I’ve been having an argument with a dude in Finland, named “rautakyy.” I’m a Conservative Christian, and he’s an atheist socialist. He and I have gone back and forth, and he has said what I’ve heard so often: what about the one who says, for example, “God told me to do it,” after having killed her kids? “You see,” says the other dude, “Christianity can lead to violence and mayhem. Christianity must be evil.”
Our discussions ranged far and wide. We even covered Hitler’s supposed “Christianity.” Rautakyy says that, since Hitler called himself a Christian, then he was a Christian. I said Hitler was not a Christian, but rather an atheist. We went back and forth on that a bit, with me countering rautakyy with four main points: (1) rautakyy believed Hitler, hardly a “reliable source.” (2) Hitler did nothing that resembles Christianity (3) There’s nothing in Christianity that could possibly be used to justify Hitler’s behavior. (4) rautakyy believed it when Hitler said he was a Christian, but not when Hitler called himself a socialist.
In vain, for the atheist, will you say that the person who shoots her children, or murders millions, is just crazy. No, says rautakky the atheist, the woman who killed her children was a Christian, because she said she was. And Hitler was a Christian because he said he was. Never mind that any Tom, Dick and atheist can call himself a Christian anytime he wants, whenever he decides it’s convenient, and for whatever reason. You and I know they’re not Christians, but the atheist is all about the supposed “Ah, hah!” moment.
But, says, rautakyy, Hitler was not a socialist because, well, because rautakyy didn’t want to believe that Hitler was a socialist.
So, I thought I’d try something else.
- What if a guy who calls himself a socialist decided not to kill people, and began to support policies that would allow the poor to improve their circumstances? You and I both know the dude would not be a socialist. He’d be a fake. A charlatan.
- What if a leader of the Democrat Party in America decided to tell the truth about the likely consequences of his policy prescriptions? Whoooaaa! I know, I know… pretty improbable! However, play along with me for a bit. If a Democrat were to tell the truth, then you and I both know that would be no Democrat. That would be a right-winger of some sort.
- What if a leftist were to start supporting policies that removed the governmental boot from the throat of the working class? Again, every other leftist in the world would sneer, “That’s no leftist, that’s a closet right-winger who’s come out of the closet!”
- What if a Democrat Party leader were to begin to advocate policies that respect black people as people in full, not as little babies needing leftists to take care of them… and take their votes? Again, every Democrat party leader in the land would leap forward to denounce the guy as a phony Democrat, a DiNO (Democrat in Name Only), a turncoat and traitor.
- What if a Democrat decided not to bribe people for votes? Yep. You guessed it. Thrown overboard and under the bus by all his former left-wing friends. What would they say? “That’s no Democrat,” they’d say, “and he never was!”
Socialists and Democrats do what they can to divide populations on whatever lines make it easiest for the left to take power. They lie to the people to manipulate them into letting them have power. They take from others and give to still others in order to manufacture political support. They gather and accumulate and collect and concentrate power to the central government, so that when they assume power, they won’t have to relinquish it again.
Then, when the occasional leftist steps slightly away from the orthodoxy, all other leftists circle the wagons, and toss the offending former leftist out in the cold. “He was, really,” they say, “never a real leftist, and we never knew him. Heck we’ve barely heard of him!”
Remember the treatment that Jonathan Gruber got when he accidentally told the truth about how Obamacare was passed? Pelosi, Obama, et al. shoveled him right quick under the ol’ Greyhound parked out front for the purposes of collecting leftists who stray from the reservation.
For some international/historical perspective on this, go with me to Czechoslovakia in 1968. A guy named Alexander Dubček is pretty much running the country. It’s a socialist hellhole, as all unabashed socialist countries are. Then Dubček decides to stop oppressing the people so much. He liberalizes markets a bit, allows some free speech, some freedom of association, some freedom of movement, some other freedoms, and he calls it: “socialism with a human face.”
Now why, do you think, that he had to recharacterize socialism that way? I thought that socialism was supposed to be, you know, the humane governmental system! Isn’t socialism all about, you know, equality, and justice, and power to the people, and all that supposedly great stuff?
Well, if you remember, also in 1968, the leadership of the then Soviet Union understood perfectly well that they couldn’t have people running around suggesting that (1) socialism didn’t have a “human face,” and (2) in giving a “human face” to socialism, Alexander Dubček had to grant to the population basic freedoms that you and I take completely for granted.
The 1968 Soviet leadership realized that Dubček (3) had inadvertently let the socialist cat out of the bag, so the Soviet army invaded Czechoslovakia and made sure that Dubček went away. Dubček, you see, had actually tried “What if’s” #’s 1 and 3, above. And he had suffered exactly the same defenestration that is the left’s prescription for anyone who strays.
It has always been this way with the left.
The expression is: “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” This means that, at some point, Christians have to act like Christians, in order to be Christians. In this increasingly secular world, it’s increasingly difficult to do that, but it’s still true. The second half of that expression indicates that when Christians act like Christians, then there are good results… the figs (good things) that you gather from fig trees (Christian behavior), not from thistles (non-Christian behavior).
So, it shouldn’t be all that difficult for leftists and atheists to understand how when a guy like, say, Hitler, does nothing in his life that even slightly would indicate that he’s a Christian, but calls himself a Christian, we say he’s not a Christian.
Got it? (Shouldn’t be all that tough…really)