher then borrowed a line from Karl Marx as he gave his report and explained the cause of the London riots: "It's a collision between two worlds here, the haves and the have-nots."

All three American networks reported in lock step, proclaiming that cuts in welfare and entitlements was the cause of the arson, destruction, theft, beatings and murder as the inevitable reaction to cuts in the British welfare system.

Over the last couple of weeks, the American media has consistently presented what started as a police gun search operation that resulted in an alleged gang member being shot and killed, as a spontaneous emotional flare due to people not receiving enough from their government.

The riots and general deterioration of society is indeed a collision between two worlds, but Marx was wrong. It transcends materialism.

It is a spiritual matter. A collision between right and wrong---good and evil---virtue and vice. Secularism and a spiritual faith. A basis to determine the difference between right and wrong.

A collision resulting from the consequences of a secular, amoral, relative worldview.

Here's proof.

Cal Thomas, the most syndicated columnist in America, examined the rioters motivations and found these responses: "They say they are going to help us, but I don't see any of it. There has to be more opportunities and jobs. Help us at least and everyone will settle down."

Others caught looting stores, when asked why, simply said they viewed it "as a shopping spree."

Thomas writes that as people in Britain bemoan the lack of "values" and vow to get to the bottom of it, the media itself has taken on the mantle of teaching the nation.

He notes that British clergy has, over time, acquiesced "to the whims and failings of culture by justifying abortion, sanctioning same-sex 'marriage' and signing on to other earthly agendas like, environmentalism."

I have linked his column above. Please read it.

The riots in London were not spontaneous. Nor were those in Philadelphia, Kansas City and other American cities.

Secularists have been laying the ground work for some time.

The London Telegraph noted the other day, "It is the result of a major cultural shift that took place in the 1960s and 1970s and the long term decline in conservative values."

The Telegraph also noted, "This process was marked by a collapse in the belief in marriage, a retreat of police from the streets, a move away from tough penalties for property crime, the rise of moral relativism, rampant consumerism, the diminution of stigma as a restraint on bad behavior and the entrenchment of welfare dependency."

Cal Thomas writes, "During previous periods of cultural decline when most political, legal and economic prescriptions were tried and failed, it was left to the churches to remind the public of the consequences for individuals and nations that depart from their source of virtue. Today's British churches too often lack the power to do this. That's because they are competing to see who can bless the culture the quickest."

Well said.

I agree with Thomas. If the churches crave power and approval from below, they will forfeit the power that could be theirs from above.

When pastors and Christian leaders base their stand on moral issues on political advisability and timing, as some did on the "everything but marriage" law and the R-71 response in Washington state, something is very wrong.

When Christian leaders and pastors publicly support political candidates who do not support the most fundamental Christian virtues of the sanctity of marriage and life, suggesting it is expedient to support the lessor of two evils, something is very wrong.

Voting for the lessor of two evils, is still voting for evil.

Is it that important for some pastors to have a seat at the proverbial "political table" that they can set aside fundamental Christian beliefs? Apparently.

Is job security enough to merit silence from the pulpits?

Britain is burning because they have failed spiritually. They have, over time, stripped the Christian virtue from their public life and replaced it with secular relativism and social dependence on government. And too many clergy tipped their bottle and said this isn't something we should be involved with.

The nation has now come to generally believe in nothing. But they admit multiculturalism has failed.

They and other nations are experiencing a collision between two worlds, but not the two Karl Marx understood.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Vocal. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

9 comments:

  1. Great article and very well said. Vital and critical for these days!

    Deborah Cozzetti
    ROAR Ministries
    The Kingdom Perspective show
    KGNW 820am - Seattle, WA

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just for accuracy's sake, I believe the phrase "the haves and the have-nots" originated with H G Wells, not Marx.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right on the mark - thank you Gary for continuing to speak the truth. We are just a few steps away from the same thing happening here. We need to bring about some radical change to America before it's too late!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Faith and Freedom Staff2:32 PM, August 19, 2011

    Joel. Our research found that socialist revolutionaries first used the pharse and concept, including Karl Marx and his colleagues..
    Following is what we found:
    "The Haves and the Have Nots" is a very common phrase used often in the mainstream of American society and in the social and political discourse; many times by Christians trying to equate its meaning with the Christian principles of charity and caring for the poor. You hear it being used constantly in newspaper and magazine articles, on television and cable news shows, in univerisity lecture halls, in Congressional, presidential and other political debates, and even in many religious circles. Yet few people realize and understand that this very same phrase and its implications come from a different time and place. The origins of this seemingly benign comment come from an ideological past rife with violence, murder, terror, and mayhem.
    The birthplace of this phrase is a past drenched with the blood of countless innocents tortured, enslaved, imprisoned, and sacrificed in the pursuit of punishing the "haves" at the hands of the "have nots" and allegedly trying to even out the imbalance between. The expression was used and continues to be used by communist revolutionaries as they sought and many still seek to sow the seeds of envy among their people, stoke the fires of revolution, and incite civil wars based on jealousy and resentment between economic and social classes.

    It is the likes of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot who first adopted such expressions all the while using them to wreak havoc on their fellow citizens and shred the very fabric of the societies and civilizations that gave them life and freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is outstanding, should be published in newspapers. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Staff,

    If you think that that piece of politically motivated drivel constitutes sourcing, you clearly have no idea what research is. What a sad, pathetic joke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I agree with Thomas. If the churches crave power and approval from below, they will forfeit the power that could be theirs from above."

    Nice see Gary finally admit that it is power they are after.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." George W Bush - June 2006

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.