The Changing Meaning of US Citizenship

Connecticut mayor John DeStefano announced that he was going to extended voting rights to illegal immigrants. In a video interview, he gives his justification for such a profound step. Here is the video. He speaks at 0:20 and 1:08.


U.S. citizenship has generally been understood and defined as those people who are born on U.S. soil and those who walk through the legal process of adopting U.S. citizenship as their own. However, this strict meaning of citizenship excludes those are not here legally.

While most Americans would never consider ethnicity as a factor, for the liberal is a major factor. Mass immigration from non-European countries is an important goal to dilute and reduce the number of Caucasians in the U.S. in favor for non-Caucasians.

In the liberal mind, the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document born from a culture of white, male and Christian supremacy. “Broadening” the meanings and definitions of the Constitution is important for liberals to progress the U.S. past a national and Constitutional identity into a global identity. Citizenship in the U.S. becomes the same as in Mexico, Canada or any country in the world. The drive of equality as a moral obligation remains a dogmatic idea within the progressive mind.

When DeStefano talks of broadening meaningss, he is reflecting the reckless idealism and optimism of a liberal utopian vision. U.S. citizens who favor their country are simply considered either uneducated or still enamored with white supremacy, what is called “racist.”

Still, the U.S. citizens themselves are resistant to such ideas and hence, DeStefano’s idea will founder.


Gods To My Left and Right

Left. Right. Empty.

The United States is driven by two prominent philosophies, both destructive, but one more so than the other. What makes them flawed and corrosive is their focus on aspects life without the moorings of Christian morality and worldview. Both often use Christianity to justify their claims, but underneath the veneer is a void.

On the left, proponents of liberalism are driven by an intellectual resistance movement against Anglo supremacy, male supremacy and Christian supremacy. Diversity and equality are the highest order and the gods of liberalism. All aspects of American life, from government to entertainment to private business, are bound to adhere to this resistance movement.

On the right, proponents of conservatism are driven by the vastness of human potential and the accumulation of individual success. Freedom and achievement in various humanities is the measure of morals. To settle for less than complete liberty and not strive for personal excellence is unacceptable. Though not everyone is expected to achieve the same level of success, ambition becomes god.

Yet, conservatism has greater potential for mercy than liberalism because of its advocacy of freedom. Liberalism, in the name of its cause, is willing to supplant freedoms to achieve the diversity and equality, oppression in the name of justice. Conservatism can also be oppressive when power and wealth are used to socially condemn those who lack it, in a sort of Social Darwinism, but liberalism has the greater potential for oppressing its enemies.

Christianity, however, has a different focus in its morality. The primary concern of Biblical religion is a person’s relationship to God and their relationship to other persons. Compassion for those in need and a settled existence for the benefit of one’s neighbor are the moral goals set forth. Sexuality becomes the primary, though not exclusive, standard for measuring the kindness of a society.

If a person cannot treat their own sexuality and the sexuality of others with any sense of respect and clarity, then they are less likely to be stable and giving people. Some of the greatest damage done to a person is through sexual violations, including divorce, adultery, pedophilia and rape. Exploitation of men and women for sexual entertainment is a profitable form of merciless debasement. Sex unleashed to human whim is a great evil.

It can be said that Christianity is obsessed with sex and for good reason. A compassionate society is possible when sexuality is limited and confined within marriage. Today, the United States is awash in sexual license and citizens are shifting the burden of compassion over to the shoulders of government. Individuals consumed  with either liberal or conservative philosophies are neglecting the dirty work needed to bring spiritual and material relief to those in need.

There is emerging a spiritual void among both the rich and the poor, the winner and the loser, and neither liberal or conservative philosophies can handle such a vacuum. The churches are succumbing to these philosophies and finding themselves severely compromised and irrelevant. The gods of equality and human potential cannot meet the spiritual and material needs that come from a settled religious family life.

Here, Christianity’s exclusiveness stands out and provides a substantive answer.

Understanding Equality of Religions

Can't we all just get along?

Religious equality and diversity is an idea that proposes that various religions set aside their unique claims and seek common ground for the sake of tolerance, peace and dialogue. The idea of one religion having exclusive claims above others is quickly discarded. For example, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are called to set aside their peculiarities and share a common identity as “Abrahamic” faiths.

What is unspoken, or not understood, is that in order for religions to be placed in a state of equality, they must all be subservient to a higher standard. This higher standard can be peace, community or some other transcendent idea. The individual loyalties of each faith are sacrificed for a higher loyalty. The higher idea then becomes the right idea and all religions being equal are held as equally wrong.

To gauge equality of religion, a non-religious standard must be established so that equality can be measured. This standard in and of itself cannot be religious as it would then be one religion over others, the very thing that equality is meant to rectify.

The standard has to be secular, an objective disconnect from loyalty to any religion. The Christian may believe in Jesus Christ and the Muslim in Muhammad, but their loyalties are to the secular identity in an effort to maintain distance from their faith while keeping their religion.  In order to be uninfluenced by religion the secular identity must at the very least be completely agnostic on the question of religious claims and completely atheistic in practice. To compromise the standard is to risk belief in a particular religion, weakening the loyalties that are expected from secular leaders.

The believing Christian is then left with a choice. They must either place their loyalties with the claims of their faith, including the authenticity of their Bible and its record, or set aside those loyalties for higher ideas, such as multicultural tolerance. Loyalties to the faith naturally lead to conflicts with other religious claims and secular claims. Even in civil discourse, there is unresolvable disagreement and that leads to friction and conflict.

Christianity has functioned throughout the years on a single basic premise. What is revealed in scripture is exclusive truth, prompting the importance of converting others to that truth through persuasion and argument. Claims counter to Christianity are naturally challenged and keeping the faith private and personal is simply not an option.

Religious equality does not leave room for claims to exclusive ideas or to active proselytizing. For sake of harmonized diversity, each religion is free to practice, but practice needs to be kept private and ideas subservient to secular loyalty. In short, the Christian, Jew and Muslim must all function as religious atheists.

To function as a religious believer is to disturb the peace. And that is not tolerated.

The Fundamentals of Liberal Philosophies

Liberals are fighting the Axis of Supremacy: Anglo, Male, and Christian.

The left and right sides of the cultural and political divides in this country are both arguing from the same coin. They are both infected by the philosophies that drove the cultural revolution of mid-twentieth century. “Liberal” applies only in that liberals are the most open in their support and embracing of these philosophies. Not even those who live by this zeitgeist may understand what they are embracing, or rather what they have been embraced by.

This philosophical framework is an intellectual resistance movement, a cultural revolution, against a perceived evil that is said to be plaguing all of humanity, even today, and is in need of purging. The three main parts of this threat are Anglo supremacy, male supremacy and Christian supremacy. Anglos are held as superior to other ethnicities by virtue of their ethnicity, males are held as superior to females by virtue of their being male and Christianity is held as superior to other religions and ideologies by virtues of its claims.

Anglo supremacy is questionable as an idea simply because only Darwinian evolution offers any substantive argument for ethnic based superiority through genetic progeny. Male superiority is defined by feminist sensibilities and academic activism. Christianity supremacy, though, is a problem because Christianity can be argued that it is a superior religion to other religions and in fact the main orthodox of the Christian faith is that Christianity is the truth when all other religions are a lie.

Dismantling of this monolith of supremacy is the unspoken obligation laid on people. They must oppose with any means possible any cultural ideas or practices that accept an Anglo ethnic identity, male uniqueness and Christian certainty. Those who refuse to comply are labeled “racist,” “sexist,” and “fundamentalist,” and are considered enemies of the cause. Framework ideas such as diversity and equality are employed to ensure the work of dismantling this idea continues throughout generations and conscripts all to participate, regardless of choice.

For the liberal, all spheres of American life, including government, education, entertainment and religion, are considered corrupt bastions until they are cleansed of the axis of supremacy and openly reflect and enforce the ideas of diversity and equality.

In this paradigm, the church has abandoned any pretense to Anglo superiority, bringing equality through an evangelical pop-identity and mainline activism. It has accepted the feminist condemnation for male superiority and sought to correct the error through various forms of equality. However, it is also begun to slowly compromise its stance that the claims of its faith, that of Christianity, are the final and superior truth in the world.

Missions to third worlds for the sake of “the gospel” continue and the pulpits are full of preachers preaching to full pews every Sunday, but the idea that the Christian message is more than just a religion among religions is subdued. Because the supremacy of the Christian religion is philosophically linked to the supremacy of Anglos and men it is downplayed into obscurity in an effort to reach current generations.

Christianity is compromised severely because it stands under fifty years of secular judgment for being audacious enough to claim it is more than merely a man-made religion. The pressure on leaders to take a gentle, passive approach is severe.

As Christianity abandons its claims to superiority to avoid the wrath of a secular culture, it will lose its relevance and its reason for existing. The liberal churches have already discarded their claims and the conservative churches are in danger of doing the same.