|
|
|
Communists, Nazis and modern value liberals
The worldview and goals of modern value liberals are very similar to those of the early communists and Nazis
If we should name one of the bloodiest and most brutal time periods in history, the last century would be the most likely option. Tens of millions lost their lives in either wars or persecution by leaders. Well-known are e.g. the administrations of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, as well as the numerous communist states where atheism has been an official doctrine. Indeed, ideologies based on atheistic communism and Nazism have been the worst causes of destruction. If they had not come to power and influenced people’s minds, the development of many societies would have been different and more peaceful. These societies would have avoided many sufferings that these ideologies led to. What about modern time? One of the modern imaginations in the West is that renouncing God and Christian faith means the development of morality and culture. Many value-liberals and people prone to a naturalistic worldview may think that the world will become substantially better as one gets rid of God. It leads towards freedom, towards civilization, towards a fairer society, and towards a space where reason is valued. At least that’s how many people who reject the Christian faith think. But but. Have modern value liberals noticed that they represent very much the same worldview and morality as what the early communists and Nazis represented? Several such similarities are highlighted in this paper. The intention is not to stand above anyone, because the author himself has thought of things in the past in the same way as the value liberals of today, and we cannot afford to point the finger at others because of our own shortcomings. Nonetheless, it is good to become familiar with this topic. We start with the struggle against Christianity and God.
Abandonment of the Christian faith. When we go back in history, the Christian faith, for example in Finland, played an important role in previous decades. The Bible was held in high esteem, and politicians as well as people’s leaders respected Christian values, even though they did not always have a personal relationship with God. There were also several hours of religious instruction in schools, especially teaching of the basic truths of Christianity. The children got a good understanding of what the Christian faith is all about. An indication of respect for Christian values is also the fact that at the beginning of the last century, there were only a little over hundred divorces a year in Finland, when now almost every other marriage ends in divorce. Another example is that premarital sex was considered wrong still in the 1950s, but is now viewed favorably. What about England? There were great spiritual revivals in the 18th and 19th centuries, in which large numbers of people turned to God. As a result, slavery was banned, working conditions improved, and many social reforms were brought about. In addition, about a quarter of English children were in Sunday schools in the early 19th century, and children learned literacy there. A good picture of the influence of the Christian faith in England is also given by Darwin’s “bulldog,” Thomas H. Huxley. He, too, supported the teaching of the Christian faith, like most Englishmen, although he himself was a strong supporter of Darwin. He wrote in an essay in 1870:
I believe that no person or community has ever achieved anything, nor will they ever, if their actions are not controlled by love for some sort of ethical ideal. - - And if I was forced to choose a school for my children, where they will receive real religious guidance, or a school without such guidance, I would choose the former, although my child would consequently receive a lot of theology. Thus, when the majority from the public of England declared wanting that the Bible be taught for their children in primary schools, - I see no reason to oppose this wish. Surely, I as an individual cannot retain my coherence and oppose other children being taught, what my children have been taught to do. (Thomas H. Huxley: Science and Education Essays, No. 15, The School Boards: What They Can Do, and What They May Do, Macmillan, London, 1893, pp. 396-402. First published in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1870)
Thomas Huxley’s previous writing referred to how the majority of the English people wanted the Bible to be taught to children in schools. Huxley also welcomed the fact that children were taught the Christian faith. What about modern time? Everyone knows that the Christian faith has lost its meaning and against it is being attacked. The target of the attack has been e.g. God's position as creator. The theory of evolution has contributed to people no longer believing in creation. However, opposition to the Christian faith is not limited to questioning that God is the creator. Today, God's position as a ruler of morals is also disputed, and there is a strong opposition to the morality that Jesus and the apostles represented and that was revered in the Nordic countries only a few decades ago. The current stage in this development, which began with the sexual revolution of the 1960s, is the inauguration of gay couples in churches, which these individuals enthusiastically pursue. Thus, the feature of modern time is an attack on the “old-fashioned and patriarchal” Christian faith as well as morality. Christian faith and morality are in principle considered a bad thing, while vigorous claimants of justice and proponents of the new morality themselves believe that they represent justice, equality, and love. This negative attitude towards the Christian faith is repeatedly expressed in the demands of these people. Modern value liberals and other groups are thus strongly attacking the Christian faith. This is particularly evident in universities, where new currents usually begin and move to the rest of society. The following quote from US universities describes the development. The author describes how freedom of speech is threatened and how up to 18 percent of American students are prepared for violence if opinions are expressed on campus that do not please themselves. In general, strong attitudes are associated with hatred against the Christian faith and morals, as in the early communists. American universities are relevant because they are the source of almost all the new currents that have spread to the West as well as to the rest of the world. So the following is a quote that describes the development in the USA:
What about history? If we compare the actions of modern value liberals and opponents of Christianity, they have clear connections with the early communists and the Nazis. The following quote shows how the goal of the early communists was “To establish a society that does not know… religion”. It is not worth while to go into more depth on this issue. It is well known that the Communists suppressed religious freedom and numerous other freedoms, and millions died as a result. This was the case in China, the Soviet Union, and the numerous communist countries in Africa, Europe, and Asia that followed the teachings of Marx. They wanted to build a global workers ’paradise without God, but as a result, large crowds suffered. The comment of the well-known Nobel writer Alexandr Solzenitsyn fits this: But, if I were asked to summarize as shortly as possible the primary reason for the horrific revolution, which took ca. 60 million of our people, I could not say it any more clearly than to repeat: People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” (1) So next is a related quote:
If, for example, the trio of words "home, religion and fatherland" makes you laugh contemptuously, you have learned your reaction from the Marxist continuum. Those values – private property, family, patriotism and the ideologies that promote them – are already the enemies proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto (1848). I, too, let myself understand early on that these things are to be despised because they are for fools... When growing up and becoming more wise, people understand that this is merely learning from an example, copying the older boys. But political Marxism made possible all this rationalization. It gave the rationale of real and intelligent adult people for all this. What did Marx and Co. want? Here's how it was summed up by Communardi Gaveau in 1871:
"To make a clean mark and rebuild everything, that's the job of the supporters of the International Workers' Union. To establish a society that knows neither the government nor the army, nor religion; which implements the legislation of the people through the people, the transfer of land to joint ownership, the abolition of the private right of succession of capital and means of production, and abolishes marriage as a political, religious and legal institution. After all, a society that abolishes the permanent armies and overthrows all borders and abolishes the idea of the motherland and will unite the workers of the whole world in genuine solidarity." (2) What about the time before the Nazis and developments in Germany? Back then, in addition to anti-Semitism, there was a similar anti-religious nature to what is still present. Just before World War II, people resigned in abundance from the church and against the Christian faith was attacked. Thoughts against God and atheism won the field, and God was wanted out of schools, just as God is wanted out of society today. Next there is a quote from a book published in 1934, just five years before World War II:
One of the main reasons why a Nazi-like ideology came to power in Germany was the currents that emerged in universities, such as liberal theology and bible criticism. Germany was a leading country in the critique of religion already in the 18th and 19th centuries, and there were several well-known theologians who questioned the basics of the Christian faith. They denied supernatural phenomena, the historical validity of the Bible, and attacked against the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They were offended by the fact that Christianity was considered the heir to Judaism. Therefore, they seek to tie it to Westernism and a particular human race. They talked about the Aryan religion. The development of time appears clearly from a few quotations. The first is the statement of the anthropologist Max Müller from 1878, the second is from a book from 1891 and the third relates to Karl Marx, the father of communism, who was also a German. He grew up in an atmosphere where against the Christian faith was attacked, and he stated that “in Germany, the critique of religion has been substantially completed”. Would Marx have written the Communist Manifesto if he had grown up in a society sympathetic to the Christian faith? Maybe not. In any case, the quotations show how the wave of apostasy began as early as the 19th century:
Anthropologist Max Müller 1878: Every day, every week, every quarter, the most widely read magazines tell us that the age of religion is over, that faith is a hallucination or a disease of children, and that the gods have finally been revealed and removed as outmoded. (4)
Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and dispersed during the old times; now they are regularly organized. The French spirit is roaring and fierce, but not as dangerous as the German... A far worse disturbance than those French babblers has been caused in the circles of believers by David Strauss and his fellow spirits. Ever since the French spirit made its groping attacks against Christianity in the time of Voltaire, the rejection of Christianity has gone through the philosophical school of the German spirit and developed into a whole system of worldview, which has actually tried to place itself instead of Christianity. (Dr. Chr. Ernst Luthardt in his book in 1891) (5)
"In Germany, criticism of religion has essentially been completed, and criticism of religion is a prerequisite for all criticism." (Karl Marx in the introduction to "Hegel's Critique of Legal Philosophy")
In Germany, therefore, the apostasy from the Christian faith took place long before the Nazis. One example of the evolution of time is Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who was one of Germany’s most famous philosophers in the late 19th century. He was a student of theology but interrupted his studies after reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. He was a fierce opponent of Christianity and proclaimed the death of the theistic God. He declared that there is no right and wrong and that there is no purpose in life. He is also known for his anti-Semitism and his idea of superhuman. However, he himself suffered from incurable mental illness for the last ten years of his life. Nietzsche's significance lies in the fact that he was Hitler's favorite philosopher. Hitler was a great admirer of this philosopher and distributed Nietzsche's books to his elite troops. In addition, Hitler frequently visited the Nietzsche Museum in Weimar and allowed to photographed himself when he was staring and admiring at the image of this philosopher. The following statement gives a good picture of the significance of Nietzsche. It is from a book published in 1934, just five years before World War II. The author mentioned how Nietzsche's ideas were seen to greatly influence the outbreak of war:
But these men not only deny God theoretically, but they consider faith in God to be pernicious to human happiness, and they have set about thoroughly destroying the godly consciousness of the human soul. Nietzsche, a great German philosopher who, in the opinion of many, has done more than anyone else to ignite war, said: "Ideas such as mercy, pity, and mercy are pernicious, for they signify the transfer of power from strong to weak, whose proper mission is to serve the powerful. Remember that self-sacrifice, fraternity, and love are not chastity instincts in the first place, but merely caused conscientious problems designed to prevent you from being yourself. Remember that man is essentially selfish." (6)
In Germany, therefore, the apostasy from the Christian faith took place long before the Nazis. Therefore, it is a false assumption that the Nazi ideology, which rejected the basics of the Christian faith and the principles of the Ten Commandments (You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor…) suddenly arose from nothing and emerged like lightning from a clear sky. This almost never happens, but ideas must have a broad base of support before they can become politically possible. We take quotations from Olavi Paavolainen's book Risti ja Hakaristi (1938), which was published just before the Second World War. It describes the 1930s and how the struggle against Christianity was characteristic of the Nazis, as it was of the Communists. Developments in this direction had taken place for decades:
Something incomprehensible, about the demon, is happening in the soul of the German people. Already during World War I, some English propagandists argued that Germany has never really converted to Christianity, but has always been pagan and “Germanic” under a weak Christian shell. The phenomena occurring during National Socialism seem to support this claim in an astonishing way. … The struggle against Christianity in the Third Reich has reached such a scale and so many forms that it is practically impossible to describe it in the context of a single writing. … The harsh censorship of the state had made it almost impossible for the inhabitants of the Third Reich to follow the church battle, and during this obligatory ignorance and the dispersal within the church, fierce anti-Christian propaganda has reached great proportions. The entire anti-Christian literature, from magnificent works of glory to numerous magazines and hundreds of thousands flyers, had seen the light of day. The great man of World War I, General Ludendorff, and his wife had declared that they would dedicate the rest of their lives to the eradication of Christianity from Germany. … And commonly known are the verses of a Hitler-Jugend song: Wir sind die Fröhliche Hitler-Jugend, wir brauchen keine christliche Tugend - we are a happy Hitler-Jugend youth, we do not need any Christian virtues. (7)
Darwin's theory of evolution in the background: value liberals, Nazis, communists. As noted, the value liberals of today are strongly attacking the Christian faith and morality. They see the Christian faith as representing an “old-fashioned and patriarchal” worldview, while they themselves believe in representing justice, equality, and love. This negative attitude toward the Christian faith is repeatedly expressed in the demands and attacks of these people. But why do these people do this, even though the Christian faith has influenced in many positive ways in those countries where there have been spiritual revivals? The biblical Christian faith has increased social justice, strengthened human dignity, and improved living conditions. Those societies in which the Christian faith and the associated spiritual revivals have not taken place have been in a much worse position in this respect. It is also well known that people prefer to move to those countries where the Christian faith has been important. These countries are England, the Nordic countries, several Western European countries, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc. Perhaps the main reason for the opposition of value liberals is their worldview, with the theory of evolution behind it. Although the theory of evolution is completely contrary to fossil material, and there are no semi-advanced wings, arms, legs, or other semi-advanced organs required by this theory in modern nature, these people nevertheless believe in this theory. They do not believe in God as creator, although the evidence clearly points in the direction that the first organisms were created immediately, and not so that they evolved on their own from some stem cell. If the theory of evolution were true, one would also have to explain the birth of life itself, but it has been impossible. Such problems are encountered when one does not want to acknowledge God’s role as creator. What about the Nazis and the Communists? Their worldview was also influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory caused a revolution in philosophy, psychology, biology, and politics. This was the case in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. It changed people’s worldview and influenced Hitler’s thinking as well. Hitler believed in evolution and his attitude toward Jews and other ethnic groups can be connected in part to this belief. In his book Hitler’s Personal Security P. Hoffman wrote on this subject: “Hitler believed in a struggle according to Darwinian principles in human life, which caused that all people to try to control each other. Without the fight, they would decay and be destroyed… Even in the face of his own defeat in April, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the strongest and declared that the Slavic people had proved to be stronger. ” (8) It was also reported above how Hitler's favorite philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a fierce opponent of Christianity who proclaimed the death of the theistic God, was a student of theology but discontinued his studies after reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Darwin's theory thus changed people's worldview. It provided a scientifically seeming basis for atheism and rejection of God, but also for rejection of morality. There was no longer any permanent basis for morality because it had no connection with God. Likewise, the theory of evolution affected the value of man. Before the theory of evolution, it was thought that humans are accountable to the God who created them. Likewise, people were thought to be equal on the basis of creation and important because they have been made images of God, but Darwin’s theory shattered this view. It led to comparing humans to animals. In addition, the dangerous view, social Darwinism, emerged that some races are more valuable and more advanced than other races; that is, people were classified as valuable and less valuable on the basis of race, ability to function, or other trait. The view of racial diversity contributed to the fact that it was later easier for people to embrace Hitler’s teachings on the superiority of the Aryan race. A good picture of how the view called social Darwinism, scientific racism, was common in Europe but especially in Germany, gives Richard Weikart. He wrote in his book From Darwin to Hitler that by 1890 “almost all influential Darwinist anthropologists and ethnologists - as well as most Darwinist biologists and popularizers - embraced scientific racism”. (9) Historian H. G. Wells continues on the same subject. He wrote in 1924 how social Darwinist thinking and the rejection of godliness and morality came to power after 1859, when Darwin had published his book On the Origin of Species. The quote shows how much Darwin’s works influenced people’s worldview and behavior. It doesn't matter what we believe about our origins:
Darwinism was a sudden surprise to official Christianity… The immediate impact of this great controversy… was quite damaging. The new biological science had not yet produced anything constructive that could have replaced the old laws of chastity. The result was a real loss of morality… Since 1859, there has been a real decline in faith. In many cases, the real gold of religion was thrown away with the worn purse where it had been stored for so long and could not be recovered. At the end of the nineteenth century, influential and mighty individuals believed their power was based on the ‘struggle for existence’, in which the strong and cunning overcome the weak and the confident. (10)
From De Beer’s work, Charles Darwin can also be seen how Darwin’s teachings were popular in Germany. They were applied to society and politics. Darwin himself found such thoughts silly. However, the theory he put forward contributed to the spread of social Darwinism in society:
Darwin's lack of historical consciousness undoubtedly led him to write his astonishingly naive letter to Baron von Scherzer: 'How foolish the notion of socialism and natural evolution there is in Germany.' It happened 26 december in 1879, and a year later he must have received a shock when he received a letter from Karl Marx asking him for permission to own an English edition of his book Das Kapital (Capital) for him. (11)
What about communism and Darwin? Here, too, Darwin's theory of evolution played a role in the background. Trotsky stated that "Broadly understood, in the materialist and dialectical sense, Marxism is the application of Darwinism to human society." (12) Karl Marx (1818-1883), who can be called the father of communism, also believed in Darwin’s teachings. After reading The Origin of Species, Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels: "This is the book that provides the scientific basis for our views." To his revolutionary friend Lassalle, he wrote in joy that God had now finally been given a “death blow” through the natural sciences and continued, “Darwin’s book is very important and provides me with a basis for class struggle.” (13) It is also well known that Marx wanted to dedicate his main work Capital to Darwin. However, Darwin refused, politely citing family reasons. Anyway, Marx sent his book to Darwin with an inscription. Darwin showed this book his friend Julian Huxley. It had Marx’s own handwriting written: “To Mr. C. Darwin, from a sincere admirer, Karl Marx. London 16 June 1873. " (14) What is remarkable, however, is that Marx as younger believed in God. He was a Jewish Christian whose faith was destroyed by two liberal theologians, Bruno Bauer and David Strauss (Richard Wurmbrandt: Kristus juutalaisella tiellä, p. 99). When he still had faith in God, he wrote e.g. an explanation of the Gospel of John. It was his first written work and was called “The Covenant of the Faithful with Christ”. It had the following beautiful words (quote below). What would have happened if Marx had remained a Christian? Perhaps communism would not have been born and millions of people would have saved their lives.
Through the love of Christ we turn our hearts to our brethren, who are inwardly bound to us and for whom He gave Himself as a sacrifice… Connection with Christ can give inner pleasure, comfort in sorrow, and a heart receptive to human love, to all great and noble, not for the sake of ambition or glory but solely for the sake of Christ. (Marx-Engels, Collected Works, Part I, New York, 1974)
Friedrich Engels was also a person who renounced God. He had begun to doubt Christianity after reading the book by liberal theologian Bruno Bauer, so it shows once again how small matters can affect development in society. Liberal theology is partly blame for the birth of communist ideology and millions of victims. Engels’ faith in God is manifested in a beautiful poem he wrote in his youth. Later, after losing his faith, he co-wrote with Marx a Communist Manifesto which contained the main principles of Marxism:
The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, Step down from your heavenly throne And save my soul for me Come down with all your blessings, The light of your father's holiness. Let me choose you.
Wonderful, brilliant, without sorrow is our joy, Savior, thank you…
To liberate humanity You came, you came to free us from death and sickness, to release blessings and happiness to us. And now, I know, one more time you land and your coming to earth will change everything: you pay a salary to everyone. (15)
Lenin believed in evolution like other communist leaders. Trotsky, the military leader of the October Revolution, said:
The main thrust of Lenin’s thinking has always been a deep and unshakable belief in the enormous prospects of human development from which one can and must pay any price as victims and suffering. (16)
What about Stalin? As noted, On the Origin of Species by Darwin brought about a great change in 19th century society. It caused a revolution in philosophy, psychology, biology, politics and morality. It changed people’s worldview so that the faith lost its meaning. Soviet leader Josef Stalin was one of those influenced by Darwin’s work The Origin of Species. Stalin’s biography, written by Stalin’s good friend E. Yaroslavsky, tells how Stalin, who studied theology, became an atheist after reading Darwin’s work. It happened at the age of 13. After that, he also began to convert his friends to a “new faith” by lending them Darwin’s books. Afterwards, one can guess what would have happened if Darwin's book hadn't existed or Stalin hadn't gotten it. Maybe history would have turned out to be completely different.
Morality: Communists, Nazis and modern-day value liberals. When there have been changes in society in recent decades, many of them are related to morality. In particular, there has been a change in relation to marriage, gender roles and sexuality. Until the early 1960s, clear gender roles and sustainable marriages prevailed in Western societies. Infidelity was viewed negatively, divorce was difficult, and the choice of spouse was influenced by factors also other than individual desires. The principle was that marriage is for life and that spouses have responsibilities to each other, such as the different roles of man and woman, and that the other should not be deceived. It was generally seen that sex is right only between a husband and wife in marriage. When currents occur in modern times, it is noteworthy that many of them are the same as what the Nazis and Communists had, or the same currents occurred before they came to power. When, for example, Hitler came to power and the communist revolution took place in the Soviet Union, it led to the acceptance of things in both that are strongly pursued and defended in modern society as well. These ungodly societies were the forerunners of the rejection of Christian morality. What is now considered modern and advanced behavior was familiar even then. We look at a few things where these societies changed morality and how the same traits manifest in modern society. It also highlights how value liberals - although they present themselves as representatives of human rights - themselves are pushing of repealing human rights.
Abortion can be one consequence of sexual intercourse. It is the result of the woman becoming pregnant and the parents not wanting a baby. Value liberals have been a strong supporter of abortion, as is well known. They have talked about human rights in the context of abortion, but have not defended the child’s right to life. In other words, they are in favor of killing children, even though they are acting as human rights defenders What about the history of abortion? This matter soon became legal when the communist regime came to power in the Soviet Union. It happened in 1920. The current value liberals thus follow in the footsteps of the first communists. It is known from the later history of abortion that it was adopted in the context of the sexual revolution. Until then, abortion was widely considered a false choice and murder. For example, the Geneva Declaration of the World Medical Association in 1948 - after the unethical behavior of Nazi doctors had been exposed - stated, ""I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat."
Racial breeding. One of the goals of Nazis was breeding of human race. They aspired to a pure Aryan race that later led to a program of euthanasia. As a result, thousands of disabled people and, a little later, non-Germans were killed in extermination facilities. Many value liberals are similar supporters of racial breeding as the Nazis. It is espesially a question of the fetal screenings and in which cases the child is allowed to be alive. If fetal screening reveals something wrong with the child or this is the wrong sex, the value liberals consider it appropriate to kill the child. The child is thus no longer loved as such, but must be of sufficient quality to be able to survive. A child becomes like a commodity that can be rejected or accepted based on quality criteria. Tapio Puolimatka has described this way of forming families; something completely reminiscent of racial breeding and the euthanasia program of Nazis decades ago:
By accepting that adults can assemble DNA to “make” a child that meets their emotional needs, we change the way we see people. When we demand the right to produce children, we see the child as an object, a product, an accessory of our own way of life, in the same way we see a holiday dwelling. Next, we start demanding the ‘best’ quality just as if we were buying a car. It is completely impossible to accept the idea that a child produced by a children’s factory could have Down syndrome. On the basis of fetal screenings, such a child is struck with the stamp of an incorrect product and thrown in the trash. "'It belongs in a landfill,' say parents and producers — well, they don't say it because it's the style of the underclass, but that's the reality" (Esolen 2014:161). Once this way of forming families and producing children has been blessed by the law, nothing will stop us from many of the evils of racial breeding, such as cloning, screening out “defective” genes, mixing different “parent” genes, even designing and building new types of people. When the state assumes the right to determine what a family is and what kind of children it can produce, it gains full control and control over the next generation. (17)
Euthanasia. One thing the Nazis pushed hard for was their euthanasia program. However, euthanasia was not a Nazi invention, but the same matter was on the surface in early 20th century Germany. It received support in university circles, and an important milestone was e.g. the book Die Freigabeder Vehrnichting lebensunwerten Lebens (Liberation of the Destruction of Worthless Life), published by Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding, Professor of Law at the University of Leipzig. The book openly highlighted the possibility that not all human life is valuable and worth preserving. A little later, the Nazis adopted the same idea and began to defend euthanasia, e.g. in the name of love and economy. They showed propaganda films to get people accept their program. The euthanasia murders in Germany began in 1939 at the same time as the war began. It had a direct link to the Holocaust a little later, as the same staff was involved in both killings.
Genocide of people in Germany did not begin from Nazis and Hitler. Already in the 1920’s psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and jurist Karl Binding wrote a book about finishing unviable life. It told about valueless people, and about life that is not worth living; and that the ending of life should be entitled by legislation. It was also discussed much about economical costs caused by taking care of patients like these. Both writers were leading intellectuals. A certain kind of spirit of the times was born (Fredrik Wertham ym. Inte bara Hitler, Provita Uppsala, p. 47) One of the authors of the book Inte bara Hitler, the historian of ideas Per Landgren, draws the following conclusion: "The fact that Hoche and Binding were eminent academics is also a clear example of the fact that ideas were in no way a temporary blinding of the German people. Nazism did not change science and medicine. Western science and medicine had already been corrupted and gave an inspiration for Nazism.” (p. 97) Apparently, the emergence of such a zeitgeist was influenced by many factors such as Social Darwinism, liberal theology, and the rejection of biblical authority and secularization in general. Already from the 1700s, philosophers had laid the foundation for such a collapse of human dignity. There had been a change in the image of God and the image of man. There was no longer an absolute value to human life, based on the fact that God created man in His own image. (18)
What about modern time? There is a strong debate on euthanasia also today. Its main proponents are the red-green value liberals. They use arguments similar to what the Nazis used in their propaganda in defense of this issue. As a result of these advocates, euthanasia has received increasing support. When it comes to alternatives to euthanasia, Nordic terminal care, for example, has always sought to alleviate pain. Pain relief and respect for life have been characteristic of this model. However, if euthanasia comes into force, it will reduce respect for life as it once did in 1920s-1930s Germany. The limit to what is a dignified life will be shrinking all the time. Second, it increases the mental suffering of people who feel they are a burden to their neighbors. Mercy death can become an obligation to die. Third, the right to die through euthanasia always means the duty of another to kill. Others have to bear the burden of becoming murderers. This is why most doctors have opposed euthanasia, and also because it is contrary to traditional medical ethics.
Annulment of marriage. It was described above how “home, religion, and the homeland” were things that Marx and other communists attacked. The family was seen as a reactionary institution that was an obstacle to the realization of their ideology. What about modern time? Thoughts similar to those put forward by Marx a hundred years ago can be heard in today's debate. Many “sages” are arrogant about the importance of the home, the Christian faith, and the homeland, thus bringing up the same ideas that Marx and his communist friends represented over hundred years ago. Thus, modern value liberals who think they are advanced favor models that were previously perceived as harmful. They value cohabitation, easy divorces, and unions in general that are easy to leave. In some situations, such as serious violence, the divorce may indeed be the only sensible option, but in general, the easy break-up of families generates a wealth of economic and social problems for society. In addition, children suffer from adult choices. What about the Soviet Union? Many laws in the early years of the Soviet communist regime were specifically related to sexuality and family life. Divorce was made easy, marriage did not have to be registered, adultery was no longer a crime, abortion was legalized and it was taught that there should be no obstacles to free sex. However, the consequences of this were catastrophic, both in economic and social terms. This led to an increase in crime, an increase in abortions, the breakdown of families and an increase in the number of orphaned and homeless children (just as childcare and social costs have increased enormously today. Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat told 31.10. 2010: Children's problems have intensified sharply since the early 1990s ... Institutional care for one child costs up to 100,000 euros a year ...). When false teaching was first sown, it later had to be reaped as problems in society. Matti Joensuu talks about this experiment, which, however, was stopped within 10-15 years because it was found to be harmful to society. Bolds have been added to the post:
Very extensive experiments connected to the family institution was carried out in the Soviet Union since the revolution. When in Oneida Community it was a question of 300 persons, in the Soviet Union it is a question of at least 200 million people who also represent perhaps 170 nationalities. (…) In 1917, in the second month of the new governmental power, laws concerning marriage were published. Marriage in church was replaced with civil marriage. Divorce was permitted if one of the spouses asked for it. The following year these laws were complemented by imposing the birth of a child as the basis of marriage. There was to be no difference between children born in or outside of wedlock. (…) A more radical change came into effect in Russia in 1926 and immediately after also in other parts of the Soviet Union. According to this change, the registration of marriage was not necessary. (…) Thus, none of the responsibilities and rights of the spouses or children were dependent upon the registration of the marriage. In 1926, divorcing was made even more easy. Either both spouses or one of them could apply for divorce without giving any justification. (…) At first, there were no laws concerning sexual behavior. In 1920, abortion was legalized. Another law made adultery, bigamy, and incest acts not requiring punishment. The prevailing attitude was that there were to be no hindrances to free sexual relationships and no reactionary morals. Attempts to take contraceptives into use were taken and the idea was to abolish all shame concerning illegitimacy. (…) The consequence was that divorces became more common (…) the number of illegitimate children increased. (…) The number of abortions, according to some statements, ‘horribly’ increased. Women were in many cases forced to choose between their social status or maternity. (…) When the number of abortions increased, the birthrate in towns decreased. Worried statements concerning this were presented already in 1926. It was assessed in 1922 that the number of homeless children rose to about nine million. (…) Obviously, however, the breaking up of family relations caused an increase in juvenile delinquency. Many newspapers wrote about this phenomenon, called hooliganism, in the late 20s and in the early 30s. In 1929, hooliganism was deemed the most difficult problem. The number of juvenile delinquents was said to have doubled between the years 1929 and 1935. Groups of young people hanged around the towns and did all sorts of bad acts, such as attacked helpless citizens. There was talk about vandalism, thefts, burglaries, rapes, even murders that had increased over a short period of time. A turning point in the family politics of the Soviet Union took place in 1934-35. (…) There is no need to clarify here in what way the official way of thinking changed. The main point is that the social defects and decay were acknowledged and powerful propaganda against hooliganism, irresponsible sexual behavior, and abortions was begun. (19)
Homosexuality as well as gender-neutral marriage. As is well known, many value liberals are ardent defenders of homosexual behavior. They advocate this in the name of equality and love. They do not believe that this is a sin similar to, for example, extramarital sex. That is why they are strongly pushing for this matter, believing that they represent human rights. What about history? It is noteworthy that the same line of thought was supported in Germany as early as the beginning of the last century, before the birth of the Nazi movement (In addition, several early Nazi leaders were homosexual until Hitler took a negative stance to this matter. William L. Shirer wrote about this in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). The person who was one of the founding members of the Finnish Seta movement explains the background of the matter:
Another example of history. When the first communists came to power, they also changed legislation on homosexuality, as on other marriage laws. The current value liberals thus fully follow the model and practice of the first communists. History repeats itself. Sherry Wolf has written in her book Sexuality and Socialism on pages 88-89 about the consequences of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution:
In 1917, the new revolutionary government repealed all anti-homosexuality laws as well as all other tsarist criminal law. Voluntary sex was made a private matter and gays were not only freed to live as they wished, but inter-homosexual marriages were also approved by the Soviet courts. What is amazing is that in the 1920s, even gender reassignment surgeries were performed in Soviet Russia.
In the same book, pages 90-91, Sherry Wolf mentions what Dr. Grigory Batkis, director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygiene, wrote in his 1923 book The Sexual Revolution in Russia. The writing dates back to before the legislation was changed again, as it was noticed how the new family and sexual laws of the Soviet Union caused chaos. The change in legislation to the traditional took place between 1934 and 1935, when harmful laws were repealed:
The current sexual legislation in the Soviet Union is the result of the October Revolution. This revolution is not only significant as a political event that guarantees the power of the working class. The revolution is also significant in terms of the radical changes that will emerge from it and extend to all walks of life… With this, legal models governing family life and forms of sexual relations were created that meet the needs and natural requirements of the people… Soviet legislation is based on the following principle: legislation commits the state and society to complete non-interference in sexual matters when no one is harmed. What comes regard to homosexuality, sodomy and many other forms of sexual pleasure, which European laws consider to be violations of public morality - Soviet law treats these forms in exactly the same way as so-called ‘natural’ sexual intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters.
The idea of globalization. One of today's trends is the idea of globalization, of which the European Union is an example and which is enthusiastically pursued by value liberals. This means that the states give much of their decision-making power to the Union, whose governance machinery is in Brussels. The trend seems to be that power is increasingly concentrated in Brussels, and there has also been talk of a common budget of the states. However, the idea of globalization is not a new idea. This already appeared in the thinking of the early communists. An earlier quote quoted by Marx and his associates that "After all, a society that abolishes permanent armies and overthrows all borders and removes the idea of a homeland will unite workers around the world in genuine solidarity." So what is the danger of globalization? Bringing up the idea of one world citizenship and one world government associated with it may seem good at first. There will be similarities in the future kingdom of God in the same matter, because God rules there and there are no differences between nationalities or other differences. Revelation chapters 21 and 22 indicate how wonderful this kingdom is. However, the same thing can become a tragedy if power is concentrated too much on one set or one leader and their intentions are evil. The more power a group or an individual gains, the more damage they can do if their intentions are not good. When injustices occur in the world, they can indeed come from two sides; either from the common people or from decision-makers. If you then compare which of the two is more harmful, then the latter option is worse. The reason is that if policymakers are prone to evil, they can do more harm to the people. Nazism and the abuses of communist leaders towards their citizens are good examples. As a result, millions of people died. It is also typical in such societies that the opposition is repressed, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion and that arbitrary arrests are made. It is possible that the globalism driven by value liberals will lead precisely to this kind of state and totalitarianism. The idea of globalization and the concentration of power enable such a development. The European Union may become the “Soviet Union of Europe”, which also consisted of several peoples and states. Such a development is very possible because the leaders of the nations have mainly turned their backs on God. So how can society improve human rights and the state of society? One of the best ways is to protect the rights of small entities such as families, churches and schools. In a totalitarian state, it is characteristic that the state controls all areas of life - e.g., in communist states, parents were not allowed to teach anything that questioned the views of the state and Communist party - but decentralized power protects against major abuses. Strong independent groups limit the power of the state.
Althius defended the autonomy of social blocks, which prevents the concentration of power in the hands of the state. Genuine pluralism arises when different social relations are organized according to their own laws. It is the tension between them that secures individual freedom. One of the best ways to protect the rights of the individual is to protect the rights of families, churches, schools, business enterprises, and voluntary associations – detached individuals are very vulnerable to totalitarian control, as Hannah Arendt shows in The Origins of Totalitarianism. Strong independent groups limit the power of the state: each social institution takes responsibility for its own sector of activity – the state does not control all aspects of life. (21)
Hate against Jews and Israel. One of the best known things the Nazis were known for was hatred of the Jews. Because of this, anti-Semitic propaganda was initially practiced, which appeared e.g. in Der Stürmer. Then there was the boycott of Jewish movements and finally violence against Jews. What about modern value liberals? They, too, are generally negative towards Jews or the current state of Israel. Their negativity does not always manifest as strongly as the actions of the Nazis, but to some extent it manifests. One indication of this is that modern-day value liberals are pushing for a boycott of Israeli products, just as the Nazis forbade people from buying from Jewish movements in the 1930s. History thus repeats itself in a dramatic way. So why do value liberals do this? One reason is that they claim that human rights are not being met in Israel toward the Palestinians. However, what comes to the status of Arabs or Palestinians in Israel, they appear in the Israeli parliament, in the military, in the judiciary, as ambassadors, in leading positions and have the right to vote. This shows Israel's democracy and attitude towards minorities. Moreover, for example, Christians, sexual minorities (an issue strongly valued by modern-day value liberals) and other minority groups are in a better position in Israel than in any of the surrounding Arab countries. For example, the number of Christians has fallen radically in the Arab world and the Palestinian Territories due to intense persecution, but in Israel their number has increased. What about Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? They have imprisoned thousands of their own dissidents and also tortured and killed them. It has been directed against the opposition, Christians and sexual minorities. There are thousands of such cases and they have been reported by human rights organizations. When value-liberals advocate for the Palestinians, they should bear in mind that the Palestinians 'worst enemy is by no means Israel, but the Palestinians' own leaders (especially the Hamas leaders) who hold them under oppression. The fact is, then, that modern-day value liberals oppose Israel in many ways. They are pushing for an economic boycott of it, such as the Nazis acted against the Jews. However, they do not take into account that the human rights of Palestinians are most violated by other Palestinians themselves. In addition, the Arab countries surrounding Israel have committed thousands of human rights violations and have almost no democratic rights. Against them, the value liberals have not driven an economic boycott. What is causing this?
We are all deficient
- (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
- (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Once this writing has highlighted the issues driven by value liberals in society, it is after this good to focus on ourselves. Value liberals are not the only flawed people but everyone is it in the eyes of God. Some may have been a little better than others, but no one is perfect. We are far from perfect if we are honest. Nevertheless, God has loved all people, including value liberals, prostitutes, perpetrators, or homosexuals. There is not a single person he would not have loved. After all, the Bible says follows:
- (Luke 2:13,14) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
- (John 3:16) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- (Rom 5:8) But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
If God has loved man, then how can man become partaker of this love and eternal life? There is an easy answer to the above: man must turn to God and repent of his sins like the prodigal son in the following parable. For God will never forgive an unrepentant person who does not want to give up his sins. It is impossible because otherwise he would give his approval to the injustice. It fights against the goodness of God. So turn to God and confess your sins to Him like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable!
- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you, 19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Second, put your trust in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, because only through Him can we be forgiven of our sins, as the following verses show. That is, salvation does not come through ourselves and our own actions, but by relying on Jesus and His atoning work, we can be saved:
- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.
- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.
- (Joh 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
References:
1. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 34 2. Timo Vihavainen, Marko Hamilo, Joonas Konstig: Mitä mieltä Suomessa saa olla, p. 54,55 3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115 4. Lainaus Diogenes Alleni teoksessa Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, p.2 5. Toht. Chr. Ernst Luthard: Kristinuskon perustotuuksista, p. 2 6. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 124 7. Olavi Paavolainen: Risti ja hakaristi, p. 211,214,239,290 8. Peter Hoffman: Hitler’s Personal Security, p. 264 9. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 114 10. H.G. Wells: Historian ääriviivat 1924, p. 746, 747 11. De Beer: Charles Darwin, p. 266 12. D. Robertson: The Dawkins Letters, p. 76 13. G.G. Simpson: The Major Features of Evolution, p. 381 14. J. Huxley: Charles Darwin and His World 15. Richard Wurmbrand: Saatana ja Marx (Was Marx a Satanist?), p. 26 16. HS 3.11.1990 17. Tapio Puolimatka: Yhteiskuntakoe lapsilla?, p. 100 18. V.R.: monisteita 19. Matti Joensuu: Avoliitto, avioliitto ja perhe, p. 85-91 20. Olli Stålström: Homoseksuaalisuuden sairausleiman loppu 21. Tapio Puolimatka: Viisauden ja tiedon aarteet Kristuksessa, p. 346
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
|
